Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Obama is the only president who has suppressed vital personal information; every other has made full disclosure.

(The article below points out every other president has made full disclosue of vital personal records. Obama has been given a pass because he is the first "black" president. I'm not giving obama a "pass" on his full disclosure of his vital records. I said FULL disclosure. Obama hides his "vitial records" using the race card. Obama is a FRAUD. He has not made a full disclosue of his birth record that can be verified.) Story Reports

By David Solway

Obama is the only president who has suppressed vital personal information; every other has made full disclosure.

The document released online is not an authentic birth certificate. It is the "short form" affidavit, a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) with standard information left out, such as the actual name of the birth hospital and the name of the attending physician. In "Dreams from My Father," Obama mentions having found his birth certificate, which, as it turns out, was then conveniently lost in a small house fire. Nor would the two announcements in Honolulu newspapers confirming his birth constitute proof of American citizenship or be accepted as such in a court of law, for obvious reasons.

Even if we refrain from coming to unequivocal conclusions on this file, it seems almost certain that his records must contain damaging information that could bring his presidency into serious, if not terminal disrepute.

How else would one explain the fact that his university transcripts and his records as an Illinois state legislator, like his "long-form" birth certificate, are inaccessible and that Obama has hired a team of lawyers to make sure they remain that way? This behavior is completely unprecedented in POTUS annals, and he should be duly challenged on it.

Requiring Obama to open his dossier is not a sign of conspiratorial suspicions; it is quite simply a civil responsibility and the most reasonable of demands since this is precisely what all U.S. presidents should do and have done. Shirking this responsibility, however, is largely a symptom of either moral cowardice or false propriety, irrespective of how it may be embroidered for public consumption or self-protection. Of course, there are some who demur out of a sense of fundamental decency which, we might note, goes unreciprocated by the president and his team.

So the obvious questions are: Why has Obama not consented to this request? Why does he not dispel suspicion by making his papers available to the public if he has nothing to fear? What makes him noli me tangere? What is he reluctant to shed light upon? Why is the debate about his origins not stopped dead in its tracks by the publication of valid, irrefutable documentation? And why are those who ask these logical and totally justifiable questions dismissed as madmen and conspiracy theorists? The conspiracy, it would seem, travels the other way.

And the farce goes on.

Why has the state of Hawaii passed a law allowing it to block requests for the release of Obama's birth certificate? Health Director Chiyome Fukino claims to have seen the authentic document – a valid copy not lost in a fire? – and obviously expects us to take her word for it without a single shred of evidence. Further – and this is crucial – why should Ms. Chiyome feel obliged to attest to having vetted the famous certificate if, as many of the president's supporters have claimed, including White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the question has long been settled and the certificate is already in the public domain?

There would be absolutely no need for such an affirmation if the matter were indeed settled. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. But since we are dealing with a COLB, what would prevent Hawaii from modifying or passing a law permitting it to issue a facsimile of the original birth certificate online or to the newspapers, thus putting the matter to rest once and for all? And why does Obama not file a petition and avail himself of this option? If everything is halal, it would surely be to his advantage to do so. His legitimacy would then be corroborated beyond the slightest ambiguity and fade from public consciousness, for as things stand the controversy is detrimental to the confidence a people must repose in its leader.

It is as if all the interested parties have taken a vow of omerta. In addition, one gets the distinct impression that the president's supporters wouldn't care if he were a holographic emanation, so long as he remains in power. (Obama has been described as the "teflon president," since no criticism or accusation sticks to him; but the "holographic president" might be just as accurate a designation, as he is a kind of ectoplasmic projection constructed by his own figments and velleities in tandem with a media machine working overtime.) Others are perfectly content to declare allegiance to a closed book, just as Obama is perfectly happy to keep the book closed. None of this makes any sense unless there is some form of deception at work. What else are we to reasonably assume? Can there be some other interpretation? If there is, let's hear it. Otherwise it is difficult to avoid the conjecture that we have been royally conned and are now confronted with a tainted presidency.

("we have been royally conned and are now confronted with a tainted presidency." I agree. A total FRAUD has been "elected president.) Story Reports

The evidence seems to point increasingly in this direction. Moreover, an integral part of the evidence calling the president's legitimacy into question is precisely the lack of available evidence, that is, what appears to be the willful and deliberate suppression of veridical data that would immediately put the issue to bed. It is very much like pleading the Fifth Amendment. One is exempt from incriminating oneself, which inevitably suggests that unpleasant facts lurk beneath the surface. The evasion is further accentuated when obstacles are purposely put in the path of revelation. This is so obvious as to provoke wonderment that such strategies of resistance and obscurantism are rarely queried by journalists, editors and public intellectuals. For where there's smoke, there's a gun, so to speak.

Master of mendacity: Obama and the birthers

No comments: