IF SO, WHAT ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
by Sharon Rondeau, Editor, The Post & Email
(Jul. 27, 2012) — On February 2009, both the British and American press reported that the bust of Sir Winston Churchill which had resided in the white House during George W. Bush’s terms in office had been returned to the British Embassy in Washington, DC, a fact that was “confirmed” by the UK Telegraph.
In fact, Mitt Romney is in Britain now and anticipating taking the bust back to the Oval Office if he is elected president in November.
Well-known pundit Charles Krauthammer commented just yesterday that the bust had been returned to the British Embassy, but Dan Pfeiffer, on the White House blog now states that the “current location” of the bust is “outside the Treaty Room.”
The photographer who allegedly took the photo of Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, Pete Souza, was credited with taking the photo of the “Situation Room” during the bin Laden raid, a photo which was later declared “altered.”
Is the photo of the bust authentic or “computer-generated?”
Why is Dan Pfeiffer insisting that the bust never left the White House grounds when numerous major news outlets, both British and American, reported that it had left?
Dan Pfeiffer also claims that Obama’s long-form birth certificate is authentic even though a law enforcement investigation has deemed it a forgery.
Can we believe that anything appearing on the White House website is authentic?
How reliable is he, and how reliable is any photo appearing on the official White House website?
The Post & Email has attempted to contact the British Embassy in Washington, DC, but their phone system has not been responsive. We have therefore sent an email for comment as to where the Churchill bust has been for the last three and one-half years.
For more news, please visit The Post & Email, an electronic newspaper which reports what the mainstream media will not.