Why it was right, then and now, to be highly suspicious of Obama’s putative birth certificate
When Obama released an image of his supposed birth certificate about a year ago, I did not get into the vexed issue of whether it was fake or or not. It was too difficult for me to follow the technical question of how the image might have been faked, and to form an opinion about it.
However, what I should have done was to bring forward again the comical saga of Hawaii governor and former congressman Neil Abercrombie and his aborted search for the birth certificate, because it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that prior to revealing the supposed birth certificate, the White House was concealing it and everyone had the right to believe they were concealing it.
Here is the key text from the January 2011 entry, “What birthers need to do now,” in which I sum up the meaning of the Abercrombie episode:
As a result of Gov. Abercrombie’s lurching behavior and statements, we now know with virtually absolute certainty that Obama’s birth certificate (the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate) does not exist in the state of Hawaii records. How do we know this? We know it because in December Abercrombie noisily announced his intention of finding and releasing Obama’s birth certificate. Then he immediately went silent on the issue for several weeks. Then, at the end of a newspaper interview on political matters, a reporter asked him how the search for the birth certificate was going, and the governor mentioned some “recording” he had found “written down” in the state records. He didn’t mention the birth certificate. If he had found the birth certificate, he would have said so. Then a day or two later the governor announced that he was terminating his search for the birth certificate because Obama had not given his consent for the birth certificate to be released. Obviously that last announcement—that the birth certificate could not be released—contradicted the governor’s inadvertent confession to the reporter that the birth certificate could not be found.My present point is that when Obama did release the supposed b.c., and all the Democrats began screaming that this showed that the b.c. had always existed and that the birthers were a bunch of crazy haters, the birthers and conservatives generally, having failed to pick up up on the decisive significance of the Abercrombie affair earlier in 2011, did not use it to show that prior to the supposed b.c. being revealed, the record clearly demonstrated either that it did not exist or that Obama had been concealing it.
Laura G. writes:
Thank you for bringing back the birth certificate issue, which I realize is an inconvenient issue and in some ways beside the major points and trajectory of your inestimable blogsite. I have to take issue with you regarding your opinion that the birthers (we prefer to call ourselves Constitutionalists) had failed to advocate that since the Hawaii Governor had already told a reporter that he had looked and couldn’t find it, therefore the long form which Obama subsequently posted was a lie. On the contrary, “birthers” were fully aware and were as vocal as possible to be that the Gov had stated that he couldn’t find that elusive form, and in fact, the Gov had said that he had had a search warrant and nevertheless couldn’t find a birth certificate, couldn’t find a hospital record for Obama’s birth, and couldn’t find the hospital record for the putative mother.LA replies:
I do not remember, at the time Obama released his putative b.c., birthers pointing to the Abercrombie incident as definitive proof that prior to this, the b.c. had been either non-existent or concealed. They may have done; I just wasn’t aware of it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2012 12:21 PM | Send