Birthers

There's an internet-generated controversy over Obama's birthplace that has mostly come from Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily. Lou Dobbs at CNN did some stories on the controversy and the people behind it, and even though he's been very clear that he believes there's nothing to it, there's an outraged group of CNN'ers and other "journalists" calling for his head for simply airing the story.

There's so much obfuscation surrounding the story itself and Lou's audacious decision to give it airtime that I had to satisfy my curiosity and try to find out what all the fuss is about.

Obama of course hails from Hawaii, with a Kenyan father and hippie mother from Kansas. What the so-called "birthers" suggest is that he may indeed have been born in Kenya instead. There are apparently lots of folks in Kenya and relatives on his father's side who are saying that yes, indeed, Barry was born in Kenya.

So the question put forth by the "birthers" is simply this: If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii as he claims, why not produce the official birth certificate, hospital records, the name of the Obstetrician who delivered him, etc.? Instead, all that he has allowed to make public is an unofficial souvenier birth certificate.

The "birthers" have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for his college transcripts, copies of his writings while in college, and other related documents, which for some reason have been blocked by Obama's administration from public release. The "birthers" think that he may have obtained admission as un undergraduate under a foreign student policy, which they think may support their theory that he may at least hold dual citizenship.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter much whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. It might result in some political advantage for Obama's opponents to find a lie over his place of birth, but I'm not sure there's any particular constitutional issue. He's a citizen simply by virtue of being the son of an American citizen, and it would seem unlikely that his election would be overturned based on whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

On the other hand, I find it curious that he has so steadfastly refused to release the official birth certificate and other details of his birth. Why not put the whole thing to rest by simply authorizing the Hawaiian officials to release whatever the press wants to see? Fighting so hard to keep such records private does seem to suggest he has something to hide. Others have suggested it's simple arrogance - he just won't let his detractors have even the small victory of forcing him to release records if he doesn't want to.

Fighting the release of his College records makes more sense to me. It doesn't take much imagination to think of the mountains of ammunition such a release would give his opponents. There very easily could be information in those records that would reflect negatively on him, from grades to radical writings.

Why attack Lou Dobbs for simply airing the debate that many Americans are at least curious to hear? If the mission of the "birthers" is indeed a fool's errand, why does the story so enrage the monolithic journalist fraternity?

Might it be that they fear there may be a flame underneath all that smoke, and have made it their mission to snuff it out before the country catches a whiff?

How is this different than Dan Rather's reporting on the fake National Guard story about George W Bush? Even when the letter was proven to be produced on a word processor, Rather stuck with the story and claimed even though the actual letter might be a fake, that he believed the essence of the story was true in spite of absence of supporting evidence. Lou isn't even supporting the "birthers" claims, but merely airing them along with refuting claims from the other side.

Is this freedom of the press?