Posted on 12/30/2010 9:24:48 AM PST by Kaslin
I believe that the president was born in Hawaii. But am I the only curious cat who thinks it's rather odd for that state's newly-elected governor, plus Chris Matthews of MSNBC, both liberal Democrats, to have just forced the "Birther" issue to rise again?
Am I the only curious cat in America who thinks it rather odd that the newly elected governor of Hawaii — a liberal Democrat — has just forced the “Birther” issue to rise again?
Not only has Hawaii’s governor-elect, Neil Abercrombie, just announced that he is on a mission to bury the “Birther” issue, but Chris “Obama-sends-a-tingle-up-my-leg” Matthews now wants to know why President Obama doesn’t release the darned document and put this relentlessly pursuing ghost to rest once and for all.
If Abercrombie and Matthews were utterly desperate Republican operatives, hog-tied to a sinking political ship, I might understand the newly reincarnated brouhaha. But both these men are as-liberal-as-liberal-gets Democrats. And Republicans, at this juncture, are anything but desperate. They are set to begin the 112th Congress with the clout of a mid-term election landslide not seen since 1938.
So, what on earth would motivate a governor-elect with more real problems than any sane man would want on his plate to go fiddling around in an issue which for all intents and purposes is as dead as a doornail?
It simply makes no sense in the real world, where real unemployment still hovers at double-digits, where the president is about to face a real hostile Congress, and in an atmosphere where the season’s holly- jolly spirit is about to melt faster than snow on the ground in Atlanta.
If you ask me, this folderol of reincarnating the “Birther” issue by two prominent liberal Democrats just smacks of orchestrated political psy-ops. Hoping to get a prominent and public rise out of Republicans and/or conservative pundits, these two utterly loyal-to-the-president guys — Abercrombie and Matthews — are simply creating a diversion in the hopes that their party can regain some of the traction it’s lost over the past 2 years.
Now, I’ve never fit the standard, press-defined definition of a “Birther.” I do believe that the president was born in Hawaii. I’ve written only one column on the “Birther” controversy and that was back in August 2009. As I opined back then, the whole controversy has legs because of the complete dearth of documentation regarding this president. No presidential candidate of the past 30 years has been permitted the level of secrecy and non-disclosure that President Obama received.
To date the following are all undisclosed:
1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate
2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
8 ) Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released.
10) Columbia College records — not released
11) Columbia senior thesis — not released
12) Harvard Law School records — not released
13) Obama’s law client list — sealed
14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16) Obama’s medical records — not released
17) Obama’s passport records — not released
In my opinion — as a civics-minded citizen — Obama’s as yet unreleased original long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii is merely the tip of a mysterious iceberg when it comes to the 44th president of the United States. Any journalist worth an ounce of salt would be curious as to why any presidential candidate would conceal nearly every documented item from his own past. Obviously, America does not have many remaining curious journalists.
For the entire campaign season of ’07-’08, the nation witnessed hordes of “journalists” hot on the trail of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe costs, her final pregnancy and childbirth, and her unwed daughter’s pregnancy. We American voters were privy in ‘08 to seeing the complete, suicidal destruction of a once-heralded media enterprise. Rather than take the responsible position of delving into the very, very important and pertinent non-disclosures of a presidential candidate, these media buffoons chose to lampoon the lady from Alaska with adolescent-styled mischief. The campaign coverage was so bad, so childish, so without real substance that on election day, voters still knew next to nothing of substance about the man who would be their next president.
Which brings us back to the original question as to why on earth the Democrat duo of Abercrombie and Matthews would want to raise the all-but-dead “Birther” issue. The country has beyond-huge problems on its plate and Obama has two years to go before his reelection bid.
As much as I detest Chris Matthews, he makes a very salient point, when he asks why on earth the president hasn’t just released the darned document. Barack Obama has been the defendant in more than a dozen eligibility lawsuits since 2008. He has employed legal counsel to answer every one of them; lawyers do not serve free for millionaires like Obama. The cost of supplying the long-form, original birth certificate, which has been said by many officials to be on file in Hawaii, is approximately $15. No matter how one does arithmetic, $15 is bound to be less than Obama has paid lawyers to prevent the release of said document.
Now, we have the governor-elect of Hawaii saying that he will take pains to have state law revised which will enable him to legally release “certain details” contained on the original birth certificate — presumably prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is possible, I suppose, that there are details on that birth certificate which belie the Obama narrative, details that might prove a substantive embarrassment of some sort.
A president elected on the strength of a narrative must protect that narrative at all costs. Abercrombie and Matthews are merely carrying water for the Obama narrative and attempting to divert the public’s attention from more substantive issues, namely the remaining dearth of real background data on the 44th president of the United States.
Journalism certainly isn’t what it used to be. Nor is it even a shade of what it’s supposed to be. Shame is too mild a word.
For all the modern press notables that slam Sarah Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity, there isn’t a single American journalist who has demonstrated even a speck of the stuff when it comes to Barack Obama. It’s a purely disgusting state of affairs.
Debate Over Obama's Birth Centers on Certificate Kept Private by Law
Is there any reason why outgoing Gov. Linda Lingle didn't ask for what incoming Gov. Abercrombie is asking for?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birther-controversy-priority-hawaii-gov-neil-abercrombie/story?id=12499672
As I understand it, the only person who can authorize release of vital records of a living person is the individual whose records are sought. Same with medical records under HIPAA. There are exceptions for parents, guardians, children, etc. and court orders, of course.
Gov. Lingle wasn’t free to make BHO’s vital records public any more than Abercrombie is. And, I suspect, the whole subject intimidated her, as the rare statewide Republican official in a deep blue state.
I can’t figure out what Abercrombie is up to (the question of this thread), much less why .. we can only speculate. But even as governor he can’t release any Hawaiian vital records of a living person. (IIRC, a person must be dead for 50 years before anyone else (not on the exceptions list) can obtain those records)
As a “family friend” of BHO’s parents Abercrombie claims revealing the doc would settle the eligibility questions, and is urging BHO to release them .. and, it seems, looking into ways he can bypass the restrictions.
He's trying to find a way to release the records instead of asking BO to release them himself? This is ridiculous.
2. It will be made clear at the presser that it contains sufficient information required to be president, i.e., that BarryS. was born on U.S. soil and, as such, is an NBC.
3. It will also be made clear at the presser, in a brief tutorial, that being born on U.S. soil is all that is required to be an NBC. For further info they will point the American public to all the documents and references that exist on Wikipedia, and all the congressional fact sheets issued to Senators and Representatives conclusively verifying this position. New websites will be created towards this end for everyone to check it for themselves.
4. The [so-called] "Birthers" will go into high shriek mode, frothing and foaming. The media will record these outbursts and play back the hysteria at EVERY opportunity, so that the image of the contestants in the next campaign appears to be between the President of the United States (regal, calm and legitimate) on the one side, and the stark raving hysterical rantings of a pack of nutjobs, on the other.
5. The media hammers home a new label, "The Birther Party", and Obama squeaks into office for another 4 years.
Please don't call me an Obot or troll, etc. I am simply trying to pose another scenario for us all to consider and be prepared for. This one scares me more than any of the others, because I think it really could be deviously manipulated for him to never have to show his BC.
Comments on this ugly scenario??
They don’t have to win they just need to tie it up long enough. This guy has shown that he doesn’t give a damn about States rights and so have many of the people around him.
Having said that it would only take one State with enough electoral seats and a good solid conservative judge to throw their whole circus into disarray!
Mel
Therefore it is very strange that application for her FIRST Passport has disappeared, hmmm!!!
I think the New Yorkers are pretty mad at the union's snow plowmen who deliberately made a "slowdown" tactic!!!
Well the senior election clerk at the time says there is NO b.c. none, nada, zilch and has never been!!!
Why do you think it defies belief? If obama senior traveled freely from Kenya to America, why is it so far fetched to say he took her with him back to his homeland? We know she traveled to Indonesia.
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN !
One thing that was not in AC's post was the translation. If I remember correctly, its
"Your reign is over; surely your reign (as king) is done!"
Just thought I would add that. Thanks for a wonderful post, AC.
Typical demonRATs; Hillary’s dissertation on Alinsky was sealed and so was John sKerry’s navy records, hmmm!!!
Then you have Bill’s records that Sammy “socks” Berger sanitized???
The b.c. is just the tip of the iceberg. We have been totally screwd!!!
They cannot openly curb their own crazies so they must subtly subvert them.
This is but a test—there will be more to come.
Pregnant women are wary of traveling in general, especially of traveling to areas where medical facilities are scarce and substandard. Being eight months pregnant and going on a series of transcontinental flights in 1961 would have been an extremely grueling undertaking.
Stanley Anne Dunham's window for traveling to Kenya and giving birth to Barack Obama Jr. would have been the summer of 1961, specifically the time between the end of university classes (late June) and the first week of August (when he was born) - a period when she was 8 months along.
It makes literally no sense.
If obama senior traveled freely from Kenya to America, why is it so far fetched to say he took her with him back to his homeland?
As far as we know, he traveled from Kenya to America not "freely" but twice in his life in two trips separated by almost eleven years.
He did not even tell Stanley Anne Dunham about his existing family in Kenya until after their alleged February 1961 marriage when she was already pregnant.
Their subsequent history shows that he left Hawaii for Massachusetts before his son was a year old and that Stanley Anne Dunham only stayed briefly with him there before going to Washington to continue her education.
Reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that Barack Obama Sr. had already taken up with Ruth Nidesand in Massachusetts, with whom he would live in Kenya and have and raise two sons with.
All evidence points to his relationship with Stanley Anne Dunham being a fling that he wanted to end but which was complicated by her pregnancy - a situation that he moved as quickly as he could to extricate himself from. Not a happy, committed marriage that he wanted to integrate into his larger family.
Add to this that Obama Sr. probably wanted to avoid Kenya between 1961 and 1964 because he was publicly aligned with one political faction leading into the 1963 independence of Kenya and it was not clear until the following year whether the faction he was associated with would be secure after independence. He returned to Kenya in 1965 when it was safe and his patron Thomas Mboya was clearly in the ascendant.
We know she traveled to Indonesia.
She traveled to Indonesia in 1967 at the age of 25 when she was not 8 months pregnant. She probably gained a lot of life experience in the intervening 7 years.
Have you ever been a pregnant teenager? Been on a long flight late in pregnancy?
Obama senior had a wife and child in Kenya, do you suppose he wanted to take his new pregnant wife to meet his old wife and child?
The story is far fetched.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.