The new governor of Hawaii has made it clear in interviews with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and other media that he’s going to war with those of us who demand proof of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency.
So be it.
Hawaii’s stonewalling on the most innocent and critical document necessary to proving Obama is a “natural born citizen” hasn’t worked. It has only increased the suspicion – as stonewalling usually does.
Now Neil Abercrombie, a longtime friend of Obama, says he’s going to try to find a way to clear up this issue before the next presidential election, when, it is likely, Obama will be forced to prove his eligibility to get on the ballots of at least some states.
Abercrombie says he may be the only person around who can say he was there when that baby – Obama – was born. But he also admits he wasn’t actually in the hospital, just that he was friends with Obama’s parents.
“It’s an insult to his mother and to his father, and I knew his mother and father; they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that,” Abercrombie told the New York Times. “It’s an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office.”
Au contraire. What is disrespectful to the office is to permit someone to take it without proving his constitutional eligibility.
But the good news is this: Abercrombie said he has initiated conversations with the state’s attorney general and the chief of its health department about how he can release more explicit documentation of Obama’s birth Aug. 4, 1961, at what he claims was the Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Abercrombie has claimed the hospital as the birthplace, though the hospital itself has steadfastly refused to do so.
Abercrombie acknowledges what has become obvious to all but the Big Media – the questions about Obama’s birth and eligibility for office have only grown stronger in the last two years, with some 58 percent of Americans doubtful about the official story, according to a CNN poll.
“I’m going to take care of that,” he said.
I for one sincerely doubt Abercrombie’s effort will include releasing the long-form birth certificate, which seems as elusive as the Holy Grail.
Instead, judging from his many interviews just before Christmas, it seems Abercrombie wants to offer himself as some kind of eyewitness. However, there are problems with his story.
While not claiming to have been present at the hospital for the birth (not one living person has come forward to make that claim), Abercrombie claims instead to have seen the baby present at social functions with the parents. The trouble with that explanation is that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. did not live together as man and wife after that baby was born. Two weeks after the Aug. 4, 1961, birthdate, documents reveal Dunham was attending college in Seattle.
Anecdotal stories are not enough to prove constitutional eligibility. Official documents are necessary for that task, just as they were when the U.S. Senate put John McCain to the test of eligibility and examined his long-form birth certificate in 2008.
Abercrombie is hardly an impartial witness. Like Obama, he has a lifelong record of involvement with socialist organizations, but steadfastly denies he’s a socialist.
He was also directly involved with a fundraiser for the Kapi’olani Hospital in which the institution briefly claimed Obama as one of its own, even sporting what purported to be a letter from the White House that was read by Abercrombie. However, upon questioning from WND, the letter was withdrawn from the hospital website along with any other claims that Obama was born there.
It leaves me wondering as always, why can’t we just see the birth certificate?
What’s the big secret it holds?
Why not just release it?
Why all the mystery?