Birthers' argument actually has weight

Although I have been somewhat hands-off about the "birthers'" argument concerning President Obama and the questions surrounding his birth -- primarily because I believe the American population deserves whomever they elect to the office of president -- I want to pipe in on the negative public-relations campaign certainly orchestrated by the Democrats and their allies in media to discredit the birthers without discrediting the argument.

Whenever I go into an argument, I bring facts. Facts are the best basis to win an argument and make others look ignorant. Unfortunately, it would seem the media and political discourse just want to throw around the label "ignorant" against those who support the birther argument without really dealing with the facts. It is sad when reason is being beat up by public-relations ploys.

First, a birth certificate is a public -- not private -- document that banks, employers, schools and just about any private citizen can request -- either voluntarily or by fee with vital records of any county. That this document cannot be provided by the president or a litany of other sources in meeting constitutional requirements is absolutely unbelievable.

Second, when Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie decided to put the whole controversy to rest by providing the birth certificate, he could not find it, while assuring everybody that it was in the archives -- then was told not to further pursue the matter by the White House administration. Why would the White House pressure the governor not to provide a public document?

Third, a "certificate of live birth" and a "birth certificate" are not the same. It is said that a "certificate of live birth" is on display on the Internet concerning Obama. Although a number of folks question its authenticity, overall, accept it as authentic because a certificate of live birth is written up for infants and sometimes young children when they are presented to a hospital and have no record of a birth certificate. This is so a Social Security number can be provided.

Fourth, why was there actually a senatorial hearing (with then-Sen. Obama) concerning this matter if all the necessary documentation was legitimate and without questions?

Lastly, and more subjectively, the decisions this president has made since taking office all are inherently un-American policy approaches. This includes the "Great American Apology Tour," as named by pundits because President Obama goes on all foreign soils to apologize for America being America; the overt application of socialism; and wealth redistribution plans for specific, targeted groups within the population.

That is really strong evidence that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore does not meet the constitutional prerequisites to be president. Thirty-two percent of Republicans, 26 percent of independents and 11 percent of Democrats feel the birthers' argument is legitimate. You'd be crazy to think all of those individuals were "ignorant."

Will Tinney

Aiken, S.C.

More