Readers write (April 29): Birthers, marriage amendment, royal wedding, political leadership

There are elements of the whole "birther" thing that are deeply troubling. First, I can't recall another time that birthplace was an issue with a president, whether candidate or sitting.

So why Obama?

He seems to have lived the American Dream with a humble background, superior schooling where he excelled and a successful presidential run before age 50. Yet nearly half of independents and more than half of Republicans think he was not born here.

And now that his birth certificate is out (yet again) in a different form, it's still being questioned by "investigators," and his academic worthiness to have been accepted into prestigious schools is now being scrutinized.

What's going on here? First, I believe that it's because the American Dream is viewed in too many minds as the birthright of white people, not people of color.

And second, I think it's because politicians have learned well the lessons of despots. Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.

It's Propaganda 101, and it's happening here. The willingness (desire?) of Americans to accept even the possibility of two sets of facts is disturbing.

JOHN F. HETTERICK, PLYMOUTH

• • •

I read the commentary by Scott Gillespie ("Minnesota-born, Wisconsin-raised," April 28) as an adoptive mother.

Yes, what jokesters the author's brothers were to tell him he maybe was not really a part of the family. Happens in all families, but did you know how joking about the absence of an original birth certificate hurts adoptees?

They are the only group of Minnesota citizens to be denied this legal piece of paper. Gillespie could locate this piece of vital information in a courthouse, but for adoptees, their legal certificate is filed secretively away. Forever.

My three adult children were lucky: A search and reunion 20 years ago found all families waiting and wanted to reunite.

When I inform people that adoptees do not have this document nor the access to obtain it, they are surprised. They mostly assume adoptees have their legal piece of paper.

No joking matter to those adoptees who are not as lucky as our family is.

EUNICE ANDERSON, BURNSVILLE

* * *

The one who got us into two never-ending wars with no real mission objective to either one? The one who squandered the surpluses left to him by President Bill Clinton on his tax cuts for the rich (three times)?

The one who pushed through Medicare Part D with no way to fund it? The one who gave hundreds of billions of dollars to his banker buddies with no tracking involved? You remember him?

The one who never produced his discharge papers from the reserves? The one who did nothing when Hurricane Katrina hit, since he couldn't be bothered to interrupt his biannual monthlong vacation on his ranch to clear brush? You remember him?

The one who sat for minutes like a deer in the headlights doing nothing when first hearing about the attacks on 9/11? You remember him?

The one who left this country in the ditch after running the car off the road and simply walked away with no remorse, the same as he had done in everything he ever tried (and screwed up)? You remember him?

• • •

So many floods and tornadoes across the south. Loss of life. Devastation. Wildfires in Texas. President Obama flies over all of it to go to California to raise money for his 2012 campaign at political fundraising dinners.

Any other president would be called out on this. Where is the media demanding accountability? We need a leader.

ADIE WOLCYN, CAMBRIDGE, MINN.

* * *

In selecting letters to publish, the paper implied that all of its readers (three of three at least) totally disrespect marriage's sacrosanct tenets.

The first letter -- asserting that the amendment is antibusiness -- apparently comes from one who loves his money, and the comment that the amendment denies rights is hogwash. Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.

The second letter, comparing the same-sex-marriage fight to the civil right of suffrage, is a total falsehood. There is absolutely no similarity!

And the third letter, comparing the amendment to making laws about mud puddles, was totally off the wall, crass, and in very bad taste.

But then I guess that is what we should expect from the Star Tribune's "very thoughtful staff."

* * *

The media's coverage of the royal wedding is a royal pain in the arse. Our society needs to get its priorities straight. Nine soldiers are killed, and that gets a fraction of the attention given to the wedding. What's wrong with people?

DAVE RAND, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *