I always was a moderate, where Barack Obama’s birth certificate was concerned. From the time the “certificate of live birth” was presented in 2008, I never believed it was real. I am just two years older than the president, and was born in the nearest state to Hawaii (California), so I hope I wasn’t being unreasonable to expect that his birth certificate would look a little bit like mine. But that certificate didn’t look like mine at all. All it had was the date of birth, the city, and the names and racial backgrounds of the parents; the latter is there because I understand one’s ancestry is a bigger deal in Hawaii than it is in other states. The cartoon below, from a Filipino in Hawaii named Corky Trinidad, illustrates that point:
My birth certificate also had the name of the hospital, and the signatures of everyone involved except myself; none of that appeared on Obama’s certificate. A more complete birth certificate was released in 2011, which had the missing data from the first one, but still I was suspicious, because the administration waited so long to show it, though they claimed they had nothing to hide. By contrast, when questions arose about John McCain’s birth, he released his birth certificate without hesitation, and that was that. Evidently some reporters were too dumb to remember that the Panama Canal Zone was part of the United States, as recently as 1999.
On the other hand, I did not feel a false birth certificate was grounds for impeachment, should it turn out that Obama was born abroad. My reason was politics; with the Democrats in control of the Senate, I do not believe any attempt to remove Obama via impeachment will succeed. Just remember what happened when it was tried on Bill Clinton, and Congress was Republican-controlled back then. I always felt it would be better for everyone if Obama completed his term, was voted out of office in 2012, and like Ronald Reagan in 1981, Obama’s successor would begin working on undoing the damage he has done.
Finally, I was more concerned about the other records we don’t have from Obama’s life. With all other presidents, we know trivial facts about what they did before going to the White House. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and had children by them, Abraham Lincoln was a rail splitter, and Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer, to name a few. But we can’t say anything like that about Obama. The missing records include his Selective Service Registration, the grades and papers from the colleges he attended, scholarly articles published while in school, medical records, and baptismal records from the church he attended in Chicago. Even many records of his attendance and voting in the Illinois State Senate are not available, prompting some to call the period from 1995 (when he first ran for the State Senate) to 2004 the “lost years.” When it comes to dark horse presidents, Obama is the darkest of all, no pun intended.
Well, now Andrew Breitbart’s blog has released the booklet that came out in 1991 to promote the books of several authors, including a 29-year-old law student named Barack Obama. Here Obama is introduced as a promising new author who was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” This is the column in question:
Of course Obama’s supporters will say this is faked evidence. For me the clincher is the reference to the New Kids On The Block, on the next page of the booklet. Anybody who remembers 1991 will know how popular that band was back then. I was working at Ticketmaster at the time, and I referred to phone calls about NKOTB as an “evergreen information request,” because I always got those calls, whether the band was on tour or not.
As with the birth certificates, I don’t think this by itself will end Obama’s presidency; it will just add to the weight of accumulated evidence against him, most of it having to do with his actions since becoming president. What I’d like to know is who really released the booklet, and why. Is this the bombshell Breitbart’s heirs threatened to throw out, when Breitbart died suddenly last month? Or did the Clintons have something to do with this? You know they weren’t happy about Obama defeating Hillary in 2008; I don’t think she will ever again have as good a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, or the presidency, as she had in that year. Could this be the Clintons’ revenge?