Let’s look at the Obama birth certificate controversy as if it were applied to, say, George Bush or John McCain.
First, the facts:
Obama’s official long-form birth certificate has not been shown in public as of today, July 30, 2009. The document that has been released to the public is a state “certification of birth,” which is also known as a short-form birth certificate. The longer form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as the attending physician, birth weight and parents’ hometowns.
The short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department for passport purposes.
So why doesn’t the state of Hawaii simply show the long form and get the controversy over with? Obama certainly could order that to happen in these extraordinary circumstances.
The Obama advocates also are showing a birth announcement, a two-line notice in the Honolulu Advertiser of August 13, 1961 which says:
Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6035 Kalanlanaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4
So let’s treat Obama the way the Ancient Media treat somebody like Sarah Palin every day. It would sound like this:
“Would not someone sympathetic to fascist communism, as Obama’s mother clearly was, have gone to the lengths of, say, bribing a public official to produce a ‘birth certification’ document and then sending a fake birth announcement to the local newspaper if indeed her son was born in, say, Indonesia or even Kenya?”
How would Obama like getting that kind of treatment? Just ask Sarah Palin what it’s like. Or Dick Cheney.
Now state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said he has seen the original birth records that verify Obama’s Hawaii birth and that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.”
So why don’t they just show us the birth certificate and get it over with? Because any conservative would do just that because it is directly demonstrative of the truth.
Where is the mainstream media inquiry into Obama’s birth certificate that was applied to, say, George Bush’s National Guard service records? Here is an excerpt, not from the blogosphere or some Bush-hater, but from a major media organ, US News & World Report of September 9, 2004, about the CBS National Guard story which eventually was debunked and cost Dan Rather his job and his reputation:
President Bush, once again, faces major media scrutiny because of his Texas Air National Guard service during Vietnam. Questions about Bush’s National Guard service received prominent coverage on all three TV networks and in major US newspapers, with ABC World News Tonight reporting, “For opponents of President Bush, it’s payback time.” CBS Evening News said the situation is “just what the White House had hoped to avoid: New scrutiny of the President’s military record.” The Democrats “wasted no time in jumping all over these new allegations against the President.”
So USNWR stoked the phony story as all the Ancient Media did. Why have these media not all been put in the same category as the “right-wing nut job ‘birthers’” who are questioning Obama’s birth certificate? (Answer: Because they are liberal.)
When it was revealed that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, there was a front-page story in the New York Times suggesting that there might just be some questions about whether McCain would be eligible to be president.
Obviously anyone who knows about the McCains knows that the McCain family’s military service to our nation extends back to the American Revolution. But that didn’t stop a small movement, spurred on by the Times, from springing up that questioned whether McCain could legally be president since he was born outside the 50 United States. But McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone to a military family long has been seen as a legitimate American birth since the Canal Zone was US territory at the time.
Yep, the New York Times sure did look into McCain’s birth with the February 28, 2008 story headlined McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out
The Snobs of 43rd Street reported breathlessly:
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Notice the erudite, nuanced tone that makes it appear that the Times is really not suggesting anything is amiss but at the same time is suggesting that something is amiss. This is classic intellectual trickery.
So obviously the Ancient Media are willing to backhandedly question the birth status of a member of one of the most patriotic families in America, but not simply ask for the existing documentation for the birth of the child of a known communist sympathizer.
When ABC aired a mini-series called The Path to 9/11, which questioned Bill Clinton’s role in the runup to the terrorist strike, five Democrat US senators (Reid, Schumer, Dorgan, Stabenow, Durbin) wrote a letter practically threatening ABC’s license to try and stop the series from being broadcast. Yet these same Democrats flocked en masse in 2004 to Michael Moore’s vicious, deceitful anti-Bush propaganda film Farenheit 911 and now are calling those who question Obama’s birth certificate a bunch of kooks.
Michael Moore is America’s most notorious left-wing kook and he is widely accepted by the left and by even mainstream Democrats. If questions were being asked about Bush’s birth certificate, Moore would have produced a movie about it by now, and the movie would be part of mainstream Democrat-party fundraising.
Remember when Moore sat with Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? What if a “birther” were to sit with George Bush at the 2012 Republican convention?
It would be exactly the same thing.
Except that the nuts on the left like Moore have the nuts in the Democrat party and the nuts in the media, like the staff of the New York Times, behind them. And from their glass house, they throw stone after stone after stone.
It certainly looks like Obama was born in Hawaii. So why don’t they just show us the official birth certificate and get this controversy over with.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.