Democrats Force 'Birther' Issue to Rise Again: What Gives?

Am I the only curious cat in America who thinks it rather odd that the newly elected governor of Hawaii -- a liberal Democrat -- has just forced the “Birther” issue to rise again?

Not only has Hawaii’s governor-elect, Neil Abercrombie, just announced that he is on a mission to bury the “Birther” issue,  but Chris “Obama-sends-a-tingle-up-my-leg” Matthews now wants to know why President Obama doesn’t release the darned document and put this relentlessly pursuing ghost to rest once and for all.

If Abercrombie and Matthews were utterly desperate Republican operatives, hog-tied to a sinking political ship, I might understand the newly reincarnated brouhaha. But both these men are as-liberal-as-liberal-gets Democrats. And Republicans, at this juncture, are anything but desperate.  They are set to begin the 112th Congress with the clout of a mid-term election landslide not seen since 1938.

So, what on earth would motivate a governor-elect with more real problems than any sane man would want on his plate to go fiddling around in an issue which for all intents and purposes is as dead as a doornail?

It simply makes no sense in the real world, where real unemployment still hovers at double-digits, where the president is about to face a real hostile Congress, and in an atmosphere where the season’s holly- jolly spirit is about to melt faster than snow on the ground in Atlanta.

If you ask me, this folderol of reincarnating the “Birther” issue by two prominent liberal Democrats just smacks of orchestrated political psy-ops. Hoping to get a prominent and public rise out of Republicans and/or conservative pundits, these two utterly loyal-to-the-president guys -- Abercrombie and Matthews -- are simply creating a diversion in the hopes that their party can regain some of the traction it’s lost over the past 2 years.

Now, I’ve never fit the standard, press-defined definition of a “Birther.”  I do believe that the president was born in Hawaii.  I’ve written only one column on the “Birther” controversy and that was back in August 2009.  As I opined back then, the whole controversy has legs because of the complete dearth of documentation regarding this president.  No presidential candidate of the past 30 years has been permitted the level of secrecy and non-disclosure that President Obama received.

To date the following are all undisclosed:

1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate

2) Marriage license between Obama's father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) -- not found, not released

3) Obama's  baptism records -- sealed

4) Obama's adoption records -- sealed

5) Records of Obama's and his mother's repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from Indonesia -- not found, not released

6) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records -- not found, not released

7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) -- not released

8 ) Punahou School financial aid or school records -- not released

9) Occidental College financial aid records -- not released.

10) Columbia College records -- not released

11) Columbia senior thesis -- not released

12) Harvard Law School records -- not released

13) Obama's law  client list -- sealed

14) Obama's files from career as an Illinois state senator -- sealed

15) Obama's record with Illinois State Bar Association -- sealed

16)  Obama's medical records -- not released

17) Obama's passport records -- not released

In my opinion -- as a civics-minded citizen -- Obama’s as yet unreleased original long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii is merely the tip of a mysterious iceberg when it comes to the 44th president of the United States.  Any journalist worth an ounce of salt would be curious as to why any presidential candidate would conceal nearly every documented item from his own past.  Obviously, America does not have many remaining curious journalists.