World net daily was one of the first sites on the web I started reading a bit ago nearly a decade ago. It was covering stories online when almost nobody else was. Lately I find myself reading it less and less as the focus is increasingly on the “Birther” business as a top headline. It seems to be almost becoming CNN with Michael Jackson as in All “Birther” all the “Time”.
Their latest story concerning which hospital the president was actually born at. Apparently there are conflicting reports.
In an official letter signed by Obama on White House stationery, the president celebrates his birth at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. The facility has posted that letter on its website, along with video of the letter being read in public.
But according to Snopes, the popular online hoax-buster that many rely on as the final word on both important and frivolous stories, Obama was born at a different hospital in the Hawaiian capital.
In Snopes’ entry concerning allegations that Obama is a “radical Muslim,” the site addresses the birth history of the commander in chief, stating, “Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
WND took a screen shot of the entry and highlighted the name of the hospital.
(Note: Within 90 minutes of this WND story being posted, Snopes swapped the hospital of birth to indicate Obama was born at Kapi’olani, but noted some ambiguity by stating, “News accounts have also variously placed his birth as having occurred at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”)
Now like any newspaper WND’s primary job is to “sell” itself. It also has a particular World View and in a throwback to the journalism 100+ years ago doesn’t pretend that it doesn’t have the bias’ it does which is very refreshing.
I must confess that I can’t get myself excited about any of this. There are enough oddities to warrant interested reporting (For example If I ran the hospital a president was born in I’d want to promote it). I will also concede that president Obama is less that forthcoming on many issues and as Jim Geraghty has pointed out, all of his statements come with an expiration date.
However the certificate of live birth IS a on official document of the state that certifies an event. If it would be acceptable in other cases it is acceptable here.
And lets face it (and this is the nitty gritty to me) Does anyone really think that the Clintons of Paula Jones, The Rose Law Firm records, the Clintons of the FBI files and the Travel office, the Clintons of Juanita Broderick, the Clinton’s for which Susan McDougal went to jail rather than talk and for which a Sandy Berger was willing to smuggle and destroy documents out of the national archives years after they were out of office. The Clintons of Monica. Are you REALLY willing to tell me that those Clintons would not have used this if there was ANY chance of there being a there there? Any chance at all?
Consider the following statement:
The Clintons would do ANYTHING to win the presidency.
Can any conservative honestly say that at any time before fall of 2007 they would have denied that statement? Any Conservative? No religious belief requires half the faith necessary to deny that basic fact.
I suspect few if any of people who support the “Where’s the birth certificate” business would have denied it.
Nobody is telling me that two years later and the Presidency in their grasp they would suddenly have a change of heart, the very fact that the presidency might have been slipping away would have made it even more likely.
It’s not quite the physics of the Popular Mechanics takedown of the 9/11 truther fools but to me it’s as close as it gets. Until you can cross that hurdle I have to conclude that there is no there there.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 