Second thoughts about that birth certificate
Like most people, I had discarded the issue about President Obama's birth certificate long ago as without merit. Recently, though, possible Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has renewed public interest in the matter, and so I decided to take a second look. While Trump is mistaken in some particulars, to my surprise, the matter turns out to be more complicated than I originally thought.
Obama defenders say that the he did release his birth certificate, making the entire argument moot. That is true ... sort of. In June 2008, the Obama campaign released of a "certification of live birth," which was examined and photographed by factcheck.org.
The document lists the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II on Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. However, critical information often contained in an original birth certificate, including physician and hospital of delivery, is missing. Factcheck.org explains why:
"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. ... We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."
This truncated document nevertheless seems acceptable to at least some government agencies as proof of birth and citizenship. Further, it seems inconceivable that this "short form" document could be generated if a corresponding original "long form" did not exist. Case closed, right?
Not so fast. Factcheck.org. bills itself as "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania," with funding largely derived from "an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation ... and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation."
Obama was famously a founding board member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, also a project of the Annenberg Foundation. The connection is strong enough, in my mind, to raise reasonable questions about the objectivity of factcheck.org in matters regarding Obama.
Then there is the stubborn issue of Hawaii's governor -- and Obama family friend -- Neil Abercrombie, who had vowed upon taking office to once and for all prove that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, thereby neutralizing the issue in advance of the 2012 campaign.
Abercrombie claims to have found ... something. "It [the proof] was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Written down? What on earth does that mean? Did some anonymous government employee scribble on a napkin: "On this day, Barack Obama was born?" Either an original, hospital-generated, long-form birth certificate exists or it doesn't, and either the governor has found it or he hasn't.
It seems from his vague answer that what he has been told was found is not that original birth document. The governor certainly has not released any additional information or documentation, despite his repeated promises to do so. In fact, he seems to have conveniently forgotten the subject altogether.
What does all of this mean? I'm not sure. Probably nothing. Yet it is amazing that unanswered questions continue to swirl around Obama's birthplace. Even more mysterious is why the president doesn't clear up the matter unequivocally, as surely only he can. I really wish he would, if only to remove an unnecessary distraction from the public debate.
It is no wonder that some opponents of the president are fixated on this issue: If (and it is a very big if) it could be proved that Obama was born outside the United States, then the legitimacy of any legislation he has signed into law would be instantly questionable.
So long Obamacare?
Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator and a contributor to "Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation" (HarperCollins, 2010).
Obama defenders say that the he did release his birth certificate, making the entire argument moot. That is true ... sort of. In June 2008, the Obama campaign released of a "certification of live birth," which was examined and photographed by factcheck.org.
The document lists the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II on Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. However, critical information often contained in an original birth certificate, including physician and hospital of delivery, is missing. Factcheck.org explains why:
"The document is a 'certification of birth,' also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. ... We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."
This truncated document nevertheless seems acceptable to at least some government agencies as proof of birth and citizenship. Further, it seems inconceivable that this "short form" document could be generated if a corresponding original "long form" did not exist. Case closed, right?
Not so fast. Factcheck.org. bills itself as "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania," with funding largely derived from "an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation ... and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation."
Obama was famously a founding board member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, also a project of the Annenberg Foundation. The connection is strong enough, in my mind, to raise reasonable questions about the objectivity of factcheck.org in matters regarding Obama.
Then there is the stubborn issue of Hawaii's governor -- and Obama family friend -- Neil Abercrombie, who had vowed upon taking office to once and for all prove that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, thereby neutralizing the issue in advance of the 2012 campaign.
Abercrombie claims to have found ... something. "It [the proof] was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Written down? What on earth does that mean? Did some anonymous government employee scribble on a napkin: "On this day, Barack Obama was born?" Either an original, hospital-generated, long-form birth certificate exists or it doesn't, and either the governor has found it or he hasn't.
It seems from his vague answer that what he has been told was found is not that original birth document. The governor certainly has not released any additional information or documentation, despite his repeated promises to do so. In fact, he seems to have conveniently forgotten the subject altogether.
What does all of this mean? I'm not sure. Probably nothing. Yet it is amazing that unanswered questions continue to swirl around Obama's birthplace. Even more mysterious is why the president doesn't clear up the matter unequivocally, as surely only he can. I really wish he would, if only to remove an unnecessary distraction from the public debate.
It is no wonder that some opponents of the president are fixated on this issue: If (and it is a very big if) it could be proved that Obama was born outside the United States, then the legitimacy of any legislation he has signed into law would be instantly questionable.
So long Obamacare?
Matt Patterson is a columnist and commentator and a contributor to "Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation" (HarperCollins, 2010).
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/04/second-thoughts-about-birth-certificate##ixzz1IWqbk5CN
No comments:
Post a Comment