Back in July of 2009, I wrote an article here titled: Clearing the smoke, or blowing more smoke? The article was a piece by piece demolition of a faux investigative report commissioned by an alleged anonymous former intelligence officer that in reality was nothing but lies and half lies. That “report” was hosted on Joseph (WND) Farah’s blog called WesternJournalism.com under the title: “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report”.
Now the “report” has been updated, again at WesternJournalism.com, as Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility Updated. The original version of the article is just as stupid as the new one, with gems like:
Most people think of an original birth certificate as a state or hospital document containing a statement by a doctor or midwife. The hospital document usually is accompanied by a footprint.
Then the article presents what it describes as an example of an authentic original birth certificate without footprints. 🙄
What has changed in the updated version is not notable, but what has disappeared is. The original version said:
Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.
I guess now that Polarik has been identified, exposed and shown to have no special image analysis expertise, he is persona non grata at Farah’s place. So Polarik vanishes.
I spent considerable time and effort digging into the Hawaii law code from 1959, the code that was in effect with President Obama was born in Hawaii. I proved that the report substantively misrepresented Hawaiian law. Well that huge chunk of the report has vanished as well.
What is left is an excellent lesson in spin and misrepresentation. For example, they take an unreasonably literal definition of “original birth certificate” and then assert that someone who used the term differently is a liar. In summary, the new version of “Clearing the smoke” has less outright falsehood, but a lot more toxic smoke.
I’d like to think that my article and those of other fact checkers precipitated deletion of some of the non-factual content from the original report. If so, that’s a good thing.