Ah, the "Birther" issue. The Obama conspiracy issue that will not, and perhaps cannot, go away.
I've studied it at length, and it took me a while to puzzle it all out. But I have. And, if you'll grab an Hawaiin Ice and buckle in, I can guide you to a unique insight as to why you're wrong about what you think that you know about Birther lore. It takes a while to to unravel this story, but it's worth it. Along the way you'll find UNIQUE POINTS with insight you will only find here.
The Birther challenge is my candidate for the singularly most mis-reported story of the Obama campaign / presidency. It's frustrating to me for two reasons. Because the media continues to boilerplate the same incorrect information into every story on the topic. And, because the Birther critics - who pillory and disdain the Birthers as know-nothings - do not themselves understand correctly the case that the Birthers are making. Pitiful and frustrating.
It's not like the basic facts of the Birther's challenge to candidate Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States have changed much since he announced his candidacy more than 3 years ago. Not the core facts. So...
Why has the Birther issue stayed alive?
- Because it smacks of a good conspiracy theory, even though it turns out that it isn't.
- Because it's important. Eligibility to run for President of the United States is a fundamental issue that affects us all every four years. There are only 2 simple requirements to run for this office: 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen". Challenging a candidate's eligibility on these requirements is not only valid, it is responsible. Ask John McCain, who was challenged on this requirement the first time that he ran for President because he was born out of the country to military parents serving overseas.
- Because President Obama, by his own admission, has an exotic life history for an American president. It includes, for the first time since the Revolutionary War founding days, a father who was a British citizen of another country (Kenya). It includes half of his family living in Kenya, with some telling stories of having seen Barack born in Mombassa.
- Because the press has consistently misreported this issue, and thus inadvertently kept it alive.
- Because the Birthers have yet to provide authentic positive proof that President Obama was NOT born in the USA.
- Because the President has yet to provide CONCLUSIVE positive proof that he WAS born inside the USA, and in fact seems to be hiding records behind seal. After Obama's brief visit to Hawaii to see his dying Grandmother one month before the election in 2008, the Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama's birth records. Why?
Having said that, am I a Birther?
Well, no and yes.
No: because I believe that the Birther challenge is both fruitless and moot. Fruitless, because although it is most likely that the President was born in Hawaii I don't believe that we will get to see conclusive proof of that. Moot because the President is already two years in office, having been elected by a compelling majority of voters and the electoral college. He won. He's governing. This issue needed to have been correctly vetted before the election - which is a lesson for future elections.
Yes: because I believe that challenging a candidate on eligibility is a valid and required pursuit, and that the Birthers have raised a valid challenge that has not yet been conclusively disproven.
A simple detective story:
I approach the Birther challenge as a straightforward non-partisan detective story. I assume that parties on both sides have good motives, whether it is defending or challenging Barack Obama's eligibility per the Constitutional requirement. Let's start from a position of good will.
A BOLD statement up front:
From my study of the Birther challenge, I'll make these two simplified, unique, and bold statements now:
1. There are two relevant stories of the President's birthplace, one which allows eligibility and one that does not.
2. UNIQUE POINT: All of the evidence presented to date SUPPORTS BOTH STORIES EQUALLY!, and without conspiracy or intentional fraud.
There, I said it. Now, let's walk through it as a detective story.
The two competing stories of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth:
The two relevant stories of Barack Obama's birthplace go like this:
1: Barack Obama is born in the USA, in a hospital in Hawaii, and is a US citizen eligible to be President.
2: Barack Obama is born in Kenya, in a hospital in Mombassa and is not a US Citizen because of laws regulating citizenship that were in effect in 1961 - given that his father is a British citizen. The most likely way this happened was that the Obama's took a trip to Kenya to visit Barack Sr's family and was prevented from returning home in time to deliver by airline rules that prevented mothers from flying in the ninth month of pregnancy.
So, what evidence differentiates between these two competing stories?
Primary evidence - Birth Certificates, which we all understand:
We all were born. We all understand birth certificates from personal experience. We should know that there are two types:
Long Form BC, with the footprints. One vault copy for the Bureau of vital statistics to retain. One copy sent home with mom and dad. (Obama references this copy in his book "Dreams from my Father". He lists some items on top of a dresser, one of which is his birth certificate.) In 1961, a Hawaiian long-form "Certificae of Live Birth" issued by a doctor in a hospital looks like this, with the doctor's name and the hospital:
Short-form. If you can't find your original birth certificate, as I personally can't, you can order one from the state bureau of vital statistics. At some point the birth records were computerized, and you will be getting a computer printout called a "Certification of Live Birth", which DOES NOT list the name of the doctor and the hospital. It's legal for identification. I've used this form myself. In Hawaii for a birth in 1961, it looks like this:
Problem 1: 1961 law
It's complicated, and best explained in this report, but the law in Hawaii in 1961 allowed four ways to get a long-form birth certificate. The simplest was being born in a hospital and having a doctor fill it out. But, not everyone was born in a hospital. So, the law allowed for walk-in reporting of a birth up until 1 year old by family members.
Suppose, in story number two - the Kenyan birth, Obama's birth was reported by walk-in at the Vital Statistics bureau. Suppose Grandma "Toot" Dunham (the responsible one) took daughter Anne (the chaotic one) down when she got back home and reported the birth. "We live in Hawaii, and there's been a birth!" The two long-form certificates would be created. One vault copy and one to go home. The difference would be that they would list no doctor's name and no hospital name. That difference is crucial.
Problem 2: Adoption changes things:
You may not have known this. As an adoptive father of two, I do.
UNIQUE POINT: After an adoption, the original vault copy is replaced with the adoption version, with different information on it. A new long-form BC is issued to the adoptive parents. If the child later requests a copy of his BC, he would not be looking at the original information it contained.
Barack Obama was adopted when he was 6 years old and his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. Was his original vault copy BC replaced with a modified one? Possible.
Yes and No. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama presented the short form "Certification of Live Birth" pictured above. The various fact check sites (Snopes, FactCheck, PolitiFact) display it prominently and have judged that this settles the matter.
But it does not. Because President Obama has not presented the long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" - either the vault copy or the family copy.
UNIQUE POINT: The short-form "Certification of Live Birth" does not differentiate between the two birth stories. BOTH STORIES ARRIVE AT THE SAME SHORT FORM BC.
Without the name of the doctor and of the hospital on the document, you can't differentiate between the two stories.
Take a minute and examine the short form BC that Obama presented. Tell me the name of the doctor. Tell me the name of the hospital. Answer: you can't tell me that from the short form. They are not on that document.
Are they on the vault copy that the computer record was generated from? We don't know without seeing it.
UNIQUE POINT: The two stories CONVERGE from a birth certificate perspective:
Let's recap the two birth stories, using what we now understand about the BC's.
Story 1: Obama born in the USA
1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are physically in Hawaii when the baby is born.
2. Baby is born in USA hospital, in Hawaii. (One of two. Both have been claimed over time by Obama. Neither will currently officially claim the birth)
3. Doctor fills out long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" under way one of 1961 Hawaii law, including his name and the name of the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.
Story 2. Obama born in Kenya
1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are in Kenya to visit his family and are prevented from traveling back to the USA before the birth.
2. Baby is born in a Mombassa hospital, with questionable or nonexistant record keeping.
3. Obama family reports the birth to the Burea of Vital Statistics by walk-in, which is allowed under 1961 law. Bureau fills out long form certificates, WITHOUT the name of the doctor or the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.
UNIQUE POINT: The stories CONVERGE at step 4! After that, you cannot differentiate between the stories with the short form. Only with the long form by determining whether or not the doctor's name and hospital are listed.
But wait, say the fact checkers, isn't there secondary evidence in the form of newspaper announcements?
Ah, the trump card that the fact-checker sites believe they are playing, but are not. This is the most misunderstood and misreported piece of evidence in the Birther story.
Researchers have found a birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers from 1961 that look like this:
1. Don't they prove that Obama was born in Hawaii as he states?
2. Wouldn't there have had to been a large scale, impossible, and laughable conspiracy to go back to the papers and plant these announcements for the Kenyan story to be true?
Trump card! Case closed!
Well, no and no.
1. UNIQUE POINT: The birth announcements DO NOT prove that a live birth occurred physically in Hawaii. They only prove that a birth certificate was filed at the Bureau of Vital Statistics - WHICH IS TRUE IN BOTH STORIES. The newspaper announcements do not list the name of the doctor or the hospital, and so do not differentiate between stories.
If you go back to both stories where they converge at point 4 (Vault copy filed at BVS) and insert a 4a in each story it would be: BVS notifies newspapers of the filing of a birth certificate, and newspapers routinely print announcement.
2. UNIQUE POINT: No conspiracy to go back and plant the newspaper accounts is necessary in the Kenyan birth story. It is the natural occurence after a BC was filed at BVS, IN BOTH STORIES!
No conspiracy. No conspiracy theory. Only a small case of innocent fraud if the Obama family walked-in and reported a birth, as allowed by 1961 law, when the birth had taken place outside the USA. But, who could blame them. Wouldn't you want a US birth certificate after you had inconveniently been out of the country during the birth? They did live in Hawaii. They would want a US BC. And they might have gotten one.
Summary: What will prove or disprove the Birther case?
It is as simple as the Birthers have stated. As Joe Farah of WND has stated with his sign campaign pictured at the beginning of this article: Show the original form birth certificate.
The only way to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories - in the absence of Barack Obama presenting the family copy of the long-form certificate that he offhandedly mentioned in his book - is to see the vault copy of the "Certificate of Live" birth on file in the birth records office in Hawaii.
If there is no vault copy, we have a problem.
If there is a vault copy, and it does not list a doctor's name and a hospital, we have a problem.
If there is a vault copy, and it has been altered during the adoption, we have a problem.
If there is a vault copy, and it does list a doctor's name and a hospital, then the case is resolved.
So, the natural question is, why haven't we seen the vault copy of the birth certificate? As Chris Matthews asked this week, why hasn't President Obama done everything that he can to make that copy available for inspection to put this to bed?
I'll end this guided tour with three relevant news stories:
1. During the 2008 election campaign, officials of the records office in Hawaii gave a statement that they had seen, and could verify, that there were birth records for Barack Obama in their office.
UNIQUE POINT: While this was seen as conclusive by many, it is not. What is on the birth record? What does it say? Is there a doctor's name and hospital, or not????
2. A story in June of 2010 featured Tim Adams, identified as a "Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu" who was leaving his job in Hawaii. On his way out, he gave an interview where he said that it was common knowledge in his office that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. This is not substantiated.
3. The new Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has stated his irritation with the Birther challenge, and his determination to release more birth records to resolve this issue. To that I say: good luck with that. The previous Governor had them sealed. You will likely need the permission of Barack Obama himself to unseal them. I have not yet seen an indication that he will do that.
I hope that Governor Abercrombie can do what he desires to do and can get the vault copy of Barack Obama II's "Certificate of Live Birth". We all need to see it to be able to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories and put this issue to rest factually.
The Bottom Line for Me:
We're not likely to be able to conclusively resolve the Birther challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be President.
I don't think that President Obama can produce a conclusive family copy of the long form "Certificate of Live Birth". If he could, he would have by now. Maybe he lost the copy that he mentioned in his book. It happens. I've lost mine. Maybe the certificate was altered during his adoption. My boys' were. Maybe he doesn't even know the exact circumstances of his birth. Again, my boys do not.
And, maybe he cannot get the original vault copy released because of Hawaii or national law. I don't know - I've never had to try with mine.
Maybe the short form, insufficient as it is, is all he has and all he knows. It's entirely possible.
I don't fault President Obama for any of that. It's a complicated story, mostly out of his control.
So, I'm left with the conclusion that we are never going to conclusively know that answer to this important challenge that the Birthers have validly raised. And so we're stuck with a mystery. A simple but unsolvable detective story. Stuck with endless but fruitless lawsuits until President Obama leaves office.
That's my bottom line.
