By Douglas J. Hagmann
Yesterday began the “public vetting” of Barack Obama with the much-anticipated release of a video referenced at CPAC by the late Andrew Breitbart. The 1990 video shows Barack Hussein Obama at a Harvard protest, publicly speaking in favor of Professor Derek Bell and the hiring of more minority faculty members. At issue is that Professor Bell is a proponent of the “Critical Race Theory,” a doctrine that, at its core, advances and deliberately exacerbates class and racial division. The footage offers proof of Obama’s early radical views and associations with proponents of controversial doctrine that appears to be facilitating our growing domestic division. Is anyone surprised?
The full video was initially featured on the Sean Hannity Show last night, along with commentary by the usual members of the “Republican Establishment” invited to emphasize its importance. It was asserted that the video is evidence of the controversial and radical agenda and associations of Barack Obama. The purpose of its release is to “vet” the current occupant of the oval office ahead of the 2012 election. Seriously?
As an investigator involved in conducting background investigations for Fortune 500 companies, the process of vetting an individual does not begin in the person’s third year of a job. By that time, a “post-mortem” examination and assessment of the damage caused to a company by an infiltrator is usually required. It also involves an indictment, sometimes in the literal legal sense, of those responsible to vet the individual before that person assumed the position.
A serious vetting of an individual begins with the person’s full cooperation and complete disclosure of who they are and what associations they’ve had during their lifetime. The reticence of an individual to provide such information is usually the first sign of trouble. Obama is a classic example of such reticence.
The vetting process should be allowed to be conducted without interference from corporate officials. In fact, the process should be aided when appropriate by corporate officials. In this case, the corporate officials can be compared to the legislative leaders of our country, for they are the gatekeepers of our national security.
Others, such as the members of the corporate media, can be compared to other company officials. While they are not directly involved in the vetting process, they have a vested interest in the success of their company or in this case, their country.
It is obvious that the political leaders from both parties and the corporate media have been complicit in permitting the vetting process to fail. But it’s even more serious than that.
Less than a week ago, a duly commissioned law enforcement agency released a most damning report about Barack Hussein Obama. A rational person of reasonable sensibilities would think that the findings from a six-month investigation into unresolved identity issues would take precedence over the anti-climatic and underwhelming release of a short video confirming something people already knew.
With all due respect to the late Andrew Breitbart, the footage showcased by “conservative talk show host” Sean Hannity is a morsel of evidence but does not rise to the level of importance of the Arpaio report. Yet, the investigative findings have been largely ignored.
As an investigator, when someone deliberately and actively ignores critical evidence while pushing something of lesser importance, I question their motives. Anyone of integrity and with any level of intellectual honesty would, too, rather than being a cheerleader for such diversion.
Do not be drawn to the shiny trinket designed to divert your attention. The occupant of the White House is not who he says he is. We will gladly take the 22-year-old footage into evidence and consideration, but not at the cost of failing to address the most critical and explosive investigative report ever produced about a sitting president.
It’s not too late to properly vet Obama, and we must not wait until the next election. Every day that he is allowed to remain in office without being accountable for the numerous outstanding questions identified in the Arpaio report further entrenches the acts of malfeasance by our public officials, and the misfeasance of those charged to bring us the truth.
The future of our country is at stake.