On January 18, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
fielded a question
from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about Barack Obama's birth certificate. Abercrombie, who knew Barack Obama, Sr and Ann Dunham when they reared the future president, said the state had evidence of Obama's birth -- as
for the Department of Health have been saying since 2008. (They've confirmed this to me, too.)
"It was actually written, I am told," said Abercrombie, "this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down."
Here's the headline that got in a WorldNetDaily story by Jerome Corsi:
Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate
Yes... that's not what he said at all, is it? More Corsi:
Suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that he wants to make public. Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.
This is basically gibberish. It doesn't matter what record Hawaii has. It matters that the state
has a record
, and that the record confirms what was reported in 1961 in the births sections of Hawaii newspapers. But this is the problem with birthers, and why I'm so bored with them. They reverse-engineer every bit of news to find gerunds and commas that may, perhaps, in a manner of speaking, prove that there is a shadow of a doubt of skepticism about Obama's birth.
Why bother mentioning this? A headline that's been on Drudge for two days:
So this junk is never going away.