[From his Undernews newsletter, but this part written by him]
http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2011/04/obamas-birth-control-problem.html
April 11, 2011
The Progressive Review
Obama's birth control problem
Sam Smith
Dismissing the skeptics of Obama's birthplace with haughty ridicule
doesn't help much. In fact, the percentage of doubters seems to be
increasing.
This is another example where the media and politicians refuse to deal
with real anomalies in a story and, as result, actually encourage
greater unsupported speculation.
Here's how the story stands as of now:
There is no substantive evidence that Obama was born anywhere but in
Honolulu. Evidence that he was born in Hawaii includes a short form
birth certificate and two newspaper announcements at the time. Both the
Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin published announcements of
the birth of a son to Mr and Mrs Barack Obama on August 4, 1961.
The state of Hawaii, even at the request of the new Democratic
governor, refuses to release the so-called long form birth certificate,
saying that it can only be done at the personal request of the person
on the certificate.
Obama, for reasons unknown, has not made such a request. Why does a
Harvard lawyer let such a claim continue to fester in public without
taking the simple steps necessary to quash it? Possible explanations
include:
- An initial attitude of screw-them, which has now transformed into a
major political issue from which Obama still doesn't want to back down,
perhaps more for reasons of ego than of common sense.
- The lack of Obama's long certificate for reasons unknown. CNN has
suggested that the original certificate no longer exists since all such
records were discarded in 2001 but the state denies it. Hawaii is, in
effect, denying the absence of something it can't or won't produce.
- Some information on the certificate that Obama did not want released,
not necessarily having to do with birthplace.
Certainly the way Obama handled the matter during the campaign was
strange. FactCheck.org alone was invited to view a hard copy of the
original document and later reported:
"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and
photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets
all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a
signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the
document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion:
Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."
But why not just tell Hawaii to let a pool of reporters and lawyers
view the actual document? After all, in this case FactCheck was hardly
the objective observer it pretends to be since it is funded by the
Annenberg Foundation, whose Chicago Challenge had as a board member
none of other than Barack Obama. One Annenberg fundee clearing another
one is not the best way to prove your point.
Further, Governor Abercrombie's effort to resolve the matter has come
to naught. According to Abercrombie, he was told by the state attorney
general that he can't see the original certificate without the consent
of the individual involved.
But this is not new information. This has been the state's legal
position all along and Abercrombie presumably knew it from the start.
Yet a day earlier, the British Daily Mail had reported:
"Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers
proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu's
Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he
said.
"But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an
unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made
in the state archives and not a birth certificate.
"And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form,
hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist
within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of
Health...
"He acknowledged the birth certificate issue would have 'political
implications' for the next presidential election 'that we simply cannot
have.'"
The other issue is whether - due to his father's British (not Kenyan)
citizenship, Obama is a "natural born American" as described in the
Constitution.
Several judges have already rejected cases involving the matter -
undoubtedly in part on the unspoken grounds that determining that Obama
was not entitled to be president would tear the country apart as never
before, especially when the argument is based on something as shaky as
his whereabouts during a stage of life when he couldn't even pee in a
toilet, let along speak the mother tongue.
Second, there is quite an interesting history of public figures being
similarly challenged and an equally interesting history of nothing much
happening as a result including Chester Arthur, Charles Evans Hughes,
George Romney, Christian Herter, Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, and
John McCain. The definition of a "natural born citizen" has been a
topic of a heated debate throughout our history. It wasn't well defined
at the time of the Constitution was drafted and it hasn't been since.
It is worth noting, however, that (as reader Weld Henshaw points out)
all the above mentioned were Republicans.
Posted by TPR at 4/11/2011