Continued from Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Part 1).
In this part we examine a claim by authors Johannson and Crosby at The Daily Pen in their article: Vital Records Indicate Obama Not Born in Hawaii Hospital (Part 3) that there is a program in place where foreign governments report overseas births of children to US residents back to the US, where these births were registered in the United States as if those children had been born there (and thereby invalidating all birth certificates as evidence of citizenship by virtue of birth in the United States). They write:
Foreign Birth Transcript Exchange
Beginning in 1937, four years after the establishment of the standard U.S. vital statistics registration area, the Vital Statistics of the United States Report published the first natal statistics which were provided from thousands of transcripts exchanged between foreign-based vital records offices and domestic Vital Records offices in the U.S. [this is not true]
…
One such table of this data can be seen in the Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in 1945 which shows there were 52,269 “Resident Transcripts” added to the natal statistics data in the U.S. while the balance of the same number of non-resident transcripts were subtracted. These transcripts were those natal statistics from births which occurred outside of the United States, but which were reported (on the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”), filed and allocated to a place of residence in the U.S. The table explicitly cites under footnote 1 that these transcripts include “allocations of births which occurred outside of the United States.” [this is not true either]
and I reproduce their “illustration” below:
What’s wrong with this picture? It’s a fake. The original is in Vital Statistics of the United States – 1945 – Part II Natality and Mortality Data for the United States Tabulated by Place of Residence, PDF Page 8 (VIII in the document). Here’s what it really looks like (and I have to split this into two parts because in the original, the footnote doesn’t appear directly under the United States totals).
Johannson and Crosby’s illustration says, “Includes allocations outside of United States.” The original says, “Includes allocations outside of continental United States.”
So precisely what are those allocations outside of continental United States? Japan?? Indonesia??? KENYA??????
For the answer, turn back three pages to page 5:
The tabulations published in both part I and part II are compiled from the same source material, being derived from transcripts of original birth and death certificates received from registration officials of States and cities, and of the outlying territories and possessions of the United States.
This statistical table shows primarily children of residents of one state born in another, but it also includes “outlying territories and possessions of the United States.” The government has never included foreign births as part of the national statistics.
To try to win an argument by faking evidence is a shameful thing, and this is not the first time Johannson and Crosby have been caught red handed. One can only wonder at their motives.
Summarizing Parts 1 and 2 of this series:
- Birth certificates are, by law, prima facie evidence of the facts on them, not conveniently adjusted fiction to help statisticians.
- Births registered in Hawaii in 1961 were, by law, births that occurred only in Hawaii.
- Foreign births to US Residents were not reported to the NCHS in 1961.
- Johannson and Crosby lied.
PS: Yes, I’ve already printed out a copy of Johannson’s page.
Having reached the end of Part 2, the meaning of the articles’ titles should be clear.
While it certainly makes my debunking job easier to say “the image is a fake, here’s the real one from an official source,” the fact that they would go to so much trouble to concoct an elaborate, massively-long, three-part series that is an out and out fraud, troubles me. I am much happier to say “see, here’s where you made a mistake” than to find fraud because it lowers my esteem for a fellow human being.
From Luther’s Small Catechism:
I get pleasure from solving the riddle, finding the fallacy and documenting the truth. I get no pleasure from finding nothing to speak well of. These two articles have been a most unpleasant expenditure of 8 hours.
That is just so weird that it is beyond contemplation.
I assume their site is well enclosed within the impervious cone of reality exclusion?
and it is a particularly sloppy forgery as well. I invite you to notice that in the forger’s footnote “United States” has been cut-pasted into a slightly lower position than the preceding “includes allocations out of”
Have you interacted with the authors at all?
Please don’t call me dumb but I do not understand what this is all about. Can you give me the Ladybird version so that it makes sence to me, please?
Holy spelling bee, Batman, I think my Birther Sense just rang.
Johannson and Crosby are falsely asserting that the US counts people born outside the US as born inside the US and they faked a report to demonstrate it. Their premise is false, their evidence is faked.
They feel that they can lie, cheat, and forge this information because they won’t allow anyone that can access the actual report and identify their forgery anywhere near their readership.
The magic M.
No, I’m not a birther and I thought you would have the sence to know that.
I still do do not understand (even with the twisted logic that they use) how this advances their case for a non-Hi birth. Should I be worried that I still don’t get it?
Crap. I just left a comment on their site, will of course never see the light of day, but I forgot to copy it so I could ‘cross post’ it here.
I basically just pointed out that the footnote was demonstrably falsified in their image of the chart and asked why they would stoop to such a pathetic lie.
Quick…call Shuurif Joe and his crack team of “experts”…I’m sure they will be able to refute Doc C the notorious Soros paid Obot, brownshirt disinformation expert….him and his damn pesky truthinessness…. 😎
I’m with you, Jim. I don’t see how these guys help their case. Their argument in a nutshell is that birth certificates don’t establish place of birth, which, in essence means they are irrelevant and we revert to the pre-birth certificate days. How was birthplace established in those days (including for all of those Presidents born before birth certificates were used)? It was considered that the chilld was born where the parents (mother) lived. What does that mean for Obama? He was born in Hawaii.
Only the birthers could be so dumb as to lie to create an argument that actually makes the case agaiinnst them.
You’re missing something here, and it’s the birther standard of “proof.” It works like this:
If it is remotely possible that something could have occurred, and that something supports the idea that Barack Obama is ineligible, then that remote possibility consitututes PROOF that the alleged thing did in fact occur.
On the other side of things: No evidence that suggests something didn’t happen is admissible or to be paid attention to, if the lack of that thing happening means that Barack Obama is eligible.
A third rule, used by many in the birther movement: It is perfectly permissible to censor critics, cover up information, and lie in order to advance the idea that Obama is ineligible.
But you see, John, their argument that birth certificates don’t have any legal weight regarding place of birth place the legal weight on the mother’s place of residence. That would logically mean that even if Ms Dunham did that totally non-sensical “Kenyan baby jaunt” the birth would have to be legally COUNTED as occurring where she lived (Hawaii). I know this makes no sense, but such is the way of the birfers.
Also known as birfways. Further, there is a little-known, rarely observed ritual in which birfers celebrate anniversaries of their respective commencement on the Way of the Birf, anniversaries referred to as their “birfdays”. So very precious.
Tomorrow, a different kook will confirm this cockamamie theory in a YouTube video and it will be forever gospel in Birtherstani.
Quickly, Doc! Call Sheriff Joe immediately and report this forgery!
I think someone is playing you all. You idiots are just helping the cause for “birthers”. Everytime you point to something inconsistent with this site, about 200,000 intensify the investigation against Obama.
Johannson and Crosby are doing it on purpose just to keep the material alive and fresh. And you f*****s keep playing along.
Keep up the good work, tool. LOLOL.
I left this comment and so far it is still up at The Daily Pen:
They’ve never allowed anything I posted there to appear. I also left a short write up at the Free Republic which went into moderation and based on past history, will never appear either.
I think Johannson and Crosby have correctly analyzed their audience. Even proof of forgery makes no difference to a birther. They are way past the ability to think critically.
And so far have come up with zilch. It’s probably very comforting for the many Americans here that after 4 years of basement birthers, birther lawyers, right-wing publishers, zealous law enforcement goons and others trying to find something tangible on Obama, still there is nothing that would even warrant as much as a parking ticket. This must be the best-vetted President your country ever had. 🙂
The Birf is the Wirf!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184
No offense meant. 😉 I guess I don’t make a good Spidey after all…
Yay….Tracy KBOA, get working on it girl…..I’m sure THIS time your scintillating whining will activate the marching of frogs and handcuffs and stuff….. 😎
In order for some to believe that Barack Obama was born overseas, they have to get past the birth certificate that says that he wasn’t. One approach is to deny that the certificate is authentic. The other is to say that the certificate, even if genuine, doesn’t mean anything.
Johannson and Crosby take this second tack by creating a historical fiction whereby persons born to US residents overseas are registered in the United States and their place of birth is falsely stated on the birth certificate according to the US resident’s address rather than where the birth occurred.
In order to promote the fiction, they scoured 60-year-old documents to find some text that they could twist to sound like the historical fiction was a fact. One thing they found is that births in the US in the time of Obama’s birth and since are statistically tabulated based on the mother’s usual residence, not the place of birth of the child. They use this fact as a platform to leap to the claim that this statistical allocation also means that the place of birth on certificates is a fiction and that all birth certificates are insufficient to establish citizenship at birth.
The second “evidence” is their finding a 1945 government report that had to do with the magnitude of persons residing in one state or US territory giving birth in another. A table in the report lists transfers from one state to another with a footnote about transfers outside the continental US. The authors alter the text of the table to make it seem that foreign countries were involved in the transfer. If this were actually true, we would have to accept registrations of US residents born in foreign countries (including the desired birth of Obama in Kenya). However, no such foreign registrations existed.
I can appreciate how this can be confusing.
I’m just curious as to how they propose citizenship be established then.
Whose eligibility WOULDN’T be called into question if you accept this claim?
I appreciate your question, because it shows me that my lengthy narrative may be hard to follow. One might say that my head was so much in the weeds that I neglected the big picture.
I have made some changes to both Part 1 and Part 2 to guide the narrative in what I hope is a way easier to follow. There aren’t any substantive changes, but I hope some new introductory paragraphs will be helpful.
Sorry for answering you three times, but your question sparked several trains of thought.
Your problem may be the same as mine, which is making sense out nonsense. As I said towards the end of the first article:
So I say that you shouldn’t be worried. There is no substance; it’s all smoke and mirrors. Your difficulty understanding the claim is evidence of rational thinking and perhaps the unreasonable expectation that at some level Birthers are rational too.
While it is unspoken in the article, I think that their answer would be that citizenship can only be established through parentage.
I recently checked The Daily Pen website. They actually did update the story with an acknowledgement of the error. The table data was corrected and the image used was updated as well.
Perhaps veryone on both sides of this issue needs to calm down. Ease off the blind loyalty to political ideology and begin to answer some critical questions about the subject that really matters. No one gives a rat’s ass about some NY bloggers and their dumb research. I guess this means that Johannson and Crosby will not be running for president anytime soon….BIG F***ING DEAL.
The entire affair makes me absolutely sick and disgusted with them, you and this entire generation of reprobate degenerates. I pray Jesus returns…RIGHT NOW!
Penbrook Johannson thanked me and says they now corrected the “error”! 😆
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/03/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born.html?showComment=1331826136049#c7389764286239568378
I think they fabricated the info because they could not find any real info to back up their accusations that Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered as being born in HI.
But we know that the true law of registering foreign births in HI did NOT give them US Citizenship and their birth certificates indicate what foreign country they were actually born in.
One birther misreads a law and he tells two birthers and they tell two birthers and so on, until you get a situation like this; where facts don’t support your narrative, so you must falsify something to support your wrong facts.
Try decaf.
Removing text from an image and sliding other text in to cover it is not an “error” by any definition of the term. When you call this an error, you just compound the lie. The so-called “acknowledgement” of the so-called error is in a comment, not the article.
The new version is misleading, when you quote from 1977:
Without explaining that the National Center for Health Statistics is NOT the federal agency with such jurisdiction. It is the Department of State.
And scrubbing the fake table doesn’t erase the fact that your whole article is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the whole business.
And while we’re on the subject of frauds, Mr. Johannson, why are you posting comments here that suggest that you are a third party, and not the liar in chief himself. “I recently checked The Daily Pen website” indeed; it’s your own damned web site.
Readers note that this “Abracadabra” posts from the same IP address as the former commenter “Alamaker” who exhibited specialized knowledge, linguistic stype and a misspelling quirk that ties him to Penbrook Johannson.
Abra,
Lets be a LITTLE bit accurate here, this was NOT an oops….”incorrect” table entry this was a FORGED and deliberately and maliciously manipulated image.
You know, like the Birthers all accuse the President of creating with his BC.
In addition
They STILL call that piece of the article “Foreign Birth Transcript Exchange” which it patently isn’t
They still say “exchanged between foreign-based vital records offices and domestic Vital Records offices in the U.S”…which is still BS
I could continue but face facts, you’re a deluded fool.
So, Abra/Penbrook
Gonna do the intellectually honest thing and pull the entire pile of cack….?
No, he’s not a deluded fool. He’s the liar in chief himself, Penbrook Johannson.
Ooh. Creepy.
Falsifying an image to make it read what it never said — which coincidentally just happens to support your claim, when the original image did not — is not an “error.”
It’s called “getting caught in a lie.”
Good point.
Really? That’s funny. Patrick Colliano is proved correct again. Birthers are Liars.
Self-hating birther?
I guess it depends on whether the different personalities are on speaking terms.
wow, 200,000? omg we’re outnumbered!!
Thanks for the info “tool”.
At least it isn’t Scott/Bernadine this time.
Scott’s mother confined him to his bedroom for the month. She also sent him to bed without supper.
Now for another funny…
The motto in the top banner at The Daily Pen blog is “One Voice for Honor”.
Doc, you say this isn’t the first time they’ve been caught red-handed. When else?
There’s a third way of approaching contrary evidence, although it doesn’t apply to the long-form here: simply ignore it.
However, while Birthers have been quite fond of using methods #1 and 2 for the long-form, it might be missed that they’re largely employing #3 for the old COLB. In the COLB, we have a document that’s been public for nearly 4 years, plainly stating that Obama was born in Honolulu, and Birthers rarely mention it anymore. Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse didn’t mention it AT ALL.
Instead, they put so much effort into calling the long-form into question, they completely ignored the fact that there’s a second, equally legally valid Hawaiian document that presents the exact same birth information. And then they all but denied its existence when they claimed there was no evidence of a Hawaiian birth outside the long-form.
Crap. Now my heavy duty irony meter just exploded. God help the poor sucker with a regular strength model that goes near that site.
Penbrook, are you sure you want that? There is no place for liars in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I’ve wondered why you would deliberately lie on your web site and create fraudulent evidence to support the birthers and why you remain unrepentant. And no matter what you say publicly, you know in your heart that it’s true. What you did is something I would never do and so it’s hard for me to understand you. Your remark hints that you may have a religious motivation. I tell you the truth, Satan is the “Father of Lies” and no good will come from what you are doing.
However much you or I may long for Jesus to return, He hasn’t yet, and it is incumbent on His followers to be faithful to the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is based on truth and love, not hatred and lies. While you may think so, I do not believe that Barack Obama is such a big deal as to warrant ending the world to get him out of office.
While I do not take literally the passage from Revelation that says that all liars will be cast into the lake of fire, I still take quite seriously that telling lies is a grave sin, and that sin enslaves the sinner. Apparently you, along with the rest of the birthers are enslaved by a set of lies, some told by you and some told by others. it has brought nothing but grief to everyone touched by it.
Ponder this first, and then pray for Jesus to return.
I caught him using a set of 1969 race codes (again a picture from an obscure source) and labeling them as 1961 codes. He then made an argument based on the meaning of code “9” from 1969 that didn’t apply to what it meant in 1961. See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-1/
Search for the keyword “fraudulent” to get to the right section.
If editing an image (or videotape, like Breitbart did) shamelessly and deceptively doesn’t count as “bearing false witness,” what the hell does?
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Chalk is “The Pen” of liars, and WND is their wall.
Because that is the ONLY kind of evidence that supports the birthers. A birther website with only true stuff would be either empty or not a birther web site at all.
It would just be one solid black color bar
No fun when they give it all away with choice of handle.
Basically, my own web site could be considered “a birther website with only true stuff,” and my book could be considered “a birther book with only true stuff,” in the sense that I started out (just before the release of the LFBC) with a tentative belief that Obama was likely born somewhere outside of the US or that there was something else on his LFBC that he didn’t want the public to see.
Dr. C:
I was just curious as to whether you had ever noticed this post by Leo Donofrio (back in 2009) in which he appears, at least, to bald-faced lie about what Wong Kim Ark says:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
Note that Donofrio claims, “Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.” Note the key words that Donofrio he leaves out of his quote. There are two ellipses. The first is not so critical… but I’ll fill in the second:
Donofrio’s version:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
With the second ellipsis filled in:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens… Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Donofrio therefore deliberately omits from his quote the very words that say the exact opposite of his claim.
Now that’s is a curious statement John. Why would you believe that someone whose parents clearly lived in Hawaii at the time of his birth would likely be born anywhere other than Hawaii? I haven’t made an exhaustive study, but my personal experience and my tracking of the birth announcements in my local newspaper lead me to believe that >>99% of births are within the general neighborhood of the parent’s residence at the time.. So, right from the get-go, without ever seeing any documents, I considered a birth outside Honolulu (the locus of the major medical centers iin Hawaii) highly unlikely (well below 1%) As an outside possibility, if there had been a very high-risk pregnancy, one could imagine going to a renowned medical center on the US mainland, but there was no reason to believe that. But Kenya? Conservatively the odds were always of the win-the-lotto jackpot variety.
As for what might have been on the LFBC, since father was on the COLB, I couldn’t imagine what might have been there that would have been “shameful”.
Sounds vaguely familiar. I have credibility issues with Mr. Donofrio.
If he does, you probably would not want to meet him, inasmuch as he is likely to be highly POed.
(Source: Birther Summit Registration List)
I’m not sure I understand. Why would you doubt someone who has gone by the nickname “Burnweed,” confessed to popping “magic mushrooms,” and claimed to be “the Paraclete?”
FIFY
And for the actual certified paper long-form, they employ the jaw-dropping method #4: they actively insist that it does not exist (which is different from just ignoring it), despite there being images of it on birther web sites.
Since your heavy duty irony meter is already shot, you may appreciate this from WorldNetDaily’s web site (Warning: Persons with functional irony meters should not proceed!)
WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.
“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”
That’s a hell of a ripple effect. I only get around 22,000 unique visitors a month around here. How many do you get over at the Daily Pen? About 1/8 of that? (number based on Alexa.com reach statistics) I guess an article here might create a noticeable bump at the Pen, but not from folks friendly to what you’re saying.
It’s an interesting theory. You say that whenever I oppose the birthers, I create more of them. However, others say that birthers energize liberal opposition and make conservatives look like buffoons.
That sounds like a win-win for me.
Oh man, that made the ammeter in my car explode!
This is going to be a little vague but if I remember correctly about a year and a half ago the Daily Pen lied about being having obtained a list from private investigators of several hundred names of people born outside USA in the 1960’s whose names allegedly had appeared in the routine Hawaian birth announcements lists sent by the Health Bureau to Hawaian newspapers.
Several posters repeatedly asked the Daily Pen to verify this by producing one verifiable name. They ignored all requests and the subject faded away. Utter bull.
The Cold Case Posse alluded to these with no further info. Doc C wrote about it here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/cold-case-posse-appears-to-have-lied/
Found it. SATURDAY, APRIL 2, 2011 http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/final-report-obamas-birth-announcements.html
I bet with what we know now about Obama’s LFBC and the Vital Records documentation that Doc C schooled the Daily Pen about, that much light can be shone on this blog entry.
BTW — the articles I read there were full of craptious details.
Yeah, something more to throw in the yet-to-be-filed amended complaint that is “going strong” in a remote courthouse in Maryland.
…printed on sun-bleached palm fronds, using a bamboo printing press handcrafted by The Professor…
You’re a liar. Everyone the fake stuff is still there……..dude, do you think that no one is going to go over and check …..as if after LIEING, anyone will just say okay, and take your word for it……..dumb ass birfer….
Damn!!! What is WRONG with these people!!???
I left this comment at the DP article:
I seem to remember Leo getting caught on this but I can’t find it. These are great examples why arguing with dishonest people like Leo and Penbrook Johannson is such a waste of time. When they do dishonest things like remove words from footnotes or do selective quoting from Wong Kim Ark as Leo did or the Calvin case as MichaelN does all the time they have crossed the bounds of civil discourse and deserve to be ridiculed.
Leo’s last venture outside the confines of his blog was to do battle in the comments section of Jonathan Turley’s blog on an article Holdings, Dicta and Stare Decisis that mentioned Minor v Happersett. That was when he got mad at being trounced and changed the comment policy on his blog to accept comments only from attorneys who would post their bar registration number. He never got a single comment.
Doc, fyi, your post on Free Republic did clear moderation.It’s here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858622/posts?page=178#178
It’s amusing that none of the other commentators appears to have paid the slightest attention to your post. They’re too busy with the debate between the “born in Kenya” faction and the “we don’t know when he was born, where he was born, or who his parents are” faction. I particularly enjoyed DiogenesLamp’s compliment to Fred Nerks: “I was quite impressed with your research.” The exchange is at http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858622/posts?page=220#220