There once was a time when the refusal of a politician to release a document would provoke editorials demanding that the document be made public.  Journalists were suspicious of politicians who kept secrets.  Journalists were concerned that  politicians who kept secrets might be covering up scandalous behavior.

So why  no editorials about President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to release a copy of his  original  birth certificate or at least allow a representative group of journalists examine it?

Would journalists be as trusting of a Republican politician?  Have they forgotten William "I never had sexual relations with that woman"  Clinton?

Obama is from Illinois, a state with bipartisan corruption.  The current governor, a Democrat, seems destined to join his Republican predecessor in jail for selling favors. 

Real journalists should be naturally suspicious of all politicians,  because con artists can sometimes sound more convincing than those who are telling the truth.  
  
Ordinary citizens have to provide copies of birth certificates  to apply for Social Security or  even renew drivers'  licenses they have had for decades.  Why is it unreasonable to require someone wanting to be president to provide something more than a vague Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" to prove he is a citizen?  No one is going to use the information to steal his identity.

Hawaiin officials will only confirm that he has a birth certificate on file, but not that it indicates he was born in Hawaii.  Hawaii allows parents who are Hawaiian residents to register the births of children   born elsewhere.

Real journalists would be asking what Obama is covering up instead of supporting his secrecy.  Real journalists wouldn't be surprised that many suspect Obama is covering up a major problem such as the possibility he wasn't born in the U.S..  

After all why else would he want to keep the document secret?  He's already been elected and any embarassing information contained in it cannot change  the election results. Releasing the document won't compromise national security -- the reason often given for wanting to keep foreign policy related documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, secret.

I don't know if Obama was born in the U.S.  or not,  but  I know he could easily have  eliminated doubts by  allowing Hannity and Colmes or some other journalists to examine his original birth certificate. 

By allowing Obama to keep his birth records secret, the media may  cause Obama to think he can get away with refusing to release other documents that might contain damaging information.

Are those who call themselves journalists refusing to challenge Obama because they are afraid if they look behind the curtain that  they will discover  their "wonderful wizard of oz" isn't a wonderful wizard after all. 

 

The problem with reporters and other Democrats is that they have memories like a VHS tape.  When they get to the end of the tape, they begin recording over what they used to know. 

The Main Stream Media (MSM) and other Democrats may be about to make the same mistake they made in 1992.  They may again ignore  potential problems with  their presidential candidate.

In 1992 the MSM  minimized  claims that  Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton  was a womanizer.  The MSM and the Democratic accepted  his claim that he had only had one affair for which his wife had forgiven him.  Other politicians would subsequently follow the same format when they got caught with their pants  down. 

Another  potential problem involved  one of the many investigations involving the various savings and loan failures.  The Justice Department had discovered the  Clintons might be linked to a failed Arkansas savings and loan.  Democrats ignored the potential damage that the Whitewater  investigation might cause.

Six years later Bill Clinton's womanizing would produce a major scandal and White House intern Monica Lewinsky would become an instant celebrity.  Whitewater and Monicagate would become intertwined when  Clinton lied to a federal judge.  

As a  result of the scandal Clinton was impeached.  Although the Senate didn't vote him out of office, he and his party were weakened.  Even worse, Clinton tried to preserve his administration by provoking a confrontation with Iraq that resulted in the U.N. inspectors leaving the country.  Had the inspectors remained in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that President George W. Bush could have persuaded Congress  to support an invasion of Iraq.

There are allegations that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and thus cannot meet the Contitutional requirement of being a "natural born citizen".  If he was born in Hawaii he could easily prove it by authorizing Hawaiin officials to show his original birth certificate to the media.  Instead, Obama has provided only an electronic copy of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth.     

Electronic copies of documents and pictures are too easy to forge to provide convincing evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.  Indeed an expert named  Texasdude has analyzed the document and considers it a forgery.

I don't know where Obama was born, but his response thus far implies that he wasn't born in Hawaii.  Those who suggest he might have been born in Kenya and his mother than flew back to Hawaii to make it appear he was born there provide no evidence to support their theory.  I cannot automatically dismiss the theory because many Mexican mothers take risks to cross the border into the U.S. so their babies can be U.S. citizens.

Texas Darlin suggests that his original birth certificate might have been sealed after his stepfather Lolo Soetoro adopted him and a new birth certificate in the name of Barry Soetoro issued.   Under this more plausible theory,  Obama may want to suppress the truth because it would indicate he once was named Barry Soetoro, but failed to note the fact on subsequent  government documents.  Texas Darlin believes Republicans have a copy of Obama's birth certificate.  If they do and it would hurt Obama they probably won't leak it to the media until after he is approved as the Democratic party candidate. 

An official adoption  by an Indonesian  man would mean Obama would have become an Indonesian ctiizen under Indonesian law.  Obama wouldn't have lost U.S. citizenship because the change was involuntary on his part, but he probably would have had to make some type of official statement that he wished to be a U.S. citizen after he became an adult.  It might be possible that holding citizenship in another country, even if involuntary, would mean he no longer qualified as a "natural born citizen".       

Democrats need to get this issue cleared up before they approve Obama as their candidate.  They could end up with a candidate who is unelectable.  Democrats  lost in 2004 in part because the truth about John Kerry's service in Vietnam didn't come out until after Democrats approved him as their candidate.