Joseph Farah complains in his August 3 WorldNetDaily column:
The New York Times has discovered yet another way to cheerlead the “authenticity” of the paper’s favorite presidential candidate – not just in this election, but perhaps in any election.
The “newspaper of record” managed to develop a comprehensive story that speculates Barack Obama, who claims, without substantiation, to be the son of a white mother and a Kenyan visiting student, has roots in slavery – like so many other African-Americans.
The irony of this claim is that the slave genealogy comes not from his alleged father, but his alleged mother.
But the real irony of the story is that the public still really has no proof of who Obama’s biological parents were – since they are both dead and the only documentation put forward has been disputed by anyone and everyone who has examined it, including the only law-enforcement investigation to do so.
"Alleged mother"? Farah, needless to say, offer no evidence whatsover to back up his claim that Stanley Ann Dunham is not Obama's mother.
It may be that Farah is trying to distract from the fact that his birther conspiracies are collapsing. He refuses to tell its readers about the growing body of evidence that contradicts birther conspiracies -- including the fact that "the only law-enforcement investigation" to do a birther investigation has been repeatedly busted peddling discredited claims.