Some media reports state that Obama has spent around two million dollars in court to avoid releasing the long-form birth certificate. Is it because he really does have something to hide? What other plausible explanation is there?
These are legitimate questions, in spite of the left's frenzied attempts to shout down, marginalize and denigrate those who are asking them. A case in point is Wikipedia's highly biased page on the issue, in which doubters and skeptics are called a "fringe" group and "conspiracy theorists" comparable to the 9/11 Truthers. Ridiculous!
Mondo Frazier at Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts says the left is using Alinsky tactics to shut down discussion of the subject. They do this by substituting scorn and ridicule for reasoned arguments. However, their tactic isn't working: a recent poll shows large numbers of Americans have their doubts about the facts of Obama's birthplace.
Now there are even people on the left who are asking the obvious question: "Why doesn't Obama just release the birth certificate?" Chris Matthews of Hard Ball said:
"Why doesn't the president just say, 'Send me a copy right now?' Why doesn't Gibbs and Axelrod say, 'Let's just get this crappy story dead?' Why not do it? ... If it exists, why not put it out?"Matthews was joined by Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune and David Corn of Mother Jones, who both agreed with the call for Obama to publicly release the document and end the controversy.
Here are some hard facts:
1. A short-form Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is not irrefutable proof of Obama's birth place. In 2008, a liberal website, the Daily Kos, published a COLB purporting to be that of Barack Obama. Digital analysis indicated that it was a forgery. A COLB does not specify the hospital or doctor involved in the birth and offers very little information. Further, there are rumors on the internet that Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, was born in Indonesia but also was issued a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, allegedly proving that a COLB is not the final answer. I have not verified the accuracy of these rumors, but they again furnish a strong reason why Obama should release his long-form birth certificate, if only to spike such rumors.
2. A newspaper announcement is not a legal substitute for a long form birth certificate. A couple of Hawaiian newspapers have released microfiche copies of their 1961 pages announcing Obama's birth. Such clippings are evidence, but not conclusive -- could they just be repeating unverified and even inaccurate information supplied to them?
3. A Congressional resolution is not proof of Obama's birth place. This proves absolutely nothing.
4. A Wall Street Journal article is not a birth certificate. James Taranto has been a useful idiot on the birth certificate question from the beginning, and his opinion does not constitute persuasive proof of Obama's place of birth.
5. The ONLY item that will prove Obama's place of birth is the long-form birth certificate. I am willing to be convinced, but only by that item. There is sufficient doubt that one exists, and that doubt can only be overcome by releasing the official document. Any other discussion short of that release is mere rhetoric, rationalization or opinion and devoutly to be ignored.