I had not caught up until today with this apparent controversy over whether the Hawaii birth certificate proffered by Obama’s campaign is a forgery and whether there are legitimate questions about whether he was born in the United States — if he wasn’t, he almost certainly would not be qualified under the Constitution and relevant immigration statutes to be president.  Our Jim Geraghty seemed to pooh-pooh the birth certificate controversy about a week ago, but according to the above cited report (at a site called DougRoss@Journal) and a new one from Israeli Insider, there are new developments, and the Obama campaign appears to be stonewalling.  Shouldn’t it be a fairly easy matter to prove he was born in Hawaii if he really was?  Why wouldn’t Obama just end this quickly?

Is there anything to this?

ADDENDUM:  I should add to the above that I am not a conspiracy theorist.  My predisposition on the many stories floating around about Obama and his circle is to ignore them on the following theory:  If there was really anything to this or that, the Clintons would have found it and gotten their media friends all over it.  This story about Obama’s eligibility puzzles me because (a) it is so basic, (b) it should be so easy to prove the relevant facts of his birth, (c) the Obama campaign’s response to the story is bizarre, and (d) it seems to be getting worse rather than resolved.