Subtitle: And Sarah Palin’s Pregnancy
So, Andrew Sullivan has decided to psuedo jump on the birther train, calling for Barack Obama to produce his original birth certificate for inspection by…? Perhaps whomever the birther “movement” deems a worthy officiant (apparently not the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health).
Explaining his position, Andrew offers up a seemingly straightforward line of reasoning,
The reason for demanding it is the same reason for demanding basic medical records proving Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig.
Because it would make it go away and it’s easily done.
On the face of it, Andrew’s argument might seem relatively persuasive, except that, in all likelihood, the production of said document wouldn’t, “make it go away”.
See, we have a name for folks who hang their hats on arguments like, “Barack Obama can’t prove he was born in the United States and therefore he likely wasn’t and therefore we need to remove him from office and therefore we need to have a new election so that the person of a political persuasion I find more appealing can run and win…” No, I’m not referring to the name wingnut, I’m referring to the name conspiracy theorist.
My friends at dictionary.com define the theories that said individuals devise thusly,
a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group
Conspiracy theories are not necessarily always wrong, mind you, and there is nothing that inherently makes them wrong. So let me clear here, I’m not out to denigrate the world’s conspiracy theorists, y’all keep you doing your thing (as I’m sure you will). But what I am trying to point out is that conspiracy theorists don’t generally give up on their theories very easily, if at all, because, generally speaking, they’re convinced of the veracity of said theory before it’s been proven true or false.
So look, you can provide a conspiracy theorist with any heap of evidence to the contrary of their theory, be it large or small, definitive or circumstantial, that person will generally find a way of wriggling around your presentation because they generally prefer to believe their story. And hey, sometimes their story is right, but often times it is wrong.
So no, Andrew, offering up the document after digital pictures of it have made their way onto the Internet and reputable public officials have spoke to the issue is distinctly unlikely to make the birther “movement” and its questions “go away”. What will make that “movement” go away will be time and a general lack of interest on the part of it’s participants and those who are fanning its flames in a variety of foray.
Given that analysis, one can start to see why people like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin aren’t willing to give conspiracy theorists what they want: because it is unlikely to actually leave them feeling like their questions have been answered and thereby put the issue to rest because conspiracy theories don’t generally rest on evidence and reason, they rest on speculation and preference. In fact, what their cooperation is more likely to do is to give credence and legitimacy to the issue at hand, and so, just as many foreign policy experts will tell you that you can’t negotiate with terrorists, it is most often times not advisable to barter with conspiracy theorists.
In some senses, both Obama and Palin are to commended for their unwillingness to bend to the will of conspiracy theorists, in their particular instances they are standing up to a political discourse of vapidity and innuendo and saying, “Look, I’ve got more important things to attend to.” Regardless of what one might think about Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, I think we can all agree that we’ve got better things to attend to than a discourse of vapidity and innuendo…
Cant we?
DensityDuck 
Rose 
karl 
Elias Isquith 
BlaiseP 
clawback 
James Hanley 
Mark Thompson
{ 44 comments }
Let’s not ignore the possibility that Obama ignores the issue because it helps him, on balance, to have crazy people making crazy attacks on him. It tends to engender sympathy, and tends to discredit more substantive attacks.
Ditto Palin.
“On the face of it, Andrew’s argument might seem relatively persuasive, except that, in all likelihood, the production of said document wouldn’t, ‘make it go away’”.
Wouldn’t make it “go away” 100%? Yeah, probably true. But 100% is a pretty high bar. Hell, 51% is a pretty high bar in American politics. So lets shut up the Trig birthers, Sullivan, and the Obama birthers, who the fuck knows, and produce the birth certificates.
Said certificates would probably allow Sullivan to move away from Trig’s birth and some percentage of Obama skeptics to accept his citizenship, legitimacy.
What is the down side?
None.
Giving truck to the nutters is bad strategy. Bend on this hysteria and what comes next? Never forget the golden maxim: Don’t engage with idiots; they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience.
I think there is a downside–at least from Obama’s perspective. First and foremost he is a politician and is going to try and maximize his chances of success. I obviously don’t know if the Birthers are damaging Republicans but I can’t expect that they are helping. How many Republican politicians have denounced the Birthers? Not a whole lot if I recall, and it seems many of these politicians would rather not upset this vocal minority. The end result is the Republican party being associated with the Birther movement and that can’t be helpful–and what hurts the Republicans will tend to help the Democrats. But perhaps I’m overanalyzing.
I don’t believe you are over-analyzing. I believe this is exactly what is happening. Yet another Obama rope-a-dope. Every time a Republican Congressman does not denounce the birthers, that’s one more drip drip drip from their potential vote total of the increasingly rump Republican base. The POTUS cannot convince the nut jobs simply because they won’t be convinced. But connecting Republicans to the birthers is a complete win for the Democrats. And it diverts
“But connecting Republicans to the birthers is a complete win for the Democrats.” And an easy win.
More via Sullivan on the birthers and Republicans.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/where-the-birthers-are.html
Wow. I find that graph absolutely shocking. This makes me think it’s going to take a lot longer than I thought for the Republicans to get their act together. If this remains an issue 2010 can’t look good for them.
Here is a short article from Huffington,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/new-poll-less-than-half-o_n_248470.html
But, Bob, the problem here isn’t with Palin or Obama. It’s with people who construct wild theories that have no evidence to support them. If you’re going to make a wild allegation, you best support it. If your argument is that I’m a murderer, and that I should have to absolve myself of guilt if I am a public official (Sullivan’s apparent standard), then we’re in real trouble. It’s not reasonable to hold Obama to a higher standard because his opposition is uniquely deranged. Nothing he can do will make these people shut up. Better that he let this “movement” fizzle on its own.
And if Sullivan keeps this up, I’m going to have to take him off the RSS reader again, just like I did during his Hillary insanity.
I confess to being irritated with Sullivan since he got back from his break—things were so low-key while he was gone, and it feels like it’s all Louis Gates and birthers now that’s returned. And I am not just uninterested in these subjects—I am anti-interested.
But my annoyance and anti-interest notwithstanding, isn’t it kinda odd that Palin and Obama haven’t just released their respective documents? Is there really that much political advantage to be cultivated by not doing so? I’m not trying to imply that either of them are hiding anything—I don’t think they are—but just don’t get what the big problem is. Sure, no kind of proof is going to be enough for some people; but for the rest of us looking on, it really is kind of like, oh, for fuck’s sake, show them the papers already. Show them to a whole bunch of people. Make an afternoon of it. Serve some hors d’oeuvres. Whatever.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, Scott. But there is still a difference between making a document widely available and, y’know, not.
Lev, you make a common error. We are not dealing with criminal standards. The state must prove crime, guilt. It’s not up to the defendant to prove innocence.
We are in the political arena, sorta-kinda the civil arena, preponderance of the evidence.
If Palian can produce a birth certificate Sullivan probably, no guarantee, drops that line of attack.
If Obama produces a BC it will probably reduce the % of folk willing to to buy the birther BS.
What’s the down side?
Sullivan is correct.
Ummmmm the BC is viewable on the web. Various state officials from Hawaii have said it is official and he was born there. It has been proven. There is nothing else he can do to prove it.
Greg, we need a lawyer. Apparently there are birth certificates and “birth certificates.”
I have two myself.
I have a BC with my absolutely beautiful foot prints. Signed by the Superintendent of the hospital and the Dr. welcoming my entrance. But this document appears to be insufficient in Kansas. For official business I need the “certificate of live birth.” (Apparently no one wants me to remove my shoes and socks and compare my adult foot with my clearly much more appealing seconds old tootsie. Go figure.)
Again, apparently, the birthers are unsatisfied with the “live birth” document and want to see the “foot print” document.
I have read that such a document may no longer exist since Hawaii went paperless some years back. I’ve no idea if such is the case.
Paging Mark Thomspon. Please report to the comments section of “Why Andrew Sullivan Is Wrong About the Birthers”.
Scott, only reporting my experience in Red state KS where feriners and blacks are run out of town at sunset, if luck is on their side, or strungup if God smiles.
A tardy post script, would love MT’s insight,
The law of Hawaiian birth certificates is a bit on the obscure side for me to have any special knowledge beyond what’s been reported. At a minimum, though, I can say that what’s been produced so far would be admissible evidence. The burden is on those demanding that Obama/Hawaii produce something else to prove that what has been produced is either a forgery or unreliable. The theoretical existence of something that they believe would be more reliable does not provide any basis to conclude that what has been produced would be reliable.
DISCLAIMER: No research went into this comment; I reserve the right for other, far more experienced lawyers (*cough cough Ken cough cough*) to fully discredit it and smack it down.
When Sullivan found out that Hawaii went paperless a few years ago — including all birth records since 1908 — he retracted his call to produce the document, literally spologize, and called the matter fully closed.
I guess I have to apologize. i see I’m two days behind on Sullivan birther-blogging. But he did post this two days ago:
Not sure why I believed him.
Joseph Biden: POTUS!
it’s the stuff of dreams!
I sort of read Sullivan’s foray into Obama-birthism as a justification for his Trig-birthism. See! I am not unreasonably trashing Palin! I hold all politicians to the same standard!
This of course has the whiff of embarrased back-pedaling. Kind of like when one of my knucklehead frat-boy friends makes a racial joke, then realizes that he is in the company of people who might not appreciate it. Lot’s of hmmming and hahhhhhing ensues. Lots of discussions about how, when he uses the n-word, he’s really referring to anyone who, you know… uh…. white people can be the n-word, too! And Mexicans! See! Not racist! Equal derision for all!
Except, no.
I could be wrong about this. I don’t know Sullivan. But reading is stuff, it seems to me like he went completely off the rails with Palin, and is now reverse-engineering a justification. All this stuff about “I am only doing my job…” rings pretty hollow. And in the end turns the whole farce into an exercise in media bashing.
Because everyone in the press knows that asking hard questions and producing real evidence that Trig is not Palin’s baby, then trotting out on cable TV for the next five years explaining what a great reporter you are would REALLY ruin someone’s career?
What a strange episode in the the Sullivan series.
This totally makes sense to me.
The above is well reasoned. It might get to some of Sullivan’s thinking. I don’t know.
Here is my foray into “don’t know” territory.
Sullivan suffered lots of ridicule regarding his stance on Trig’s birth during and after the campaign. He was never shy in defending is position. If he had second thoughts he could have easily let the matter disappear beneath the blizzard of his daily posts. He did not do that.
None of this means that Sullivan may by looking for some justification now, hence your post.
Sullivan is a wordsmith, I tend to give him credit for honestly speaking his mind. Till he says differently I’m going to assume he was attempting to be even handed. And remember he did recently acknowledge shortcomings regarding this matter.
Also, Sullivan did a 180 on the Iraq war so he is not immune to fessing-up when conditions warrant. Must be his Catholic faith at work.
Look, I know I seem to be making a semi-career out of criticizing Andrew Sullivan, I do it because I respect the man. But one thing that remains true is that I take Andrew at his word. I think he is honestly applying what he thinks to be the correct course of action equally to both Palin and Obama. The problem is that I think he’a dead wrong in both instances.
As such I feel compelled to call him out on it.
Everything above the board, out in the open, and good and fair.
Sullivan’s 180 on the Iraq War moved him from a place where he was with the majority to another place where he was with the majority.
Apologizing for the Trig thing would be a lot harder. Who are the people who would say “well, we know you’re excitable, welcome!” to him? Pajamas Media?
Was Sullivan motivated by a desire to be with the majority? I’m not buying it if that’s what your selling.
I’m not saying what his motivations were.
I’m saying that a comparison of his apology for the Iraq War (where he had a number of folks disagreeing with what he was doing) and his apology for Trig (where he had a number of folks disagreeing with what he was doing) had two different dynamics for his apology.
I think Barack Obama is the actual mother of Trig Palin. And Sarah Palin wasn’t born in the United States, but in Indonesia to wild-eyed Muslims intent on stealing Alaska’s oil.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Has Fox booked you for Fox and Friends yet? I’ll be sure to catch it. Keep us up to date, please!
To be clear, I am not accusing Sullivan of any sort of self-serving, after-the-fact reversal in policy. Again, I don’t know him, but he strikes me as sincere, at the very least. Rather, the whole Obama-birther affair really does stike me as similar in tone to a guy who makes a bad racial joke and gets called out on it.
To be clear, very often, the people caught in such a situation sincerely believe that race has no bearing on their conceptions about people. In my expereince, these are people who “have black friends” or “dated a hispanic girl,” so they CAN’T be racist. And again, they make fun of white trash, too! Hell, last week I called my friend Joey a redneck!
To a strange and very complicated extent, these people are telling the truth. Sort of. Almost. On a day to day basis, they don’t “discriminate” against people of other races. And dammit, they DO have black friends. They have their own history to back themselves up. The joke was just a joke. Nothing more.
Similarly, Sullivan has a long history of crossing political lines,. He has shown great courage in this regard from time to time. If courage is the right word. Gumption, maybe, would be better. Regardless, he clearly is NOT a left-wing hack going after Palin in predictable fashion. He is going after her for reasons he truly believes in. So it makes sense for him to think about these reasons and apply them to other situations. And it makes sense for him to make a big deal of them.
Still, in tone, it strikes me as overly strident and out of place. I find it hard to imagine that, had he managed to stay out of the Palin affair, he ever would have felt compelled to comment on the Obama birth certificate. But giiven that he didn’t stay awat from Trig… he can’t now NOT talk about Obama’s nationality. Not because he recognizes that his silence would somehow look bad, but because he has invested too much, emotionally and professionally, in arguing that public figures “owe” people these sorts of documents upon request. And he has come to believe it.
But who the hell knows. All I can say is that it has become extremely hard to read his posts on these subjects. It was kind of intriguing at first, but now it strikes me as bizarre and sad. Because get this: Let’s say Sullivan is correct. Let’s say he digs up evidence that the baby is not SP’s. Me reaction would be… meh. I wouldn’t care. I never cared. And i suspect the vast majority of other people don’t care.
About Sullivan:
Up to July 28, Andrew was anti-birther: Sullivan
Then I read Mickey Kaus linking to this: Weekly Standard.
July 29
Sully does a 180: Sullivan
Is it better to be consistent or crazy?
Maybe consistently crazy.
This reminds me of the conspiracy theory of a ways back when the story line was the George HW Bush had sneaked off to Paris one night during the campaign (Reagan v Carter) to conspire with the Iranians to keep the hostages so Carter would lose. One guy claimed to have been there and all of the Reagan haters were sure it was a massive cover up, why doesn’t the press cover this stuff and so forth. In the end, a sympathetic author who was trying to write a major book in support of the theory came across credit card receipts that showed that the guy who claimed to be there had been in a motel in Idaho that night. Bush had been campaigning in Ohio, in front of a lot of reporters, but that didn’t keep the conspiracy people from continuing to believe what they wanted to believe. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. A very small number, but there are such people. I don’t spend time worrying about what they think. If you want to waste your time worrying about it, either in support or opposition, be my guest.
Certificates of Live Birth are pretty standard from state to state now days. Mine looks identical to the certificate President Obama produced, only mine was issued by Illinois.
At the bottom of the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama released was an embossed seal and the county clerks signature and the following statement.
“This copy serves as prima facie evidence of fact of birth in any court proceedings. (HRS 338-13b, 338-19″
This document was inspected by several newspapers and The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They all declared the document authentic. In my view the case is closed, no other documentation has to, or should be released. The truth is even their own presence at the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii, would not be sufficient evidence for these nutcases.
There are two main problems with Andrew’s argument. The first is that he seems to not understand that the “original document” exists in electronic form on some magnetic media. The paper document was destroyed about eight years ago along with every other Hawaiian’s original paper document.
The second flaw is he never says what he means by “show the document”. First to who? It has obviously been shown to the US passport office. He has a valid passport, and you need a valid birth certificate to get that.
Everyone who questions the existence of this document would probably like to see it for themselves. And they would probably want to obtain it directly from the source: the Hawaii Secretary of State or whoever is in charge of the official records. But failing that, Andrew does not say who he would trust to view the document.
Two Hawaiian officials have verified that the information on the paper copy is the same as what they have on record. Imagine if it wasn’t. Obama would be committing a crime, he would be in possession of a forged document. Would either official be willing to cover up the crime? Would both of them? What happens when a the officials are replaced in the future and the new official discovers that the document that Obama is using is a fake? Now any official who certified that the document was real has also committed a crime.
Until Andrew Sullivan gives more information on what he would consider enough proof that the document is real, we should assume that he either hasn’t thought that far ahead, or he doesn’t care.
And as long as he compares this case to Sarah Palin, we can assume he doesn’t make very fine distinctions about these matters.
Sarah Palin doesn’t have to produce a birth certificate for Trig, but it is interesting that she somehow had a baby, after an eight month pregnancy and nobody outside her doctor or the medical professionals who are rightly sworn to secrecy has seen any evidence that she was actually pregnant. Nobody touched her tummy, nobody saw her in a waiting room of her doctor, nobody overheard the delivery. Think about the total lack of evidence. But it still proves nothing.
In Obama’s case, there is no evidence that he doesn’t have a birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. He has attended schools and colleges. He has held down a job, which requires an SSN. He has a passport, which requires citizenship. There is no evidence that he went through a naturalization process. He was elected to several offices and likely investigated by his opponents. Still zero evidence that he was not born in Hawaii.
When you look at evidence, you have to look at all the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
NOTE: $100 reward offered below!
Dear Scott,
Unfortunately, you, Sullivan and some of your commenters are making a number of serious factual errors about matters which are not even remotely in dispute.
(1) Both you and Sullivan erroneously contend that the original 1961 long form certificate of live birth has been digitally posted on the internet by FactCheck.org and others. This is COMPLETELY FALSE. The document that has been posted is a 2007 Certification (not “certificate”) of Live Birth, which is simply a “certification” or affidavit by current state officials which represents that they have examined the undisclosed 1961 original or other similar documents in the state’s files. It is NOT — I repeat, is NOT — a digital image of the 1961 original, which has the name of the doctor, the hospital, the parent’s occupation and other information. An image of a real certificate of live birth, of a child born in Hawaii a day after Obama, is available here. It looks nothing like the Certification that FactCheck.org has posted, and FactCheck has NEVER claimed to have inspected the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth. It’s the difference between the Magna Carta and an affidavit stating “I have seen the Magna Carta and it says this.”
(2) Sullivan originally appeared to understand this simple and important distinction but was somehow confused by reading descriptions of FactCheck.org’s document the 2007 as an “original” — i.e., in the sense that it’s not a photocopy of the 2007 printout but an actual official printout with a raised seal. But again, it is merely a 2007 document with limited information which purports to do no more than claim that the information within it was taken from another source — the 1961 original. Note that Sullivan’s confusion about how “originals” of the document could be in both Hawaii and Chicago arises from his misunderstanding of how the word “original” is being used. Unlimited “originals” of the 2007 Certification may be printed out by the state with raised seals so that the applicant may send them to different agencies which require non-photocopied records. But those “originals” are not “original” in the sense of having been created in 1961 by doctors and other actual witnesses to the birth.
(3) Contrary to what a number of your commenters apparently believe, Hawaii did not destroy or discard its paper records when it went paperless in 2001. Regrettably, CNN President Jon Klein perpetrated this falsehood (repeated by Sullivan before he temporarily realized the the truth) when he claimed that CNN researchers had confirmed the document destruction. This led the Hawaii Department of Health to issue a statement on Tuesday expressly affirming that it did NOT destroy any paper records and that it still had Obama’s 1961 original paper vital records: Hawaiian Officials Confirm Obama’s Original Birth Certificate Still Exists. Again, they are not talking about the 2007 Certifications of which they provided duplicate “originals” to FactCheck.org and other organizations, but of pieces of paper created in 1961 by actual witnesses to the birth.
(4) You would be doing a great service to your readers if you could correct these simple facts and perhaps induce Sullivan to set the record straight.
(5) I will PayPal you $100 if you can demonstrate to me through credible links either that (a) the document examined by FactCheck.org was in fact Obama’s 1961 long form birth certificate rather than a document printed out in 2007 and signed by current state officials or (2) that Hawaii discarded its paper birth records and relies solely on digital scans or computer databases.
The Silver Surfer to Lonewacko’s Galactus.
He’s coming. He’s coming.
Dear Northeast Elizabeth,
I’m not interested in your money, unless you really offer it because you feel the work we do here at the League is top notch and you would like to support it — in which case, I’m all ears about your money.
Now, I know that my post here, accurate though I believe its argumentation to be, was a bit ornery and less than generous to you and your “movement”. So I want you to know that when I ask this question, I do so sincerely and with an honest desire to read your answer and consider it, though I’ll acknowledge a certain predisposed skepticism that exists in advance.
Here goes: what evidence causes you to believe that Barack Obama is not a naturally born American citizen. When I ask that, I’m not looking for you to say, “Because he won’t produce his birth certificate for ___________ to verify.” I mean, what causes you to ask the question in the first place?
Would you have asked it of John McCain? If not, why not? If so, why don’t we start up a dual movement. Would you have asked George W. Bush? Would you have asked Al Gore? What about Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, or George H. W. Bush?
What about Barack Obama makes you suspicious about his country of origin enough that you would participate in a movement that believes that despite all the evidence to the contrary there is something faulty with his presidency?
I look forward to your response, though, I offer no compensation for it.
Scott you are making a Red Herring argument. It is of no importance that the document Obama presented is not a so called long form birth certificate. What he supplied was a legal document that is evidence in any court of proof of birth.
“This copy serves as prima facie evidence of fact of birth in any court proceedings. (HRS 338-13b, 338-19?
The truth is Birthers would not accept any document, they would just set up a new bar as the standard of proof. Already they are calling for Obama’s school records from grade school through law school. It is better to let the small number of deranged people to stew in their own delusions and not give them creditability by pandering to them.
Let us get real here, the Birthers have been tossed out of every court where they have filed suit. The US Supreme Court refused to here the case. They only needed five justices to get the case heard before the Supreme Court, the five conservatives would not step up.
what evidence causes you to believe that Barack Obama is not a naturally born American citizen
None whatsoever. I am NOT a birther. It’s not my “movement.” I believe Obama is a naturally born American citizen. I believe he was born in Hawaii. I believe that his original 961 certificate of live birth will confirm that he was born in Hawaii, even if there is some other embarrassing information in the document. However, I believe these things because of OTHER circumstantial evidence, particularly the contemporaneous 1961 newspaper birth announcements. The 2007 Certificate of Live Birth does not have any probative value to me. I want to see the original, typewritten 1961 certificate (or a digital scan of it) that the Hawaii officials say they reviewed when filling in the blanks on the 2007 Certification of Live Birth.
I also believe that the birther controversy would go away if bloggers like you and Sullivan did not promote indisputably erroneous claims such as (1) Obama’s 1961 certificate of live birth has been posted on the internet by FactCheck.org and other organizations, when in fact it is available absolutely NOWHERE, and (2) Hawaii discarded paper records in 2001 and does not have a paper copy of the 1961 original. The reason so many birthers are outraged is that it is so insulting to their intelligence (however otherwise crazy they might be) when the whole debate is crippled by such easily refuted falsehoods. If you’re going to argue that a birther is crazy because he won’t accept that the document posted by FactCheck.org is a scan of the 1961 original, you had better make very sure that the document posted is in fact the 1961 original. But if you’re going to argue that the birther is crazy because he after looking at the 2007 Certification of Live Birth he refuses to conclude that it’s the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, it’s your own sanity you should be considering.
Similarly, if you’re insisting that the Hawaii Department of Health has discarded all paper documents when its officials have repeatedly stated the contrary, you shouldn’t be attacking the birthers for their claims. This latter claim is particularly harmful to the debate, because it is used against birthers to argue that the 1961 certificate (or a digital scan of it) CANNOT be produced because it doesn’t exist. We know it exists. The Department of Health has confirmed that it exists. Sullivan’s original argument was that it should be released because it does exist. He only abandoned the argument because he somehow became convinced that the 2007 green document posted by FactCheck.org was the 1961 certificate he was originally asking to see.
Would you have asked it of John McCain? If not, why not
McCain quickly produced his original certificate. He’s been sued many times over the issue of citizenship; in fact, most of the precedents for dismissing the cases against Obama on the ground of standing come from the McCain litigation. However, the suits against McCain didn’t hinge on the production of his original certificate (he produced it) — they rested on the undisputed fact that he was born in the Canal Zone and the legal effect of that. The certificate was actually irrelevant to any citizenship issue because his place of birth wasn’ t in dispute.
So, to get back to my original points:
(1) Will you concede that Obama’s 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (or a digital scan of it) has never been made available online or otherwise produced, and that the document posted by FactCheck.org is completely different document created in 2007 and merely based upon information contained in the 1961 original?
(2) Will you concede that the State of Hawaii has not discarded paper copies of the 1961 original?
I’m not interested in your money, unless you really offer it because you feel the work we do here at the League is top notch and you would like to support it
I will believe your work to be top notch and support it if, after examining the links I have provided earlier, you concede (because you are sincerely convinced) the truth of the two specific numbered points above. I will PayPal you $200 if you can induce Sullivan to correct the record on his blog.
Elizabeth, what I believe is the document provided is all the proof that is needed. It is a legal document that is evidence of proof of birth in any court proceeding. If this ridiculous notion that Obama is not a citizen ever makes it into court, the document provided will be all the proof necessary to get the case dismissed.
Paul,
I don’t understand your response. I wasn’t discussing the legal merits of the pending litigation, any more that Mssrs. Payne or Sullivan were. I was discussing the factual premises of the debate as it relates to the existence and disclosure of the relevant documents.
Elizabeth, the relevant documents have been released. What you are talking about are irrelevant technicalities. If the documents that have been released are prima facea evidence in any court proceeding, clearly those that are arguing for releasing more documents are unstable when they cannot accept the facts.
As a legal matter you’re simply incorrect, because even if the discussion were about evidentiary standards at trial, establishing a prima facie case would not conclude the matter. The plaintiff would be permitted to introduce rebuttal evidence, which in this case would be the 1961 birth certificate to which the 2007 certification presumably refers. However, the case will never come to trial because of issue of standing and justciability, so again, I repeat, your repeated invocation of legal standard misses the point of the discussion.
Sullivan was merely discussing the appropriate political response to quell the fervor of the birthers. At first he proposed that production of the 1961 certificate might accomplish that goal, and further Obama’s stated policy of transparency in all matters. However, he abandoned that argument upon becoming convinced, for no apparent reason, that FactCheck.org had posted the 1961 original. The implication, of course, was that birthers were crazy for continuing to seek what had been already provided. But it hadn’t be provided, and Sullivan’s concluding post served to do nothing but confuse the debate further by spreading information.
Let me give a brief example which might clarify the this all for you, if in fact you are serious about your arguments. As you may recall, two weeks ago, you and I had a discussion at another blog about Obama’s healthcare proposals wherein you enthusiastically argued in favor of compulsory euthanasia. I would provide to a link of the discussion, but I’ve posted it for you so many times that it’s unreasonable for you to demand that I do so again.
I do fully understand that you may not recall the discussion, or if you do, might vigorously dispute my characterization of what you said. However, it can all be simply resolved by clicking the link I gave on repeated occasions. But don’t demand that I provide the link again, because as a legal matter, no court could compel me to provide it. Under the First Amendment, my free speech rights extend to both providing and withholding information, and you would have no cause of action to supply the link — even if in fact I never provided it.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }