Born in the USA

Say what you will about Barack Obama's performance as President of the United States, you have to give him credit for a masterful performance this week in his handling of the "birth certificate" issue.

Memo to Trump - Be Careful What You Wish For

After years of demanding release of Obama's "long form" birth certificate, Republicans finally got what they wanted - or, rather, didn't want.  Tea Party members and the other assorted right wing nut jobs, who seem to comprise an increasingly large portion of the Republican Party these days, have for months been arguing that the "short form" certificate that Obama released two years ago was - for reasons never explained - invalid, even though as a legal matter it constitutes proof of birth in the U.S.  The conspiracy theorists who maintained that Obama was actually born in Kenya, Indonesia or wherever, pointed to the non-disclosure of the long-form certificate as proof of their case.  With a few notable exceptions - Mitt Romney among them - Republican leaders who could have put a stop to the nonsense long ago, didn't have the guts to risk alienating the fringe. They parsed their words carefully.  They conceded when pressed that they "took the President at his word" but suggested in the same breath that others were justified in questioning it.

Then enter stage (far) right Donald Trump, the self-promoting real estate developer and TV reality show performer, who is supposedly flirting with a run for the Presidency.  Trump is a buffoon and has no serious policy proposals to offer, but he knows the "birther" issue plays well to a lot of the people who vote in Republican primaries, not to mention Fox News. Traipsing back and forth across the country with the media in tow, Trump elevated the issue of Obama's place of birth to front page headlines.  He claimed to have hired investigators to go to Hawaii to poke around.  He suggested darkly they had uncovered an lot of interesting information that Trump would reveal "in due course".  In response to a question as to whether he would disclose his tax returns (many observers question whether Trump has anywhere near the "several billions" he claims and the tax returns would throw some light on this) he promised to do so if Obama disclosed his long form birth certificate.  On Wednesday, as Trump prepared to give a press conference in New Hampshire, at which he would no doubt have beaten the "birther" drum yet again, the White House suddenly released the long form certificate and Barack Obama convened a news conference of his own.

The news media carried two sharply contrasting images that night.  The first was Trump, who leads some Republican opinion polls, pontificating in front of a battery of microphones about how he deserved credit for accomplishing something that nobody else had been able to do - securing release of the birth certificate. But without missing a beat he segued immediately into his next conspiracy theory:  how did Obama, who he had "heard" didn't get good grades at school, end up going to Columbia University and Harvard Law School.  The racial sub-text, namely that Obama may have been an undeserving beneficiary of affirmative action, is obvious and repugnant.

The second image was of Obama, behind his Presidential podium, jacket off and sleeves rolled up, earnestly vowing that he won't allow debate over the nations's pressing economic problems to be be sidetracked by "sideshows and carnival barkers".  He didn't mention Trump by name, but he didn't have to.  The reference was dismissive, almost contemptuous, and deservedly so.

Political pundits continue to debate why the White House chose to release the document when it did.  Some say they shouldn't have done it, that it showed weakness and will open the door to yet more demands - for academic transcripts, for example.  Others point to polls showing that a quarter of the electorate doubted whether Obama was born in the U.S.  Some said he should have released it earlier.

But I think Obama handled the release of the birth certificate to perfection.  He allowed Trump and his acolytes at Fox News just enough time to renew the phony debate over the birth certificate issue to remind independent voters how extreme and out of touch with reality the Republican party has become.  The Republicans duly obliged, and Obama cut them off at the knees.  He made them look foolish.  They compounded that appearance by the absurd charge that the White House only made public the long-form birth certificate public in order to distract attention from the nation's economic problems.  And wi

Rather than concede defeat, some on the right (aided, of course, by Fox News) are now questioning the authenticity of the birth certificate or, like Trump, questioning the President's academic credentials.    They apparently haven't heard the old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.

Another Royal Pain

Wedding guest lists can cause controversy in the best of families, but leave it to the bungling Windsor clan to create a right royal screw-up over theirs.  As belt-tightening Britons prepare to endure the tasteless display of wealth, privilege and social-climbing also know as the Royal Wedding, release of the guest list caused many of them to wonder about the kind of people the groom’s family apparently counts among its friends.  

Invited - King Mswati III

Amidst the usual clutter of B List celebrities, sports figures, and "socialites" (whatever they may be) is an assortment of autocratic despots such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain (who sent his regrets) and the King of Swaziland (presumably with all of his 13 wives).  Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the UK, who represents a regime currently subject to EU sanctions, will also be in attendance.  Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was overlooked – so much for the “special relationship”.  Former Tory Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major made the cut, but their Labour counterparts Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not.

Snubbed - Pres. Obama

In the face of the predictable public outcry over the welcome being extended to unsavory foreign rulers and the omission of the likes of Obama and Blair, the Palace’s spin doctors stressed that the wedding is a private rather than state function and that the guest list had been largely drawn up by the couple themselves.  Hence the exclusion of Obama.  Really?  That almost makes matters worse.  If the guest list was indeed a function of personal choice rather than diplomatic protocol, inclusion of leaders from places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Swaziland is a damning indictment of the Mountbatten-Windsors' choice in friends.  But as usual the maladroit monarchy can’t get its story straight even on this issue.  For example, the inclusion of Thatcher and Major, and the exclusion of Blair and Brown, was officially attributed to the technicality that the former two hold the anachronistic title of "Knight of the Garter", whereas the latter two do not.  But neither do the likes of Elton John, David Beckam, or the assorted former girlfriends and wealthy foreign “businessmen” that comprise Charles’ personal invitees.  But above all, if this is indeed a “private” function, why is the hard-pressed British taxpayer yet again being stuck with the tab – estimated to reach $45 million – to provide policing and security for the personal guests of one of the richest families in England?

Dotty - Father of the Groom

The standard line among supporters of the monarchy is that these royal events are worth every penny because they add a little color and excitement to the otherwise drab and dreary existences of the hoi poloi who actually end up paying for them.  Such condescension adds insult to injury, especially during a period in which unemployment remains high and public services are being slashed.  David Cameron has sweetened the pot this time around by proclaiming a national public holiday in honour of the nuptials, but according to the latest polls the majority of Britons won’t be spending it watching the overblown event on television.  The government recently announced plans to review the archaic rules regarding the law of royal succession, which date back to 1701. That review long overdue, but why not go a step further and announce a referendum on whether the British people want ANY form of royal succession?