Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Where Were You Born, Obama? by Diana West

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2008/12/12/where_were_you_born,_obama?page=full&comments=true

Friday, December 12, 2008


Roger Kimball may have tagged it first: The real news out of Chicago this week wasn't Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's arrest on cartoonishly lurid charges of corruption stemming from his alleged attempts to sell President-elect Barack Obama's now-vacant U.S. Senate seat. The real news out of Chicago this week was that President-elect Barack Obama had nothing to do with it.

And I mean nothing to do with any of it. There was an almost comical aspect to the spectacle of journalists across the mainstream media (MSM) suddenly, as if on command, assuming pretzel positions in a contortionist's effort not to seem at all curious, for instance, about the discrepancy between David Axelrod's recent declaration that the president-elect had discussed Senate-seat replacements with Blagojevich, and Obama's more recent declaration that he had done no such thing.

The MSM instantly agreed: Obama had nothing to do with it. Such a message took Obama out of the story even before the story itself was clear.

This mantra, this strategy should be familiar by now. Whether it is Jeremiah "G -- d -- - America" Wright, William "We didn't do enough" Ayers, or now, Rod "F -- - him" Blagojevich, Obama is never a player, never even a responsible presence in controversies involving associates past and present. In the media-filtered version of events, he's just not even there. But in no story is what we may one day come to think of as Obama's invisible man-hood more obvious than in the still-roiling controversy over Obama's birth certificate.

What controversy? Anyone who relies solely on MSM outlets (and most conservative outlets) may not even know that Obama has, to this day, not authorized the state of Hawaii to release his Certificate of Live Birth -- the "long form" -- to prove that he is a "natural born citizen" (NBC), a Constitutional requirement of all presidents. Instead, We, the People, have online access to an Obama document known as a Certification of Live Birth, which, as Randall Hoven explains at American Thinker blog, is a computer-generated short form that is not even accepted by the Hawaii Department of Home Lands as adequate verification of Hawaiian identity. (The Home Lands Department requires "information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth," or long form.) Further dimming the online document's Holy Grail aspects, it has been altered -- the certificate's number has been redacted -- which, according to a statement printed on the document, actually invalidates it.

But that's not all. Back on Oct. 31, Hawaii's director of health, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics, released a statement verifying that the Hawaii's Department of Health has Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Well, that's just great. But no matter how many times this statement from "Hawaiian authorities" is cited as the NBC clincher, it doesn't prove a thing. It turns out, as Hoven reports, that Hawaii issues birth certificates even for babies born elsewhere, so simply having an original Hawaiian birth certificate "on record" doesn't answer the key questions. Namely: What exactly does this original birth certificate say? And why doesn't Obama simply authorize the document's release and be done with the question?

This is some of the background to the birth-certificate controversy. According to the same MSM reporting that omits Obama from everything, however, the controversy is the sole, self-inflicted creation of people unreasonable enough -- no, kooky enough -- to be concerned about the issue. This includes citizens who have gone to court (up to the U.S. Supreme Court) in more than a dozen states with various NBC-related complaints, all of which could be resolved by the release of Obama's original birth certificate. It also includes followers of radio shows or Internet forums including KHOW's Peter Boyle in Denver, the blog Atlas Shrugs and the news Web site WorldNetDaily.com, which have aggressively covered the story.

In the MSM's no-Obama version of events, though, such efforts and interest are mocked as the freakiest kind of lunacy. And this same MSM argument has lately been trumpeted by prominent conservative voices.

"Shut up about the birth certificate," David Horowitz wrote this past week.

Shut up? Is he kidding? Apparently not. Horowitz went on to tell "fringe conservatives" and "birth-certificate zealots" that their "continuing efforts" to "deny Obama his victory" are "embarrassing and destructive." NRO's Mark Krikorian, in turn, congratulated Horowitz for "stomping on the ridiculous, bitter-ender efforts to disqualify Obama from the presidency." Michelle Malkin, too, pooh-poohed the "birth-certificate hunters," describing them as having "lurched into rabid Truther territory."

("Truthers," by the way, are people who believe the United States engineered the attacks of 9/11.)

I disagree. I think it is nothing less than good citizenship to seek to verify that Obama is a "natural born citizen" since our elites, which include the major political parties and the MSM, failed to bring the matter to its extremely simple resolution long ago.

But while important, this isn't just a story about whether we as Americans are right or wrong to ask our president-elect the question about his original birth certificate. It is about whether our president-elect is right or wrong not to answer it.

Once again, Barack Obama is treated as though he were not even a part of this story. Those who seek to resolve the birth certificate controversy draw the fire, but not the man who causes it. Talk shows, court battles and blogs can air the issue, but it is only Obama who can put it to rest. And he can do it simply by authorizing the release of his original, "long form" birth certificate -- and quickly, preferably before the Electoral College meets to validate his election on Dec. 15, but certainly before his term of office begins on Jan. 20, 2009.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide.


Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

2 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Re: "not authorized the state of Hawaii to release his Certificate of Live Birth -- the "long form" -- to prove that he is a "natural born citizen" "

There is a simple explanation for this, but right-wing bloggers may not like it. The explanation is that Hawaii does not issue copies of the vaulted birth certificate any more. They issue ONLY the certificate of live birth, which is what Obama has posted.

How do I know? I asked the Department of Health of Hawaii, which replied:

Quotes

It is possible that we have records with more information but we issue only certified computer-generated certificates with certain necessary information to confirm a birth. We are the only agency that issues certified birth records for Hawaii
Aloha,
(Name removed)
End Quote

I have seen copies of Hawaii original certificates of birth on line (which include considerable details), but these were saved copies of the documents that were issued at the time of birth. The DOH of Hawaii does not issue these documents to adults who request their birth certificate. You can check, by asking your own questions by e-mail at vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov

You quote the DHHL as requiring an original Certificate of Live Birth. I have been in touch with them too. They prefer the original certificate, but they realize that the only way that someone can get an original certificate is to have kept it from the time of birth.

So, for those who have lost their birth certificates, they are willing to accept the Certification of Live Birth.

But, not to worry. The Certification of Live Birth is a perfectly legal birth document, accepted by all the departments in Hawaii (including DHHL now) and accepted by the US State Department for issuing passports.

This guy puts it better than I can:

A posting from Andrew Walden, publisher of the Hawaii Free Press, a right-wing blog based in Hawaii.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/92/Barack-Obama-Born-in-Hawaii.aspx

Barack Obama: Born in Hawai`i
by Andrew Walden
|
It is time to focus on REAL issues, not imaginary ones.

A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense, which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama's upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama's numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawai`i, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.

Obama's birth certificate posted online is exactly the same birth certificate everybody in Hawai`i gets from the State Department of Health. It is not forged. There is nothing unusual about the design or the texture. In addition to the birth certificate, the August 13, 1961 Honolulu Advertiser also carries an announcement of Obama's birth. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin also carries the same announcement. Both papers require submission of a copy of the birth certificate to print a birth announcement.

End Quote

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Hawaii issues birth certificates even for babies born elsewhere, so simply having an original Hawaiian birth certificate "on record" doesn't answer the key questions. Namely: What exactly does this original birth certificate say?"

It says, and it logically MUST say, "born in Hawaii."

Yes. Hawaii can issue a birth certificate to children who were not born in Hawaii provided that their parents lived in Hawaii. HOWEVER, Hawaii law does NOT allow its departments to LIE about the place of birth.

So, when a child is born outside of Hawaii, Hawaii can issue a birth document stating the name of the child, the parents, the date of birth, etc. BUT where the document says: “Place of birth,” the location has to be filled in honestly as the place of birth where the child was actually born.

There is nothing in the law that says: “We allow you to pick a location within Hawaii, select the island of birth, choose the city and the county and put that location down as the place of birth and we will list it the way you say.”

Why not? Because (1) that would be a lie; (2) It simply isn’t in the law, and why should it be? (3) IF it were allowed under Hawaii law, Hawaii would in effect be making US citizens out of people who are not born in the USA; (4) IF Hawaii did that, the US State Department would learn soon enough that people who were born outside of the USA had proof of US citizenship issued by Hawaii, and as a result the State Department would not issue passports to people with Hawaii birth documents. (But the US State Department DOES issue passports to people with Hawaii documents.)

In other words, it is misleading to imply that because Hawaii can issue birth certificates to persons born outside of Hawaii that this loophole allowed Obama to be registered as born in Hawaii even though he may have been born elsewhere. If he were born in Kenya, his certification would have to say “born in Kenya.” And, for that matter, if he was born in New Jersey, his certification would have to say “born in New Jersey.”

An example of this is Obama’s sister, who was born in Indonesia and yet has a Hawaii birth document issued under the law allowing Hawaii birth certificates. She has a Hawaii certification of live birth, but that certification says on it “born in Indonesia.”

In contrast, Obama’s certification of live birth says on it: “born in Hawaii.” In fact, it says Location of Birth: Honolulu; Island of Birth: Oahu; County of Birth: Honolulu.

So, when the officials looked into his file and said that they saw a birth certificate, they could NOT have seen a Kenyan birth certificate or the Certification that they had issued to Obama would have been lying about the location of birth.

Therefore, he must have been born in Hawaii, unless they were lying all along. (And why should they lie? They are members of a Republican state administration. If they lied, and it were found out, they would run the risk of being charged with fraud or, at the very least, fired. They have no motive to lie. So, they are telling the truth.)

As I said, the document in the file says "born in Hawaii."