In a comment posted at the Atlanta Journal Constitution web site, David Farrar, plaintiff in the recent ballot challenge in Georgia, hinted at a possible appeal of today’s decision by Secretary Brian Kemp that Barack Obama was eligible under Georgia law to be on the March 6 ballot.
I suppose the only way we can find out now if candidate Barack Obama was even born in the United States is to appeal Sec. Kemp’s decision, because there was absolutely no birth certificate entered into evidence in my January 26th ALC hearing.
And before anyone and throw up the FF & C clause at me, please understand, Hawaiian Health officials can only attest to the fact that the information contained on one of their certified birth certificates accurately reflects what is in their files, not to the accuracy of that information itself.
What is troubling to me is the last part of his comment that seems to presage another move of the goalposts. I read this to say that even if he had a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii that could be proven to be a true copy, Farrar would still hold out for something else — perhaps a forensic analysis of the original records, and even then perhaps a claim that the hospital faked the certificate in 1961. Farrar seems to be pushing the standard of proof to absurd limits, far beyond the standard of proof required in American courts.
Farrar contends, however, that Barack Obama, even if born in Hawaii, is still ineligible. In his belief system, there is no proof that could counter that belief because when a court rules against him, he can just claim that they are wrong.