Twiddle a key here, tread a peddle there, a nice little arpeggio of vitriolic grace notes at this point…

And he howls so nicely, don’t he?

And one sharpens one’s entrenching tools to make it easier to dig, don’tcha know? Heaven forfend I might do anything contrary to the Geneva Convention and little stevie’s Tranzi laws of international conflict.

When a scientific paper is published as an article in a journal, there's generally a kind of summary put together at the beginning – from 250 to 300 words, and almost always laid out in a couple of standard formats, depending on the journal's guidelines.

This is called an “abstract.” When you go online to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Web site, on every indexed journal's articles, you can always get authors' names, the titles and keywords of these articles, and – if there is one (because editorials and letters and such aren't abstracted) the abstract of the article if not the whole content of the article itself.

Abstracts are devised to provide a quick “eyeblink” look at what the article is about. A lot ot times when a doctor is reading through JAMA or The New England Journal of Medicine, just about the only thing he really reads of each article is the abstract. If it looks worthwhile to him, he'll read the rest of the article, but usually a glance at the abstract tells him whether or not it's really new stuff, or significant stuff, or even relevant to his patient management needs.

Okay, so the certification of live birth type of document is what's called an “abstract.” It's not the full birth certificate. It was devised in the days when these things had to be typed out by hand, so that the bare minimum of information could be recorded on checksafe type paper without as much opportunity for errors (which can't be corrected, meaning one typo and the whole damned thing had to be re-typed from scratch on another sheet of checksafe paper).

Now – as you observe – we've got computer printers to crank 'em out. But the abstract (“certification”) form still survives. Doesn't need to, of course. Takes just as much time and effort to create a real birth certificate as it does to whack out an abstract.

So why the hell did Barry just get (what he claims to be) an abstract from the state of Hawaii, anyway? That was all the Hawaii state government was providing in 2007?

Well, no. In 2007, remember, the government of the state of Hawaii explicitly required the full birth certificate from non-haole (native Polynesian) citizens in order for these people to secure the various special benefits accorded these native Polynesians by Hawaii statute law. A Hawaiian of native Polynesian stock who came in with a Certification of Live Birth was told, “sorry, but we gotta see your long-form birth certificate; you can get it easy from the Vital Statistics guys.”

And so – in 2007 and 2008 – that's precisely what a native-born Polynesian living in Hawaii could and did do.

Meaning so could Barry.

So why didn't he?

And if he has “long-form” information on file in Hawaii, why hasn't he given permission to open those state government files to the scrutiny of an officer of the court?

Is Barry being “transparent”? Nope. Looks Cook County machine politician opaque and secretive and criminally guilty as all hell to me.

The question at hand is not “What's legal to get a passport with?” The question is “Where exactly was this guy born”. Only a long form will show that. And, I think that short form is a forgery anyway. SOMETHING stinks here.

So, yeah, let's keep beating this dead horse until Obama does the right thing and decides to actually be “transparent” instead of just blowing hard about it. He has been the least transparent person to ever sit in the White House. It will be his undoing.

I got an email from Aaron Wiener, Assistant Editor of The Washington Independent, telling me – politely – to rein it back. I observed to him that I hadn’t started the “f-bombs” a-flying, and was merely merrily jumping down into the hole with the enemy and giving him the old sharpened entrenching tool across the chops.

I can out-cuss these clowns just as readily as I can out-think ‘em. Doesn’t take much.

So you’d best cut back on the “pungent language,” too. Methinks that some of the Obamaphiles got as one of their “talking points” in the Messiah Central daily email push to “left-wing bloggers” an admonition to use constitutionalists’ swear words as an excuse to get ‘em thrown off the boards.

Remember that quote I threw up against that lying little lawyer a bit earlier today?

“When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.”

Just precisely what little stevie’s been doing, isn’t it? The facts sure as hell aren’t on his side, and when the law is brought in and he can’t “argue the law,” what does he do?

“You’re a racist! Nyah!”