If you haven't noticed, Breitbart's discovery of Obama's literary bio has created all sorts of dialogue and confusion across the country. This bio used up until 2007 said Obama was born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. Is that a big deal, in and of itself? Is it a big deal that this literary agent's standard operation procedure is to have authors write their own biographies, and at minimum would have edited it several times?
'Birthers' are all up in arms (see the comment section at this RedState post) because if Obama really wasn't born in the United States, he is not allowed to be the president according to the Constitution. True fact. However, they don't seem to understand that this is a moot point, since he's already the president. But yes, it's a big deal in the sense that Obama is our president illegally if he really was born in Kenya. Not that anybody can really do anything about it either way, that I know of. It's not a criminal offense, nor is it an impeachable offense given the current occupants of the House and the Senate. Especially since he has an American mother who guarantees him citizenship here either way.
What many other conservatives have said, I echo. The big deal is that Obama lies and their is too much we still don't know about him. Either he lied on his bio or he lied about his birth in the United States. The fact that this is news now shows a symptom of the larger problem, being that Obama was not vetted by the press. We should have learned about this back in 2008. We should have seen any number of other troubling things about Obama investigated in 2008, such as his strong connections to terrorist Saul Alinsky or penchant for socialism and communism.
It's a symptom of a larger problem, that we can't trust his actions as president. Obama lied that he was going to cut spending and tackle the deficit. He lied that he would close Guantanamo Bay (not that I mind). He lied that he would end the wars. He lied that his position on gay marriage had 'evolved,' since he had that position as a state senator in Illinois in the '90s. He lied that he would have a presidency more transparent, more open to the press. He lied that he has an 'all of the above' approach to energy. Although, he may genuinely think he does on that last one. Delusionally.
If you still (how could you not!?) believe that the press is not biased or that they do an even job in reporting Democrats and Republicans, consider this. The press (liberal news media) still refuses to report this bio except as a side issue, just like they do with any big story that the conservatives break and they suppress. Just like Edward's affair. Broken by the right, barely acknowledged by the left, belatedly and buried deep in the papers. Just like any scandal of a Democrat. Imagine if it were Romney's birth in question! It would be the front page, top of the fold. Just like that ridiculous front page story last week that Romney is a 'bully' because he played pranks in high school. And unlike the bully story, any question about Romney's birth (remember, we're just pretending) would be kept on the front page for weeks!
If the liberal press wonders why their ratings, viewers, and circulation are falling, they need look no further than their bias. Conservative media doesn't have that problem. Their ratings and viewers increase, no doubt to counter the liberal indoctrination prevailing on TV and in print. And increasingly, for the news that liberals refuse to report.