No Evidence?

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2024

(Apr. 22, 2024) — On occasion, commenters at The P&E make curious assertions.  Such is the case with respect to a comment made by one “Johnathan J.” regarding a prior post here relating to one aspect of the purported “long-form” birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

The issue at hand relates to whether the image of the birth certificate displayed on the website of the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) includes a perceptible authenticating seal of the State of Hawai’i.  Because many have questioned the authenticity of the birth certificate itself, let alone the authenticity of the seal, a debate continues over whether there is enough competent “evidence,” one way or the other, to put the question to rest.

At this point, commenter Johnathan J. asserted: “It is disinformation to suggest that the possibility of forgery means this seal was forged when there’s no evidence to support that belief.”  Really?  That assertion requires closer analysis.

First, while philosophical arguments continue over whether or not the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” if no evidence exists under circumstances where it should exist, that factual reality is itself “evidence.”  Recall the Sherlock Holmes analogy of “the dog that didn’t bark (when it should have).”

It may or may not be direct evidence – sometimes called “smoking gun” evidence – but it is nonetheless “evidence.”  Stated otherwise, indirect or “circumstantial” evidence is nonetheless evidence, the only question being the “weight” to be accorded to it.

Second, if as the commenter contends there is “no evidence” to suggest chicanery or fraud regarding the birth certificate or the “raised seal,” the immediate question arises: why does the Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu persist in refusing to confirm that Barack Obama was, purportedly, born there? 

This question is particularly relevant since Obama has waived any claim of HIPAA personal medical information confidentiality by publicly declaring that it was “the place of my birth.”  After all, as the purported birth hospital of the first “black” (a more accurate descriptor would be “bi-racial”) president of the United States, one would think that at minimum, such an historic and amazing event would be memorialized or featured somewhere in the building or on the hospital’s website.  

Your humble servant has word-searched the hospital’s entire website – in vain – for any reference to its most famous birth.  If your servant has missed an entry or if commenter J. can do better, your humble servant would be pleased to receive the information as would, presumably, all of Mr. Obama’s supporters.  Obama has claimed it was the place of his birth, so why won’t the hospital confirm it?

Moreover, in order to finally put the Obama birth certificate dispute, including the “raised seal” issue, “in the nation’s rear-view mirror” – thereby taking the wind out of the sails of those pesky “birthers” – why has Obama himself not simply directed the hospital to confirm that which he has publicly claimed?  Some might be tempted to leap to the conclusion that the reason for the reticence is because the hospital cannot factually confirm his birth there.

On the other hand, since the image of a purported genuine long-form birth certificate is accessible online at the NARA website showing that Kapi’olani was the birth hospital, the not unexpected answer will be: no more proof is required.  End of dispute…, move along…, nothing more to see here.  

In this regard, one is reminded of the famous painting by Belgian surrealist artist, René Magritte.  It depicts a pipe with a brown bowl and brown/black stem split by a gold or brass connector ring.  Beneath the graphic are the words “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” or in English “This is not a pipe.”

Correct.  Instead, it is a picture of a pipe.  And like the Magritte painting, the world is instructed to accept the image of the Obama birth certificate as being all that is needed – or allowed – to confirm its authenticity and, inferentially, his purported presidential eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution.  Again, move along…, nothing more to see here. 

The irony of the actual title of the Magritte painting – The Treachery of Images – as compared to the NARA picture of Obama’s birth certificate is striking.  And, by the way, Merriam-Webster lists as synonyms for the word “treachery” terms including “falsity,” “fraud,” “deception” and “deceit.”

As long as the indirect or circumstantial evidence of the certificate’s inauthenticity remains uncontroverted, unless and until it is proven wrong by competent “evidence” instead of ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) and Magritte-like substitutes, the claimed authenticity of the birth certificate and the “raised seal” will remain the topic of Internet debate. 

But is that not what the First Amendment is all about, hollow claims of “birther misinformation” aside?