On Barack Obama's Place of Birth
Another conversation took place regarding Obama's citizenship. My first response was to quote the wikipedia article on the subject, which points out that independent observers have verified that the document released by the Obama campaign is, by all appearances, a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate. Again, there has been some editing of multiple posts into a coherent monologue.
I'm certainly aware of the issues involved in quoting a wiki of any sort. But the great thing about Wikipedia is that citations are encouraged, and frequently included on articles of importance. The end of almost every sentence of the article I linked includes a link to an external reference backing up the statement. I won't pretend I've checked them all, but the ones I've checked at least aren't obvious fakes. So is there no source to indicate that Obama has gone to effort to keep his records sealed, then? As far as I can tell, they're sealed by default, under Hawaii law and federal privacy law. I checked WND briefly, and found reports indicating that Obama had spent money on lawyers, some of which went to defending from eligibility suits. But that's not the same as working to keep his records sealed. Maybe I just missed it.
I've found documents indicating that the Obama campaign (or now, the DNC) is paying law firms. But direct quotes from involved attorneys indicate that at least some, if not all, of Obama's lawyers are working pro bono on this matter. The assumption that Obama personally, the Obama campaign/Democratic party, or the taxpayer, are actually paying anyone regarding this issue, I've yet to see any evidence. Until I do, I can only assume it's yet another assumption without justification. Worse, it's one that leads nowhere! What would it matter if they were paying through the nose? If it's taxpayer money, that's one thing, but there's even less evidence of that than there is of it being Obama Campaign money. If the Democratic party wants to use their own funds to fight frivolous lawsuits that have been conclusively shown to have nothing to do with Obama's eligibility to serve, that's their call. That's just less money they can use to spread fear about their opponents the else next election cycle.
With regards to whether the "Certification of Live Birth" qualifies as as birth certificate, that's a semantic issue. It's what the state of Hawaii issues to confirm someone was born there, and it's acceptable evidence in legal proceedings to that end. And while Hawaii could at that time issue such a certificate to babies not born in Hawaii, those certificates would state the original place of birth. Someone born in Kenya could get a Hawaiian COLB, but it would still say "Kenya" on it. Obama's says "Honolulu".
But we're getting lost in the details, and missing the original point. Here's my fundamental problem with the Tea Party movement treating this as a current issue: the only way that document could possibly exist if Obama was not born in Honolulu is if a significant fraction of the Hawaiian government had been going to great effort to make it look like he was, for a great many years. And if that's the case, how could any evidence ever be trustworthy? No matter what was produced, it could all be manufactured! We're not at that point yet, but if we get there, we all look like crazy conspiracy theorists. And for good reason!
You know, I used to read WND, Newsmax, a couple others. I used to argue politics on online message boards all the time, I spent my highschool years doing it. I'd start threads about all sorts of stuff. Then I started one based on an article that said that handguns had been outlawed in Australia and the crime rate had skyrocketed. That argument went on for a week or two, with me just saying "read the article!" Then I found out from an Australian friend that Australia hadn't outlawed handguns at all. It was a complete fabrication.
I'm not making accusations against anyone here. I'm just saying that if you make an accusation, especially one this serious, you should be able to back it up with more than a news article, or a wiki link. Just because it's a news source that agrees with your preconceptions doesn't make it trustworthy. I've learned to doubt everyone, short of what passes for a primary source online: direct quotes, and copies of documents.
Outside mathematics, proof is subjective. For the purposes of the law, he's proven his place of birth. The criteria for your personal satisfaction are entirely up to you. But if what he's released, combined with multiple statements from the Hawaiian government, are insufficient for you, Obama is put in a position where he could never definitely convince you of his place of birth, no matter what he released. Discussing the subject is not raising a legitimate question, at that point. It's just throwing an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion out there to raise doubt. It's not about fact, it's about fear and manipulation. It's bad politics. And that's why the Tea Party needs to get away from it.
I'm certainly aware of the issues involved in quoting a wiki of any sort. But the great thing about Wikipedia is that citations are encouraged, and frequently included on articles of importance. The end of almost every sentence of the article I linked includes a link to an external reference backing up the statement. I won't pretend I've checked them all, but the ones I've checked at least aren't obvious fakes. So is there no source to indicate that Obama has gone to effort to keep his records sealed, then? As far as I can tell, they're sealed by default, under Hawaii law and federal privacy law. I checked WND briefly, and found reports indicating that Obama had spent money on lawyers, some of which went to defending from eligibility suits. But that's not the same as working to keep his records sealed. Maybe I just missed it.
I've found documents indicating that the Obama campaign (or now, the DNC) is paying law firms. But direct quotes from involved attorneys indicate that at least some, if not all, of Obama's lawyers are working pro bono on this matter. The assumption that Obama personally, the Obama campaign/Democratic party, or the taxpayer, are actually paying anyone regarding this issue, I've yet to see any evidence. Until I do, I can only assume it's yet another assumption without justification. Worse, it's one that leads nowhere! What would it matter if they were paying through the nose? If it's taxpayer money, that's one thing, but there's even less evidence of that than there is of it being Obama Campaign money. If the Democratic party wants to use their own funds to fight frivolous lawsuits that have been conclusively shown to have nothing to do with Obama's eligibility to serve, that's their call. That's just less money they can use to spread fear about their opponents the else next election cycle.
With regards to whether the "Certification of Live Birth" qualifies as as birth certificate, that's a semantic issue. It's what the state of Hawaii issues to confirm someone was born there, and it's acceptable evidence in legal proceedings to that end. And while Hawaii could at that time issue such a certificate to babies not born in Hawaii, those certificates would state the original place of birth. Someone born in Kenya could get a Hawaiian COLB, but it would still say "Kenya" on it. Obama's says "Honolulu".
But we're getting lost in the details, and missing the original point. Here's my fundamental problem with the Tea Party movement treating this as a current issue: the only way that document could possibly exist if Obama was not born in Honolulu is if a significant fraction of the Hawaiian government had been going to great effort to make it look like he was, for a great many years. And if that's the case, how could any evidence ever be trustworthy? No matter what was produced, it could all be manufactured! We're not at that point yet, but if we get there, we all look like crazy conspiracy theorists. And for good reason!
You know, I used to read WND, Newsmax, a couple others. I used to argue politics on online message boards all the time, I spent my highschool years doing it. I'd start threads about all sorts of stuff. Then I started one based on an article that said that handguns had been outlawed in Australia and the crime rate had skyrocketed. That argument went on for a week or two, with me just saying "read the article!" Then I found out from an Australian friend that Australia hadn't outlawed handguns at all. It was a complete fabrication.
I'm not making accusations against anyone here. I'm just saying that if you make an accusation, especially one this serious, you should be able to back it up with more than a news article, or a wiki link. Just because it's a news source that agrees with your preconceptions doesn't make it trustworthy. I've learned to doubt everyone, short of what passes for a primary source online: direct quotes, and copies of documents.
Outside mathematics, proof is subjective. For the purposes of the law, he's proven his place of birth. The criteria for your personal satisfaction are entirely up to you. But if what he's released, combined with multiple statements from the Hawaiian government, are insufficient for you, Obama is put in a position where he could never definitely convince you of his place of birth, no matter what he released. Discussing the subject is not raising a legitimate question, at that point. It's just throwing an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion out there to raise doubt. It's not about fact, it's about fear and manipulation. It's bad politics. And that's why the Tea Party needs to get away from it.
posted by Stephen Collings at
8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home