If you don't know Media Matters, they describe their website as "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
That of course means they dedicate themselves to taking things out of context, like they did with their critique of my column. Since it is a well trafficked site (ranked 3,700 in the US by Alexa), I'll respond.
Had they read my whole column and not a part of it, they would have noticed up front that I'm not actually in the Birther Movement. I take Obama at his word on his Hawaiian birth until someone can show me the proof he was born in Kenya, which they haven't.
My point was that Obama has not released one original document, and if he did, this whole story would be gone. Even those who criticize my column won't venture an answer to why Obama won't just release his original birth cert and school records and punk the Birthers.
Other than that, I'm not in this fight.
Yet Media Matters, in an apparant attempt to pull me in, noted my column where I relate the Birther's argument that Obama's parents or grandparents could have put the two Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements in those papers, becaue that's where Obama's grandparents lived.
Media Matters points to a PolitiFact.com peice, where someone interviewed a current Hawaiian Newspaper Reporter, who said that the birth announcements come from the Department of Health, not the family.
Media Matters seems to suggest this is proving me wrong, not the Birthers.
Not only do I make clear that it is a Birther argument not mine (Media Matters ignores that) I also come to the conclusion that the newspaper birth announcements weigh against the Birthers and in favor of Obama (Media Matters ingnores that too).
Fine. I'll let Media Matters drag me into this arguement for one brief moment.
I received a message from a commenter on JustifiedRight.com who uses the handle Scattergood. According to Scattergood, if a baby were born outside of Hawaii (say in Kenya) the parents can later register the birth in Hawaii (you know, like if you married a Kenyan man and needed an anchor baby to keep him in the country).
Here is the Hawaiian statute Scattergood refers to:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Take note that this statute was passed in 1982, but Scattergood's research is that there was a similar statute in effect when Obama was born.
So, that would mean that the Newspaper birth annoucements could have been generated after Obama's parents returned to Hawaii and registered his birth.
Ok, now I'm back out of this debate.
I maintain, even more forcefully now, that Obama should release his original birth certificate and his school records to end this debate.
Any Obama-bots want to tell me a good reason why he won't? What harm will come to him if he does?