Boston Globe Reporter Sat On Obama, Srs. Damning INS Records For Two Years

The incredible debunker of the Obama myth, Jack Cashill, strikes again. Reacting to a story yesterday in the Boston Globe by one of its reporters, Sally Jacobs, discussing a previously overlooked item in the former INS agency's file on Barack Obama, Sr.--namely that Obama, Sr. had told INS officials he and Ann Dunham planned to put their infant son up for adoption--Cashill learns Jacobs sat on the INS documents that had been released to her by the government for two years for use in an upcoming book on Obama, Sr. she has authored. More interesting is Cashill's discovery that the mention of the putting young Barack up for adoption had been redacted by the government in the same set of files it released a few months ago to Heather Smathers, a reporter for the Arizona Independent. Cashill blogs at American Thinker:

Someone at the Department of Homeland Security has some explaining to do.

On July 7, Boston Globe reporter Sally Jacobs wrote an article for Boston.com whose headline teased the reader with bombshells to come, "Father spoke of having Obama adopted."

The article was written to help promote her new book, The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama's Father, due to be released on July 11.

Jacobs pulls her information from one of a batch of INS documents she received two years ago, specifically an April 12, 1961, memo written by an official in the Honolulu office of the INS named Lyle H. Dahling. The memo is visible in miniature on her July 7 article . . .

Wrote Dahling in the memo, ""Subject got his USC wife 'Hapai' and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away.''

The subject was Barack Obama Sr. "Hapai" apparently is Hawaiian for pregnant, and "USC" is shorthand for "United States citizen." This information was volunteered by Barack Obama, Sr. There is no evidence it was ever verified by the INS.

For nearly two years, Jacobs uniquely possessed this information and sat on it. This raises some ethical questions on its own, but more questions would surface with the release of these same documents in April 2011 to Heather Smathers, a young reporter for the weekly Arizona Independent.

Although Smathers received the same April 12 memo, she did not report on the potential adoption. The reason for Smathers' silence was simple enough: the critical sentence had been redacted on the document she received.

If readers scroll down to the April 12, 1961, memo they can see that it is the same memo that Jacobs posted but with a gaping whole in the middle of the third paragraph where the INS official talks about adoption.

Cashill also notes the mainstream media's ignoring of an unmistakable conclusion in some of the redacted materials of the INS files that Obama, Sr. had also impregnated a high school foreign exchange student while he was attending classes at Harvard, who he flew to London to have an abortion. Cashill wonders if details of the abortion won't show up in Jacobs' book. "If the abortion story shows up in Jacobs' book, the collusion in the media-government complex will be manifest," he writes.

The specter of a reporter at a major news publication sitting on valuable information for long periods of time in anticipation of a book deal is not new. We've become accustomed to the Washington Post's  Bob Woodward being given unprecedented access to recent presidents and sitting on valuable information he learned on a day-to-day basis that is not forthcoming until it is presented on the newspaper's pages to promote the reporter's upcoming book. In some cases, relevant information about a current impacting event will create an entirely different public reaction and response than if the information is withheld from the public until years later. In effect, the government and the media are colluding for their own self-interests rather than the public audience they are suppose to be serving.