Fake Biography? Hmm.

This story caught my eye the other day:

George Santos, whose election to Congress on Long Island in New York last month helped Republicans clinch a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, built his candidacy on the notion that he was the “full embodiment of the American dream” and was running to safeguard it for others.

His campaign biography amplified his storybook journey: He is the son of Brazilian immigrants, and the first openly gay Republican to win a House seat as a non-incumbent. By his account, he catapulted himself from a New York City public college to become a “seasoned Wall Street financier and investor” with a family-owned real estate portfolio of 13 properties and an animal rescue charity that saved more than 2,500 dogs and cats.

But a New York Times review of public documents and court filings from the United States and Brazil, as well as various attempts to verify claims that Santos, 34, made on the campaign trail, calls into question key parts of the resume that he sold to voters. [emphasis added]

The article goes on to report the results of the very thorough vetting that the New York Times did of the new representative. Among their alleged findings:

• Businesses at which Santos claimed to have worked have no record of him, nor can media investigators locate any co-workers.
• The colleges Santos says he attended can’t find any records of his presence.
• IRS has no record of the “registered charity” for animals that Santos allegedly founded.
• The “family firm” from which Santos derives dividends has no Internet presence, and no named clients, and evidence of properties his family allegedly own cannot be found.
• In Brazil, a teen-aged Santos confessed to stealing a checkbook and making illegal purchases using the stolen checks, but the case has no record of adjudication.
• In New York, Santos is alleged to have once been evicted for non-payment of rent.

It’s interesting to see how thoroughly and avidly the mainstream media will, on behalf of the Democrat Party, delve deeply into the background and claims of newly elected Republicans. It’s almost as if, knowing the “narrow majority” the Republicans will hold in the House of Representatives, the Democrats and their media stenographers want to pick off as many Republicans as possible, hoping to overturn that Republican majority. Ya think?

How is it that the media will so avidly “fact check” the resume and campaign claims of gay, Jewish men of color when they’re Republican? (Santos is both black and Hispanic.) Interestingly enough, the New York Times apparently asked Santos to produce “documents” to prove his claims, according to Wikipedia.

Where are the cries of racism and homophobia that are so familiar to those who ask questions about or attempt to fact check the sketchy biographical claims of Democrats like Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, or, dare I say it, Barack Obama?

Fact checkers were accused of Islamophobia with regard to Omar and Obama, but where are the accusations of antisemitism perhaps evident in the hounding of Representative Santos?

Will the New York Times investigate the allegation that Ilhan Omar married her own brother in order to help him stay in the U.S.? Crickets.

Did the New York Times ever ask Barack Obama to produce documents to prove any of the biographical claims he made? To this day have they asked Obama for documents to prove the many questionable aspects of his background? Have they dared to ask for his papers?

I seem to recall clearly that schools and businesses would refuse to answer questions about biographical claims made by Obama, way back when. Investigators were told that it was a matter of privacy. No information could be released. Universities even denied information about the attendance of Obama’s deceased parents. Why the double standard? Why do they now so willingly disregard the privacy of George Santos?

Never mind, we all know why.

I’m not excusing Representative-elect Santos if he fudged his resume, even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The New York Times should prove their allegations.

If allegedly lying about his background is disqualifying for Santos, then what about the many false claims that our current president makes, most recently his fable about getting a long-overdue Purple Heart for his uncle?

And then again, what about this guy?

#####