Monday, May 21, 2012
So Call Me "Birther"
We seem to have a problem, sometimes, with stating the obvious.
Breitbart.com has been doing utterly invaluable work, digging up hitherto-undiscovered details about President Obama's past. (It's invaluable because virtually no one else is willing to do it -- meaning that, for a great many things about the President's past, we know nothing other than what he has chosen to tell us.) Yet even breitbart.com is mincing their words in order to avoid the "birther" controversy:
Breitbart News’ discovery of the 1991 biography distributed by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, which stated (incorrectly) that Obama had been “born in Kenya,” confirmed what we have been saying for months as we pursued “The Vetting” project.
(emphasis added)
"Incorrectly"? On what basis do they make that claim?
Follow that link, and you'll see the same story:
This is all quite factual. That a literary agent for the young Barack Obama reported him as having been born in Kenya is not evidence that he was. Rather, it is evidence, as Breitbart says, that President Obama has felt free to identify himself in divergent and contradictory ways over the years. (It makes little sense that BHO's biography of the time was written by anybody but him; it makes even less sense that a publicity-hungry young Harvard graduate, eager to make a name for himself, would not read a press release about his as-yet-unwritten first book, or would fail to correct an error in that bio. In other words, we can be sure that BHO read the bio stating he was born in Kenya and was comfortable letting it stand, just as a few years later he would read the proofs of Dreams From My Father, stating that he was born in Hawaii, and was comfortable letting that stand too.)
But still we've tiptoeing around the issue here. breitbart.com is bending over backwards to avoid suggesting, even for a moment, that he was born anywhere but Hawaii, according to the accepted narrative (i.e. the one provided by the President).
Well, if they won't say it, I will. WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAYS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII?
(Please note: I'm not claiming that he was born in Kenya, because I haven't seen a Kenyan birth certificate. By the same logic, I'm not claiming that he was born in Hawaii, because I haven't seen a legitimate birth certificate from there either! Neither the much-ballyhooed short form certificate, nor the belatedly-released long form, pass the smell test.)
It's painful to say this, but at this point, I have no reason to believe much of anything the President says, merely because he says it. This goes beyond his many broken campaign promises (closing Guantanamo, not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250K, and so on). But he also claimed, many times, to have lived with his mother and father in Hawaii, which has been thoroughly debunked. He claimed that his dying mother was denied health-care coverage, when in fact she was covered.
It is simply not enough to believe the President's word with respect to anything about his own past. We have now seen that he was comfortable claiming to have been born in Kenya, when it suited him to do so. (He is also on record as being challenged, during his 2004 Senate race, as not being a natural-born American, to which he supposedly retorted, "So what? I'm not running for the Presidency.")
So I'm perfectly willing to believe that the President was born in Hawaii... but so far I've seen no conclusive evidence I was willing to accept. And frankly, given that the President has already claimed as his a birth certificate that is a transparent fraud, should I trust him if he produces another one that looks better?
Much as I respect and admire breitbart.com and the work they're doing, I think they're dropping the ball here. Let's say it again: THE BEST EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BORN IN HAWAII IS HIS OWN WORD... and that's just not good enough.
What would it take, at this point, for me to believe that Barack H. Obama II was born in the United States? Frankly, I'm not sure... but it would have to come from somewhere other than the White House. They've muddied the waters enough already.
And if we did find convincing evidence that the President was born in Hawaii, as he now claims he was, the question would still remain -- why did he go to so much trouble to hide, up to and including the production of a fraudulent birth certificate?
If, on the other hand, we find convincing evidence in the other direction -- well then, the reasons for the hiding become clear, don't they?
"Incorrectly"? On what basis do they make that claim?
Follow that link, and you'll see the same story:
Note from Senior Management:
Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
This is all quite factual. That a literary agent for the young Barack Obama reported him as having been born in Kenya is not evidence that he was. Rather, it is evidence, as Breitbart says, that President Obama has felt free to identify himself in divergent and contradictory ways over the years. (It makes little sense that BHO's biography of the time was written by anybody but him; it makes even less sense that a publicity-hungry young Harvard graduate, eager to make a name for himself, would not read a press release about his as-yet-unwritten first book, or would fail to correct an error in that bio. In other words, we can be sure that BHO read the bio stating he was born in Kenya and was comfortable letting it stand, just as a few years later he would read the proofs of Dreams From My Father, stating that he was born in Hawaii, and was comfortable letting that stand too.)
But still we've tiptoeing around the issue here. breitbart.com is bending over backwards to avoid suggesting, even for a moment, that he was born anywhere but Hawaii, according to the accepted narrative (i.e. the one provided by the President).
Well, if they won't say it, I will. WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAYS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII?
(Please note: I'm not claiming that he was born in Kenya, because I haven't seen a Kenyan birth certificate. By the same logic, I'm not claiming that he was born in Hawaii, because I haven't seen a legitimate birth certificate from there either! Neither the much-ballyhooed short form certificate, nor the belatedly-released long form, pass the smell test.)
It's painful to say this, but at this point, I have no reason to believe much of anything the President says, merely because he says it. This goes beyond his many broken campaign promises (closing Guantanamo, not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250K, and so on). But he also claimed, many times, to have lived with his mother and father in Hawaii, which has been thoroughly debunked. He claimed that his dying mother was denied health-care coverage, when in fact she was covered.
It is simply not enough to believe the President's word with respect to anything about his own past. We have now seen that he was comfortable claiming to have been born in Kenya, when it suited him to do so. (He is also on record as being challenged, during his 2004 Senate race, as not being a natural-born American, to which he supposedly retorted, "So what? I'm not running for the Presidency.")
So I'm perfectly willing to believe that the President was born in Hawaii... but so far I've seen no conclusive evidence I was willing to accept. And frankly, given that the President has already claimed as his a birth certificate that is a transparent fraud, should I trust him if he produces another one that looks better?
Much as I respect and admire breitbart.com and the work they're doing, I think they're dropping the ball here. Let's say it again: THE BEST EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BORN IN HAWAII IS HIS OWN WORD... and that's just not good enough.
What would it take, at this point, for me to believe that Barack H. Obama II was born in the United States? Frankly, I'm not sure... but it would have to come from somewhere other than the White House. They've muddied the waters enough already.
And if we did find convincing evidence that the President was born in Hawaii, as he now claims he was, the question would still remain -- why did he go to so much trouble to hide, up to and including the production of a fraudulent birth certificate?
If, on the other hand, we find convincing evidence in the other direction -- well then, the reasons for the hiding become clear, don't they?
