Hawaii lawmakers want release of Obama birth info … Five Hawaii Democratic representatives want to pass a law making President Barack Obama's birth records public and charge $100 to see them. The bill, introduced this week, would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records to anyone unless they have a tangible interest. The measure hasn't been scheduled for a public hearing yet, and can't move forward until that happens. – AP
Dominant Social Theme: President Barack Obama is an American citizen by birth.
Free-Market Analysis: One of the most persistent controversies in the US has to do with whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Those who maintain he is not have come to be known by the derisive term "birthers" and their argument is that if Obama was not born in the US, then he is not eligible to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama maintain that the issue is a kind of racist red herring and now there is a movement to make his certificate public (see article excerpt above).
Such arguments as the birthers make have been relegated to the outer fringes of political discourse. However, the Obama administration has spent over US$1 million fighting against various legal challenges that seek to gain access to his birth records, and this secrecy continually fuels speculation he has something to hide. Additionally, the America president has sealed various records from public view, including information pertaining to his childhood, junior high, high-school and college academic records.
The furor over Obama's birth records, seemed to have died down recently, but the new Governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie, a childhood friend of Obama's, reignited the controversy by vowing to find the original document pertaining to Obama's birth – the so-called long form. The Obama administration has released the so-called short form birth certificate, which is a certificate issued by the Hawaiian government attesting to Obama's birth in Hawaii. But this is not the same as the actual certificate of birth, the long form.
The controversy was further fueled when Abercrombie apparently failed to find the so-called long form, or at least was unable to produce it. Governor Abercrombie later said that laws in Hawaii prevented him from making the form available without the president's permission. He apparently noted, however, that there were various references to Obama's birth in Hawaii records.
In the most recent wrinkle, however, a syndicated radio host and longtime friend of Governor Abercrombie claimed the governor had told him directly that he was unable to find the original document, and then not much later retracted the claim. In retracting the claim, the radio host Mike Evans explained that he had never spoken to the governor directly, only to the governor's office. He seemed to stand by the larger thrust of statements, however, stating, according to reports, that, "Talking to Neil's office, Neil says he searched everywhere using his power as Governor at the Kapi'olani women's and children' s hospital and the Queen's hospital, the only places where kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born."
While the reignited furor may be dying down with the Governor's statement clarifying the status of the search, there are larger political actions being taken as a result of the controversy. In the past few days it has emerged that legislators at up to ten states (with 107 Electoral College votes) have made preliminary efforts to address loopholes that allowed Barack Obama to be elected without providing proof under the U.S. Constitution that he is eligible to be president.
According to the alternative news site World Net Daily which has remained stubbornly at the front of this issue, the new legislation being contemplated goes far beyond demanding an affidavit from a candidate, as New Hampshire now does, stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met. Here's some more from World Net Daily:
In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation. Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land. His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens" …
According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan. There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529. Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.
The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates. Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.
[The] plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced. The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass. In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors. The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House.
There are ramifications to the controversy that far exceed even the grave question of the president's eligibility under the Constitution. Of late, we have noticed a considerable uptick in information on the 'Net regarding the larger status of the United States and the secret history of its legal status. There are those who maintain that another version of the United States has replaced the initial republic as a result of bankruptcy back in the 1930s or even earlier. The new version is supposedly a corporate one that has pledged as collateral its real-estate and human capital to a small group of intergenerational, banking families located mostly in Britain.
According to this theory, Barack Obama does not need to be an American citizen, as he is the head of a corporation that does not pay heed to the Constitution except from a public relations point of view. While this perspective certainly sounds unbelevable, and even impossible, we would not be surprised if over the next few years it is explored in some detail on the Internet. If those leaders running the republic early in the 20th century did in some sense secretly declare bankruptcy and then create something else, the ramifications, once generally known, would be extraordinary.
We often point out that the Internet is a process not an episode. The "birther" controversy has not been dealt with adequately by the mainstream media and now it is back in the news and has generated a serious legislative response. A number of other power-elite promotions are in the process of being similarly exposed. Global warming comes to mind.
In the 20th century, Western elites controlled every type of media and were able to control the messaging as well. In the 21st century, this control has given way to the truth-telling of the Internet; the ramifications are increasingly noticeable. While the power elite's goal is evidently and obviously some sort of world government, the steady undermining of its manipulative, fear-based promotions is destabilizing its larger campaign. Barack Obama, as an handpicked agent of the elites (in our view) is now coming under serious attack as regards his eligibility, and this may have serious, wider repercussions.
No matter what happens over the next two years in terms of Obama's presidency, the various bills now making their way through state houses will make the release of more information about a potential president's birthplace mandatory. Such legislation will likely result in the necessity for Obama to produce the long form that he and his supporters have yet to produce. If he is not willing to produce it, he may not be eligible to run again.
The stakes are high, but what is of even more import is the historical status of the United States itself. This is a discussion that may be even more substantive and disruptive than the furor over Obama's birth-nation. As modern history shows, new communication technologies are making forms of elite "damage control" ineffective. The resonance of this new paradigm far exceeds any specific issue and will have more and more impact as the 21st century unfolds.