In a surprise announcement today from Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit, the event that we’ve been looking forward to for more than a year has been cancelled. Summit director Haskins cites fundraising as the primary issue. He estimates that it would cost $800,000 to hold the event and that approximately 15,000 attendees would be necessary to underwrite that cost through registration fees and donations. Haskins says:
there have been relatively few donations and registrations
A significant issue, according to Haskins, that kept the event from taking off was a lack of cohesiveness in the movement and that he blames on:
a steady stream of incompetence that continues to flow from one who some still regard as possessing any knowledge of the law and legal procedure. Anytime we come across one who speaks of things like “access to the ‘original’ or ‘vault copy’ of Obama’s birth certificate,” or such absurdities as a state court on the mainland having jurisdictional authority to force Hawaii to break its laws regarding vital statistics records, we must recognize such a person as being complacent in his ignorance of the law (much like the glory hound he likely supports).
There’s gotta be a Taitz in there somewhere.
Anybody heard anything about the Birther Summit? I believe it is supposed to take place on March 29–a little more than a month from now. But the site does not list a hotel or conference center where it is supposed to take place.
Perhaps they’re meeting on the beach at Waikiki.
“Anybody heard anything about the Birther Summit?”
.
cancelled, probably to avoid embarrassment of only 6 attendees
.
from their web site “Based upon multiple factors, Vattelevision, LLC, the parent company of The Birther Summit, has postponed, indefinitely, its planned event in Washington, DC.”
for details:
http://www.birthersummit.org/news/87-important-announcement-from-the-birther-summit.html
ITYS!!!
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/the-occasional-open-thread-post-apocalyptic-version/#comment-156211
Haskins said this:
We have concluded that providing a venue for those who still seem to support the one who is arguably the worst attorney ever, would not only be a disservice to our country, but it could be considered irresponsible, as a gathering of such people might actually constitute a public danger—for anyone who could still be supporting such an aberration cannot be believed to be mentally or emotionally stable.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well, that is a newsworthy update! Squeeky, glad to see that you are on this already.
In true Douglas Adams fashion, it looks like there is enough material in this Birther Summit cancellation update to invoke a “Part 5” of your Trilogy… 😉
There are several key points in this cancellation announcement that I want to comment on:
1. The biggest reason for cancellation seems to be due to it being a money-losing proposition:
2. Which is not surprising, as even Dean now realizes that the Birtheristani are nothing but a bunch of keyboard cowards that rarely venture out beyond the internet:
3. Dean’s explanation here is why Birtherism was always doomed from the start:
4. Unfortunately, Dean’s epiphany still seems to be contained to only blaming Orly for most of the Birther’s woes. While what he says about her is certainly true, he still seems too invested in this nonsense to apply that very same lesson to their broader movement as a whole:
5. It is most unfortunate that Dean hasn’t been able to turn that insight inwards and realize his own despicable culpability in the shameful farce that is his abuse of the Sunahara family. I suspect this is partially due to him being so directly “invested” in a case that has an upcoming hearing. The key test of his character will be whether he can move on and drop it once the judge decides against him… or whether he’ll debase himself further by doubling down and trying to abuse that poor family further by dragging them through worthless appeals…
6. The one useful thing out of all this is that we’ve been able to be “entertained” by the GA debacle live, via “Vattelevision”. Looks like they are setting up to provide the same real time access for all of us to Sherrif Joe’s upcoming clown show too:
In the end, it isn’t really surprising that the Birther Summit has been cancelled. Many of these Birther events have been “promised” and failed to materialize for similar reasons. Those that went forward all crashed and burned in EPIC FAIL proportions.
Although we are left scratching one more popcorn worthy debacle off our calendars, it is refreshing to see some common sense and relatively honest assessment come out of this. Most Birthers simply come up with excuses and lies about why their event is endlessly “delayed”, cancelled or just an utter failure. I will give Dean credit for starting to admit what is wrong in Birtherdom and why his “event” was doomed. Also, being able to walk away and cut one’s losses before they bleed further is a practical decision.
i thought the `millons of americans that want answers’ would have more than covered it.
well, i suppose the cleaners closet would be cheaper, and have more than enough capacity for them.
have you thought of dropping him a line and suggesting this, doc?
My commentary and analysis on this can be found here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/big-debate-tonight/#comment-156637
Popcorn futures drop to record lows.
Tis fun to pour salt on birther wounds, in this instance, by juxtaposing Haskin’s grand eloquent rhetoric what he planned for his Birther Summit v. what he accomplished.
“Countless multitudes of Americans have literally been screaming for nearly three years for our government to properly, and honestly, address what we all know has been the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon our nation.”
Reality—a dozen comments on a birther website does not equal “countless multitudes and does not reflect America.
“Our government officials have merely ignored our demands for governmental redress of our grievances, forgetting that government derives every bit of its authority from We the People.”
Reality—“We the People” does not mean the same things as “birther wack-jobs.”
“We have tried to be heard by our elected officials and by our courts, and so far, not a single plea has actually been heard . . . until NOW!”
Reality—Until not now; not ever.
“As long as the complicit media broadcasts its false message that we are just a small group of conspiracy theorist nut cases,’ the elitists in Washington will continue to ignore us.”
Reality—Here’s something he got right: birthers ARE “a small group of conspiracy theorist nut cases.’”
“Wednesday, March 28 will be a ‘working conference’ of the national leaders and spokespeople of the eligibility movement. Their names are all very well known to you, and this group will hammer out a unified, cohesive message to issue to Congress and every citizen of this country.”
Reality—Birthers could no more “hammer out a unified, cohesive message” than Orly Taits could avoid using “um” while speaking to Judge Malihi. .
“Thursday, March 29 will start with a massive rally at which many of the previous day’s conference attendees will address the huge crowd assembled to make our presence known to Washington and the rest of the country.”
Reality—Six people and a cross-eyed Cocker Spaniel do not count as a “massive rally.”
“The rally, with poignant messages from some of our leaders”
Reality—Orly Taitz calling Dean Haskins “a piece of sh#t,” is hardly poignant.
“We will culminate in the reading of our Declaration of Constitutional Dependence. We have asked the one individual we all immediately recognize for the vast sacrifice he made on our country’s behalf—LTC Terry Lakin.”
Reality—No one could agree on what should go into the Declaration of Constitutional Dependence so they decided to break early and get some tacos. Lakin wasn’t invited because he never has any cash.
Booooooooooooo!
Well, all those Congressional staffers will enjoy their Friday off!
I’d love to see the breakdown of the $800,000 figure. The mention of 15K people seems circular. They would need 15,000 registrations to raise $800K, or they need $800K because they are expecting 15K people? If they don’t know potential registrations, how the heck do they know they need $800K? What was the $800K for? Renting facilities, transportation, and catering for 10 people for 3 days? A little extravagant. If Dean was expecting 15K people, $800K is only $53.33/person, just under $18/day/head. Pretty skimpy “summit”. Attendees expected to shell out for everything? Hmm, the Registration only asks for $44/person to register for a “massive rally” on the 29th, at which Lakin was to appear. Wow. $5 discount with BC. No other mentions of registrations… so closer to 20K registrations needed for the fantasy budget, depending on birth certioficate discounts.
I am certain all donations (I put the O/U on “donations” at $50) and registrations (O/U 11) have been refunded. Right? Sure they have.
What an epic fail. To “postpone indefinitely” (like a political campaign! Are they expecting FEC matching funds?) instead of going ahead with their 10 people. The birther movement has always been a figment, continues to be a figment. An online passion that seems righteous and vital, yet fatally embarrassing for all but the most dedicated nuts. And the demographic simply isn’t motivated enough on this issue alone to travel or shell out for it.
Haskins keeps calling out the mote in Taitz’s eye*, but he really needs to consider the log in his own.
* He’s just jealous of her.
COUGH! [loser] COUGH!!
Failure is Haskin’s primary mode, like in Hawaii, his attempt to prove ID Theft on Virginia Sunahara blew up in his face when he found out that Obama was not named Virginia Sunahara. But he still has a case in Hawaii where the brother of Virginia is demanding to see the vault copy of Virginia’s BC hoping it will have the same BC number as Obama’s or at least Obama’s name on it. Actually he deserves all the failure he gets.
Here’s what Dean Haskin’s predicted for the Birther Summit back in July of 2011:
“As the plan and structure of this three-day event become finalized, we will be rolling out increasingly greater marketing efforts throughout the country, and will force our way into the common, everyday language of Americans. We will be lauded, and we will be hated; but, WE WILL BE. We are already receiving messages from across the country from people who want to be a part of this historic event, and as our message is disseminated to even greater numbers of people, knowledge of the upcoming Birther Summit will blanket the land. The Birther Summit website is already largely exceeding the traffic we initially anticipated at this point in our infancy.”
And the moral to this story? Birthers make lousy fortune tellers.
Well said, all.
OH, I just finished a Internet Article on this, too.
Twin Piques – The Birther Summit On Ice!!!
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/twin-piques-the-birth-summit-on-ice/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
That reminds me of a “Wizard of Id” cartoon:
King to fortune teller: “I’ve been told you can tell the future.”
Woman dressed as gypsy: “Yes, I can.”
King: “Then why are you living in a tent?”
Birtherpalooza, we hardly knew ye.
Just had a chance to read it, thanks. I particularly enjoyed the reference and vivid explanation of Leo Johnson from Twin Peaks.
A question for you – what is your take on Dean and his shameful Sunahara case? See my Point #5 in my post at 3:05pm above.
G:
I haven’t kept up much with the Sunahara stuff beyond just generaly knowing who they were. I read about it more just now on Haskin’s website, and my initial thought is Hawaii ought to give then a long form and charge extra for what it costs. Maybe a $100 or $200 fee. And should do that for everybody, because most people won’t want one, and if they are willing to pay that much for it, what’s the difference. The State makes money.
As far as being there for the copying, that seems kind of a stupid thing to ask for, and I think Hawaii is right to object for that. This isn’t a safari where you can ask for a guided tour.
As far as the morality of trying to involve the Sunahara family in this, and all the initial contact stuff with them, the word GHOULISH comes to mind. Particularly when there is no substantial evidence that Obama wasn’t born there in the first place. All Birthers ever had was suspicions, made somewhat more respectable by the fact Obama didn’t cough up the long form, but that was it. Suspicions. Obama is fair game to some degree, but the Sunaharas did not toss their hats in the ring and run for office. Totally wrong and creepy, cheesy, to involve, them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Was Confederate Carl his Marketing Director?
That reminds me, didn’t Carl promise that he would return to eat crow if the Georgia ballot hearings didn’t result in victory for his side? Not only are birthers lousy at predictions, they’re awful at keeping promises.
CSA Carl is too low on spittle these days to handle eating crow.
They are led by example, and learn (some) of their lessons well!
Of course, even with the cancellation, it will still be almost the best-attended birther event ever.
Good point! You should send that to Dean–it might cheer him up.
😉
@G–I find it so typical that you speak as being so authoritative, yet do not know about what you blather. You stated: “Any requested exceptions to standard procedures need clearly defined extraordinary justifying reasons to explain why such an exception is necessary. Mr Sunahara (i.e. Dean’s patsy) never gave any reason for why the Standard BC he received is insufficient for his needs.”
Actually, that is not true. From the office of the AG in Wolf v. Fuddy:
OIP Op. No 90-23, 1990 WL 482371 at p. 4-5
In its conclusion, the Opinion stated:
We conclude that a person seeking to inspect a vital record relating to an event that occurred less than 75 years ago may inspect a vital record without demonstrating that the information is necessary for the determination of personal or property rights, only if the DOH is satisfied that the person stands in the spousal, familial, or other relation set forth in section 338-18(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Additionally, you know nothing about the situation with the Sunaharas–you’re merely echoing claptrap from idiot sensationalists. Duncan Sunahara is a grown man who had started his research and trying to obtain documentation for his sister long before he and I ever had our first conversation. I received a phone call late last year from someone who had a relationship with Duncan explaining that he was getting the run around in trying to get his sister’s info, and they wanted to know if I would be willing to go to Honolulu to help him.
I spent a total of 2 1/2 weeks with Duncan, and he has become a good friend. I have never spoken with his mother, and have never stepped foot in their house. As I only helped Duncan do something he was trying unsuccessfully to do on his own, then your problem should necessarily be with him; however, as he is a grown man, and this a family matter, you would be an idiot for voicing such “problem.” As it is, you are anyway, as you have spoken something as if it were true, without knowing one way or the other.
Those who voice their “disgust” about my association with Duncan are no different than mouth-breathing Orly supporters–who vehemently voice their utterly fallacious understanding of things as if the falsehoods they believe become true because they repeat them so many times.
I cannot tell you how little I am concerned about what you think. I merely explained the situation because I have seen comments from armchair ethicists condemning something they know nothing about. Obviously, your ass is firmly entrenched in that chair. I slept well last night, and will do so again tonight, as I have done nothing wrong, and I gained a good friend in the process.
Then why are you here defending yourself?
If a “friend” of mine in Hawaii needed help with a legal matter, I would suggest kindly to him that he find a good attorney licensed to practice in that state. Maybe offer to help with the costs. It seems that you are not a licensed Hawaiian attiorney, but merely an armchair variety thereof.
If you are not exploiting Mr Sunahara’s family tragedy, why have you stuck banner headlines about it on your birther web site along with all the other assorted garbage?
I am not here to debate (and neither will I), but simply to expose as stupidity and fallacy a ridiculous sentiment that has been vapidly echoed by some who think they know something, but clearly don’t.
I am not obligated in the least to defend WHY I chose to do something–and I am not “defending,” but simply showing how incredibly uninformed some who purport to understand things really are. Some of you look no different to me than Orly worshipers–you appear equally inept in the critical thinking skills department.
And no, I am not a licensed Hawaiian attorney, which is why one was hired (and it wasn’t done from an armchair either).
Yeah, I remember the 7th grade.
It’s so easy to make you look like an idiot when you do all the heavy lifting.
Many of these proud birther bigots are so sure they know everything while actually displaying how little they really know and understand.
Ignorance isn’t bliss. It’s truly pathetic.
Hi Dean, thanks for coming by.
I was appalled by some of the really nasty comments directed at you that I found when I opened up the blog this morning. I am in the process of deleting the worst of them.
I remind every one of this blog’s Editorial Policy (item 13):
— Personal attacks directed against other commenters are prohibited. —
I have and will put people in moderation who violate the policy.
I am moving what’s left over of this conversation to the current Birther Summit cancellation thread, since it has nothing to do with the Scott Erlandson debate.
Forgive me for not staying on top of this story. Did Mr. Sunahara finally get to see the original certificate? Can you confirm that the certificate number matched the short form number (and is different from Obama’s published certificate)?
Hi Kevin.
No, Duncan has not received a photocopy of his sister’s original certificate yet. He didn’t even receive an estimate of the costs involved in providing such a photocopy after informing the DOH that he would defray such costs if they would just let him know how much it would be.
The attorney has prepared an extensive opposition to the DOH’s Motion to Dismiss. It is due to be filed on Feb. 28, and a hearing is scheduled for March 8.
Of the reactions generated by his efforts to hold a birther summit, Dean predicted, “We will be lauded, and we will be hated.” He got it half right, and he deserves everything he gets.
So let me ask your opinion, would Mr. Sunahara not have had such trouble getting the certificate if the birthers hadn’t made access to certificates such a charged issue?
That’s something I just don’t know. I do know that, as I accompanied him to various places to help him get different records for his sister, he commented, “They certainly treat islanders differently when they come in with a haole with a briefcase.”
I gotta use that for the quote of the day someday.
Did he mean HDOH is more responsive or less?
Far more responsive.
I find that odd. I was commenting three years ago here that Barack Obama could get some kind of a copy of his original certificate based on the same laws that you referenced. I have to believe that the Hawaii Department of Health is overreacting and that it comes from the bad experiences they have had with vexatious requests for Obama’s certificate and the antics of Orly Taitz (et al.) in court. I spent my career in and around state and local government, and I know that vital records people are a proud bunch.
Orly Taitz could make a stomach virus withhold diarrhea.
More responsive, but no results? Meaning they went from ignoring him before your involvement, to actively stonewalling?
There were some records he was able to get (hospital), that he had been previously denied. As for the DOH, the behavior there was unmistakably stonewalling.
Thanks for the speedy answers, Dean.
THERE is your quote of the day.
Dean Haskins, how is your ID theft angle on Sunahara working out?
Hardly worthy of a response . . . however, I will just type it very slowly for you:
t h e h e a r i n g i s M a r c h 8.
if the Sunahara case is simply a person attempting to get family information, and Mr Haskins is simply “helping”, why is it trumpeted on a site along with the Birther Summit and various birther lies? Other than on tactical issues, on what substantive matters does Mr Haskins differ with Ms Taitz? It seems he promotes the same untruths that she does, with the possible exception of the SSN.
We have uncovered obvious issues with Hawaiian vital statistics records from that era. As many still have questions about those things as they relate to Obama, it isn’t against the law to pursue answers (as long as one does it within the constraints of the law–which is the part the dentist still has not figured out).
“however, I will just type it very slowly for you: t h e h e a r i n g i s M a r c h 8.”
so on March 8 we will know how ID theft occured?
I’m so sorry you don’t understand how conclusions are drawn by examining evidence, or how court procedures work.
Such as?
All in due time . . .
Yes obvious issues such as that Hawaiian records don’t conform to the conspiracy theories birthers have attributed. You banked so heavily that the sunahara birth certificate would somehow match Obama’s and when it was not even close it’s evidence of another conspiracy.
“why is it trumpeted on a site along with the Birther Summit and various birther lies?”
.
the ID Theft part has been wiped clean off of his site, only story shown is “Sunahara v. Department of Health Motion to Dismiss”. Orly is still locked into the ID Theft. Haskin made a big deal out of his Hawaii trip and ID Theft and told us he would have major findings, no major findings occurred and most of the stuff on his Hawaiian trip is gone from his site. Essentailly the same result as his “Cancellation”. His Hawaii case is a waste of time, nothing will come of it. “All in due time” has been his meme from day one. His track record at uncovering is zero!
Any day now…
Would you mind answering my question as to what substantive issues, as opposed to tactical matters of procedure, you disagree with Orly on?
Dean –
On the off chance you are still here and wiling to respond.
You’ve been frank about your feelings towards Orly. I’d love to know your opinion of Farah and Corsi.
Do you believe them to be honest men in search of the truth?
I’m sorry Scientist but any answers from Dean will have to be indefinitely postponed. You will not get your questions back as we have expended far more in questions than we have received.
Beat me to it.
So far, nothing has been seen but a computer abstract–which is not a copy of anything, but the statistical information from the original that has been entered into a database.
Yes, and isn’t it amazing that, while purported to have happened in such close proximity date-wise, it is “not even close” in registration numbers (as in at least 9-10 days difference), yet the processing dates show only a couple days’ difference. And, before offering some of the absurd “explanations” I have seen, all processing of BCs occurred in one location–the DOH on Punchbowl St. It is inexplicable how the registration numbers and processing numbers could be so far apart–in light of the SOPs in force both now, and at that time.
Nothing like that has ever been deleted from the site.
“Nothing like that has ever been deleted from the site.”
.
Haskin’s right, it’s archived under “Summit News”, But his track record at uncovering is still zero!
Care to try to answer the question? This is a third request and I am a baseball fan, so I know what 3 strikes means. On what substantive issues, rather than procedural tactics do you disagree with Ms Taitz?
My comments are quite extensive, and are available on the website; as such, I see no need to reply to your nuanced questions (like I’m under some compulsion to make sure that I don’t “strike out” in your eyes–LOL!).
I always try get evidence and theories out as soon as I can. I do that because I value the insights others have. Having a broader perspective helps to put new information into context and to arrive at contextually accurate interpretation of things.
I realize that birthers and anti-birthers engage in a game of “gotcha” but I never found much value in playing. I’d rather focus on what’s correct than on speculations that didn’t work out.
Last time I checked Dean Haskins has still not published a photo of the Sunahara COLB – just the certificate number. I am not doubting the number matches but I just found that to be odd. The fact that Birthers still are pushing the “certificate number out of sequence” theory at all is just further evidence that they have nothing.
Yes, that is inconvenient for resolving the number sequencing issue.
Why would you need more than the number? I released just the number out of deference to Duncan. I believe the attorney will be entering the COLB as evidence, so when that is filed, it will be public record.
Haskin’s “In Due Time” reminds me of Trump saying he had dispatched a team of special investigators to the islands. “I have people that have been studying it, and they cannot believe what they’re finding.” Haskin’s “uncovering” would qualify for “Pants on Fire”. Leave the Sunahara family alone, using them to support your hate of Obama is really nasty. As your summit cancellation shows, the bither issues are over.
First of all, my last name ends with an “s”; so can you please use proper punctuation? Trump doesn’t have a case pending in Hawaii. We do. You either have not read, or do not understand, my relationship with Duncan, and that it commenced well after he had already been pursuing his sister’s records–so, your unfounded sentiments are invalid and biased.
Hi Dean,
Can you answer the following about Virginia’s COLB.
Does it have an embossed or debossed seal?
Isn’t Bruce Springsteen Deboss?
The back of the COLB is stamped, and the stamp, from that perspective, is debossed.
it will be public record.
LOL
You don’t know how that works either?
Yes, he is and a good man is hard to find.
So on theback of COLB, where the stamp is debossed is the lettering in the seal backward or does it read normally.
“You don’t know how that works either?”
We will on March 8, won’t we?
“The back of the COLB is stamped,” so, when reading it from the back, the letters are normal (they are backward when viewing the front of the COLB). From the back view, looking at the normal-appearing letters, the stamp is DEbossed (sunken in, rather than raised).
Thank you. Miss Tickly is going to be very upset.
Did you see the August 23rd, 1961 LFBC that was on WND’s website?
It has a cert # of 09945, considerably below the Nordyke’s and the President’s.
Have you seen the screen shot of Stig Waidelich’s COLB? He was born August 5th, 1961. His cert # is 10920, considerably abouve the Nordyke’s and the President’s.
What do you make of that?
This exchange reminded me of something Dean posted when he first began to began excoriate Orly Taits. On January 19th he opined:
“For more than three years, we have literally screamed our disapproval of the vast numbers of Americans who have accepted statements at face value made by a campaign, an administration, Congress, and the media, and we have labeled such people “sheeple.” But, sadly, many in our movement have done the same thing regarding the one person who has garnered the lion’s share of public attention in this matter, by accepting at face value that anything positive was occurring.”
By promising that incriminating evidence will be released “all in due time,” Dean is asking us to emulate those gullible birthers who, for so long, have accepted “at face value” the hope that something positive was about to happen.
Dean Haskins:
What I am curious about, is how many other Birthers are willing to PUBLICLY support your position on Orly Taitz, and say so on their websites. I imagine that PRIVATELY you have much support.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Artie, you’ve made an illogical jump (which is typical for you). We cannot draw any definitive conclusions before we have completed compiling the evidence we are seeking. So, nobody has asked you to do that either–you can stop kicking and screaming, as nobody is dragging you anywhere.
Yes, I have received a lot of support. I’ve also received some very nasty emails (most of those contain a lot of misspellings and grammatical errors–but I won’t draw any correlations). As to those who would support what I’ve written on their websites, that’ll have to be up to them. I don’t care either way, as I am only responsible for what I say and do. I’ve lost a few friends over my articles . . . but who needs idiots for friends?
Dean:
Your response is laughable. The entire birther movement is based on making conclusions before compiling evidence. All you can do is recycle the same long-debunked conspiracies, and that’s why your long march towards a “Birther Summit” failed. There was no “there” there, and even gullible birther are loath to pay good money to support something that doesn’t exist.
“Your response is laughable.”
well he scammed his way into a Hawaii vacation, that’s the only accomplishment he made. Following his summit fail there will be the Hawaii case dismissal. There is no “there” in the Sunahara case.
Yes, and if you take Dean at his word, which is arguably a dangerous thing to do, he also supported Miki Booth’s sojourn in Hawaii. From a notice dated December 1, 2011 on Dean’s website:
“The Birther Summit has sent Miki Booth back to Hawaii to continue the investigative work it has been conducting, and to support the continued efforts of Orly Taitz.”
Given the state of birtherdom, I imagine Dean has now sent Miki a bill for her trip.
I will bet a lot of money that you cannot show me proof that you actually laughed out loud.
You promote fraud. Just as much as Taitz, only with better grammar. Out of respect to Doc’s rules i will not say what that makes you, but, rather, leave that to the reader.
It makes him no better than Orly Taitz, and though that doesn’t violate any of Doc’s rules, it’s still one of one of the most offensive things you could say about somone.
“it’s still one of one of the most offensive things you could say about somone.”
Good one!
I find his latching on to the Sunahara BC is very offensive,(my sister’s 1st child died after one day), he initially tried to make it an ID Theft story, then he found out that Obama was not named Virginia Sunahara, bummer. But he is still trying to tie a dead infant into Obama, that is sick, really sick. *!@@##**+ to him!
Like his summit died, so will his Sunahara case die. Guaranteed! Maybe then he will go away!
Please provide me with your email address so I can gloat when you’re shown to be woefully deficient in your understanding (and in your ability to prophesy).
Dean alleges that richCares is unable to make an accurate prophesy regarding the Sunahara case. I ask you, in the sordid history of birther prophesies, has a birther ever been accurate when he or she predicted success in a court case or hearing? Likewise, has an Obot, upon predicting a birther legal failure, ever been wrong? Let us tally up the results and see who’s better at prophetic statements.
Dean,
What do you make of the cert #s for Waidelich’s COLB and the WND LFBC?
I don’t mind if you end up looking like a fool–however, you might want to wait until after 2/28 to make your prediction, since you have no idea what arguments are contained in the opposition to the motion to dismiss. But hey, like I said, provide your email address so I can gloat when you’re shown to have made a completely foolish prediction before seeing all the evidence.
As I previously stated, “We have uncovered obvious issues with Hawaiian vital statistics records from that era.”
Sorry–clicked the wrong “quote” link.
As I previously stated, “We have uncovered obvious issues with Hawaiian vital statistics records from that era.”
I’ll get it right eventually.
As I previously stated, “We have uncovered obvious issues with Hawaiian vital statistics records from that era.”
Likewise. Now, can’t we all just get along?
Are theytrue issues or is it just we don’t have a complete understanding of how the system worked in 1961.
That’s a new one for me.
Based on the SOPs from that era, they are true issues.
Dean
I hope you are not using Jerome Corsi’s fake quotes from the Hawaiian Medical Journal article by Charles Bennett and George Tokuyama as a source for your allegations. I can already anticipate your answer is ‘no’ but will you at least acknowledge that Corsi lied about what the article said?
what is Haskins suit with Duncan attemping to prove, why is he pushing so hard
what does a dead child have to do with Obama, something about Haskins actions don’t pass the smell test
“Issues” is a broad term. It is interesting that no one seems to have published these “SOP’s” that you have mentioned. The 1955 article I mentioned says absolutely nothing about when certificate numbers are applied but seems to indicate that the territory of Hawaii had put considerable effort into modernizing their vital statistics systems to comply with suggested national guidelines. I would be surprised that the system was not operated as well in 1961. “Issues” sounds like a term a conspiracy theorist would use when they really have no proof of wrong doing just to cast doubt and keep the conspiracy alive. Let’s see if I am correct.
These “issues” you speak of could only be discerned from a very small set of data from 5 or 6 birth certificates and one infant death certificate. I trust that the current effort will be rewarded the same success as the Birther Summit.
What SOPs are you referring to?
From the 1955 Hawaii Medical Journal
“A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”
In Honolulu the local registrar was an employee at the DOH. How they were processed after that is not clear. Unless you have some new (or old) documents that outline the process. The Hawaii Administration rules only required BC to be delivered weekly to the DOH. They don’t indecate when they are processed.
Let’s pretend the records from 1961 were all washed out to sea in a tsunami. That wouldn’t change the fact that all those people born in Hawaii in that year (Obama, Sunahara, Waldlch) were born there.
No they don’t. Haskins might be a terrific fellow, kind to small children and puppies, but his actions are reprehensible (doing my best to comply with the rules here).
So Dean,
Just to be clear
Based on (possibly) 4 to 6 data points, specifically the BC’s of
Virginia Sunahara
Her brother
The President’s
Possibly Waidelich’s
Possibly the WND BC
Possibly the Nordyke Twins
Of which
Virginia’s in inherently an anomalous outlier as it is an event of both birth and death before the birth record would have been finalized
Waidelich’s which is a “short form”
The WND which is a “short form”
So you have, for 6 data points, 3 different types of form with 3 differing presentation routes in 3 different formats seperated by over 50 years of data storage methodologies.
And from this mish mash you expect anyone to believe your nonsense about finding “issues” which you are extrapolating furiously to posit are to be inherent flaws in the Hawai’in vital records system.
In the real world this is called at best desperation and intellectual dishonesty.
Hmmmm . . . still having trouble with that reading comprehension stuff, huh? As I stated, Duncan was already trying to obtain documentation long before we ever met. So, helping him out, in your biased mind, is “reprehensible.” Says much.
Additionally, if there’s nothing to hide, then why are you all so worried about Duncan trying to obtain a copy of his sister’s birth certificate? If there are no “issues,” then this shouldn’t even register a blip on your radar–let alone your ravenous questions trying to prove something you’ve already predetermined with no evidence. We just want to examine the best evidence we can find. Some of you are just as ingrained in group-speak as Orly’s mindless worshipers are.
No plastering it all over a birther web site and pretending that is says anything about the other babies born in the same place around that time is reprehensible. Suppose that some infant died in the city you were born in within a day or 2 of your biirth (which is far from impossible). So what?
I frankly don’t care if he does or he doesn’t. Could you enlighten us as to what he might possibly learn concerning his sister, since he knows where and when she was born, who the parents were, etc. If he is looking for medical information, wouldn’t the death certificate be more informative? Besides, I can’t honestly think of any useful mediical information an adult near 50 could obtain from the fact that a sibling died as an infant. The causes of infant and adult morbidity are just too different.
Why he would like a photocopy of the document is not for us to question, and has no bearing on whether or not he should be able to receive it.
OIP Op. No 90-23, 1990 WL 482371 at p. 4-5
In its conclusion, the Opinion stated:
We conclude that a person seeking to inspect a vital record relating to an event that occurred less than 75 years ago may inspect a vital record without demonstrating that the information is necessary for the determination of personal or property rights, only if the DOH is satisfied that the person stands in the spousal, familial, or other relation set forth in section 338-18(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes.
And, as to whether or not her birth certificate has anything to do with any other, you are guilty of making the same kinds of assumptions of which you accuse us. You don’t know at all if one has anything to do with the other, as you have as little evidence as we do. The only difference is–we’re doing something about it.
I’m not an expert in Hawaiian law. Nor are you. And before you say Sunahara’s attorney is, he is an attorney with a dog in the fight. If the court says he can have it fine, if they say no, also fine. I don’t care.
Give me a credible hypothesis. As a scientist, I don’t do experiments without a reasonable hypothesis, because there is literally an infinite set of data in the universe, Experiments not guided by hypotheses are not of any value. So, surely, you have a working hypothesis. If you are unwilling to discuss it, openly, then what point is there to your being here?
Are you speaking existentially?
If not, I merely showed up to quell the baseless tripe about my friendship with Duncan that has been repeated on anti-birther websites by people who simply don’t have a clue about it. Then the rabid ferrets showed up with their Pharisaical type questions. I know Kevin welcomed me here, but many have shown their typical incivility. No biggie, as ultimately it doesn’t matter what any of you thinks. I just thought I would answer the non-nuanced questions to the best of my ability.
What is your working hypothesis regarding baby Sunahara’s birth certificate? No nuance there, nor is it Pharisaical. It’s rather basic.
At this point, it is merely to inspect it. It is part of evidence-gathering. As there have been questions for some time now (which are certainly not secret), and the DOH has done everything they can to stonewall its release, a decision as to what it may or may not prove won’t happen until the evidence is procured. It may tell us nothing; it may tell us much. We just don’t know. It is too early to hypothesize. But, what most here seem to disregard is that they actually have as little real evidence as we do (actually less).
Evidence-gathering without a credible thesis = fishing expedition.
You don’t know who I am and what what evidence I have.
“What is your working hypothesis regarding baby Sunahara’s birth certificate? No nuance there, nor is it Pharisaical. It’s rather basic.”
.
Initially it was ID Theft and that failed when Duncan got the COLB, so what is it now? It’s a pointless endeavor by a birther that should know better!
Those are your baseless thoughts about it–not anybody’s who is involved. Nothing about what we are doing has changed from before I ever traveled to Honolulu. Your group-speak is inconsequential, Robby.
Dean,
From the lack of response I presume that my count of a maximum of 5-6 data points used by yourself to create your thesis is accurate?
“Those are your baseless thoughts about it–not anybody’s who is involved.”
so what is your point? why are you involved and what does it have to do with Obama.
Ah Dean, I’ve heard your arguments on this before and I’m not buying it. Spare me your claims that you “innocently” came to the Sunahara’s rescue here.
Face it, you followed in the footsteps of those who originally dug up Sunahara’s birth and death on that date and thought it opened the door of a new “creative” way for you attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and get access to his archive records. All of you Birthers pulling this shameful tactic have been doing nothing but exploiting the Sunahara’s loss for your attempted gain.
I credit you for finally waking up to Orly’s nonsense, but until you can see and remove the mote in your own eye, you will remain unable to truly grow from this whole sad experience.
I realize that it is difficult for thin-skinned and egotistical individuals to truly achieve introspection and complete an honest self-evaluation of their own actions. I also realize it is difficult to admit when you are wrong when you are so emotionally invested in a fools errand. Finally, I realize that it is pragmatically difficult to forgo seeing an existing lawsuit through, particularly when its resolution is on the near-term horizon.
So, I’ll give you a partial “pass” for now, until your lawsuit plays itself out. When the judge rules against you and explains their reasoning, will you accept the judge’s decision and let it go? Or will you double-down on obstinate stupidity?
That will be the true moment to see whether you have the maturity and wherewithal to let it go and begin your own path of healing or not. Until then, your epiphany remains nothing more than selective tunnel-vision.
Just for perspective:
Let’s remember that Dean Haskins is the same person who produced the vile and racist “Convenience Store Robbery” video attacking President Obama and who has taken money from folks (and apparently not providing refunds) for an event that was touted to be the greatest Birther event ever that has now become the butt of jokes. He is the same person who never once mentioned that he thought Obama’s Kenyan born father was any issue re eligibility at all until late 2008 well after the election. I am not criticizing but just providing information to help casual reader decide who might be the most truthful.
I think that this might be the appropriate point to interject something:
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/the-ten-key-characteristics-of-nut-job-conspiracy-theorists/#comment-870
Comments from the Haskin site:
“I hope everyone will be patient and know that, at the minute we are assured that sharing the information will not jeopardize it in any way, we will give an immediate and thorough report. ”
“We are asked, daily, to release the information about the upcoming lawsuit in Hawaii, despite the explanation that we have been asked not to do so until counsel gives us a green light. ”
Here on this blog, he still dodges the question, why, cause he has nothing!
A child died after one day of life and Haskins wants to tie that into Obama, that is reprehensible.
Dean,
Just so you know, I actually do appreciate that you came over here to respond in person.
I’m also not bothered that you have an understandably defensive tone in your responses.
I feel I’ve explained my position about what I find reprehensible about your Sunahara case and how I do view it as being an act of intentional and cynical manipulation of them, for purposes in which their actual “needs” are just tangential and were merely an opportunistic means towards your true intent.
I do think both you and Doc C. have made a valid point about the whole “debacle” of Birtherism and Orly’s antics leading to unintended consequences of possibly making some departments much more reluctant to make exceptions and give out anything other than what they absolutely have to, by law. If anything, I think that serves as a lesson that actions have consequences and that harrassment only hurts one’s cause.
March 8 is not far away. I am content to wait and give you your day in court and accept whatever the judge rules. I differ from some of the others here in their reaction to you not wanting to reveal certain information before that court date happens. I’m actually fine with you giving that response in regards to an upcoming legal case.
The one part of your argument that might prevail is getting just an uncertified “photocopy” of the original birth certificate record. There is precedent for that, so I don’t have a problem if that particular outcome results at all.
The law seems to allow flexibility to provide such, but more importantly, it does not require it. Therefore, I also won’t have a problem if the judge determines that the HI DOH does NOT have to give you that photocopy either. I can see where they can say that the existing info they have provided is sufficient and that your side has not demonstrated a sufficient reason why more is required. Simple as that.
Of course, I see absolutely ZERO reason where you could justify or demand a “certified LFBC” as you might call it. Not saying you are demanding such, but just putting that statement out there.
Arguing for a mere uncertified photocopy is probably the extent of where you have a possible valid argument, IMHO.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with Obama at all and in my opinion, any parts of your argument in that direction are simply destined to fail.
He’s on a fishing expedition hoping to get a peek at the book with the holy grail-Obama’s “original’ certificate. Of course, he won’t be allowed to copy it, but he will come out spouting some baseless blather that his 2 second look “proved” that the documents posted, the ones that the State of Hawaii vouched for, are fake and the “real” certificate says “Born in Kenya”, never mind the sheer implausibility (virtual impossibility) of a pregnant teenager travelling to Kenya while her Kenyan hubby stayed in Hawaii. Dean will dream that this will cause Obama to lose to someone like Rmoney or Sanctorum (who, as far as we know, don’t have any birth certificates at all).
Now Doc’s rules are that one should, on this site, only criticize actions but not the person himself. So, I think Dean is a wonderful person, kind to all and honest as the day is long. Too bad that his actions don’t measure up to his sterling character.
Several reasons. It just might provide a hint as to why the sequence number is out of sequence. Perhaps it shows that it was processed by the office that handles death certificates.
Who knows? Why did you want to see Obama’s non-standard form.
And do you take it at his word that he was ‘Born in the USA’?
You don’t know the difference between debossing and embossing do you?
Debossing is not the backside of an embossment, Debossing is raising the background of an image, embossing is raising the foreground of an image.
It doesn’t matter on which side of the paper the certification stamp appears, it matters whether the background or the foreground of the image is raised. Looking at the back of side of an embossment just shows the reversed image of the foreground indented.
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, speak out of turn, or commit him to something he rather not be committed to, but I rather suspect that Doc would be happy to host your gloating here for all the world to reflect on for all time. Why keep it private?
This is where I’m lost…….what is the lawsuit about regarding this dead baby and President Obama? It’s clear Dean Haskins is desparate to NOT be wrong and hoping for SOMETHING to hang his hat on here, but what???? I mean, what that will be bad for President Obama? I know I should just get that Haskins is a birther so there’s my answer right there, but still…..
Dean, FWIW, I’m fully in support of Duncan Sunahara getting a copy of his sister’s long form birth certificate. I don’t know why he shouldn’t have a copy, and I don’t know why the Hawaii Department of Health shouldn’t and wouldn’t want to provide him with one.
“what is the lawsuit about regarding this dead baby and President Obama?”
Nothing!
Duncan, the dead childs brother, got a COLB which had a different BC Number than Obama, so Haskins helped him sue to get a long form BC, with the condition they witness the production of the long form. Why, you may ask. maybe still looking for Obama;s BC in it somehow. In order words no sense is made of this and the suit goes no where and Haskins can shout cover-up,nothing Haskins does is related to reality he just hates Obama.
John Woodman, here’s is Hawaii’s motion to dismiss and why (from deans site)
http://www.birthersummit.org/images/stories/documents/79284831-sunahara-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
.
Hawaii gave Duncan a COLB, why he wants access to the original is someting Haskins refuses to tell us.
John, are you merely advocating support for being able to obtain an uncertified photocopy, or are you saying that the state of HI must start providing certified “LFBCs”?
I would like to hear more about your reasoning on this. I have provided mine at 6:33pm above. Thanks.
Disclaimer: the term LFBC is probably an improper term for us to use. It falsely implies that the state has different formats available, when in fact, it does not. For over a decade, there has been ONLY one official format for official documant issuance – the COLB. It would be more correct for us to start using terms such as “copy of the original document” and “official format” or something like that… I only use the term LFBC in response, because you also referred to it that way.
Okay, that deceased baby is NOT President Obama, so naturally, ergo, ipso factso, the BC numbers would be…….DRUM ROLL………DIFFERENT!!!!!
So form this, Dean Haskins has decided that there’s a CONSPIRACY!!! We need the so called LONG FORM for the baby which will surely get President Obama frogged marked out of the White House.
Okay I get it……..birther clap trap, going the way of the usual birther clap trap…….NOWHERE!!
Also, I don’t believe for one minute that Dean Haskins was just minding his own business, somehow got wind of this brother who needed help and cried out “HERE i COME TO SAVE THE DAY” and went to Hawaii to “help” him and they are now friends. Please. That poor fellow is getting a lot of attention and what do you want to bet that Dean Haskins told him that “if/when this pans out, you will be FAMOUS!!”
Haskins is not a nice person, no matter how hard he tries to divert attention from that fact to Orly.
I can see both sides of this argument. I think ultimately the State will win this case but it is not as cut and dry as most silly Birther lawsuits. I read the Wolf v Fuddy transcript a while back and one thing that came through is that the DOH owns the records and not the individual or their relatives. Hawaii spent a boat load of money digitizing records for the benefit of their customers, the citizens born in Hawaii, so they could have convenient and efficient access to a certified birth certificate that doesn’t reveal a bunch of useless personal information. Now this truckload of idiots has come along aka Birthers and upset the apple cart by creating a completely manufactured doubt about the authenticity of a single document, the COLB of a certain dark skinned person born in 1961. My gut instinct is to say screw them.
Now another solution is to price a copy of the LFBC at a reasonable value so that the curious nimrods like Duncan who only want one because they listened to a Birther once will think twice before ordering one. I would suggest $599 is a good starting point.
I think anyone who’s a close relative who really wants a copy of a person’s long form birth certificate ought to be able to get one. Why not? It used to be routine to issue such copies. In fact, those were the only kind issued.
Unless there’s some actual law (not “rule” but law) that people can’t have such copies, then I think a copy ought to be provided. If the DOH needs to charge a bit extra fee to account for extra cost of providing such certificates, I’m sure the people who want them would probably be willing to pay it.
I suspect there might be a bit of “birther allergy” going on here. That said, I’ve witnessed firsthand the kind of unreasonable intransigence a state vital records agency can exhibit.
The State of Maryland literally stole the family name from one of our children, and refused to give it back. If we hadn’t appealed all the way up the line to the head of the Vital Statistics Administration for the entire State of Maryland, she would be going through her life with a different surname from the rest of her family right now.
Primarily uncertified, as I think people’s reasons for requesting it would be family information, genealogical, etc. That said, what’s the cost of the ink on a rubber stamp, and the press of an embosser?
John, But do you think they have a right to go into the vault and watch the photocopy being made and possibly see recoords of other individuals within the bound voolume, which is what Haskins wants?
so John Woodward, it’s OK for someone to demand to be present as DOH copies the BC, that’s what Haskins wants, that’s part of his case. My daughter was born in Hawaiin 1965 when I asked for a long form they told me they only supply a COLB which is their standard form ,I have no problem with that.
.
a little addional info:
I attended University of Hawaii in 1961, I met a black African whose white wife just had a baby, I don’t remember any names but my wife insists it was Obama Sr, Come to think of it who else could it be.
I know I’m going to be asked for more of the story, so I’ll preempt the question.
All of our children except one left the hospital named. Our 4th child… well, we kinda knew what we were going to name her, but not entirely. It sort of took us 2 or 3 weeks. Part of the uncertainty was that we had two names we liked, and weren’t certain which to put first. We knew the one we put first would be the one she would end up using for the rest of her life.
So when she came home, she was officially ____________________ Woodman. And I think she actually was given a birth certificate that showed she was our child, but hadn’t been named yet.
So once we recovered from all the hubbub and decided exactly what names in what order, we filled out the appropriate paperwork.
The State of Maryland had a form that was precisely for this situation. It was labeled something like “Form to Add Given Names to Child’s Birth Certificate.” And it asked for all the appropriate information that would identify the child.Parents, etc., etc.
Now bear in mind that she already had a birth certificate that identified her as
______________ Woodman.
The form had a specific blank, with instructions along the lnes of, “Now put in this blank the given names that you want to add to the child’s birth certificate.”
So we put in her given names, just as instructed. The instructions were clear and specific, and we followed them to the letter.
The state functionary who processed the form was confused by the fact that we gave her three given names, not two. We’ve done this with most of our kids. So the birth certificate should’ve been on the order of,
Ashley Brianna Charmaine Woodman (not her real name).
So when we got her birth certificate back, guess what it read? Right. It was along the lines of:
Ashley Brianna Charmaine — with “Woodman” stripped off completely, and her third given name reassigned to be her surname.
We phoned about the matter. The [here I restrain myself from sinking into impolite terms] state functionary we dealt with said, “We’re not changing it. It’s your fault.”
Excuse me? We followed the directions to the letter. Does the Maryland Bureau of Vital Statistics not understand what they are asking when they ask parents to please write in this blank the GIVEN NAMES that you wish to ADD to this child’s birth certificate?
We were told we would have to take the matter to court, file a lawsuit, and get a judge to issue a court order requiring them to change her surname back to what it had originally been.
In the end we didn’t have to do that. But we DID have to appeal from Supervisor, to Supervisor, on up the entire chain of command to the very head of the [here I restrain myself again] bureau of vital statistics for the State of Maryland, just in order to get our daughter’s family name restored to her.
Don’t even get me started on how the State of Maryland followed us literally halfway across the country and harassed us for months, threatening to have us both fined and arrested if we didn’t come up with a way to PROVE to them that there was NO period of time during our residence in that state that we didn’t have insurance on our car.
I’m not particularly impressed with government bureaucracy.
First of all, you might try getting my name correct. I’m not sure what’s so difficult about the name that birthers and now it seems non-birthers as well can’t manage it.
I really don’t care whether they are or aren’t there for the copying. I personally wouldn’t expect them to be invited back into the mechanical room. If it were the kind of place I grew up in (which Honolulu isn’t), I wouldn’t be surprised if they did let you come back there.
My point is: Duncan Sunahara is Virginia Sunahara’s brother. If he wants a copy of her original birth certificate document, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be able to get one. Is the State of Hawaii the servant of the people, or are the people the servants of the State? I know in the case of the State of Maryland, they seem to have gotten the latter idea. I profoundly disagree with that. That’s all.
For the record, they absolutely don’t have the right to see records of any other individuals.
Sorry to be a bit short about the name, but I’ve just been reviewing earlier today that birthers have called me Woodsman, Woodham, Goodman… I can’t help but think that if people can see someone’s name on the screen right in front of them, most of the time they ought to be able to get the name correct. 😉
I do. Because the originals are in a bound volume containing many other people’s records. If I were one of them, I wouldn’t want Sunahara looking at mine, as he has no right, legal or moral, to do so.
You don’t own your records. Not with the state or with private entities. Your doctor owns your medical records. You have a right to a copy, but don’t expect to be asked into their records room.
I know what you mean john, my second daughter was born in Seattle, it took me 6 years to corect the spelling on her last name. But I have no emphathy for Haskins who is driven by hate for Obama, it has nothing to do with birth records.
.
quote from his web site:
“… the removal of the current unconstitutional “president,” the march in Washington would then become a victory march”
he just does not like the usurper, this entire BC isssue is to help him prove Obama was not born in the USA. He called initially this issue “ID Theft”
Note that I don’t really comment on Haskins. Haskins isn’t really that relevant to me in this issue. I just think that if Duncan Sunahara, being Virginia Sunahara’s brother, wants a copy of her full original birth record, he ought to be able to get a copy.
Again, for me, it goes back to the question of whether the State exists for the People, or the People for the State.
And I sympathize with you on it taking six years to correct the “official” spelling of your daughter’s name.
Systems, however well-designed they may be, are often only as good as the people who run them.
Isabelle Horon or a predecessor?
If we’re talking about something like Obama’s long form birth certificate, the I’m in total agreement.
However, modern birth certificates from hospitals have a lot of medical data on both mother and child on them and I think that even recently dead people have the right some some privacy.
It’s been a while ago. More than 10 years. I’m not sure whether it was dealt with by the actual head of the bureau, or merely by that person’s office. But we did have to appeal all the way up to the office of the top dog.
I don’t think that that a government should charge more than the cost of providing the service. If it costs extra to pull down the volume and photocopy it, they they should charge the full cost for doing that. I don’t they should make general policy just to spite/discourage the birthers.
I’m not saying include all the medical data that they never used to include in the copy. Just give the same as they used to give. Like on the long form birth certificates for Edith Coats, the Nordyke twins, etc.
I wasn’t the analyst in Maryland so I didn’t get into the regulation side, but I did convert your kids’ birth certificates from the old legacy database to SQL Server. I know in some states you can change the name once, but the rules say a court order is necessary for the second change (I think I’m correctly describing Indiana). However, in your case it really wasn’t a second change. 10 years ago they had a different computer system than they do today and I don’t know what limitations it had. And given that this is now the Season of Lent, that’s all I’m gonna say about Maryland.
While I appreciate your intent, from a perspective of wanting a responsive government that best serves the people, from a standards point, I take some issue with where those boundaries reasonably belong.
The government fully has the right to change the form and format of what they provide and to stop issuing prior versions. As someone from a technical and process background, I really appreciate efforts to save taxpayers money by not maintaining unnecessary and redundant extraneous processes.
All that really matters is the data. Not the form or format. As long as there is a consistent standard and a way of both protecting the integrity (and applicable privacy rights) of the source data and also being able to reproduce it, that is all that is required. I don’t think the public has any right or access to inspect “vault copies” or should be anywhere near a “vault room”. I see so many inherent risks to that which completely go against the ultimate purpose of the government’s main focus – to protect the integrity of everyone’s records.
I think some people tend to get stuck in the past and expect everything to always look and “be” how they remember them, when they were younger.
That simply is not a realistic nor important expectation. As we continue to move forward in technology, actual “original” forms may disappear altogether and the original might simply be nothing more than some sort of verified and approved entry into a database.
I can appreciate that point.
Very true. Same holds true for rules and “people” driven processes and procedures as well. That is why is is always better to have efficient and streamlined processes and systems – it helps reduce the areas where either people, technical or process flaws can botch things up…
I agree.
Haskins treated the issue of the dead girls BC as an eligibility issue for Obama, First as ID Theft then as a ruse for entering Obama’s BC number, it has nothing to do with obtaining a BC for Duncan. He failed on the ID Theft and now says he wants to help Duncan, sure. No one on this site is against Duncan getting a LFBC, it is Haskins ploy to unseat Obama that is wrong. Haskins touted this issue for pay pal pushes. Haskins feels the LFBC will somehow shed light on Obama’s forged BC. That will never happen. Haskins failed the minute he found the BC numbers were different. Haskins is on his last leg.
For me, THIS is the post of the day!
The Motion to Dismiss explains itself well. I agree with their reasoning.
It’s not just that particular issue that’s failed. The entire birther movement has failed. Both legs.
1. There’s no compelling evidence of a birth anywhere other than Hawaii. We’ve got various forgeries that are totally obvious, and maybe one “certificate” that’s not quite as obvious, but certainly nothing beyond quite dubious.
2. There’s no good evidence for forgery — period.
3. Vattel cannot have been the source or inspiration for “natural born citizen,” since his word “indigenes” was never translated as “natural born citizens” until 10 years after the Constitution was written. It’s clear that the phrase derives from English common law, and that children born in the country of resident alien parents were always considered natural born subjects.
4. Minor v. Happersett doesn’t say what the birthers claim it says. Even if it did, it would be dicta — but it doesn’t.
5. US v. Wong Kim Ark, OTOH, clearly says WKA was both “natural born” and a citizen. In fact, the Court in WKA makes the point TWICE. A careful, honest reading of USvWKA makes it clear that the Court found WKA to be a natural born citizen — and that their determination of that was NOT dicta, but ratio decidendi. It was the rationale for their ruling. As such, it is binding precedent.
All of that being the case, the entire birther movement has failed, from the factual point of view. What are they left with? A few crumbs of debate in the 1860s that were overruled by USvWKA, and a few crumbs of myths and illogical arguments.
Given the wholesale failure of the movement on the factual basis, I’m not surprised that the Birther Summit is on indefinite hold.
All of this could change, of course, if Arpaio should produce something that’s really new and trualy compelling. Given the degree to which the issue has been beaten to death already, I’m not expecting it. I’m expecting, if anything, arguments and “evidence” that have already been shot down. I could be wrong, though. I’ve been wrong before.
Hasn’t Hawaii already passed a “Birther Law” to allow the DoH to ignore vexatious requesters? Or did that fail? I was kidding about the cost of course. I don’t think it would be trivial however.
I have not visited your site, but I’d like to know what you really want, what is your end game here? If you don’t believe the official version, what’s your scenario? What are you after? If you could get your wishes, what would happen?
Notwithstanding your argument about BC numbers, a fraud of the type you seem to contemplate would be massive, going back years, involving numerous people.
On the other end of the argument, there doesn’t seem to be any realistic legal avenues that would remove Obama from the WH — or in fact, being reelected.
So even if you could prove some kind of screw up, it would hardly change anything.
What I’d like to hear you say is an affirmative declaration of what you believe happened and what you would then like to see happening next.
Please enlighten us.
Actually, no, you’re wrong. For a forgery to have occurred it would have required very few people. And, those who think Duncan should just be satisfied because the DOH gave him a computer abstract and said, “You get nothing else,” need to realize that they didn’t give him anything, really. It is not a copy of anything real–it is a computer abstract of the purported statistical information contained in the original. Anything can be printed out by a computer–even bad info (whether entered into the database accidentally or purposely). And, knowing that, during that era, I could have gotten a Hawaiian birth certificate for a house plant, that is not a department that exudes trustworthiness.
After witnessing the behavior that I did there, I have no doubt that this particular DOH is a shady operation. Forthright individuals don’t act that way.
Additionally, if you think the AG did a good job with the MtD, you’ll likely be shocked when you read the opposition that has been prepared that will be filed on Feb. 28. The AG is plainly misinterpreting some very clear laws in the MtD, and Duncan’s attorney does a superb job of pointing that out to them. In a nutshell, the DOH’s rule about the form they say is their right to limit Hawaiians to receiving is contrary to Hawaiian law. The law actually only gives the DOH authority over the process of duplication–not what forms residents may receive. The law actually guarantees Duncan what he is requesting. When this case wins, it will have much larger ramifications for the residents of Hawaii, as their DOH will be brought back into compliance with the law.
You may “condemn” me all you want–I don’t care. You know nothing of my actual relationship with Duncan, and I don’t answer to you anyway–so your view of me is inconsequential. In the end, though, you will end up admitting that this “birther” case won in the court. Like I said, the opposition to the MtD will be filed Feb. 28, and once it’s filed, I’ll post it.
That will never happen. Everybody with a brain stopped believing the BC nonsense years ago, when the birth announcements were found in Hawaiian newspapers.
So, apart from Indonesia and that minor happerset, all they have left is claiming that Obama is not really the baby who was born that day in Honolulu. Of course, entering the vault will not prove anything, but will just be a prelude to asking for something else.
Of course, Obama is black so he will never provide enough proof in birfers’ eyes.
As it is only the racist who brings race into any discussion, you are a racist; thus your opinion is of no import.
If you call a “win” that a court might allow Sunahara to receive a “long form” like Obama did, I’d give you some modest chance of achieving that. If you want to call that a huge “win” for the people of Hawaii feel free. I doubt more than a few people/year will request “long forms” because there is no need for one. I’ve certainly lived a perfectly fine life without ever seeing my own, my spouse’s, or my children’s, including travelling and living in a number of different countries. After all, what life-enhancing information is on the “long-form” that isn’t on the short form? The doctor and hospital? Well, my parents would point out the hospital as we drove by it and they mentioned the doctor’s name a few times (he’s long dead now). So I don’t need to see a piece of paper. Frankly, that information is not of any great significance to me anyway.
What I can promise you will not win is a trip into the vault to see the book and try to peek at Obama’s form (if it’s even in the same volume). Ain’t gonna happen. Sunahara simply has no right to any records other than his sister’s. Zero. Zip. Nada. So Duncan might get his “long form” but it will pertain only to his sister and not to anyone else born in Hawaii in August 1961. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it won’t. Birtherism has just been a series of fail after fail. Not because of incompetent lawyers (though it has certainlly had them) but because it attempts to deny reality.
I can already anticipate your response. It will be a blizzard of words that will come down to the 4 most dangerous words for the credulous. “This time is different”. No, it isn’t.
All STRAWMAN . . . no substance. Even though those of your ilk have often asserted some ridiculous notion that we think someone is gonna “cop a feel,” and see someone else’s record in a book, that has never been anyone’s intention (see–you guys are just as guilty as you claim we are–making assertions based on no evidence or proof). That part of the complaint is directed, not at anything to do with Obama’s record, but at a total distrust of the DOH. If anyone is permitted to be present (which can be inferred from specific language in the law as a guaranteed right), then it will be Duncan, and it will only be to see that it is his sister’s actual hospital generated paper BC that is being photocopied, and not simply a computer image. Again, based on the behavior we’ve already witnessed from these folks, they are not the type of people I would ever trust.
If the case is about Duncan Sunahara and nothing more, then why is it headlining your web site which is entitled “Birther Summit” and is filled with the detritus of birtherism? That belies your protestations that “It’s all about poor Duncan and his dead sister”. When you take Duncan off your birther site and establish a new site about him, a site purged of all references to the President, then I might believe you. Until then, your behavior remains reprehensible. Though, in deference to Doc’s rules, you are a prince among men, even though your behavior, sadly, is grossly lacking.
But, that would be prefaced on the silly notion that I care what you believe.
Funny you should mention that. See Mr. Eppley’s ballot challenge in Alaska.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/racist-ballot-challenge-in-alaska/
There is a law, but it wouldn’t apply to any individual unless that individual kept making the same request over and over. Duncan Sunahara wouldn’t be a vexatious requester.
I have no idea who Duncan is, or what you’re talking about.
If you want to be treated with respect, and not derision, please answer my question, which was phrased politely and respectfully, and quite simple and easy to answer.
Restating: If everything that you say is true, what is your affirmative scenario of what really happened? Please tell us your version of events.
Then, assuming that you are correct, what is your end game, ie: what do you wish to see happen?
Move along, then. There’s nothing to see here.
Still waiting on a response Dean, not difficult, simple question, simple answer
So Dean
Just to be clear
Based on (possibly) 4 to 6 data points, specifically the BC’s of
Virginia Sunahara
Her brother
The President’s
Possibly Waidelich’s
Possibly the WND BC
Possibly the Nordyke Twins
Of which
Virginia’s in inherently an anomalous outlier as it is an event of both birth and death before the birth record would have been finalized
Waidelich’s which is a “short form”
The WND which is a “short form”
So you have, for 6 data points, 3 different types of form with 3 differing presentation routes in 3 different formats seperated by over 50 years of data storage methodologies.
And from this mish mash you expect anyone to believe your nonsense about finding “issues” which you are extrapolating furiously to posit are to be inherent flaws in the Hawai’in vital records system.
So, can you confirm or correct the presumption that you have used at most 4-6 partially compatible data points to create your thesis
Thank you
But you and I know that in a lot of jurisdictions today, the birth data no longer are passed on from the hospital to the department of births by paper. When my son was born in 2003, a hospital clerk logged on to the town’s births entrance server and typed in everything. The outprint I got as the father was to allow me to register the birth, ie name the child and get some papers. At town hall, I only needed to show that outprint and the marriage booklet (for privacy reasons, hospitals overhere do not even know whether the parents are married).
The only vault my son’s BC is in, is a folder on a computer, probably not even in his birth town, but in the capital. Maintaining a physical vault for the old BCs, which are bound to get increasingly irrelevant as those people die off, rather than converting the data to the new system and filing away the documents in an archive designed to minimize storage space rather than ease of access, is going to be increasingly expensive. Why should people who take advantage of the fact that the documents are still readily available, not pay part of the costs of that too?
And what about people, whose sister was born and died in 2003, shouldn’t they have access to the same amount of data? The equivalent of letting the older ones into the vault would be to let the brother log into one of the main servers of the government from his own home computer – with all the risks that would involve, like the spread of viruses.
My point was that the State of Hawaii has changed policy directly as a result of actions by Birthers. I think the sudden interest in “long forms” and distrust of computer generated certificates based upon no facts is also directly attributable to Birthers. I do not know whether or not Duncan Sunahara is a Birther himself but I think his actions were at the behest of Birthers including the “Researcher” first and now Dean Haskins.
If you offered a proper explanation of what you think really happened with respect to the Obama BC, one could then objectively assess your alternative scenario.
By telling us what remedies you hope to achieve (whether they’re realistic or not isn’t the issue; I wish for things that likely won’t happen either, like world peace), one could assess your objectives and motivations.
I would ask the same questions from anyone trying to convince me that it’s worth my time to pay attention to or join their cause, really. It’s SOP.
By twice refusing to answer these two simple, proper and respectful questions, and each time deviating the subject, to the point of becoming abusive, you come across as a compulsive obsessive afflicted with delusions and an incredibly faulty judgment, bordering on psychosis.
Obviously we all know that delusions do happen, but we all like to think they never happen to us. If you can’t frame your beliefs in a proper rational and logical context, you might as well tell us that all this BC thing is the work of imps or demons.
Judging from Dr. Conspiracy’s report, I thought you were more rational than other birthers, but in fact you’re just as pathetic.
Doc, civility???
Is it a 2-way street?
More rational than other birthers? That is like being large for a nanoparticle.
I have tried to get Dean to answer the same questiions, He is playing a game. A game whiich will end as alll the other birther games have-in abject defeat.
It’s very odd, but it appears that you, and others on this thread, believe I have some sort of responsibility to respond to any question you might pose. I am under no such obligation. That I might respond to that which can easily be composed in a concise manner, does not mean that I have placed myself into the witness stand like the idiot dentist. And, as I am not going to spend my entire day on this thread, silence from me regarding any particular question is not my consent or agreement. It simply means that life happens–apart from this thread. I had a few minutes this morning, so I thought I would make a couple of comments. I will not, however, sit on this thread allowing the biased to poke at me with a stick.
Lupin, by your comments to me, I can visualize a conversation between you and God in which you say, with a Bible in one hand, “I haven’t actually read any of this, but, c’mon, in a nutshell, what’s your point?”
I can appreciate how difficult and time-consuming it can be to engage multiple persons on a forum like this.
I guess Lupin is asking what a lot of us are asking anyone who’s willing to explain, and that is what the birthers hope to prove in Hawaii with vital records, or is it just, to use the words of Hamilton Burger, a “fishing expedition.”
I should add for the record, that Hawaii State Registrar Alvin Onaka is very well-regarded among his peers. The “idiot dentist” judges everyone through the lens of Obama conspiracies and whether she gets her way. Don’t fall into that trap.
Onaka might help old ladies across the street, and might even tap their rears to give them a nostalgic thrill, but I have only witnessed him acting like a weasel, so that is what he is in my estimation. He refused any personal communication with Duncan (even though Supervisor Jesse Koike told Duncan that he would have to talk with Onaka about his request), he would not take Duncan’s phone calls, he would not arrange for an appointment, and even instructed the security to throw Duncan out of a public building. People who have nothing hide to don’t act like they’re hiding something. Onaka is a weasel–regardless of how his peers view him.
Doc- It seems to me that you hold Haskins in some esteem and I am very curious as to why. I understand you met him and he may be well-spoken and personable (so was Bernie Madoff), but I have looked at his web site. While the grammar is better than Orly’s it really pushes the same bald-faced lies. So, I would honestly like to hear from you why exactly we should give his words and actions more credence than hers or any other birther’s.
Having dealt with government agencies, I share at least some of Dean’s distrust of them.
Or at the least:
I don’t automatically assume they are acting properly. The vital stats people in Maryland certainly weren’t, when they stole my daughter’s surname and refused to give it back.
I don’t automatically assume that they are acting within the spirit of what I understand our country to be about — the state functionaries in Maryland weren’t when they tracked us down halfway across the country months after we left their state and literally forced us to PROVE our innocence in terms of having always had car insurance, even though no accusation of any lack had ever been brought against us. That was a case of guilty until proven innocent, and they were prepared to fine us and/or have us arrested if we failed to affirmatively prove our innocence.
And I don’t automatically assume they are providing correct information. When we lived overseas I wrote to the IRS requesting information on how to handle a particular tax matter relating to our foreign residence. I received a personal letter back from the office of a high IRS official telling me that what I was asking about could not be done. That sounded completely wrong to me, so I dug into the laws and IRS rules. A few dozen pages of tiny print later, I knew for certain that it could be done, and how to do it.
I’m certainly not an expert in Hawaii law but from previous reading earlier it certainly sounded to me like what Dean has said about Duncan having a right to the record would be correct.
Having said all of that, Dean, I’m curious about just what you hope to accomplish with the whole birther movement thing at this point. I’m sure you hoped that the birther movement, and your support of it, would be supportive of the Founding Fathers’ ideals, the truth, and conservatism. From where I sit, the birther movement has supported and is supporting none of the above.
As far as the Founding Fathers’ ideals go, I’m sure that you and others believe you’re supporting a lack of foreign influence. But all available evidence strongly indicates that the only period of history in which a significant number of our leaders seemed to believe that US-born children of non-citizens were NOT natural born citizens was the Civil War era.
It’s clear that the term “natural born citizen” could not possibly have come from Vattel, and that the only place it could’ve come from was the common law. The US Supreme Court in 1898 found and explicitly stated, in 6-2 ruling that from long ago in England up through the colonial era, up through the founding of the new nation and the writing of the Constitution and after, the same rule always applied: the children born in the country, even of alien parents, were themselves natural born subjects or citizens. It has also been documented that “subjects” and “citizens” were used interchangeably in the early days of our republic. So the two-citizen parent claims are NOT supporting the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
As far as the truth goes, the number of documented and known falsehoods and misconceptions, large and small, produced by birthers and the birther movement must by now run into the hundreds.
And regarding political impact: The only significant and potentially lasting political impact I see from the birther movement is the poisoning of the well for conservatives. Any doubts that some may have about Obama’s eligibility have no chance of either removing him from office or negatively affecting his reelection. The people who are going to be voting for him either don’t believe you or don’t care. The only thing you have done is caused conservatives to believe that some of our potential candidates such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal — who would no doubt be found entirely eligible to run for and serve as President — are “ineligible.”
So I’m really curious as to what positive thing you’re trying to accomplish with the birther movement. Because from where I’m sitting, and speaking as a conservative, I’m not seeing any positive fruit at all.
You ONLY have to explain yourself if you wish to convince others, or at the minimum, be treated with respect.
That is entirely your choice, of course. But you can’t have one without the other.
There are eccentric-looking gentlemen here standing in the public square next to the railway station peddling tracts about the forthcoming Mayan Apocalypse. (We’re going to be saved, allegedly, because we live near as Holy Mountain; but I digress.) I have on occasion asked them a few questions and the ones I spoke to seem to have a consistent framework for their beliefs. I don’t believe it myself, but I can at least respect it.
You, on the other hand, as far as I can determine, either have none, or don’t want to share it. You are therefore less credible (and interesting) than a weirdo peddling leaflets outside the station,
Comparing yourself to God is obviously part of your delusion and sense of self-aggrandizement. You are truly a sad case.
This is exactly what I’d like to know too. I’m more than prepared to believe the worst of any government agency, with proof of course.
That “positive fruit” is not presently evident does not preclude its existence, or its potential. I believe that, as this debate is certainly not a new one, whether or not you choose to recognize that it has existed for many decades in our history, the current situation should be allowed to be played out, and a definitive statement made that leaves no ambiguity regarding the definition of the term. Based on the historical narrative, I see some legitimacy on both sides of the argument, and the side I choose to affirm should, in no way, diminish my ability to have a voice in the arena. The idea that some maintain here, that, like in the crusades, I should be vilified and castigated because I don’t believe as you do, is antithetical to the true values upon which this country was founded.
If you could state what you DO believe, instead of parroting the voices in your head, it might go a long way to help us understand you.
Now Deano that’s really calling the kettle black. Why should Onaka communicate with a movement that has stalked several of his peers?
Actually the She-Wolf of the Birthers is fairly clear about (1) the extent of the Obama conspiracy, and (2) what she’d like to see happen if she were to prevail, so that extent, we know where we stand with her.
Mr. Haskins is clear about nothing, and other than his persecution complex and delusions of grandeur, I still have no idea what he believes in and what he wants.
I welcome elucidations about both.
My elderly parents recently bought a new mattress they didn’t need from two door-to-door salesmen. Their explanation to me was, “they were no nice, so articulate, so well dressed.” This is of course a perfect illustration of Darwin’s natural selection: aggressive, hostile, loutish, poorly dressed con men soon become extinct. Perhaps this is an explanation to Mr. Haskins’ appeal.
Onaka is not an imperial power, he works for the State (of which Duncan is a legal resident). That he might perceive that he has been “stalked” in no way relieves him of his duty to the residents of the State for which he is employed.
There is also a circular evasiveness composed into their present “rules” (which are, technically, illegal). The DOH maintains that, as a rule, it only provides a computer abstract to those who request (and pay for) a birth certificate; however, the notice that is posted on their wall proclaiming the rule also states that a request for anything other than that requires that the resident must see Dr. Onaka–who then refuses to communicate with the resident.
Onaka can perceive or believe whatever he wants regarding being “stalked,” but Duncan is a legal resident of Hawaii, and was making a legitimate request for a photocopy of a document the law guarantees is his right to obtain. He exhausted every administrative avenue for relief, which ultimately led to the filing of the complaint.
I can keep this up all day Dean
Simple question, simple answer, what exactly is it that makes you so uncomortable and suprisingly quiet when asked to confim or correct the statement that you have used at best 4-6 disparate and inconclusive data points to cast your thesis around the nefarious activities of the Hawai’in DoH.
Based upon both the SOPs that were created around the federal guidelines, as well as information gleaned through research in Honolulu, those “inconclusive data points” are sufficient to suggest irregularities in the numbers assigned. That you correctly identified them as “inconclusive data points” should be sufficient explanation for the desire to see more conclusive evidence. All of the “explanations” provided by those like you as to the anomalies in the numbering are shown to be invalid by the processing dates that are shown on the certificates. We are currently working to obtain a larger sampling of certificates from that era.
What you fail to understand is that it’s all you have left. It’s not a responsibility, it’s a privilege. Do you want to participate in this forum or don’t you?
I can certainly understand a lot of what you’re saying. I do see at least some legitimacy on both sides of the argument when it comes to who should be understood to be a natural born citizen. I do understand that it was a point of debate in the wake of the Civil War.
However, from the legal point of view I think that matter is and has been resolved for a long time, with the possible exception of the status of children born overseas to American parents.
Dean, for simply and honestly telling the truth — and it IS the honest and complete, 100% truth that I’ve told — I have personally been called a liar, a hypocrite, an Obot, a stooge, a jerk, an a**hole, a d*ck, a fraud, a con man, a “Communist,” a douchebag, and “the kind of leering pervert you wouldn’t want watching your kids.”
I’ve been accused of greed on a project to which I dedicated months of my life and from which I’ve made, after all expenses, not one single penny. I’ve been publicly called a “book-selling whore.” I’ve had factual, intelligent comments be completely censored from birther web sites claiming to offer the truth. I’ve been falsely accused of being on Obama’s payroll. I’ve been first completely ignored (by so-called “news” outlets who claim to be promoting the “truth”), and then publicly ridiculed.
I’ve been shouted down. I’ve been told that my entire book has nothing at all of merit in it. One of your “experts” publicly stated that she has heard “more coherent ramblings from the Unabomber.” The exact same “expert,” like all the rest of your birther “experts,” six months after my book was published, has failed to factually refute even ONE significant point — out of, by my count, roughly 120 significant points that I made in the 221 pages of the book.
And while I cannot attribute a single one of these actions to you, I can attribute many of them to the company that you keep, and all of them to members of the “movement” of which you are a part, and which you support.
You think that positive fruit may yet come out of the birther movement. I hope you’re right. All I see so far — and I’ve been following this thing pretty closely now for some time — is falsehood in the name of “truth,” misconceptions, ugliness — including a great deal of ugliness towards those who dare to disagree, censorship, the riding of an issue for the personal gain of either money or fame by certain individuals, the wasted talent and energy of persons such as yourself, and the flogging of horses that died 114 years ago.
I don’t know that “esteem” or “credance” are words that I would use. I did meet Dean in Atlanta and we had a polite, albeit brief, discussion. I’m going to try to be civil and respectful of folks because it is my desire to do so. I further believe that a civil dialog is likely to yield more useful information than a confrontational one, and in particular a nasty confrontational one. “Tell me about the video feed” is going to get me more than “You’re one of those (*#&$ birthers!”
It serves no purpose for me to attack Dean’s character. I can and will report from time to time about what he says and what he does and if fair and honest reporting makes him look bad, that’s his problem.
Finally, the last thing I want is for someone who is a part of the birther saga to show up on this web site, and then get run off. I would much rather hear what they have to say (whether it’s for good or ill) than to put tape over their mouths and hang a “Bogey man” sign around their necks. Birthers are individuals, not stereotypes.
He fulfilled his duty. What makes Duncan anymore special than the other Hawaiians? It is not Onaka’s job to answer every single question Duncan has about an event that happened over 40 years ago that he wasn’t even interested in before the birther movement came along. So when are you posting the full document that Duncan got?
“Hear, hear” on that, Doc. I for one welcome the discussion.
The only irregularity is that the Virginia number is an outlier and it most likely relates to her being born in a different hospital than Obama and dying shortly thereafter so her number would be assigned differently. To claim there are “irregularities” based on a lack of data on your part is short sighted.
I think this idea of “federal guidelines” is not well understood by the birthers. There were observations that the way certificates were numbered in most states (in 1961) resulted in no statistical bias in a methodology of reporting to the NCHS only even-numbered certificates. Other birthers mistakenly cite the NCHS reporting requirement for “sequential numbering” to mean “chronological numbering in event order.” Only a brief review of how certificates are actually processed and reported demonstrates that chronological numbering is impossible to implement (you couldn’t number any certificate until you were sure that every previous birth event had been numbered — and how could they ever know that for a birth that hadn’t been reported yet?).
What we know from the State of Hawaii is that they numbered certificates at the end of their registration process rather than the beginning, and we see from the evidence of the few certificate numbers available that they indeed were not numbered in birth event order, or by geographical location and then birth event.
Frankly, what Penbrook Johannson wrote about the “federal guidelines” is garbage. I know because I was around vital statistics information processing in 12 different states off and on from 1977 until 2010.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/more-birther-certificate-numbering-bs/
If you get more certificate numbers, that’s fine, and I would be interested in the results. But when it comes to interpreting those results just remember that the MOST THOROUGHLY VERIFIED number in the whole bunch is Barack Obama’s.
While that may be true, so are members of the KKK, drug gangs , the Mafia, and other nefarious organizations. In my opinion, anyone that joins such as organization is perpetrating evil and is worthy of condemnation, even if they might be wonderful family members and do good in other aspects of their lives. Those who llike Dean, seek to lead such movements, even more so, I see nothing good on Dean’s web site, nothing different in substance than what is on Orly’s cesspool, though the style may be more pleasing. Lies in a glossy package are still lies.
In fact, they don’t. But the number is irrelevant anyway. It is of ZERO significance. They could throw the documents down a stairwell and number them based on where they landed and that wouldn’t change where and when any of those babies were born.
Dean,
Thank you for the response however I’m afraid you are not accurately grasping that statistically the points are all inherently of minimal to no value.
So we have confirmation that you are basing your beliefs and actions on only the BC’s I have noted and as yet have no others to add to the analysis, bearing in mind that it is unlikely that you will be able to add these, as yet unsourced BC’s, to your case once filed.
As I noted earler, there 6 data points with 3 different types of form with 3 differing presentation routes in 3 different formats seperated by over 50 years of data storage methodologies.
By their very nature they have little to no consanguinity other than being birth certificates from Hawai’i and as such have zero value other than at best curiosity.
As an example the Virginia Sukahara BC cannot be linked to any of the others as it is a BC immediately linked to a death certificate where the BC could not have been completed, stamped, filed, accepted etc before the process would have been stopped due to the death. No possible linkage to the “normal” BC process can or would be possible to be inferred
Invalid and evidentially as well as statistically useless, so we are down to
Duncan Sunahara’s
The President’s
Stig Waidelich’s
Possibly the WND BC
Possibly the Nordyke Twins
All the data on these, particularly the serial numbers, only prove the whole thesis Doc posited well before hand, to-whit pre computers, BC numbering was batched, not same day and roughly alphabetical in order.
I’m afraid, attempting to craft some legal argument around a belief that the “SOP’S” you have read denote something different is, I’m afraid a road to nowhere.
All you will be able to show with any further BC’s will be that this method was in use at the time of the Presidents birth and it will have exactly no effect on the vaildity and Constitutionally enforced legality (FF+C) of said BC.
I think the cost must also factor in opportunity cost — that is, it needs to recognize that a state functionary doing things like this has been pulled away from doing whatever their proverbial “day job” is, and there’s a cost associated with not only what they are then doing, but what they’re then not able to do.
The point of vital records departments hiring folks like Doc C. is to streamline business operations. Not to overgeneralize, but the same people barking about Obama’s BC are usually also the ones who want “less government” and want it “run more like a business,” and here we are moving away from that.
At my old company, we used to say we could do anything, but we couldn’t do everything. Businesses (and governments) must assign their limited resources to do the things that are the most important. Resources, including “human capital” (gahh, I hate that phrase), are not infinite. Time is not infinite. Well, it is, but you get the idea.
If you make it possible for anyone to walk off the street and yank people out of position to do things in the older way, you’re making government more inefficient. You’re crippling the ROI on Doc C’s and his colleagues’ good work. I would want to make sure all associated costs are identified with that.
OK, I hate that argument even more than I hate the phrase “human capital.”
It’s like saying that someone recommending the use of sunscreen is the Sun.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, and you can certainly express that opinion. However, your original question went to how I engaged Dean on this forum. Remember, I’m a publisher and you’re a commenter. We have different roles and different goals. I’m trying to provide the best source of information on Obama conspiracy theories and fringe views for my readers. I consider the fact that the birthers are fundamentally wrong as self evident and not needing much elaboration. The more interesting question for me, and why I explore this on the site as well as in my personal reading, is why there is a birther movement in the first place.
Certainly I find some of the things the birthers do as reprehensible, things like Orly Taitz’s attempt to get the vital records of a little girl surnamed Obama who died in infancy in Maryland, tying to prove some kind of Obama family demonic ritual murder cult. The child had recently died and Orly and her kin might have caused considerable pain to that family. But on the other hand, birthers do so many “bad” things that I don’t feel the need to spend all my time issuing condemnations.
So, my opinion is of no import, like that of Epperly. I can live with that.
What about my argument, however. How do you explain the birth announcements in the local papers? You do know that they originated not with the grandparents with the same authority that in the LFBC testifies to the name of the doctor?
Will you be claiming the doctor too was in Mombasa?
It isn’t all that glossy. 😉
I think the answer to the second is as self-evident as the first. They don’t like Obama for a whole raft of reasons. Rather than have the maturity to say, “I have to bear this President I don’t like for 4 or 8 years, because a majority of my fellow citizens feel differently”, they indulge in childish tantrums and promulgate rank nonsense.
Many on the Left, hated Bush and believed his election in 2000 was illegitimate (taking office without having fairly won the votes is at least as unconstitutional as being born outside the US). They, unlike the birthers, had actual data to support their arguments-an exhaustive post-election count by a newspaper consortium concluded that Gore actually did win Florida by a few hundred votes. Yet I don’t recall a whole set of web sites dedicated to calling Bush a usurper, still going strong 3 years affter the fact. No one, as far as I recall, was filing lawsuits over the Florida election once Bush took office. There were many anti-Bush sites, based on dissent against his policies, but few, if any, still talking about the Florida travesty more than 6 months after the election.
Well said, Mr. Woodman. Well said.
I read the Motion to Dismiss in Sunahara v Fuddy. I think it will be granted. It appears straightforward to me. I believe that Wolf v Fuddy established that Section 338 governs vital records and not the other sections invoked by the plaintiff. The only difference in this case is that Duncan Sunahara qualifies as a person with a tangible interest. That is why he was able to obtain a COLB for Virginia Sunahara. He can probably obtain a verification letter for some specific additional information if he applies. I would like to see what some of the attorneys who post here think.
For those interested in gaining a better grasp of Dean’s fight with the Hawaii Dept. of Health (Sunahara v. Department of Health) Dean has posted the HDoH’s motion to dismiss on his website. The motion describes, in a way that Dean seems unwilling to do, the basic outline of the conflict.
http://www.birthersummit.org/images/stories/documents/79284831-sunahara-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
According to the motion, the DoH regulations state that “the department shall not permit inspection of public health statistic records, or issue a certified copy of any such record” unless the applicant meets certain criteria. The DoH agrees that Mr. Sunahara, as brother of the deceased, has a “direct and tangible interest in her birth record,” and provided Mr. Sunahara with a “computer generated abstract” of his sister’s birth certificate.
However, according to the DoH motion, Mr. Sunahara argues that the DoH has “no authority to provide computer generated abstracts of birth records,” and demands instead, “a certified copy” of Virginia Sunahara’s “original birth certificate.” Apparently he also wants to “be present when such copying takes place.”
In response, the DoH identifies the regulations that allow it to make “abbreviated copies” of birth records, “prepared by typing, by computer print out, or by any other means approved by the director.” They continue by arguing that “No provision contained in Chapter 92, HRS entitles Plaintiff” to obtain a “certified copy of the original birth certificate.” Nor does the law allow “Plaintiff and/or his representatives” (I’m assuming that would be Dean Haskins) “to be present when the copying takes place.”
The Plaintiff counters that Uniform Practices Act, in particular, 92F-11 Affirmative agency disclosure responsibilities, provides him with the right to get a certified copy of the original and to be present when the copy is made. The DoH counters that 92F-11 specifically exempts them from having to fulfill this request and goes on to describe additional claims that support their argument. Ultimately, the court will decide whether the Plaintiff or Defendant has correctly interpreted the regulations.
What does all this have to do with Dean’s questioning of Obama’s eligibility? Maybe Dean wants to get a peek at Obama’s original birth record in the hope of seeing something fishy? Perhaps he wants to establish the legal right for people to personally inspect DoH records, in the hope of subsequently finding a person who has the right to personally inspect Obama’s birth record in detail?
Totally agree, Doc. Unlike some on both sides of this particular issue, I don’t expect individuals who agree with my anti-birther opinions to agree with everything else I believe. I do believe that discussions between polar opposites don’t have to devolve into contests to see who can insult the other more times.
I’m very much a skeptic but I enjoy debating and researching the points others are making.
I have learned a tremendous amount from this site — some from other posters, some from researching unsupported comments, some from reading cases and original writings. I have strengthened my admiration for the men and women who built this country by reading their actual words. Mostly, I have come to appreciate the Judiciary and the US legal system. I may not agree with each of the justices on the Supreme Court, but I can see how they arrive at their decisions through painstaking research and discussion, and how they move/don’t move the country over time.
If there were it ended on 9/11/01. I still remember picking up a copy of Newsweek on September 10, 2001 in the Atlanta airport and the cover story was about how SCOTUS arrived at the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vC-W-myHPUI/TmtRFIbNFYI/AAAAAAAAA8Y/IcL53AMiiTs/s1600/BushNewsweekCover091701.jpg
I kept it for a long time but I think I pitched it during an office move.
Dean, is Duncan asking for for a photocopy or a certified photocopy?
Then you’d be one of the very few birthers who would *not* meet a “definitive” and “unambiguous” SCOTUS ruling (not that one is required) that NBC means “born on the soil, except diplomats and invaders, or, alternatively, born abroad to one/two citizen parents” with the simple goalpost moving reply “Traitors! Paid off! Conspiracy!!!”.
You do realize that 99.99% of the people in your movement would not accept anything from anyone, including the Holy Trinity coming down from Heaven 17 and saying Obama is an NBC, as they’d simply go “God is lying because he’s afraid of losing the black Christians”?
He asking for certified photocopy and to be present (along with his representatives, e.g., Dean) when the photocopy is made.
http://www.birthersummit.org/images/stories/documents/79284831-sunahara-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Here is what Duncan Sunahara requests in his complaint:
“a. Declaratory Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Duncan Sunahara compelling Loretta
Fuddy, Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, to provide a certified copy of the original paper hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth of Virginia Sunahara, and a certified copy of any microfilm version of Virginia Sunahara maintained by the Department of Health;
b. Court permission for Duncan Sunahara and/or his representative to be present at
the copying, duplication or reproduction of the requested records, pursuant to HRS 92F-11(b),(d);
c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and cost pursuant to HRS 92F-15(d); and
d. Such other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just.”
I misstated the name of the case earlier; it is actually Sunahara v Hawaii Department of Health, et. al.
He is naming the entire world. The attorney added John Does all over the place so he could add defendants later. I assumed that is boiler plate language from the local attorney.
Back when Danae at freerepublic was trying to get an uncertified copy of her LFBC, she talked directly (by phone) with Dr. Onaka. He got her the uncertified copy.
I suspect Dr. Onaka views Duncan as being part of the birther nonsense and is treating him in the same way that he would treat Miss Tickly or Butterdezillion. Giving Duncan the bare minimum required under the law. And I know you don’t believe he is following the law. We’ll just have to wait for the court to decide.
Exactly. All rules & laws basically provide boundaries – a minimum and sometimes maximum extent of effort and compliance required to adhere.
Meeting the minimum requirements is all that anyone is entitled to receive under a law. The boundary may ALLOW for more, but does NOT REQUIRE more.
Considering that Dean was video taping all of this and doing quite an open stunt showing that made it obvious he was pushing Birtherism, I am not surprised at all that the folks at these government departments were immediately turned off and reacted with a strong bad first impression of Duncan and Dean.
Under those circumstances, especially considering the hassle that HI has constantly been under from the Birthers, bare minimum compliance and a fairly cold shoulder is completely and understandable and acceptable outcome.
The moral of the story here, (which also applies to Dean’s problem of his thin-skinned and over hostile defensiveness in general), is that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”.)
A word of advice to Dean – you are often your own worst enemy here. Your own attitude in both your actions and reactions is nearly always heavily laced with such vinegar. Therefore, all you seem to accomplish is making your own life and “goals” more difficult for yourself at every turn.
Both requests A & B are completely unreasonable and it is easy to say those will not be granted.
Had he just requested a “copy” instead of going overboard and demanding a “certified copy” of both the originals *and* the microfilm… *AND* demanding to have people present during it, then he might have had a sympathetic argument to consider.
Again, it is the difference here between being reasonable and going overboard. Dean, as typical for the spoiled, entitlement tantrum mentality of Birthers, goes overboard and immediately takes things to excessive and unreasonable extremes right off the bat.
Therefore, requests C & D become effectively moot as well, as they are tied to A & B, which will be denied. Can’t get costs from a losing argument. Simple as that.
I note that Dean Haskins in this comment thread has repeated the birther meme that “Anybody” (he said a house plant) could walk into the DOH in the 60s and get a birth certificate.
Despite the constant insistence by birthers that this is the case, not one, single confirmed instance of this happening around that time has been shown. If it was oh so easy, you’d think numerous cases of it would be easy to find – you’d think the federal government might have a warning listed for Hawaiian birth certificates for that time period…but nothing has come forth. I’m sure it’s happened – in every state – a few times, but if Hawaii was so legendary in how easy it was, you’d think a starting point would be to show a large sample of cases where it did.
Some birthers say “It’s so easy and it’s proven by the fact that Obama’s family did it!” But that’s a fallacy – you can’t use the “fact” that Obama’s family did it as proof it was easy, then use the now “proven” fact that it was easy to justify the contention that Obama’s family did it. That’s circular logic.
I have been and am very supportive of Duncan Sunahara’s right to get a copy of his sister’s original birth record. However, if Mr. Sunahara has from the beginning wanted certified copies of both original plus microfilm, plus the ability to be present at the copying or duplication, then I can also understand the position of the Hawaii Department of Health.
They’ve been dealing with birthers, including a glory hound attorney (this seems to be the new euphemism) for a long time now. They are undoubtedly well acquainted with the theory that they hijacked Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate number to give to Barack Obama. And all these added demands would seem to remove this from being a simple request of a brother to have a copy of his sister’s original birth record to it being a birther demand for some “evidence” in the matter of Mr. Obama.
They also know now exactly what to expect from birthers. After all the literally dozens of invalid claims of “proof of forgery” from the release of Obama’s certificate, only a fool would believe anything other than that the birthers, on obtaining a copy of an absolutely authentic birth record for Virginia Sunahara, would “analyze” it, find a smudge somewhere, and declare it a proven fraud on 14 different counts.
Well, it’s obvious that Obama’s family did it, because we know he was born in Kenya.
If he was born in Kenya, then he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Therefore, they must have gotten a fake birth certificate for him. It’s impossible that anything else could have happened.
And the now PROVEN FACT that his birth certificate is fake likewise shows that he had to be born outside of the US.
Plus, you have to remember the well was poisoned by vexatious birthers like Miss Tickly, and Butterdezillion. They made several attempts to get copies of Virginia Sunahara’s records at least a year ago. The DOH probaly assumes that any attempt to get Virginia’s records are related to those two well known characters. So, I’m sure Virginia’s name is flagged in the DOH system.
Dean did as much on his website. Showing the top of Virginia’s death certifcate where the BC cert number is handwritten. Dean’s comment:
“That certainly wouldn’t be difficult to alter, now would it?”
But that would eliminate the entire purpose of this action: establishing the next location for the goalposts.
“See? All this would be settled once and for all if Obama would just…”
Has there even been an unconfirmed claim as to a particular person’s birth certificate?
Excellent point!!!
Exactly! You and I know that, as does everyone else.
Which is why Dean’s disingenuous claims to be all about “helping” this poor family are farcical on their face.
Oh, my, yes. I’m trying to imagine my reaction if someone from a distant state called me to ask for my help in acquiring state documents. Like Dean, I’m not a lawyer. So, I’d tell him to call a lawyer in that state. If I knew one from some previous business I’d give him a referral. Now call me an uncharitable soul, but what I would NOT do is fly out there and march into state offices with him to “help”. I loved how Dean said, he got action from the DOH, because he is a “haole” and Duncan is a poor Asian guy, so they did’;t pay any attention to him. The arrogance! Of course, Dean didn’t get action at all-he got only the COLB that Duncan could have got by himself.
So, the idea that this is some kind of charitable act on Dean’s part is ludicrous. Helping sick kids, rescuing dogs, feeding the hungry-that’s charity. Exploiting someone’s family tragedy for political purposes-not so much…
Once again, something I didn’t state is being attributed to me. I never specified where my accompanying Duncan ended up really benefiting him. You just assumed what you wanted, then derided my “arrogance” for stating it. Duncan had been trying for weeks to get whatever hospital records he could for his sister, but got nothing but a runaround. The biggest difference he saw from having a “haole” with him was in his receiving copies of all of Virginia’s medical records from Wahiawa General–from the delivery until the time she was transferred to Kapi’olani.
As for the MtD, as I have already stated, you might want to wait until you read the opposition to it to determine who is more correctly citing the applicable statutes. I’m betting you will change your mind when you read it.
You’re a great humanitarian, Dean. So, if I were ever in trouble, no matter what, you would help, right? See, my daughter has been having trouble getting old vaccination records from our pediatrician. Would you mind coming by on Monday? I’m sorry if Obama didn’t go to the same medical practicce, but that shouldn’t be a factor for you, should it? I mean this is strictly about helping a fellow human, nothing to do with birther stuff, right?
Give me your flight # and I’ll pick you up at the airport. You can have the spare bedroom. Is chicken OK for dinner?
And pray tell, just what were the impetuses that sparked his “sudden” need to dig up his dead infant sister’s records from 50 years ago anyways…?
Yeah, that’s right, because Birthers has been reaching out and filing his head with irrational concerns and fears. This has all been nothing but a deliberate manufactured crisis from the get-go.
I was asked to go, I went. I’m not going to apologize for that. Duncan’s a nice guy, and I enjoyed getting to know him. You can try to vilify it, or Duncan, or me, all you want–I couldn’t care less.
I’ve asked you to come help me. Are you coming? Or does there have to be a birther connection?
Dean,
I do appreciate your response and I too welcome you posting here.
While I’m glad that you’ve gotten some positive benefit out of the encounter, please don’t try to pretend that your initial interests and motives for pursuing this direction and case were anything other than what they were – what you perceived as a innovative means to an end in further of your fishing expedition against Obama.
I have not vilified Duncan. For the record, I really don’t see much evidence of anyone doing that. Calling him a tool or patsy in your scheme is not villification. If anything, we feel bad for him and his family. He’s had his head filled with imaginary suspicions and fears and has been manipulated into being riled up all over nothing…
an intersting comment on fobow on the summit (that I agree with)
From what I can tell this is the most blatant example of a birther con job yet. Orly just asks for money. She never promises anything in return. And she has a trail of real, tangible, insane work going from sea to shining sea. Dean promoted a “major event” for months, collected money, took endless vacations to Hawaii and Arizona, cancelled the event, and said “Piss off. The money is mine.” From what I can tell, the extent of his work is one weird lawsuit and a novelty check.
Myron’s a moron. He is asserting things that he not only has no way of knowing, but are simply false. We spent far more money on market research, telemarketing, and promotions than we ever received. The road trips were not funded by general donations, but were funded by individuals for the specific purposes of those trips. If Myron wants to continue his blatant lies, ask him to come see me–I’d love a few minutes with him.
Well, I do think there is a distinguishing difference here.
Orly (at least from her claims) relies on grifting off of her gullible flying monkeys to finance all her Birther endeavors…. of course her own family wealth should make such pursuits barely an OOP dent for her, regardless.
Although Dean’s web efforts are also looking for donations (as nearly all Birther sites do), it does not seem to be the main financial source of his Adventures in Birtherdom. He’s alluded several times to having a “whale”. (in other words, somebody with the bucks to finance his little trips).
What we don’t know is whether this relationship between his alleged financier is simply a backer in support of Dean’s own initiatives; or whether Dean views his obligations as a duty to carry out the wishes of a “contract employer”.
I hope Dean will be willing to provide feedback and clarification on that.
Dean is self-employed, and has been for several years. Or, to state it differently, Dean works for nobody.
I’ll leave out your unnecessary typical ugly defensive over-reaction parts of your statement and cut to the heart of the matter in your reply:
(Friendly Advice to Dean: This is all you had to say in your defense. This excerpt of your post is a complete and valid response on its own, without being saddled with your scathing emotional lashing out)
Now, on that, I have a legitimate question.
From your prior postings, I had always been left with the impression that there was a primary benefactor (whether individual or organization) as your backer.
This particular response seems to indicate multiple different individuals as your primary financiers.
Can you please clarify?
Note: I fully respect your right to keep the actual names of your backers private. I am not asking you to reveal who they are, merely to explain how the structure of your financing dynamics work and how you interpret their role(s) and your role in that financial relationship.
Dean, from my understanding, your primary career background is as a musician, correct?
So, when you ply your musical talents, you are providing a service. (As opposed to selling goods. I am assuming that you make money by performing music and not by selling musical instruments or something like that, right?)
What I am getting at here is that “self-employed” means that one derives their primary source of income from their own work – whether that is by selling goods or selling their services. (If you are NOT receiving income from selling goods or services, then you are really “unemployed” and not “self-employed”).
When you are selling services, you have clients who are paying for those services to be performed by you. Whether you have a contract or not, you have a contractual relationship in that exchange. While you are still the “boss” of your business, you are still carrying out your “service” for the “benefit” of your client.
While you may be “ruffled” at the notion of viewing that relationship as being a temporary “employee” to them, you are missing the point of what I was trying to ask. Therefore, I will try to rephrase it for you in a way that might make more sense to you:
In terms of your financial backer(s) and the trips, etc. that you have made:
Do you view this as something that you have been doing at their behest (or even simply on their behalf?)… [in other words, providing a service to them that they have requested and promised to pay for]
…Or do you view them as merely investors of yours, who have been donating to your self-initiated cause.
In other words, what came first? Them coming to you with an offer of support … or you going off on your own and seeking them out to back you?
I think it’s clear that Dean got involved with this particular situation because he wants to fish for some evidence that would confirm his theory that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.
Anyone who has questions or suspicions about something will naturally want to investigate that thing. Investigation and establishment of truth is healthy.
But the behavior of many in the birther movement is not characteristic of such honest, healthy investigation.
This is because it’s not driven by a desire to establish the truth. It’s driven by the desire to push an agenda. The agenda is “Obama is ineligible, period” — and the truth be damned.
If the actual truth doesn’t match their desired Truth[TM], then they will studiously ignore it.
If they claim to be covering the news of the issue, and actual truth emerges that fails to match their desired Truth[TM], then they won’t cover it.
If someone calls their attention to the actual truth, and they control the arena in which it’s spoken, they will (not always but quite often) suppress it.
If someone publicly announces the actual truth, and it doesn’t match their desired Truth[TM], then they will personally attack that person. They will dismiss what he says, misrepresent what he says, attempt to discredit him, call him names, make false accusations against him, ridicule him, try to distract the audience from what he’s saying, and — quite literally — shout him down.
If the actual truth is undeniable, then they will loudly trumpet some other objection, to try and draw the minds of the audience away from the point on which they’ve just been disproven. In many cases, it doesn’t even matter if the new point they bring up has also been disproven many times already. It has to be disproven again, now, or the fact that it’s been shown to be false 5 times already “doesn’t count.”
And if after all of this, the actual truth is told and becomes established in the minds of everyone as known and established fact, then they will move the goalposts.
Obama produced a birth certificate? Yeah, but it wasn’t long form. Obama produced a long-form certificate? Yeah, but it’s got layers, so that means it’s a fake. The layers don’t show it’s a fake? Yeah, but it’s got kerning. The letter spacing looks exactly like other certificates of the era? Yeah, but it doesn’t use tab stops. Neither do the certificates of the Nordyke twins? Yeah, but the certificate number’s out of sequence. That was based on a false claim that Bennett’s article specified birth certificates were infallibly numbered in the order received? Well, Virginia Sunahara’s short-form birth certificate number is probably different from her long-form certificate number. It’s just the same or we can’t get a long form copy? Okay, but even if he was born in Hawaii he’s not eligible anyway because the Founding Fathers were referring to Vattel when they said “natural born citizen.” Vattel actually said “indigenes” and the phrase wasn’t translated “natural born citizen” until 10 years after the Constitution was written? Yeah, but Minor v. Happersett established a definition and a binding precedent that “natural born citizen” required two US citizen parents. That argument doesn’t make sense, is bogus and wouldn’t carry even if it did since 1) it was dicta and 2) US v Wong Kim Ark superseded it? Okay, but US v Wong Kim Ark stopped short of ruling Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen.” What? The Court in Wong Kim Ark ruled WKA both “natural born” AND a citizen? And they stated that the same rule that applied in English common law, making children, even of aliens “natural born subjects” had ALSO always applied in the colonies and in the United States both before and after the establishment of the Constitution? Okay, but “natural born subject” is very different from “natural born citizen.” What? We have clear documentary evidence that the two terms were used interchangeably in the early years of our Republic? Okay, but I still haven’t gotten to personally hold and forensically test the very original, hand-signed birth registration document from 1961…
It’s a game that’s played for a number of different reasons. I think some people just hate Obama. Others see some way to profit from the matter, whether financially, in terms of fame or notoriety, or simply in terms of feeling they’ve done something “significant.”
Are you providing (or offering to provide) refunds to the people who registered to attend your now-cancelled Birther Summit? If not, how do you justify keeping their money?
I wonder if Dean would have helped his pal Duncan get documents if his sister had been born in Ohio in 1971, rather than Hawaii in 1961 and there was no possibility of somehow tying this to Obama. The answer is obviously no.
thus it is clear that Dean is simply exploiting the situation. No question about it.
Well said! Kudos. Everything you wrote was spot on. I only excerpted the portion below to bring extra attention to its words of wisdom:
BINGO!
Dean’s predictable spin always makes me smile. Is it intentional spin, or just a case of heavy filtering? The effect is the same, but without knowing, it’s hard to determine the correct regard to apply: pity or contempt?
I think Dean is saying he has a mote in his eye. 😉
Hey, I’ve seen that banner ad!
“Cut down the size of your wallet by simply signing up for this 1 weird old summit”
I hope Haskins doe not forget to come back here and gloat on March 8, birthers generally come back to gloat when they lose.
First of all, the administrative structure of the enterprise is actually none of your business–I don’t work for you, or answer to you. How and why the benefactors chose to fund different initiatives was, and is, between them and me (again, none of your business). In the end, not only have I not made any income from this endeavor, it has ended up costing me. I cannot force people to give to or attend anything. I will certainly report the losses I’ve incurred to the IRS.
I put the event out there because there were some who thought it would be a good idea, and I agreed. We marketed and promoted, and spent more than was taken in. That’s life–I know the same thing happens to businesses every day. The website clearly denoted that there would be no refunds. Again, refunding what has been spent on promoting the idea just isn’t going to happen–and, hasn’t even been brought up by anyone who actually spent anything, just the rabid ferrets here and at fogblow.
I had enjoyed the initial conversations here, but the constant vitriol by keyboard warriors is no longer enjoyable, so I’ll likely not return. Don’t ever wonder why the dialog never progresses. See ya.
Claiming losses is only allowed if you engaged in an activity with the intent and reasonable expectation of making a profit. So that is an admission that you were in this for the money.
Moreover, Dean has not removed the various appeals for money connected with the Birther Summit. As of this afternoon, Dean was is still asking people to send him money to provide support and/or register for an event that no longer exists.
Not true. The Birther Summit is a d.b.a. of Vattelevision, LLC, and as such, income and/or losses must be reported. Had the event been successful to date, then obviously there would be a great deal of income and expenses–which all must be reported.
Dean is not the webmaster of the website–so he cannot control when things get changed. Oh, and by the way . . . go to hell.
O Dean, no! Leave, you say? Never to return, you say? How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to contemplate your departure . . . on the other hand, don’t let the screen door hit you in the tuchus.
LLC – for profit.
This entire thing is a for-profit enterprise, not a chartitable foundation. Just to be clear.
You promised you were leaving. Do you ever keep any pronises you make?
Why Dean, I don’t understand . . . you promised you were leaving, only to return wish me well when I questioned your ethics? You old softy! XXXOOO
Dean, when you start referring to yourself in the third person, you’re either running for president or have a burgeoning mental health issue. Since I haven’t seen your name on a ballot, my guess is you’re nuts.
Rule or law doesn’t matter. There is a reason, actually several.
The main reason is that it is a non-standard procedure. Standardized bureaucratic procedures exist for a reason: to keep the cost of Government administration to a minimum. If everyone decided they wanted a non-standard copy of their dead relatives bound, archived, vault stored BC, they would have to increase staff and raise taxes to pay for all the office overheads.
An other reason is that they are charged with protecting the documents, most of which are on the cheapest low-bid paper stock available to the Government purchasing agency of the time. Constantly taking them out of the vault, opening the book, exposing them to bright lights and unregulated atmosphere conditions, handling them with nacho flavored Dorito stained fingers, dropping the books on the floor, and spilling toner cartridges on to them, is NOT protecting them.
These are historical records and the property of the State of Hawai’i, not personal cloud storage or private library of the person (or family of the person) named on the document.
Dean, there are lies, and damned lies, and then there are stupid excuses. Guess which one yours is.
You could give up civility for Lent couldn’t you?
I tend to agree, but if they make this a ‘standard’ procedure, they will never know how many people are going to request it or when. They will have to have the historical records always on hand instead of in climate control. They will have to have enough staff to cover not peaks, but high demand periods anyway. They will have to have office space and other overheads to deal with it.
During a time of squeezing every penny out of every budget this is just not a procedure that can come close to covering its cost on a ‘user pays’ scenario. Thirty years ago, the City of Tucson took the perforations out of the toilet paper to save money for crying out loud.
I just want to point out there’s nothing wrong with seeking to make a profit — as long as it’s honestly done. If Dean started the whole enterprise under the belief that he genuinely had a case (and since it was created last June, a lot of things that are clear now weren’t clear then), then I can’t and won’t fault him for that.
I could, however, fault him for continuing to push discredited claims. On the front page, he says:
At the very best (from Dean’s standpoint), the claims of forgery could be considered to be “under dispute.” In reality, ALL of the forgery claims that have been brought forth are without merit, and have been shown to be so. Not one of the birther “forensic document experts” (none of which actually is a real forensic document expert) has produced any evidence whatsoever of forgery that would stand up in a court of law. I personally could destroy, in a court of law, every single point that they have ever brought forward. So, undoubtedly, could a bunch of other people.
Actually, the last time their “forgery” case was presented… it lost to an empty table.
That being the case, the claim is simply invalid.
The “natural born citizen” claim fails as well. The plain fact is that the ruling law in the matter is US v. Wong Kim Ark. And the Court in that case made it plain that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. To date I have never seen “experts” Donofrio and Apuzzo even attempt to grapple with the clear statements made in that case. Why not? Because they disprove their claims as to what the Court said, and what the law is.
Or to put it another way, Dean is out of work.
If Dean’s a decent musician (and I assume he is), then he’s not “out of work.” He’s self-employed.
He may very well, however, be “out of work” in regard to the birther movement. If not today, then soon.
A lot will depend on whether Arpaio produces anything exciting and new a week from now. If he does, then Dean’s not out of work as a birther yet.
If Arpaio produces nothing new, but only the same stuff we’ve heard all along, then Dean has a choice as to whether to keep pushing discredited theories and claims. Some birthers undoubtedly will. I suspect some will milk them for all the personal gain they can get out of them, true or not.
Whether Dean participates in that is up to him. Regardless, unless Arpaio — or someone — produces something new and valid, the birther movement, as far as I see, is running solely on imagination and flim-flam.
I see a conflict between a profit making enterprise and the seeking of donations. My cable company and my local pizzeria and plumber don’t ask for donations-they provide goods and services and bill for them. The Boy Scouts and the Red Cross are not-for-profit and solicit donations. I realize Dean is not the only one who blurs the boundaries, but all who do so trouble me.
As for pushing discredited claims, what else could he push when all the claims are discredited?
As for Arpaio, he has no access to the original COLB, long form, Hawaiian records, SSN records or any other records. So there is nothing he could possibly come up with. Any opinion he might offer on the 2 citiizen parent treory is of no value, as he is a Sheriff, not a Judge.
I guess you are a lousy tipper.
Have to go ahead and disagree with you there; they were clear enough unless you had a bias against clarity. If you have such a bias, they may be unclear at any time.
I, for one, have enjoyed Dean’s visit. He’s very informative, always managing to communicate what he doesn’t intend to, thanks to the transparency of his spin, and his crude attempts at concealment. When a reference is made to his endeavors somewhere on the web, he pops up, and tries to sell his spin, but he’s simply no good at it. He even drives away people who agree with him. Again, either a heavily filtered, deluded mind at work, or the flailings of a desperate huckster.
Tips are not donations. Not according to the IRS. Besides, serverrs provide a service, while Dean provided bupkis.
Huckster . . . Deluded . . . Desperate . . . yeah, that about sums it up.
Most airline tickets are non-refundable. However, if I buy a plane ticket to Hawaii, and the airline I bought it from stops flying to Hawaii and my flight is cancelled, I’m entitled to a refund. In fact, most airlines will provide a refund if it makes a schedule change which doesn’t work with my travel schedule.
The fact is that you enticed people to send in money so they could attend an “event” which isn’t going to take place. If you do not offer them refunds, you are no better than Orly and the other birther grifters.
You think that’s bad? Try getting Dean to confirm the number of “registrations” he received.
Actually, I am fine with your response and appreciate you giving it. No is a valid answer.
Many Birthers have defensively promised to “never return”, only to show back up here a short time later. I hope that is the case for you and that you do return.
I realize that you view this as “hostile” territory to one such as yourself. You should learn to take that in stride and should reflect upon the very structure and connotations within your own replies.
As I said before, there is a wise saying that “you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar”.
Unfortunately, you seem to approach every challenge with a combative attitude, seeping with vinegar. In other words, you only invoke hostility and cold reception with such an approach. It is clearly a good part of the reason you experienced the reception you did from HI officials on your trips there. It is also clearly why you invite such flack and unsympathetic responses from many who post here as well. I truly hope one day, you will be able to self-reflect and learn that lesson. It will certainly reduce the amount of stress and problems you seem to only add to your own life.
Again, I do appreciate your response, as you have clarified for me the following:
1) The administrative structure and benefactors of your organization, as well as your role in that structure is PRIVATE and will not be shared. I accept that as a valid and fair response.
2) You have ever intention to comply and report your organizations income and losses, in whatever manner is required by law. I accept that as a valid and fair response.
3) You had reason to believe that the BIrther Summit event could work and so you made an attempt to make that happen. It simply wasn’t garnishing the response and return it needed in order to meet its goals and was bleeding into the red. Therefore, you made a valid and fairly standard business decision to cut bait and mitigate future bleeding of your losses. I accept that as a valid and fair response. I also actually commend you on being pragmatic here and making a sound business call. Those who have not been in such a position, often do not realize how difficult it can be to make that right decision to cut bait on an idea that they’ve heavily invested in (both emotionally and financially)
4) You have provided a very clear answer in regards to the question of refunds: You mention that you have been upfront with stating that there would be no refunds in advance. You also clarify that no refunds or reimbursements will take place due to the cancellation. Finally, you clarify that you have had no requests for such reimbursements. I accept that as a valid and fair response. I also appreciate that you’ve addressed the question from a variety of angles.
Again, I found your overall responses to be sufficiently informative and acceptible. I am not trying to be combative with you or cause you additional stress with my questions. I seriously hope that you are able to chill out a bit and come back here in the future. I very much appreciated your bout of participation here, even though it was laced with vinegar.
Excellent points. I completely agreee. Well stated.
Now Dean, this is exactly the type of prickly defensive response from you that just invites ire and only serves to cause you more difficulty. There was certainly no need to tell someone to “go to He!!”
A rational professional response to that very valid point would be to say that you will take up the issue with your webmaster. To pretend that you have no ability to communicate to your “webmaster” or that the issue can’t be corrected on your webpage, is quite frankly a dishonest dodge and just comes across silly.
You could also simply state that you still plan to request for donations in support of the larger organization and will look into making sure that the intent of the donations is made clear on your site. That is what any responsible organization would do.
Again, I give you this advice in good faith.
In Dean’s defense, he seems far more polite and far more civil to those of differing viewpoint than many if not most of the birthers I’ve dealt with.
And the vast majority of his colleagues wouldn’t even show up here.
John, as always, well said! I agree on all your points.
Thanks, G!
Dean never did respond to clarify what he currently meant by “self-employed”. Of course, I realize his very statement of that was just another pithy retort from him in the first place.
He does have a fairly nice professional business website for his music, which answers my question about what services he provides:
http://www.deanhaskins.com/
It has a decent bio section on Dean’s personal music experience and skills and there are numerous musical selections available for download as well. According to the site, he even has his own studio available for use, via his business.
So, I’m assuming that he does fall in the category of “self-employed” and providing services under that business.
Of course, it is difficult to tell from that site or his responses how active this business currently is. (he’s indicated in the past that he’s doing this Birther thing because he currently has “time on his hands”).
So, if his business isn’t really active at the moment, he would also fit under the definition of being “unemployed” as well…
I think both you and Squeeky are onto something here.
Now that the Birther Summit is dead, there seem to be two main issues keeping Dean emotionally invested and tied to Birtherism:
1 – His upcoming lawsuit in the Sunahara case (March 8)
2 – Sherrif Arpaio’s perpetually promised “press conference” (still March 1st I believe)
Once those two things have been resolved, it is possible his “emotional obligations” to professional Birtherism could be complete.
The only other tie-in is with the shift of “VattelVision” becoming the “live coverage” of major “Birther Events”…
…But what other “major Birther Events” are there after that?…
That is a very valid and reasonable argument.
As I’ve never been involved with or run a business that blurs the boundaries like that, I’m not sure how one properly structures and accounts for such a combination…and how donations are recorded. I think it is legal (but not necessarily fitting under the “tips” category), but those particularities of business and tax law are outside of my areas of expertise and personal experience.
Agreed. Again, good point.
That is the same assessment of the situation I have. So yeah, it seems unlikely that there can be anything to his claims of “shocking reveals” and that this will mostly be an interesting event in terms of seeing how he tries to finagle his “spin” in merely reguritating the existing tropes of Birtherism.
I do suspect his goal of having a “press conference” is to try to turn this into a political event to fight back and distract from his other current problems with the Federal government.
If he wanted to bury the issue quietly and avoid the stink of Birtherism, he could have just quietly dumped a summary report and claim he did his job and wipe his hands of it from there.
So I suspect it will merely be a fluff piece of aspersion casting bluster and fury, signifying nothing in the end…
I also suspect he’s boxed himself into a “no win” scenario and the outcome is likely to simply leave him permanently mocked and tarred with the stink of Birtherism in the mainstream, while also becoming just another massive “let down” amongst the Birtheristani and Tea Party types…
That is true, but only to a limited extent. He has been more willing to show up and defend his positions, sure.
I would also rate him as being much better at attempting to provide an actual “response” and make actual “points”, instead of simply playing the childish and obvious propaganda games and trolling games that we see from most of the Birthers that show up here.
However, Dean still suffers from his prickly defensive delivery and a certain level of ego-driven disingenuousness in his responses. Such things naturally invite both ire and mockery. This still leads to him causing the atmosphere and discussion to become more hostile than necessary.
So, I really don’t feel that “polite” or “civil” are the ways I would characterize his tone at all. It is a vast (and welcome) improvement over most of the rest of the Birtheristani – sure. But it still has a ways to go from what I expect, when I think of either “polite” or “civil” in tone.
Arpaio is supposed to be looking into whether a crime has been committed. The two-citizen parent theory has no relevance to that question. Obama has never claimed that his father was a U.S. citizen.
In fact, I’m not sure that a crime was committed even if it were proven that the LFBC which Obama released last year is a forgery. Obama was under no obligation to release it and he did not use it to fraudulently obtain anything.
Would it be a crime if it were proven that Obama never received a degree from Columbia University? He would certainly pay a political price if it turned out not to be true, but what law would he have broken?
You are very welcome, John.
One of the things I love about this site is the array of intelligent voices of different backgrounds and persuasions that are able to offer such well reasoned and informative dialogue. I also credit the host of this site greatly for fostering and nuturing that atmosphere.
While Birtherism is both frustrating and entertaining, I am not sure that it would have held my interest this long as a “hobby” if it wasn’t for this site. What really keeps me reeled in and coming back is the high quality of reporting, insight, analysis, commentary, humor and opinion of the host and the majority of the contributing commentators.
Every day, I feel I learn something new and gain new insights from the wisdom of others here. For that, I am always grateful.
So yes, thank you for coming here and sharing your POV and insights. I truly look forward to them. You also have an excellent writing style and have a really impressive ability to explain the reasoning of your arguments. You are in good company here, with what I reverently and jokingly refer to as the “trio of great Johns” – you, John Potter and John Reilly. 😉
That really hits to the heart of the matter of why his “Press Conference” will be at most, a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I can come up with no reasonable conceivable finding of his, no matter how he tries to “spin” it, that could be pursued any further as a “crime investigation”.
Therefore, i see nothing but another EPIC FAIL dud coming from this stunt. …But it should still be entertaining to watch it happen. Possibly even more fun than watching Orly and the other Birthers lose to an empty chair…
G-I disagree. First, was Dean up front regarding “No refunds”? Here is the registration page from the website (interestingly, it is still active despite the cancellation). http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e4ghhc8jf491cc37&llr=gabq6geab
“Registrations are non-refundable” appears in very small print at the bottom.
More importantly, what are customary and usual practices? That has both legal and ethical weight. Tickets for concerts, sporting events, etc. are generally non-refundable. That means that if I get sick, forget to mark the date, or have a business emergency and miss the concert/game tough luck. However, if I bought tickets for Whitney Houston’s summer tour, I get a refund, because Whitney won’t be touring. If I had NBA season tickets, I got a refund for the games cancelled due to the strike. Dean is in the music busiiness and knows that very well. So, if someone wanted to pursue the matter, they would very likely win. The easiest way would be to ask Visa or whichever card one used to register for a chargeback.
As far as whether anyone has yet requested a refund, we have only Dean’s word. Plus, he only announced the cancellation a few days ago, so let’s see. Or maybe, no one actually registered at all.
Personally I don’t care. The entire “summit” amounted to a grifter taking advantage of fools, so I don’t have a dog in the fight.
For all of my general and well documented outright distaste for the Birthing Tendency, I have to say that, after a little prodding Dean has, in general been forthcoming with many details of his quest/crusade.
I am particularly happy to have posted confirmation from him that his entire “analysis” of the “suspicious” vital records system of Hawai’i has been undertaken on ONLY the already extant and known BC’s.
A very limited and fundamentally flawed small pool of 4-6 data points whose only actual use is to further strengthen Dr C’s previously theorized numbering and processing methodology.
An additional useful and handy rebuttal tool for the next time we see a statement along the lines of “Well, WE (the Birther cult/pathology) looked at the numbers and THEY LOOK SUSPICIOUS !!!!
Oh, I forgot to add, it also puts a stake in the whole The Dean/Miki road trip to Hawai’i was to “discover” new and “YOU WOULDN’T BELIVE WHAT THEY FOUND OUT” details.
Quite plainly, they didn’t, if I was Deans’ sponsor I would be curious to know just exactly what new details were unearthed for all those pennies spent…….
As much as I would prefer not to venture back into the excrement laced thread this has become, another shamelessly baseless assertion has been made. So, to prevent the witless from using such a false “rebuttal tool” on others in the future, let the record show that I never stated that anything was based only on the 4-6 samples to which you have access–it was one of you who stated that. You do not know how many samples we have obtained, as that is a current and ongoing project in Honolulu.
Again, it is so pitiful when some of the less mentally fortunate among you state things that are based upon nothing but assumption and predilection.
Hi Dean! I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that may help you.
Dean:
Ah, another birther fails to live up to his promises. As for excrement, you brought it with you, and if you’d simply stay away, it would follow you back home. The only reason this thread is still alive is because of what you’ve said on it.
No I don’t know because you don’t disclose the information. And what you don’t disclose isn’t evidence. And assertions that lack evidence are unsupported. So why am I even talking about this?
Personally, I find Dean Haskins worse than Orly.
Orly is relentless, unambiguous and bold in stating her, shall we say, mission statement.
A contrario, Haskins refuses to answer simple questions about his theories and his agenda, and instead obfuscates and dissembles.
It’s not because he doesn’t have one (an agenda), as I’m sure he does, it’s because he likes to cloak himself in the appearance of reasonableness.
But when confronted, he then retreats into either abuse or victimization — actually, a classic right-wing tactic.
A succinct and accurate characterization.
My guess has always been it is due to the birthers inability to grasp reality…either in facts or law.
Dean, Dean, Dean
Back pedalling really doesn’t come across well.
I stated the question on 4-6 points, you accepted it and said so
those “inconclusive data points” are sufficient to suggest irregularities in the numbers assigned. That you correctly identified them as “inconclusive data points” should be sufficient explanation for the desire to see more conclusive evidence. All of the “explanations” provided by those like you as to the anomalies in the numbering are shown to be invalid by the processing dates that are shown on the certificates. We are currently working to obtain a larger sampling of certificates from that era.
Petard….hoist…..yours
Just admit it, you have NO other data than the points I provided AND you currently have no other data AND your data disproves any thesis of yours AND it only supports Doc C’s
To John Woodman: Looks like Dean is doing his immature best to prove you wrong.
To Dean: I know you are capable of better and more mature behavior than this. Stop playing the role of an aggrieved diva and start behaving like a responsible adult. You haven’t damaged anyone here with your poo-slinging; only your own reputation.
That seems to sum it up.
Dean, forgive me for observing that “secret evidence” to which nobody else is privileged seems to be getting to be a standard tool of birthers.
A simple question: Why not release such evidence?
In the case of things like birth certificate numbers, “It’s part of an ongoing investigation,” honestly, would not appear to be a good answer.
Actually, I think I already have a good idea as to the real answer.
In every instance I can think of so far, the emergence of additional evidence — on purpose or inadvertently — has failed to confirm the birther position and in specific instances has disconfirmed it.
It is an unfortunate observed trend that birthers will actively attempt to suppress evidence which contradicts their needed findings.
Dean Haskins: Will you commit publicly to revealing any evidence you find which may serve to contradict your premise?
Would the fact that it has been promised to the participating individuals that their certificates would be used only for our analysis, and would not be released to anybody else suffice?
Dean, on its face that seems to be an entirely reasonable answer. But if you want anybody to actually believe any conclusions that you might reach, then sooner or later, you’re going to have to release at least a certain amount of those details.
You wouldn’t have to release ALL details, but you would need to release SOME of them. For example, you could release images of birth certificates with names and addresses blocked out, but with dates and birth certificate numbers intact.
But unless you release sufficient information, nobody who has any skepticism or critical thinking at all — and I can say from past experience that skepticism of birther claims is most definitely warranted — is ever going to believe you.
Not to mention the fact that you could never establish any kind of legal evidence.
Absolutely, John. At the appropriate time, if that should occur, we would definitely provide such evidence. The campaign for collecting them is still ongoing, so no analysis has even begun yet.
No, it will not suffice, because it contradicts what was said in a news release on your website, The Birther Summit.
For example, a November 14th post reassures the public that your investigative work was continuing, but it could not be detailed, due to “the sensitive nature of the work we were doing. At this point, The Birther Summit is able to state that our investigation encompassed the greater Honolulu area, where, for two weeks, we were able to uncover key pieces of evidence regarding what are believed by many to be fraudulent documents that have been released to the public.”
The same November 14th post goes on to reassure the public that “While we are not yet at liberty to discuss the details of the evidence, due to specific restraints placed upon us by counsel . . . once there is a lawsuit filed in Honolulu, we are confident that counsel will allow us to share the vital evidence that will be presented to the court for scrutiny, so that the citizens of this country will be able to weigh it for themselves.”
Later in the same post, you told acknowledged that during meetings in Texas you were “sharing this newly acquired information, and enlisting vital assistance in disseminating it to the country when we are given a green light to do so from counsel. We are hoping that it will be no more than a couple weeks before we are able to release this new information, and that this information will garner the national attention it deserves.”
In other words, while today you say that you “promised to the participating individuals that their certificates would be used only for our analysis,” you previously promised that “key pieces of evidence regarding what are believed by many to be fraudulent documents” would be released to the public. Moreover, you admit that during November you shared “newly acquired information” with associates, and planned to release this information to public.
Again, you’re lying.
In a November 14th post on your website The Birther Summit, you reassure the public that “While we are not yet at liberty to discuss the details of the evidence, due to specific restraints placed upon us by counsel . . . once there is a lawsuit filed in Honolulu, we are confident that counsel will allow us to share the vital evidence that will be presented to the court for scrutiny, so that the citizens of this country will be able to weigh it for themselves.”
I believe your lawsuit has been filed; why not ask your counsel about releasing what you found?
It’ll have to–you have no alternative. However, you are talking about two different things, as this current effort didn’t even begin until about a month ago–how could I release information in November about something that didn’t even commence until the end of January? I was speaking about details concerning Sunahara v. DOH. This campaign is not associated with the court case, and is something that is currently ongoing.
No, you are the liar, Artie, as you often speak definitively about things of which you have no knowledge.
Oh and Dean, I notice that you removed the registration page for the Birther Summit. That’s an excellent step towards credibility. Maybe your next step could be to remove the page for the Birther Summit Volunteer Form?
Prevarication is the last refuge of a birther.
Lying is a fairly strong charge, as it indicates deliberate intent to deceive.
People can often be so far apart in their viewpoints that what appears to one to be a deliberate act of lying may not be.
I would encourage folks on both sides of the debate to be careful about charging others with lying without really, really clear evidence that this is the case.
And the reason I would encourage that is that such charges ramp up an atmosphere of hostility — sometimes needlessly — and people can often make a lot better progress in understanding each other if that atmosphere of hostility is kept to a minimum.
Just my 2 cents. 😉
I would add that I think it’s possible for someone to repeat or propagate lies without themselves being a liar.
Such a person is only a repeater of lies. They may be deluded (believing the lies themselves), or they may simply be careless, but they are repeating untrue things without themselves having the deliberate, conscious intent to deceive others.
And I think it takes that deliberate, conscious intent to make a “liar.”
So,
We have a confirmation that no more than 4-6 ACTUAL data points have been “analyzed”
We have an assertion that “more”, an indeterminate number of points have been gathered
We have an assertion that “more”, again an indeterminate number will be gathered at a later time
We have a statement that even the additionally gathered data points have not ACTUALLY been “analyzed”
We then, by Deans own statements return to…..
We have only 4-6 data points with 3 different types of form with 3 differing presentation routes in 3 different formats seperated by over 50 years of data storage methodologies.
By their very nature these still remain as having little to no consanguinity other than being birth certificates from Hawai’i and as such have zero value other than at best curiosity.
All the data on these, particularly the serial numbers, still can only prove the whole thesis Doc posited well before hand, to-whit pre computers, BC numbering was batched, not same day and roughly alphabetical in order.
All that can be shown with any further BC’s will be that this method was in use at the time of the Presidents birth and it will have exactly no effect on the vaildity and Constitutionally enforced legality (FF+C) of said BC.
Again, sage advice. Thank you.
Agreed. But that only holds true to the point that they become informed that they are repeating a lie.
Once they have been provided information which demonstrates that their claims are either untrue or unsubstantiated, they now have a responsibility to check into it, before simply repeating the same lies.
Once they have been sufficiently informed, they no longer have any excuse and to continue to perpetuate the same lies becomes an intentional act from that point forward. Therefore, at that point, they too become a willful liar instead of just ignorant and gullible.
For the record, I consider these to be valid and acceptible responses for the time being.
If any of this “new analysis” ever gets to the point where Dean has something to act upon or report, then these questions will make sense to explore again.
If Dean’s prior statements were in regards to his upcoming Sunahara case, then we should have those answers after March 8th.
Personally, I think that is a reasonable status quo for both of those issues at this point in time.
The theory is that some government employee, at the behest of Mr. Obama and/or his representatives, “hijacked” or “stole” Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate number in order to produce a fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate for Mr. Obama.
Of course, the theory flies in the face of explicit statements by state officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and has a valid Hawaii birth certificate.
It flies in the fact that we have, so far, a complete lack of any good forensic documentary evidence of a fraud. I refer anyone who questions this to the 221-page book I wrote on the subject, to subsequent discussions of a few additional points at my blog, and to additional material and discussions of various points at this blog.
Birthers, of course, will be unconvinced. But I think that anyone who intelligently goes through the evidence and who doesn’t have a dog in the fight will readily admit that in spite of 10 months of barraging the images we have of the birth certificate with what might well be the most intense and comprehensive scrutiny of such a document in history, no one has produced any evidence of fraud that would stand up in a court of law.
This claim on my part is affirmed by the fact that, six months after that particular book’s release, not one single significant point in it has been factually refuted by any of those claimed by birthers to be experts.
The document’s survival of such scrutiny alone speaks as to some likelihood of its authenticity.
The theory flies in the face of birth announcements in two different Hawaii newspapers, available on old microfilm at what must be dozens of libraries across the country.
It flies in the face of the personal testimony of Barbara Nelson, Obama’s high school English teacher, who has publicly claimed that she remembers discussing Obama’s birth in Honolulu with an obstetrician friend at the time. That she mistakenly believed he was the delivering obstetrician is irrelevant.
And it flies in the face of common sense, which dictates that for an 18-year-old white girl to fly (apparently by herself) literally halfway around the world, heavily pregnant, at great expense, to then give birth to her firstborn child, all alone in the midst of strangers in a hospital in a Third-World African country would be, to say the least, extremely unlikely.
Against all of this, we have, so far, a total of 6 publicly-known birth certificate numbers from Honolulu in the summer of 1961. We are told that others have been gathered by Dean and associates, but have not been analyzed.
All of the certificate numbers match a clear and consistent pattern suggesting batching and numbering after alphabetization, with the ONLY exception to this very consistent pattern being Virginia Sunahara’s certificate — the certificate of the one child who passed away almost immediately after her birth. She was born on August 4th, and passed away the next day.
In other words, Dean is at present proceeding on no actual evidence of which I am personally aware, and against all real evidence of which I’m aware, on the basis of speculation.
It is also worth noting that Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate number was drawn into the mix largely as the result of a known FALSE claim made by Jerome Corsi in May of last year.
The claim was that in the year 1955, Charles G. Bennett (then the Hawaii Department of Health’s Chief of the Bureau of Health Statistics) “stated” in his article for the Hawaii Medical Journal that “certificates were numbered immediately upon acceptance by the registrar-general,” and showed “that birth certificates were numbered upon acceptance by the registrar-general, and there was no provision that would allow an accepted birth certificate to be put in a pile for three days before a number was stamped on it.”
The claim, of course, is false. No such description fo the procedure appears anywhere in the article referenced by Corsi. And despite having had this clearly pointed out to him (most recently in person by myself during the course of a debate with Corsi and others), neither Jerome Corsi nor WorldNetDaily have ever corrected the false information that they presented to the public last May.
So what do we have here? I can’t see anything that is of any substance whatsoever. As Dean has admitted that no new birth certificates have been analyzed, it appears he is moving forward based entirely on speculation, and against all of the decent evidence that I can see.
And Dean, this is one of the reasons that I emailed you some days ago stating that it looked to me like canceling the Birther Summit was a good move. I see nothing but “fail” on the forgery side. I also am prepared to state at this time that I see nothing but “fail” on the “natural born citizen” side of the argument as well.
And since nothing on either side of the movement appears to be grounded in establishable facts or in establishable law, the entire movement is doomed to failure — with its only lasting impact that I see likely to be that conservatives and Republicans may be hamstrung by the perception that good (and Constitutionally eligible) candidates such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are “tainted” by virtue of having parents who had not yet naturalized at the time of their births an entire generation ago.
No, it will not. We have already heard the “you won’t believe what they’re finding” and stories about scandelous details soon to be released. Birther claims are long on promises, and reality has fallen very short of any of these promises. Your “secret evidence” is no evidence at all, and until you are ready to come forward with something, any statements from you about it is nothing more than blowing smoke up our backsides.
G, I would have to agree with that.
Oh — I should also add that it is a known, established fact that Jerome Corsi, and/or WorldNetDaily, and/or a graphic artist associated with them, took specific action the result of which ought to have been to withhold from the public a birth certificate number in their possession that directly contradicted Corsi’s earlier claim of how birth certificates were numbered.
Unfortunately, the birth certificate number was readable through the back side of a certificate image that they initially posted, and then scrubbed from their site.
On a tangent but important to the whole issue with the general “birther community” (I use the phrase in the loosest of possible ways).
There is a fixed and unswerving mantra with them that all refuters of the sacred liturgy of Bitherism are inherently Socialist/Democratic Party operative/Obama loving/”Lieberal”/gun hating/Abortionists etc. Oh and we probably drown kittens in sacks whilst sacrificing puppies to Cthulu.
I don’t know about the remainder of folks on the board but
Economically I probably count as Anarcho-capitalist with significant chunks of Ordoliberalism, free trade supporter with a good dose of Thatcherism. However I know damn well that the market needs some regulation as the “Free Market” is a damn jungle with zip moral compass
I’m a strong supporter of The Second Amendment but loath Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
I am a strong supporter of womens right to choose but feel the model in the US on abortion should be more akin to the UK with seems a hell of a lot more rational and sure as hell not tinged with religion
Religion needs to be kept firmly out of government and the law and actions by ANYONE to oppress/harm etc anyone because they don’t like something on personal religious grounds or belief needs the book thrown at them
Some people are plain bad and society and people need to be protected when they harm others and if they kill with intent they should be executed
I am seriously annoyed with Obama for being too “Statesman” when he needed to act like a damned politician and kick ass and take names
You are responsible for your own actions and for the sh8t you create BUT there needs to be a firm social security net to help folks who get into when it’s NOT there fault
Etc etc
Now, does that seem like a “classic Obot”….?
Oh and I forgot to add, I killed people in a societally accepted manner in the service of my country and would do so again in protection of others.
I don’t know what exactly a “classic Obot” would be like, but I do know that your views sound awfully similar to mine. 🙂
As far as being a “classic Obot” goes, my first vote was for Reagan in 1980 and I’ve voted for conservatives ever since. I’ve been married for 21 years to my first and only wife, have run my own small business for 8. We have 6 children, all of whom have been homeschooled until at least 7th grade. We’ve attended church multiple times a week for decades. My oldest daughter sold ranch dressing when she was 3 years old, and I have an 8 year old who’s eager to set up his own Roth IRA in spite of having only fourteen dollars and twenty-five cents to do it on.
We could hardly be a better “poster family” for conservatism.
Oh — I forgot to mention that I personally lobbied for my state’s concealed-carry law, which has been a spectacular success.
I had no idea that ranch dressing was a “conservative” product… 😉
Does Dean have two court cases going? The Sunahara case and another one? If so, my comments were directed towards the only one I was aware of–the Sunahara case–and that’s my mistake.
Oh, it is! But it’s not so much the ranch dressing. It’s that she “had her own little business” at the age of 3.
We lived in England at the time. You simply couldn’t get ranch dressing there. So she had a small amount of capital ($10 or $20 or $30, it grew over time) and on any trip back to the US we would buy packets of ranch dressing for about $1 each, and sell them to family friends for a pound sterling. Since a pound was worth more than a dollar, she made a profit, which was visible when we converted the pounds back into dollars for her.
Economic education.
He has indicated that he is attempting to work towards another “angle” beyond just the Sunahara schtick. He has actually mentioned working on other things before.
Of course, that is just a statement that doesn’t have any other real significance at the moment; at least not until it lead to actually filing some additional case.
But yeah, Birther claims he is doing research and looking for additional angles to pursue Birther issues… no surprise there. In other words, he’s actively working an a throw spaghetti at the wall type of fishing expedition strategy, and hoping to glean some new angle out of it. His digging will either come up empty and go nowhere or he will decide that he has some new grasping at straws tactic to push. Either way, we are unlikely to ever know what he’s actually pursuing, unless and until he actuall formally pursues it. He is within his rights to keep his tactics and plans to himself…or at least close to his vest.
Actually, I’m not sure that being married only once correlates positively with conservatism. Divorce rates are higher overall in red states than in blue. Reagan and Gingrich were divorced; Clinton, despite his affairs is not. Obama is not (and no affairs known). Nancy Pelosi has been married to same man all her life and goes to Mass daily. I am a liberal married almost 28 years and all my liberal friends have never been divorced.
For what that is worth.
🙂 I’m sure you recognized that my statement was made in light-hearted jest. But I do appreciate the fascinating details (plus – I didn’t know you lived for a time in England!) and I love that you are teaching your children how to earn and save.
Ranch and Honey Mustard used to be my favorite types of salad dressing. As I’m getting older, I’m starting to realize I need to be more “health conscious” with my food choices. I’ve mainly switched over to Baslamic Vinegrette these days, but I won’t turn away a good ranch dressing, honey mustard or other dressing when it is already in front of me. 😉 The only kind I really stay away from is Blue Cheeze – never could stand that stuff. Just not for me.
I suppose that’s a silver lining. 🙂
I might add that another silver lining is the fact that the birther issues makes the Republicans look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the Nation.
Could you imagine better Democratic agents provocateurs than Dean Haskins or Orly Taitz?
Someday I bet we’ll discover evidence of a super-duper-secret Obama plan which created and financed the entire birther circus, and the Republican debates too, I bet.
The secret undermining of Real America by the French proceeds unimpeded. 🙂
Neither is a silver lining for me.
I started this whole journey simply sticking up for the truth, As the situation has developed, it’s become increasingly clear to me that even from a political point of view the birthers are no asset to conservatives, and are increasingly looking like a liability.
Marco Rubio is at the top of everybody’s short list for Vice Presidential running mate. Thanks to our friends the birthers, something like 30% or 40% of Republicans (I’ll have to look up the statistics) are now either falsely convinced that Rubio is ineligible, or doubtful about his eligibility.
Gee thanks, Dean, Orly, Jerome, Joseph, Mario, Leo…
With friends like these…
You can’t be referring to this “reliable” poll:
The latest WND/Wenzel poll shows that Americans harbor serious doubts about Rubio on the ticket, which could shake GOP insiders to their core. Just 45 percent said they believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a child born to parents who are not U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen of the United States. Such is the situation with Rubio. Another 43 percent said they believe someone in his situation is clearly not qualified for this reason, while 12 percent said they were unsure on the question.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/shocker-for-gop-on-rubio-eligibility/
Brought to you by the same outfit who conducted this poll:
The poll indicated 43.5 percent of Americans believe that a Hawaii birth would make no difference in Obama’s eligibility, as the Constitution requires both parents of a U.S. president to have been U.S. citizens – and Obama’s father was not a citizen.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/stunning-numbers-want-congress-to-probe-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility
That’s probably the one I saw.
Generally speaking, I don’t trust information from WND. But the report of it is enough to arouse concern. I don’t know a great deal about Rubio, but from the little I do know, so far, I like the guy. I like Jindal as well, although I have some doubts about whether he would really be a good candidate. Rubio seems better to me.
Understatement of the Year…
Another Meyer Lansky, I’m telling you.
And Glenn Beck:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/glenn-beck-accidentally-not-put-down.html
and
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/coincidence.html
Yeah, just like Christine O’Donnell:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/odonnell-in-aristocrats.html
I was a Trotskyite in college, then was a kibbutznik for a year. We followed Lenin’s maxim: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Now I’m a registered Democrat. So I feel I’m qualified to explain in more detail:
Let’s take a prominent conservative, and his family. We’ll call him “Willard”.
Willard’s father is Chairman and CEO of a company that makes cars. We’ll call it Nash, or Rambler, or AMC. Willard has five sons, only one wife, a dog we’ll call “Seamus,” and a lot of luggage. Why one wife? His grandfather
kept concubineswas a polygamist in Mexico. Also, Willard’s father was born in Mexico, but that did not stop him for making a run for President. That’s president of the USA, not AMC.Anyway, Willard decides everyone should take a car trip to Ontario, which is a provence in the socialist country of Canada that uses the
communistmetric system, and shares the world’s longest unarmed border with us. Hmmm…socialist and unarmed border. Oops.So Willard needs a station wagon to hold seven people and their luggage. Wait, where’s the dog? Oh, yeah. He’s in a kennel tied to the roof of the car. For 12 hours. So they’re driving along, and suddenly Seamus does a Romney. All over the car.
How does this compare with Progressives, those ultra-liberals? Glad you asked. Well, first I would not have bought a Chevrolet station wagon. I’d buy a car from my father’s company. Next, I would have put the luggage on the roof, not the dog. Yes, I know about Ramblers. We had a Rambler American, which had vacuum wipers (!). My uncle bought a Rambler Classic station wagon, which literally fell apart in the driveway. But I would never insult my father, even if I had to buy a Pacer.
Yes, indeed. Have you noticed how Haskins has refused to address the questions about the ethics of him refusing to provide refunds to people who registered to attend an event which has been cancelled?
Yeah, it’s sad. He’s feels guilty enough to refuse to talk about it, but not guilty enough to refund the money–which was probably used up long ago on all that fabulous marketing and advertising Dean did. Also, there was this banner he would unfold to take pictures of–I’m sure that thing along must have cost, like, 20 to 30 dollars. Oh, and I hear he’s got 5,000 XXXL tee shirts with the “Birther Summit” logo on it that he’s trying to unload. He’s been to half the “big ‘n tall” shops in the South East and still can’t get rid of them. I suggested he should just get a Sharpie and turn the logo into “Burger Summit” and people would buy them. Everybody loves a burger. Birthers on the other hand . . .
Romney, Boris Yeltsin and dog walk into a bar.
The bartender says, “what’ll you have?”
Romney says, “I’m a Mormon. I don’t drink alcohol or coffee. I’ll have a Vernor’s.”
Yeltsin says, “I’ll have a Black Russian.”
The dog says, “after those 12 sinking hours, I’ll have grain alcohol, and throw some cold water on that pompous ass wearing blue jeans.”
Thanks for a good laugh before turning in!
Haskins says “I don’t mind if you end up looking like a fool–however, you might want to wait until after 2/28 to make your prediction, since you have no idea what arguments are contained in the opposition to the motion to dismiss”
.
it’s Feb 28 and I just read the motion and laughed out so loud the neighbors complained!
Then, apparently, you are as clueless about the law and legal procedure as the dentist is. By the way, what was posted is a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (not “the motion”).
as I am clueless about the law and legal procedure, I still prdict total failure on the Sunahara case which is really meaningless, so I will retype on March 8, “Failure”
That’ll certainly be rich.
Speaking of rich, how’s Halliburton doing in Iraq? Did they find any WMDs yet? Unless it was really about oil (wink, wink).
Once again, I want to extend my thanks for wrecking the conservative movement. As I noted before, Buckley once said he spent a lifetime getting rid of the kooks. Buckley’s gone, so…
Well, seeing the flow of orders for tooling for overseas markets, and the prices they’re willing to pay, Halliburton is doing very well in lots of places. Doesn’t look like usual stuff for hunting weaponry, but what would I know, maybe some other company gets those orders. 😉
the appropriate time? after the election perhaps?
obama loses the election – `we didn’t find anything OMG enough, sorry!’
obama wins the election – `we’re nearly there! keep clicking the paypal button to help the struggle!’.
Please point me to any communication sent out by The Birther Summit in which people are urged to click a paypal button. If you cannot provide one, then you are a liar.
Now Dean, Roadburner was having some fun anticipating possible future BS.org communiques. You know full well that until the page was removed recently, the following was up at the BS.org site:
Birther Summit Registration
http://www.birthersummit.org/register.html
Cached
SIGN THE BIRTHER SUMMIT CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION! … If you would like to donate more toward those expenses, please do so via our PayPal button, …
http://www.birthersummit.org/register.html now returns 411 error.
But is cached at Google 😉
Nice thread at Freep on the subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2849622/posts?page=9
Dean, I’ve been going through Mario Apuzzo’s 199-page legal “brief” in the Kerchner case.
I’m not yet quite a third of the way through, and virtually every point that Apuzzo makes can easily be factually refuted — and the few points that are left are very weak and have almost no value in making his case.
And MOST of the points that Apuzzo makes can easily be refuted by reference to the very authorities that Apuzzo cites!
Beyond this, there is an entire wealth of sources that Apuzzo has not referenced, which directly refute the claim that being a natural born citizen does or ever did require being born of citizen parents. And I mean CLEARLY refute.
It’s over, Dean. The “birther movement” is over, except for the extent that some people who don’t want to accept that continue to put out propaganda that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
I say this as a long-standing conservative who would’ve been very happy to have seen Obama run out of the White House — who would’ve gleefully pitched in and helped, even, if the facts had been with you. I would’ve been just as happy as well if the Founding Fathers had laid down any kind of definition or precedent that “natural born citizen” meant “born on US soil of two US citizen parents…” again, if the facts had been with you.
They aren’t. If you have the slightest doubt about that, then hop on a plane and come visit me and we will spend half a day together going through the evidence. You pay for a ticket, and I’ll pay for spare bunk space for a night and a few meals. And if you have sincere doubts, that’s an offer.
That being the case, I would like to request that you please stop promoting known falsehoods, please stop misrepresenting the Founding Fathers and our Constitution, and please stop poisoning the well for conservatives by making us look like fools, and by raising false doubts among our people concerning perfectly eligible candidates such as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal.
Thank you.
David Brooks says the same:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/brooks-the-possum-republicans.html
Then there’s this gem: Republican Congressional Candidate Says ‘Holocaust Never Happened’:
http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/republican-congressional-candidate-says-holocaust-never-happened#c
looks like mr potter saved me some work.
the BS merchandise page is also still up. does the money go towards the struggle, or straight into your pocket?
ready to apologise yet dean?
Oh Dean, yoo hoo…Do you drive a Tesla like Orly?
I am now far enough through Apuzzo’s 199-page brief to know for certain that it is an astonishing exercise in how a person, using thousands of words, can twist history and law to deny what it says, and to make it appear to say what it manifestly does not say.
Most of Apuzzo’s audience won’t read the original sources. Anyone who does, in context and with a critical eye, will know that the following authorities that he cites, who he claims support his position, actually REFUTE Apuzzo’s position:
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
St. George Tucker
Lord Coke
Lynch v Clarke
Attorney General Edward Bates
The 1857 New York Statute
Justice Gaston
James Scott Brown
William Rawle
US v Wong Kim Ark
And those are only the sources that Apuzzo cites. There are others that refute his position as well.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1779 for the Commonwealth of Virginia, stating that all white persons born in Virginia — without any regard whatsoever to parentage — would be citizens of that commonwealth.
James Madison, speaking about what was important in regard to the allegiance that determines citizenship, stated that birth “derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote a draft for the eligibility clause which said the President, if not a citizen at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, should “hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” There is no mention whatsoever of two citizen parents; only that the President should be born a citizen.
Even John Jay underlined the word “born” and not the word “natural,” placing the emphasis on citizenship at birth.
I could go on and on and on. Critically, the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark found — as an “irresistible” “conclusion” that Wong Kim Ark was “natural born” as well as being a citizen. They also explicitly stated that the rule from ancient times made the child, even of aliens in the country, a “natural born subject” — using the words from 1607 of English Lord Coke — and that the same rule applied here — first, in the colonies, then in the newly independent states, then in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution.
This is confirmed by the laws of the individual states themselves. I now have statements from nearly half of the original states that say as much.
It is confirmed by legal expert Frederick van Dyne, whom Donofrio feebly attempted to cite as an authority to support his claim regarding Minor v. Happersett.
It’s confirmed by pretty much every textbook that has ever been written on the subject — and there are dozens of them.
And it is confirmed by recent case law that has repeated and confirmed the judgment that the child born on US soil, even of non-citizen parents, is a natural born citizen.
The evidence is simply overwhelming that having two citizen parents is not, and never has been, a requirement for natural born citizen status in the United States of America.
Then again, anyone is free to solicit and hawk merchandice for profit if they want to.
I don’t see anything wrong with Dean doing so. That is what CafePress is for. It doesn’t matter whether his Birther Summit is cancelled or not. He’s still free to make and try to sell all the “Birther Summit” merchandice he wants. Nobody is forced to buy anything and if someone openly choses to still want and purchase the merchandise, that is fully their own right.
Further, I don’t see any claims on the site about how the merchandising funds have to be used. Unless his “organization” has specific rules about the allocation of that particular pool of money, he could pocket all the profits from that revenue stream that he wants and be well within his rights to do so. All he has to comply with is reporting the income properly in applicable tax filings.
So I fail to see anything wrong here. Simply not liking Birther nonsense doesn’t mean that they don’t have a right to hawk and sell merchandise or that other Birthers don’t have the right to throw their own money at whatever they wish to waste it on.
Those particular actions are well within their rights.
Bravo! Good work. I’m only sorry that you had to put yourself through that exercise in the first place. Slogging through 199 pages of single spaced pontificating BS and staying awake is quite a challenge. You’ve earned a stiff drink! 😉
Mario honed those skills defending DWI and DUI.
I should add that in most of the few quotes that actually do appear to support the two-parent claim, their entire force disappears when you understand their original context.
This is true, for example, of quotes from David Ramsay’s paper on citizenship. When you actually read his paper, it becomes clear that Ramsay had no reference whatsoever to children born on US soil of non-citizen parents after the Revolution. His sole reference appears to have been to children born in the US of parents who died before the Declaration of Independence.
Even on that matter, Ramsay’s position was overruled by Madison and the other Founding Fathers in a vote that was 36 to 1.
Here’s a particularly interesting example of Mario’s smoke-blowing.
He cites as “evidence” of Vattel’s influence on the “Founding Fathers” the fact that one Peter Van Schaack “retired to his New York farm in the winter of 1775-1776 to reread Locke, Vattel, Montesquieu, Grotius, Beccaria, and Pufendorf before taking his stand on independence.
First of all, a particular mention that someone like Vattel is purely “anecdotal” evidence. Such claims collapse under the known fact (Lutz) that the Founding Fathers quoted Blackstone, the writer on English common law, almost sixteen times as often as they cited Vattel, and that Vattel was about 30th in a long list of influences.
But beyond that… Peter Van Schaack wasn’t even one of the Founding Fathers! Van Schaack was a hard-core British Loyalist who opposed the Revolution, who moved to Britain for 7 years after American independence, and who apparently had no part in the Revolution, the Framing of the Constitution, or the Government of the United States.
Beyond that… even the author whom Apuzzo quotes for the tale stated in the same book that in reaching his decision in the Dred Scott case (a racist and incidentally pro-birther decision) Justice Taney “disregarded volumes of judicial precedents emphasizing place of birth without regard to ancestry.”
Mario’s paper, like his two-citizen-parent claim, is rotten — all the way down.
That should’ve been “that someone liked Vattel.”
Of course. It’s a dog whistle.
John Woodman:
That think you just write about Shaack is one of the bad things I see happening because of The Apuzzo Brief. Birthers across the land will be quoting Apuzzo on that point and God knows how many other stupid and inane points. It is already a massive undertaking to debate Birthers about a few paragraphs in WKA, and those threads can get up into 4 figures on replies.
Imagine the impact of 199 Singe-Spaced Pages of Birther Bunker Buster Bomb Of BeeEss on the issue. I think Apuzzo has scored a major victory here, not from his legal acumen, but from the sheer size of the clean up job. As I said in my Internet Article:
I do not believe the Apuzzo Brief was written for lawyers, judges and courts. It is far too long, and there is way too much irrelevancy and conclusory reasoning. For example, Apuzzo knows that Quintilianus doesn’t trump Coke or English Common Law. All that stuff, and all the multi-lingual translational quips are meant for the Birther Hordes, who hunger for copy and paste material with which to clobber the smart-alecky Obots and Anti-Birthers out there on the Intertubz.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
*face palm*
But is it really a “victory” in any sense of the word, even for the Birthers?
I mean, seriously…who else other that the existing Cult of the BIrthers are going to pay any attention to or swallow this cr@p?
Once again, what type of victory is it, when all you are doing is preaching to the choir of the already converted??? Who cares that the very same group of folks, who already ignore any reality contradicting their personal delusions, now have another set of delusions to cling to and parrot?
Really, what has changed in the equation at all? These same folks will continue to parrot and trot out long debunked talking points ad nauseum regardless. They continue to come up with new nonsense to endlessly shift their goalposts back-and-forth anyways.
So, what does anything that a Birther shaman adds to the Cult mythology matter, beyond their very small and pre-set adherents at all???
IT DOESN’T. SSDD as the saying goes. No, there really is no “victory” they score by simply spouting new myths amongst themselves at all. This can only be viewed as “winning” in the Charlie Sheen sense of the term… In other words, still a failed joke to everyone else.
Mr. Woodman: There has not been one word from the RNC about this. If I missed it, then provide the link.
I don’t think there’s a “victory” for Apuzzo, except in the sense that he’s produced a long (199 pages) compilation of arguments, that (if they display skill at all) only display skill in the misrepresentation of history and law.
For some people, “making a splash” is enough. The quality of what they produce doesn’t matter. What matters is that they’re “famous.” Or that they made money. Or whatever.
And there will be people who’ll take Apuzzo’s 199-page “brief” at face value and be impressed. I sometimes wonder whether our friend Dean is among those who have been too easily impressed, too slow to skepticism regarding claims that he would like to believe.
I suppose we’ll know tomorrow whether there remains any hope whatsoever for the birther movement. Unless Arpaio produces some new, revolutionary and compelling evidence — which I’m fairly certain he won’t — the birther movement, for however long it goes on by force of will of those pushing it — is a walking dead thing.
But hey, it’s been fun. The life of the party.
A Weekend at Bernie’s.
I’m not sure why they would give the guy any publicity by saying anything about it. I wouldn’t.
I think that any good cult benefits from having a Holy Inscrutable Book of Teachings, and let’s face it, the Brief is WHOLLY INSCRUTABLE. How many people are going to read that whole thing? It almost killed me, and I bet it took several years off my life span. All the Birthers have to do is point to it, in all it’s massiveness, and it will impress some people. Face it, this is America, where people actually buy Talking Big Mouth Basses to hang on the wall, and black velvet Elvis and John Wayne pictures.
I am serious that I think Apuzzo will dress it up some, maybe add a few pictures of Quintilianus, lions, Whigs, Indian tribes, American flags, and pictures of the Founders and this puppy is coming out in hardback, with gilt edges, and a red sewn-in book marker. The Birthers now have a holy book.
As far as believers, Birtherism is a big lie, but Big Lies work sometimes. This lie is getting repeated enough that I don’t see it going anywhere at least until November. If Obama loses, then a lot of the steam will be let out. Arpaio’s impact is uncertain. He can clear Obama, which will set the Birthers back some. Or he can energize the movement and make it even more insane.
But yes, I see it as a victory for the Birthers. Apuzzo climbed up out of the sewer with the Birther Sacred Writings in hand.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Egads!!!
I read that article. Just this excerpt made me sick to my stomach…
Well, at least he’s got competition for his primary. Looks like 2 other people are running. I’ll have to keep an eye on this one and hope that folks are sane enough to not select him…
I really enjoyed that article Misha, thanks!
The summary lesson was the most important part:
I agree that such a total loss of control and rotting from within of a national party could not happen without the shameless pandering Possums in the GOP leadership. Kowtowing to crazies has just caused a cancer to metasticize. I seriously feel we are past the point where sanity could be restored from within. The patient is too far gone and too tarnished. As short as the populace’s attention span and memory seems to be these days, images and words are captured and live forever on the internet. It is not like they can just turn around tomorrow and claim that they will act serious and responsible from now on… who would believe them?
From the same article: “It’s grievance politics, identity politics.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/brooks-the-possum-republicans.html
It’s the politics of resentment, which worked so well for Adolf Schicklgruber. That is what I am so concerned about.
“President Obama has said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob,” Santorum said on Saturday. “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day, and put their skills to test, who aren’t taught by some liberal college professor (who) tries to indoctrinate them. I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/rick-santorum-college-graduates-michigan-primary_n_1308455.html
I deeply share your concerns.
In regards to Santorum’s snotty statement, this is another fallacy that he is trying to perpetuate. Obama has long been a proponent of making additional education and skill training available for ALL career paths, not just college. He’s included tech schools, trade schools etc. That is something I’ve strongly been an advocate of for years as well.
So sadly, Santorum is just demonizing a president on an issue in which the President is actually much MORE in support of these things than Santorum is. Santorum also mentioned that he fears higher education leads people away from the Church. That is what truly scares Santorum and why he wants to cut education at not just the Federal, but also the state level as well.
In today’s modern world, where the only way for us to remain competive is to provide the opportunity for education and skill to all, the worst thing we can be doing is kow-towing to those that knowingly fear people thinking for themselves and who wish to control a populace and the worldview they get exposed to via keeping them in the dark. There are legitmate reasons and successful cases of home schooling. Sadly, too much of it is really nothing more than a desire to control religious indoctrination.
I commented on your other article too, Misha. However, because the article quote I used referenced the neo-N@zi beliefs of that GOP congressional candidate, it remains in moderation until it can be approved.
When it does get approved, I hope you have a chance to look back and read the response I wrote you on that article as well. Thanks!
oh i quite agree with you there G
the point i obvously made badly is that it is in dean’s best interests if obama actually wins the next election.
if he loses, trying to shift a load of merchandise that screams `i just spent the last 4 years of my life being led by the nose by a bunch of grifters and charlatans, and failed’ will not be very easy.
he picked up on it though and got the hump. too bad. if he wants to get on his moral high horse, better make sure the saddle is cinched tight.
Why is anyone surprised? Birthers hide behind keyboards and use phony names.
They are not going to be seen in public.
I checked the guy’s name and surprise, surprise, he is also a birfer.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/29/aide-gop-candidate-says-obama-an-illegal-alien-and-holocaust-never-happened/