How Sturdy Is the Obama Narrative that 'Keeps Us Silent'?
Monte Kuligowski, American Thinker.com
Count Roger Kimball in among those who recognize the totalitarian atmosphere somehow created to protect President Obama. The entire range of questions related to Mr. Obama's possible ineligibility for the presidency has been rendered taboo.
Recently, Kimball wrote a piece affirming the brave observations of Diana West found in her piece, "Silence of the Lapdogs." In her essay, West explains why the incriminating findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team are not common knowledge.
Regarding the nativity story of Barack Obama, Kimball notes that "[i]t's not just that you are not allowed to express certain opinions about the subject. You are not even allowed to publicly entertain any questions about it."
The accepted Obama narrative has been a secure fortress for Obama. The president stays inside its walls unruffled, with lifted chin. The narrative "keeps us silent" even though in reality it's a house of cards.
To present the accepted narrative I will use the words which John Hawkins wrote in response to Mr. Kimball's piece linked to above, "Annals of censorship."
I choose John Hawkins not because I find his thinking and writing abilities to be on par with Kimball's, but because Hawkins nicely encapsulates the narrative blindly accepted by so many.
Mr. Hawkins begins his piece, "Nobody is censoring birther nonsense," with: "Respectfully, I have to say that Roger Kimball is so far off base here that he's practically on the wrong planet." Hawkins ironically dismisses the following, believing any discussion on the subject is "silliness:"
Mr. Hawkins provides four reasons to show us why continued discussion, let alone inquiry on the birth certificate matter, is "nonsense."
Number one: Hawkins reminds us that "Obama released his certificate of live birth." (From his context, Hawkins apparently meant to say "certification" of live birth.)
We have to note from the outset that images were posted online in 2008. No certified copy was ever "released" to state election officials, nor was the original made available for inspection by state officials. Mr. Obama's eligibility is a legal question, and the legal standard for production of documents does not include internet postings -- not even by the White House or the Daily Kos.
For reasons beyond the scope of this piece, Hawaii had unique birth registration laws in 1961.
One feature that Arpaio's team confirmed should have been common knowledge: Hawaii birth documentation has been provided to individuals known to have been foreign-born. Under such circumstances, generally a certification of live birth is generated for foreign births under Hawaii Revised Statute §338-17.8.
What also must be recognized is that parents have claimed home births in Hawaii to acquire certificates of birth. It is quite possible that Obama has a "delayed certificate" in Hawaii's archives (which would support the statement by Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, that Obama's birth certificate is half-typed and half-handwritten -- see below).
Based on Hawaii's laws and its documented tendency to certify foreign births as Hawaiian, the most we may objectively conclude is that Obama's birth was registered in 1961, and the Hawaii Department of Health has information on Obama in its vital records archives.
Hawaii's birth registration laws go hand-in-hand with Hawkins's second reason to show that "birthers" are propagating nonsense: "In a print copy of the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, there's a notice that Barack Obama was born."
Actually, two Honolulu newspapers contain identical birth announcements for Obama. The Sunday Advertiser and the Star Bulletin notices read, in full: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug 4." Do those announcements really sound like they were placed by a doting grandmother?
No, because they weren't. They were routine public notices which were automatically generated by the registration of Obama's birth. This isn't rocket science. The scant notices do not require some crazy conspiracy theory. No one had to "think ahead" to the day when little Barack Junior would someday run for president. Those who advance the idea that a conspiracy theory is needed for one to conclude insufficient evidence (of Hawaii birth) in context of the birth notices are the ones talking "nonsense."
That brings us to Hawkins's reason number three:
The president hasn't even released Kapi'olani Medical Center to give a simple yea or nay.
Chiyome Fukino did eventually say that she saw Obama's long-form birth certificate, and it was "half typed and half handwritten[.]"
But that belated statement is problematic in that the image Obama "released" shortly thereafter conflicts with Fukino's statement -- it is not half-typed and half-handwritten. And prior to Fukino's concrete statement in 2011, certain officials in the Department of Health "parsed their words for three years a little too carefully regarding what Obama had in the records."
Is the faith of Lingle and Abercrombie any more relevant than the faith of Keith Olbermann? Especially considering that Abercrombie went on a vital records expedition but came up empty-handed?
Unfortunately, Hawaii has not "confirmed [anything] in the most resolute way humanly possible." Hawaii has not even confirmed that what Obama has posted online is what Hawaii has in its archives.
Reason number four by Hawkins is that Obama has provided almost "ironclad proof" by "releasing" his long-form birth certificate.
Well, the ironclad proof happens to conflict with the opinions of numerous nonpartisan forensic/computer software experts and the findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team -- the posted file image is a computer-generated forgery. Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, his control-sample findings are not being refuted by the so-called mainstream news media.
Among the many reasonable questions we aren't allowed to "publicly entertain" is, why did Mr. Obama get a certification from Hawaii in 2008 when the birth certificate was there all along? And why get the birth certificate from Hawaii anyway when, as Obama mentions in his book, he has a paper copy in his possession? With such widespread doubt and polls of no confidence, why wait three years to abruptly "release" the elusive birth certificate?
And as Andrew McCarthy wondered the day after Obama "released" his birth certificate on April 27, 2011, "[w]here are the indignant questions to Obama?" Specifically, why were we told for three years that Obama's only birth certificate had been posted online by Robert Gibbs? Why was Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin imprisoned for demanding to see a birth certificate that ostensibly existed all along? Why would Obama spend money fighting its production in court after court? Why were only select non-experts and Obama defenders allowed to inspect copies of the White House postings behind closed doors?
Based on Sheriff Joe's remarkable findings and all the available evidence, coupled with the manifold oddities and bizarre secrecy of Obama, it is "nonsense" to conclude that it's "nonsense" to ask questions.
One may assume and hope by faith that Obama was Hawaii-born and still demand that Obama's original records (including vital, education, passport, Selective Service, etc.) be unsealed for verification.
The burden is on no citizen to prove anything. No conspiracy theories are needed to ask questions and demand "ironclad" proof "in the most resolute way humanly possible." As it turns out, that level of proof means simple compliance with basic legal standards.
Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney.
Recently, Kimball wrote a piece affirming the brave observations of Diana West found in her piece, "Silence of the Lapdogs." In her essay, West explains why the incriminating findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team are not common knowledge.
Regarding the nativity story of Barack Obama, Kimball notes that "[i]t's not just that you are not allowed to express certain opinions about the subject. You are not even allowed to publicly entertain any questions about it."
The accepted Obama narrative has been a secure fortress for Obama. The president stays inside its walls unruffled, with lifted chin. The narrative "keeps us silent" even though in reality it's a house of cards.
To present the accepted narrative I will use the words which John Hawkins wrote in response to Mr. Kimball's piece linked to above, "Annals of censorship."
I choose John Hawkins not because I find his thinking and writing abilities to be on par with Kimball's, but because Hawkins nicely encapsulates the narrative blindly accepted by so many.
Mr. Hawkins begins his piece, "Nobody is censoring birther nonsense," with: "Respectfully, I have to say that Roger Kimball is so far off base here that he's practically on the wrong planet." Hawkins ironically dismisses the following, believing any discussion on the subject is "silliness:"
The most effective form of censorship is also the quietest. It operates not by actively proscribing speech but by rendering certain topics hors de combat, literally undiscussable. It does this by propagating an atmosphere of revulsion and taboo. Ordinary censorship prohibits the dissemination of particular opinions or bits of information. The more subtle engine of silence I have in mind goes further. It stanches not only the flow of speech but also the flow of thought. Ordinary censorship occupies itself with the results of human curiosity. What I am talking about attacks human curiosity itself.In the opinion of Hawkins, Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi are "professional con men" because questions on the birth narrative "[have] been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Mr. Hawkins provides four reasons to show us why continued discussion, let alone inquiry on the birth certificate matter, is "nonsense."
Number one: Hawkins reminds us that "Obama released his certificate of live birth." (From his context, Hawkins apparently meant to say "certification" of live birth.)
We have to note from the outset that images were posted online in 2008. No certified copy was ever "released" to state election officials, nor was the original made available for inspection by state officials. Mr. Obama's eligibility is a legal question, and the legal standard for production of documents does not include internet postings -- not even by the White House or the Daily Kos.
For reasons beyond the scope of this piece, Hawaii had unique birth registration laws in 1961.
One feature that Arpaio's team confirmed should have been common knowledge: Hawaii birth documentation has been provided to individuals known to have been foreign-born. Under such circumstances, generally a certification of live birth is generated for foreign births under Hawaii Revised Statute §338-17.8.
What also must be recognized is that parents have claimed home births in Hawaii to acquire certificates of birth. It is quite possible that Obama has a "delayed certificate" in Hawaii's archives (which would support the statement by Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, that Obama's birth certificate is half-typed and half-handwritten -- see below).
Based on Hawaii's laws and its documented tendency to certify foreign births as Hawaiian, the most we may objectively conclude is that Obama's birth was registered in 1961, and the Hawaii Department of Health has information on Obama in its vital records archives.
Hawaii's birth registration laws go hand-in-hand with Hawkins's second reason to show that "birthers" are propagating nonsense: "In a print copy of the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, there's a notice that Barack Obama was born."
Actually, two Honolulu newspapers contain identical birth announcements for Obama. The Sunday Advertiser and the Star Bulletin notices read, in full: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug 4." Do those announcements really sound like they were placed by a doting grandmother?
No, because they weren't. They were routine public notices which were automatically generated by the registration of Obama's birth. This isn't rocket science. The scant notices do not require some crazy conspiracy theory. No one had to "think ahead" to the day when little Barack Junior would someday run for president. Those who advance the idea that a conspiracy theory is needed for one to conclude insufficient evidence (of Hawaii birth) in context of the birth notices are the ones talking "nonsense."
That brings us to Hawkins's reason number three:
The director of Hawaii's Department of Health has certified that Obama does have a legitimate birth certificate on file in Hawaii. The former Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, said Obama was born in Hawaii. The current governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, said Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words, the state of Hawaii has confirmed, in the most resolute way humanly possible, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.Well, the only way the director can certify is by providing certified paper copies with proper seal and stamp to state officials, or by making the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii. Unfortunately, for this to happen, Mr. Transparency would need to sign a "release" giving Hawaii permission. That would take all of five minutes, but don't hold your breath.
The president hasn't even released Kapi'olani Medical Center to give a simple yea or nay.
Chiyome Fukino did eventually say that she saw Obama's long-form birth certificate, and it was "half typed and half handwritten[.]"
But that belated statement is problematic in that the image Obama "released" shortly thereafter conflicts with Fukino's statement -- it is not half-typed and half-handwritten. And prior to Fukino's concrete statement in 2011, certain officials in the Department of Health "parsed their words for three years a little too carefully regarding what Obama had in the records."
Is the faith of Lingle and Abercrombie any more relevant than the faith of Keith Olbermann? Especially considering that Abercrombie went on a vital records expedition but came up empty-handed?
Unfortunately, Hawaii has not "confirmed [anything] in the most resolute way humanly possible." Hawaii has not even confirmed that what Obama has posted online is what Hawaii has in its archives.
Reason number four by Hawkins is that Obama has provided almost "ironclad proof" by "releasing" his long-form birth certificate.
Well, the ironclad proof happens to conflict with the opinions of numerous nonpartisan forensic/computer software experts and the findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team -- the posted file image is a computer-generated forgery. Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, his control-sample findings are not being refuted by the so-called mainstream news media.
Among the many reasonable questions we aren't allowed to "publicly entertain" is, why did Mr. Obama get a certification from Hawaii in 2008 when the birth certificate was there all along? And why get the birth certificate from Hawaii anyway when, as Obama mentions in his book, he has a paper copy in his possession? With such widespread doubt and polls of no confidence, why wait three years to abruptly "release" the elusive birth certificate?
And as Andrew McCarthy wondered the day after Obama "released" his birth certificate on April 27, 2011, "[w]here are the indignant questions to Obama?" Specifically, why were we told for three years that Obama's only birth certificate had been posted online by Robert Gibbs? Why was Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin imprisoned for demanding to see a birth certificate that ostensibly existed all along? Why would Obama spend money fighting its production in court after court? Why were only select non-experts and Obama defenders allowed to inspect copies of the White House postings behind closed doors?
Based on Sheriff Joe's remarkable findings and all the available evidence, coupled with the manifold oddities and bizarre secrecy of Obama, it is "nonsense" to conclude that it's "nonsense" to ask questions.
One may assume and hope by faith that Obama was Hawaii-born and still demand that Obama's original records (including vital, education, passport, Selective Service, etc.) be unsealed for verification.
The burden is on no citizen to prove anything. No conspiracy theories are needed to ask questions and demand "ironclad" proof "in the most resolute way humanly possible." As it turns out, that level of proof means simple compliance with basic legal standards.
Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.