How Sturdy Is the Obama Narrative that 'Keeps Us Silent'? -- American Thinker

[bsteadman]

How Sturdy Is the Obama Narrative that 'Keeps Us Silent'?

American Thinker
Monte Kuligowski
4/7/2012

Excerpt:

"Count Roger Kimball in among those who recognize the totalitarian atmosphere somehow created to protect President Obama. The entire range of questions related to Mr. Obama's possible ineligibility for the presidency has been rendered taboo.

Recently, Kimball wrote a piece affirming the brave observations of Diana West found in her piece, "Silence of the Lapdogs." In her essay, West explains why the incriminating findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team are not common knowledge.

Regarding the nativity story of Barack Obama, Kimball notes that "(i)t's not just that you are not allowed to express certain opinions about the subject. You are not even allowed to publicly entertain any questions about it."

The accepted Obama narrative has been a secure fortress for Obama. The president stays inside its walls unruffled, with lifted chin. The narrative "keeps us silent" even though in reality it's a house of cards.

To present the accepted narrative I will use the words which John Hawkins wrote in response to Mr. Kimball's piece linked to above, "Annals of censorship."

I choose John Hawkins not because I find his thinking and writing abilities to be on par with Kimball's, but because Hawkins nicely encapsulates the narrative blindly accepted by so many.

Mr. Hawkins begins his piece, "Nobody is censoring birther nonsense," with: "Respectfully, I have to say that Roger Kimball is so far off base here that he's practically on the wrong planet." Hawkins ironically dismisses the following, believing any discussion on the subject is "silliness:"

The most effective form of censorship is also the quietest. It operates not by actively proscribing speech but by rendering certain topics hors de combat, literally undiscussable. It does this by propagating an atmosphere of revulsion and taboo. Ordinary censorship prohibits the dissemination of particular opinions or bits of information. The more subtle engine of silence I have in mind goes further. It stanches not only the flow of speech but also the flow of thought. Ordinary censorship occupies itself with the results of human curiosity. What I am talking about attacks human curiosity itself.

In the opinion of Hawkins, Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi are "professional con men" because questions on the birth narrative "[have] been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Mr. Hawkins provides four reasons to show us why continued discussion, let alone inquiry on the birth certificate matter, is "nonsense."

Number one: Hawkins reminds us that "Obama released his certificate of live birth." (From his context, Hawkins apparently meant to say "certification" of live birth.)

We have to note from the outset that images were posted online in 2008. No certified copy was ever "released" to state election officials, nor was the original made available for inspection by state officials. Mr. Obama's eligibility is a legal question, and the legal standard for production of documents does not include internet postings -- not even by the White House or the Daily Kos.

For reasons beyond the scope of this piece, Hawaii had unique birth registration laws in 1961.

One feature that Arpaio's team confirmed should have been common knowledge: Hawaii birth documentation has been provided to individuals known to have been foreign-born. Under such circumstances, generally a certification of live birth is generated for foreign births under Hawaii Revised Statute §338-17.8.

What also must be recognized is that parents have claimed home births in Hawaii to acquire certificates of birth. It is quite possible that Obama has a "delayed certificate" in Hawaii's archives (which would support the statement by Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, that Obama's birth certificate is half-typed and half-handwritten -- see below).

Based on Hawaii's laws and its documented tendency to certify foreign births as Hawaiian, the most we may objectively conclude is that Obama's birth was registered in 1961, and the Hawaii Department of Health has information on Obama in its vital records archives.

Hawaii's birth registration laws go hand-in-hand with Hawkins's second reason to show that "birthers" are propagating nonsense: "In a print copy of the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, there's a notice that Barack Obama was born."

Actually, two Honolulu newspapers contain identical birth announcements for Obama. The Sunday Advertiser and the Star Bulletin notices read, in full: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug 4." Do those announcements really sound like they were placed by a doting grandmother?

No, because they weren't. They were routine public notices which were automatically generated by the registration of Obama's birth. This isn't rocket science. The scant notices do not require some crazy conspiracy theory. No one had to "think ahead" to the day when little Barack Junior would someday run for president. Those who advance the idea that a conspiracy theory is needed for one to conclude insufficient evidence (of Hawaii birth) in context of the birth notices are the ones talking "nonsense."

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...us_silent.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, "How Sturdy Is the Obama Narrative that 'Keeps Us Silent'?", which was started 4/7/2012 by 'afraidfortherepublic'

The thread references the 4/7/2012 American Thinker article, having the same title, by Monte Kuligowski.

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2869256/posts

The following is COMMENT #11, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"There are two big issues that the public needs to know but doesn’t seem to grasp yet. I don’t know if Sheriff Joe is going to get into these things or not.

The first regards the HDOH itself. They have falsified records including the BC#’s of Stig Waidelich and Virginia Sunahara and the 1960-64 birth index. Loretta Fuddy has committed misprision of forgery and fraud by refusing to tell anybody that the long-form Obama presented as genuine is in fact a forgery. They are breaking the law by refusing to allow a man to see the original hospital-generated birth certificate of his deceased sister. I could go on and on about the reasons that nothing the HDOH says or produces should be trusted. People need to know that. They need to know why it is imperative that we forensically examine microfilms, original paper records, and computer transaction logs to see what has been done to all these records in the database - because there is a history of records manipulation and law-breaking BY THE HDOH ITSELF.

The second regards the newspaper birth announcements. If those were put out by the HDOH, then why is there no birth announcement for Virginia Sunahara and hundreds of other August births that show up in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report? Why were the Nordyke twins’ births (and many others as well) announced in the Advertiser but not the Star-Bulletin? Why are there sometimes weeks between when the Advertiser reported a birth and when the Star-Bulletin reported the same birth?

Like the HDOH’s manipulation of records, there has been manipulation of the newspaper microfilms, since scratches that appear on earlier copies are missing from later copies, and many of the actual microfilms in libraries are clearly not of a microfilming quality to have been the microfilms that were produced by the microfilming company. They were obviously produced by somebody else.

And the stories we were told about how the original images came out before the election are documentably false. Two different posters on conservative blogs claimed they had personally gone to the Hawaii State Library and made copies from the Star-Bulletin microfilms when, in fact, both those copies AND a copy that Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com had been given by somebody at the Advertiser office were identical SCANS that are provably NOT from the HSL (since the HSL microfilm after that time lacked major scratches that were in that image).

The Advertiser image was given to Lori Starfelt by a librarian whose image did not follow the standard protocol (full-page image with copyright notice) and was deliberately blurred. The only readable portion had about 4 announcements showing. A full-page image was finally produced by somebody at Wikileaks under the name of Jeena Paradies, as a PDF with optical character recognition (a format that allows manipulation of the text within an image). That image had C&P lines directly below the announcement right under Obama’s and had C&P lines going into the left-hand margin a few announcements above Obama’s. The Wikileaks version was given to Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened by somebody at the Advertiser office and the Wikileaks page was taken down. Later the Advertiser printed an image with the full page deliberately blurred and the only readable portion being the same 4-announcement snip that Starfelt was originally given by the HSL librarian.

The media relies so heavily on the birth announcements but legal investigations don’t necessarily go into the birth announcements because they have no legal value. When I and my colleagues started researching the announcements it was pretty much out of idle curiosity because Obama’s supposed Hawaii birth could easily have been reported by Madelyn Dunham and a birth announcement created so the presence of a birth announcement proves nothing. But the deeper we looked into this, the more I became convinced that there never was an announcement for Barack Obama’s birth in those newspapers in 1961. IF there had been, there would have been no reason for the funny business we’ve seen."