From ExpertClick:Why Obama's Birth Certificate Issue Will Not Go Away
The President of the United States belongs to the people. A lot of Americans are troubled by sealed records. Some feel that if the President has nothing to hide, then why not release the original birth certificate and open other sealed records: educational, foreign travel passports, and state legislative records. A birth certificate is a tangible document issue that everybody can relate to. Most of us have one tucked away in our home. It's needed for public benefits as well as school admission and passports. Mine has the exact moment I was born, the city, hospital, and attending physician. What is posted online for President Obama is a certificate of live birth. The birth certificate issue will not disappear. It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive.
Below is a quote from a white friend about the matter:
"I'm struggling with this one when it comes to questions of character. Obama has been deceptive in other matters so it is difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Something isn't quite right. If there is nothing to hide then why seal it? If there is nothing revealed if unsealed then what was going on while we were waiting...and WHERE was it going on? I sense deception somewhere"I am perplexed by sealed records in the President's background. It is a biographer's nightmare and it hampers scholars and constrains the narrative that we tell future generations. I have not heard a compelling reason for the White House's refusal to honestly address the sealed documents. One reporter said it "makes political sense for Obama to allow the discussion to continue because it distracts and weakens his opponents. It also seems that nothing would satisfy the birthers. It all adds up to, "why bother?" I strongly disagree with this reporter's position, and the well-orchestrated strategy to crucify and vilify Americans who raise the issue.
The White House strategy may be part of a well orchestrated smokescreen to divert public attention from other sealed documents. But I hardly see the strategic advantage to the President of letting the issue be debated around kitchen tables and on the Internet. I believe the President should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background.
Editor's Note - Ms. Swain is a Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. She is described as a "moderate conservative," in her political beliefs. (H/t Booker T. Rising blog)
27 comments:
She brought up a good point: Transparency WAS one of his campaign selling points. Why the change?
BGF... What change?
We can see right through him.
Point well taken, Ran.
The time lines, places, actions, motives, when analyzed, support, and are consistent with, what is the answer to the Obama birth puzzle:
Obama’s grandmother is his mother and his mother is his sister.
Think about it. Review all the facts and claims.
Anonymous: Nice to see you were able to stick to the script from another birth issue post here.
Anon... Dude, you're missing the point. Obama's grandmother is Trig's mother. Palin stole the baby.
Think about it. Review all the facts and claims. Then get your f^cking meds adjusted. Bloody liberal poseurs.
I'm Trig's mother!
I'M TRIG'S MOTHER!
I'm Trig's mother!
I'm Trig's mother!
I'm Trig's mom. I have the Birth Certificate to PROVE it!
Ran: If you say you have the birth certificate to prove it, I guess that's all anyone needs! Case closed! lol
Eric Dondero, 11/07/08:
TOM MCLINTOCK WINS!
Perhaps the greatest day ever in the history of the Libertarian Republican movement.
Tom McClintock, 07/29/09:
I don't think there's any question that he was born in Hawaii ... It's just a simple matter of fact.
Your silence is deafening, Eric.
No silence. I disagree quite strongly with McClintock on this.
But I understand his motives. He's a freshmen congressman elected in an extremely tight race. He has to appear to be very responsible and reserved.
If I was in his position, I'd probably be doing the very same thing.
Notice you're not seeing McClintock stick his neck out on pretty much anything right now.
But watch him when he's in his second term.
BTW Tom, how 'bout sticking with the issue of the post, and addressing the Professor's concerns?
Even if you don't agree that there's something suspicious about Obama's birth certificate, surely you can agree that he should be more transparent about his background, including his legislative papers, and college grades/papers?
Eric,
You write:
"Even if you don't agree that there's something suspicious about Obama's birth certificate, surely you can agree that he should be more transparent about his background, including his legislative papers, and college grades/papers?"
I guess that depends on the meaning of "should."
He campaigned to a large degree on "transparency," so to the extent that he's proving to be very non-"transparent" himself, I hope that those who voted for him will reconsider next time around.
On the other hand, I don't particularly personally care whether or not he releases this or that. I can't think of anything he could release that would cause me to change my mind about the quality of his presidency.
I disagree with him on probably 95% of the issues, and I'll still disagree with him even if he pulls a long-form birth certificate, a 4.0 college transcript and a legislative paper that proves he's the reincarnation of George Washington out of his ass.
My main reason for interest in the whole birth certificate issue is that it's good theatre. It's like watching the GOP pound on its own thumbs with a hammer.
Not talking about the "quality of his Presidency." What matters more is the quality of the man himself. That's what's at issue here.
Do you think Ronald Reagan would've hid his college records or US Army papers?
"What matters more is the quality of the man himself. That's what's at issue here."
No, not really. We already know he's a politician, and we already know he's a Democrat or Republican. From this, we can reasonably infer that he's a corrupt, untrustworthy, statist asshat and quite possibly an outright lunatic.
"Do you think Ronald Reagan would've hid his college records or US Army papers?"
I don't think it would have mattered that much if he had. Dubyah tried to hide the records of his desertion, and that didn't seem to hurt him very much.
Oh, you must be referring to 'W' hiding "those records," from his Air Force days that Dan Rather and Marla Mapes created out of thin air.
Call me silly, but if someone invented documents for me on my military service, I too might try to "hide them."
Giving your logic that all Democrats and Republicans are corrupt, shitass and untrustworthy simply because they have an 'R' or 'D' by their name, can we also conclude then, that all Libertarian Party members, are murderers who cut up their wives and put their body parts in suitcases, and then throw them in the river, just because they have an 'L' by their name?
I talk of Stephen Fielder of the West Virginia Libertarian Party, of course.
Eric,
No, I'm not referring to the manufactured "RatherGate" records.
And in any case, I'm not particularly interested in proving that he's a deserter again, having done it multiple times in your presence already. I'm just saying that he did not seem to be DAMAGED by the fact that he was a deserter, OR by the fact that he tried to hide the evidence of his desertion ... so I doubt that Obama will be damaged if it eventually comes out that his GPA at Columbia was 2.1 or that his father wasn't Barack Obama Sr., or whatever.
"Giving your logic that all Democrats and Republicans are corrupt, shitass and untrustworthy simply because they have an 'R' or 'D' by their name"
That's not my logic.
First, you left out an element that I included above and beyond partisan affiliation (the fact that they're politicians).
Secondly, you misconstrued my assertion that it was reasonable to infer something as a claim that that reasonable inference is necessarily true in every case. I didn't say it was true, I said it was reasonable. There's a difference.
If I come home in the middle of the night and find a guy trying to pry open a window on the back of my house, I can reasonably infer that he's a burglar.
There might be some other explanation for what he's doing (he thought he heard screams and is trying to be of assistance; he's drunk and thought it was his house but couldn't get his key to work; etc.). In other words, it might be NOT true that he's a burglar. But it's reasonable for me to infer that he is./
You keep asserting "Bush is a deserter." Even if one concedes that Bush didn't show up for Guard duty at the scheduled time, which I do not, but even if one concedes that point, he did, at some point return to duty, and finish out his 6-year enlistment.
I don't know any "deserters" who returned to duty.
When I was in the Navy, a lot of Mexican dudes, just simply walked off the ship, never to be seen nor heard from again.
One of them - guy named Camacho - got caught on the Mexican border, and was returned to the ship. His first opportunity he escaped again, never to be seen, nor heard from.
Desertion means just that: Deserting, and never returning.
AWOL, means absent without leave, meaning, gone for a short while, but returning to duty.
Hell, I was AWOL on a few occasions, drunk in a stupor in some Spanish or Filipina hookers' apartment, when I should have been on the ship.
I paid the price for it, with loss of my Liberty.
You gonna call me a "deserter."
"Dubyah tried to hide the records of his desertion"
Why are you unable to resist the urge to be a rat fuck liar, Knippler?
Were you born this way or is there some strategy behind you mindless lies? You fucking leftists are pathetic.
"Desertion means just that: Deserting, and never returning."
Nope. It means AWOL with the intent not to return, and in military prosecutions, AWOL in excess of 30 days is treated as a rebuttable presumption of that intent.
Bush was AWOL for more than 30 days, ergo Bush was presumptively a deserter. If his political connections hadn't saved his ass from being prosecuted at all, desertion would have been a charge in that prosecution.
All of which is neither here nor there. As noted, I've proven that Bush was a deserter several times, most of them right up in your grill.
That's not the point I was trying to make, though -- he's no longer in office and I'm content to wait for the wheels of justice to grind him fine == as you well know. The point I was trying to make is that when Bush attempted to hide his military records, it didn't especially hurt him politically. Most of his military records weren't released until 2004, and some of them were only released at THAT point because the Associated Press sued for them.
Boy, you really stepped into the shit with that last comment:
"AP sued for the Bush records..."
But of course. State run media would sue any Republican, for any reason. Wonder if AP would be as willing to do the same for Obama?
Nah! Of course, they wouldn't.
Your blog looks wonderful. It was nice going through your blog. keep it up the good work. Cheers :)
Excellent article. It was helpful and informative. hope to see more greats posts like this.
Post a Comment