There’s a story within the story of Barack Obama’s refusal to show the American people anything other than the so-called “short-form” birth certificate.

In fact, there are a multitude of stories within the story.

We always have to start with the reasons it is not acceptable for determining something as important as eligibility for the presidency.

I recently conducted a little experiment. I called three passport offices with the following apocryphal tale: I said I needed to apply for a passport but only had a short-form certification of live birth from Hawaii. Would that suffice? The three passport offices I contacted were in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

Hawaii said “no problem.”

Washington and Virginia both said no way.

Same country, different responses.

On the edge of a constitutional crisis … learn the facts in WND’s comprehensive “Obama Eligibility Primer”

In fact, if you visit most post offices around the country, you will see signs posted about passport application requirements that specifically say, “no certifications of life birth,” must be long form.

So here we are. The one document Barack Obama’s campaign released to prove he was constitutionally eligible to serve as president may not be good enough to get a passport, unless you apply in Hawaii.

And the reason for that is obvious: It’s not reliable. It’s not real, hard evidence of an actual birth to specific parents at a specific time and a specific place. There are too many ways to get one dishonestly. And they are easy to forge.

Which is why I question, in this age of rampant identity theft and digital manipulation, the move by Hawaii and other states to accept such unreliable documents.

It’s much harder to forge an actual birth certificate – the kind signed by a doctor, the kind that is a contemporaneous record of an eyewitness event.

It’s bad public policy for sure.

Let me share another little anecdote. I have a close friend who serves as human resources director of a large company. The company has a policy that all employees must provide proof of eligibility of their dependents who will get health-insurance benefits.

For instance, if you want your spouse to get benefits, you have to provide a marriage certificate and a current bill, or other document, that shows both spouses’ names.

That’s what I call due diligence. Think about it. That’s more than was required of Barack Obama to prove he was eligible to become president. And guess what! This private company found the short form wholly inadequate for the purpose of proving dependency!

It’s amazing!

Yet, so many people in America – especially among the anointed watchdogs of the Big Media – think it’s ridiculous to ask the president of the United States to show a document routinely required of the rest of us peasants for matters of far less gravity.

And we have a president who plays the victim for being asked – even while some Americans are going to prison over their doubts about his eligibility.

Go figure.

Who was it that said there’s a sucker born every minute? P.T. Barnum never dissociated himself from it, even if it’s questionable whether he actually uttered it.

In any case, it seems to apply.

But I suspect most people who give Obama a pass on this have motives other than actual belief. Either they don’t know the facts or they would give Obama a pass if they caught him red-handed committing a felony.

So, what do you think?

Do you think the requirements for becoming president of the United States should be more lax than the requirements for getting health benefits for a dependent?

Do you think the requirements for becoming president of the United States should be more lax than the requirements for getting a passport?

Do you think it’s crazy to continue to demand of Barack Obama the proof the Constitution requires?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.