Significant disagreement exists between American Thinker writers concerning the Birther issue. This is evident in the comments section of a recent article by J.R. Dunn, and another recent AT article. Concerning that disagreement, it seems to me there is a reasonable compromise that expresses both sides. The compromise is "preserved" as two possibilities centered on something all conservatives agree on, the left is obsessed with control:

1) Obama is not forthcoming with the long form birth certificate in order to retain control of the debate concerning the legality of his position, and in the belief that his control will weaken favorable public perception of conservatives, and

2) Obama is not forthcoming with the long form birth certificate because he knows that once that form is released, he has less control of public perception of both a) the legality of his position, and b) conservatives.

Until the original birth certificate is available for public inspection, both possibilities exist. I can entertain both in my mind, but only as possibilities. I need objective data to know the truth.

Each possibility may seem to be a restatement of the other. However, the difference is in what is perceived to be in Obama's head. Is he merely a calculating politician "retaining control”? Or does he know he has a Constitutional problem?

The unreleased long form birth certificate is the data that Obama controls. But how well does he control public perception? What are recent polls telling us?

An American Thinker search on the term "obama narcisstic american thinker" turns up numerous instances at American Thinker of writers drawing the parallel between Obama's behavior and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). If the diagnosis has merit, Obama will follow his narcissist impulse, and as a result, if we are fortunate, the electorate will put two and two together to increasingly entertain possibility #2.

If that happens, I believe Obama will lose control of public perception, and be under increasing pressure to release the form. If he continues to refuse, it will look more and more like he knows he holds the office by fraud.

Should that happen, I do not want to have to admit error. So, I will not adopt Dunn's position of doubting Birthers.

I am pleased that the AT editorial staff permits both sides to have voice. I think a reasonable tactical compromise accomplishes two desirables; a) it takes the wind out of Obama's control-freak sails, and b) it keeps conservatives focused on exposing the stupidity of the Democrat Party leadership's (and Obama's) Marxist agenda, an agenda riddled with failure across both geography and time.

Is it not possible that such focus will hasten the upchuck factor? Is it not possible that Obama's deceitful manner will support a growing belief that he fears public perception if the truth of his birth is known? Nixon found out how this works. Having observed those events, so did I.

If it turns out that the Obama presidency is a fraud, openly doubting Birthers not only puts a person on the wrong side of history, but also fuels the divisiveness Obama hopes for. This compromise avoids both those negative outcomes, and unites us in a focused effort on that which is most important, exposing the truth -- whatever it is -- about Obama and the Democrat Party leadership.