You are here

Malkin Exposes Berg as a Truther

Error message

  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $decorators_applied declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/bootstrap.inc).
  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $relations declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/bootstrap.inc).
Places: 
People: 

A princess in the righty blogosphere believes Obama was born in Hawai’i. Michelle Malkin made her name with her rhetoric more than her reason. She commits a standard ad hominem fallacy while exposing attorney Phillip Berg as a 9/11 Truther:

The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.

By the process of reason, each claim is evaulated on the evidence, not on the character of the claimant. Berg can be a total tinfol-hat wackjob on everything, but none of that changes the facts of Barry’s birth and the secrecy surrounding the supporting documents.

Malkin does include a challenge to the evidence inside the rhetoric:

Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birthproduced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?). And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

Following her claim about the integrity of Berg, I find he seems to be among the more reasonable of the Truthers. He suspects that the Bush administration knew of and did not prevent the attack. He is not claiming W. planned it, nor does berg believe the laws of physics were suspended to cause the Towers to collapse.

To me, that makes Berg just another Democrat. A leftish one, but still in fair territory for his party.

Since fallacies are on my mind, Malkin’s lumping together “Berg and his supporters” is a fallacy of composition. Almost certainly, some of Berg’s supporters have thicker tinfoil hats that Berg himself. It is not logical to assert them all as equally crazy.