For all the criticisms I have made of Douglas Vogt and his recent federal filing in Seattle, I have to give him credit for actually proving fraud in one instance. It’s on page 35 of his Affidavit. I’ll reproduce the relevant portion here:
This above authentic excerpt from the 1961 vital statistics instruction manual conclusively proves fraud on the part of Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse, who tried to pass off the following fake code list (from 1968) as the 1961 manual code page.
Later Zullo tried to cover up his lie by saying that the 1961 manual was the wrong one, not having been published until after Obama was born, and so it is the 1960 manual that applies. However, the race codes themselves are the same from 1960 and 1961, and Zullo got the image above from the 1968 manual, not from 1960 or 1961, which was REALLY long after Obama was born.
Read more:
Wow, the egg sure keeps piling onto birtherism’s collective face!
Excellent post. Read it and weep, Mr. Zullo!
The most important part of Zullo’s second press conference had to do with race codes, yet it never seems to be mentioned by Zullo in any of his daffydavits. Rather telling isn’t it?
It appears that Zullo bought the theory from some birther without doing a thorough background check.
No investigation? I’m shocked!!
Vogt was interviewed by Mark Gillar
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2013/11/16/law-signed-by-george-washington-may-convict-obama-fraud-conspirators
Inspector Gadget is less inept!
The part of figure 16 that Doc clipped off at the bottom also debunks a birfer meme. It says that if a parent is black but not born in the US, he/she should be coded as “other non-white” instead of “negro.” And it also demonstrates pretty clearly that the description of the race of a black person was not limited to using the word “negro” as many birfers claim. It gives possible race descriptors such as col, black, brown.
But, as we obots all know, pointing out these blatant errors that show that Vogt’s evidence is BS is just an Alinsky tactic I’m using to cover up for the Kenyan usurper.
An interesting tidbit from the Gillar/Vogt interview at the very end Gillar says
“A little tip to the forger, the next time you do this just use one piece of safety paper.”
I saw your comment about this at Birther Report this morning, Doc, cracked me up early on a Saturday 😀
Was this Vogt’s first use of the race codes bit? I don’t recall seeing it in his earlier screeds, but if he had included it in his 2011 “Submitted to the FBI” opus, which Corsi was all over, and then Zullo went off the rails on the same meme, bringing in the Daily Pen crap, that’d be hilarious! Just more proof that—”Who needs a consistent narrative? We ain’t out to prove nuthin’! We’re just desperately flingin’ poo!”
SO far I have seen no evidence that the background reveals more than one piece of safety paper… But I have seen more fascinating claims being refuted so this one, likely will go nowhere either.
It reminded me of something I read by Butterdezillion about the LFBC has the wrong type of safety paper. I suspect she is comparing the LFBC paper with the short form BC paper for a Hawaiian BC someone sent her. IIRC, it was dated about the same time as the LFBC PDF (April or May, 2011)
Let me see if I can find it.
Quick search found this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3052270/replies?c=185
“I have seen both long-form and short-form certified copies of vital records, and they all use the same security background (except Obama’s long-form), so even if there are different divisions in the department the paper is the same.”
It’s only fair after all, as he used to make his living, allegedly, as a used car salesman, that someone sold him a lemon.
And it’s a proven fact that birfers don’t like doing real research any more than some used car salesmen like customer doing Carfaxs.
Corsi?
And it seems after that failure is when Zullo started instituting his claim that he needed to run a background check on people. It was only birthers feeding him false information.
A background check isn’t going to turn up whether somebody lies on the Internet.
I already know Barack Obama is from Kenya and he is British. And so does allot of other people. So why is he President and why was he even allowed to run for office
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/http://eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Why does everyone here the need to flame? Are you really afraid of the truth or you already know the truth and are continuing to try and hide it
“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” Obama quote.
So where are the Cold Case Posse’s financial contribution records?
The truth is that your “Sunday Standard” story was debunked in 2009. The reporter who wrote the AP story never said that Obama was born in Kenya.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp
Simple, he was born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen. Yes Barack Obama was from Kenya and had a son with Ann Dunham whom they called Barack Obama and who was born in a Hawaiian hospital.
What caused you all this confusion? And don’t you feel a little bit foolish for not having done the research?
Please provide examples of flaming.
According to the archived newspaper article I just posted everyone at the time knew he was born in Kenya and was heading to the US Senate. So running for the office of Presidency should have never even come up. Because it was well known he was a foreign British. Here is the link again (LOOK) this time
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/http://eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
It was known that at birth in the US, he may also have acquired dual citizenship, that’s all. You should really do more research rather than rely on second hand information. Yes, some newspapers made some foolish claims, but all the legally relevant evidence shows him born on US soil and thus eligible.
It’s more like a birther flame being extinguished with facts…
The article (debunked, as you have been told) doesn’t say anything about how many people “knew he was born in Kenya”.
What is your source (other than the debunked article) for your assertion?
I believe the article. These was no reason at the time to say or do anything different. Reported the truth. And there are allot more. Sen Ted Cruz next? He is cuban/canadian. But hey why not. Guess it’s the thing now -vote for foreigners for US President-
Seems OBAMA IS THE ONLY ONE HIDING ANYTHING. hIS records.
: “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” Obama quote USING HIS OWN WORDS:
It’s not a matter of believing the article or not. It is a question of believing the headline and attached lead sentence. The Article itself is an AP story that says nothing about Barack Obama being born in Kenya. The Kenya Standard newspaper slapped a headline on the AP story and published it.
No other newspaper that carried the story had such a headline. Now the question one must ALWAYS ask when somebody says something is HOW do they know it? In this case, we’re not dealing with an investigative report, just an attached headline. So how is it that the person attaching a headline to an AP wire story knew something about Obama’s birth that was unknown to everybody else? There is no reason for them to know it. Obama’s father was fairly well known and he was born in Kenya. Maybe that’s the source of the error.
Here are two articles of interest:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/newspapers-vary-on-obamas-birthplace/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/nairobi-paper-declares-barack-obama-was-born-in-kenya/
a LIVELY DEBATE IS THE ESSESCE OF DEMOCRACY.
Oh my god! That changes EVERYTHING!
My final comment on this is “Hard evidence is being reported to the court,
the employees are delibertly changing the desinegnation from what is presented
in order to give the judge a way to claim ” (“no jurisdiction”)
this is a total undermine of the judicial system and a rico infraction.
Now that’s flam[ebait]in’ 😈
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, 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.” – President James Madison
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.” – retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.” – Dr. Chiyome Fukino
and a spell check and lower case is the essence of a polite debate 🙂 However, there is little to debate here as the facts speak for themselves.
The clerk did his best to turn the filings of a pro se into something the court could deal with. You may want to look up judicial immunity as well. The only other alternative is to just have the judge rule to ‘file as miscellaneous’ and that would be the end. That’s what happened in DC for example.
The fact that the clerk tried to make the best of something hardly amounts to anything RICO…
Wgho??? Who are the “lot of other people” who knew President Obama is British?
He has hardly been hiding his records. He has made available his birth records when silly rumors started that he was not eligible as he was not born on US soil, or even more silly, that he was born on US soil but not to two citizen parents and therefore ineligible.
Funny how your claims are so counter-factual.
And what about the 1961 birth reports in the Honolulu papers? The statements from Hawaii officials? Or all the other media reports over time that report he was born in Hawaii?
Why do you choose to believe this one story to the exclusion of all other sources?
Cruz has a different issue. He clearly is a US citizen, however, there may be some doubts as to whether or not he is a natural born citizen. Multiple nationalities do not affect one’s natural born status, which follows from being born on US soil, under its jurisdiction, which eliminates common law exceptions such as children born to foreign diplomats, or invading military, and for a while, in the US also included children born to indians not paying taxes.
I still believe what the reporter reported at the date and time. No mention of Obama’s family there. Heading to the US Senate. No mention looking at the white house either. He was on his way to the Senate at the time.How he ended up even in the White House is beyond me. That is my belief only. And now because of all the hiding Obama does,he has 2 birth records now, one British and the other American.
Like button, please……
Well, many of these are actually admissible in court… Why some people insist on ignoring the overwhelming evidence in favor of some newspaper articles is beyond me…
Well. I am glad that you accept that he is American due to his birth on soil, and thus eligible. Dual citizenship hardly affects one’s status at birth under our Constitution and laws. Because Obama has shown his birth certificate, there is only one real birth record, an american one. There is NO evidence that his birth was ever registered with the British authorities, although that would not have made any difference to his eligibility.
If you are interested, I can help you understand why this is the case.
The reporter never stated that President Obama was born in Kenya, that was an edit by the Kenyan paper, and was not found in the original AP article.
If you want to believe these foolish rumors, be my guest, it is not going to make any difference.
All sorts of people “know” all sorts of things that they are completely wrong about.
“Knowing” has never been a very good measure of truth.
The American birth record was forged.The british one was not. The damage is done. Sen Cruz is next. You may fool some people some of the time.But you can’t fool people all of the time
Who is the reporter?
What has he hidden…….other than his birth certificates from Hawaii?
British birth certificate?
Simple. They believe what appeals to them and ignore what doesn’t.
When? Where? How? Why? And by whom?
The very definition of confirmation bias—just add frame!
Here’s what the reporter – Maura Kelly Lannan – actually reported:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp
No mention of Kenya. Right?
Will you acknowledge now that what you “still believe” is wrong?
Also so you know. Natural born means on that countries soil. That means if Sen Cruz mother had an US address and was born in Canada while visiting,then he would be natural born birth. But if his mother was living in Canada with no US living address then he is of American descent only. A mom who is American that’s all. This why our constitution says -Natural Born- so foreign enemies cannot infiltrate our government and take over the country. But that’s all gone right? We will be communist. Russia will be the free world now. Your Welcome
Oh well. Ain’t nuthin’ but us Poe’ folks anyway.
Hi Ann,
Is the passage above your interpretation of citizenship law, or did you read it somewhere? Could you provide a link to the original source? Since you are obviously not an authority on this subject, the quality of your supporting material is important.
There is no evidence that the American record was forged and there is no british record. I have looked in depth at the document in question, which was a low quality PDF, and found no evidence of forgery. Given the available data, any claims that the document is fraudulent has to be rejected
Sen Cruz is in a much more problematic situation as he was not born on US soil, and thus his status is not as solid as those born on soil.
But the courts will refuse to get involved here, for obvious reasons, and Congress will not raise any issues either.
We will be communist? wow, Obama is not even that much of a socialist so the outlook appears to be grim.
It’s your irrational fears which force you to ignore the facts, that’s too bad, but quite common.
What about my welcome?
The Court in US v Wong Kim Ark looked into these matters and determined the meaning of natural born to include those born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents, with minor common law exceptions.
It commented in dicta on the status of those born abroad to US citizen parents but not really resolved it.
Natural Born means not requiring naturalization which is by statute. In our country, it was jus soli which was the common law practice and jus sanguinis was only through statute.
Certainly under English Common Law which guides citizenship in Canada, I am sure, but it is not clear if he would or would not have been born a natural born citizen of the United States. Personally I believe there exists enough precedent that suggests that he may not be natural born, but I also realize that the courts will not going to rule on this.
Shhh don’t tell Zullo that.
Everyone at the time? One article that was subsequently countered by another article in the eastern standard saying he was not kenyan doesn’t mean “everyone” besides you have earlier instances saying a birth in Hawaii
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
The only one if you ignore every president before him who didn’t show their birth certificates while in office.
Claims aren’t evidence.
There is no “british” birth record for Obama. The American birth record was not forged. But hey when do you think this forgery occurred?
Apparently all you need to fool Ann Craft is a made up birther meme.
Orly, I don’t recall you being banned here. It is OK to use your own name.
Or do you have something to hide?
Well, you know, NBC would agree with you on that point. There is actually a legitimate academic debate over whether this defines 100% of the citizens who can be called natural born citizens, however.
I note with pleasure that you don’t bring parentage into the born on soil criteria, so for jus soli we have no argument that anyone born in America ( not a diplomat’s nor an invading soldier’s child) is a natural born citizen. Obama is one such exemplar. Born on American Soil, not a diplomat’s child, not an invading soldier’s child: therefore: NBC.
The actual debate is over foreign born citizens.
Everyone agrees that a person who is a naturalized citizen is not eligible, they are not natural born citizens. Naturalized = natural made not natural born.
But there are some citizens that happen to have been born overseas but never-the-less are citizens at birth (or from birth or however you want to word it). John McCain is one exemplar, born on the Coco Solo Navy Submarine base in the Panama Canal Zone. Ted Cruz is another, born in Canada.
NBC’s position, at least in past discussion with me on this blog, is that neither McCain nor Cruz are Natural born citizens. Because ‘Minor v Happersett’ declared that there are two, and only two types of citizen (natural born and naturalized) for McCain and Cruz to be citizens yet not Natural Born Citizens, they must have been naturalized. This argument requires an ‘invisible’ naturalization process. This position is in the minority amongst scholars.
The majority position amongst scholars is that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set naturalization law and they have expressly stated (understanding the word ‘expressly’ rather loosely) that certain individuals (based on the status of the parents), even though born overseas, do not need to be naturalized in order to be American citizens – they are citizens from birth. This means that these persons, like McCain and Cruz, have not been ‘invisibly’ naturalized, they are born citizens without naturalization. Since they have not been naturalized they must be natural born citizens (Minor v Happerstat again).
Notice that this is an ACADEMIC debate, not a legal debate, and the majority of scholarly opinion considers McCain and Cruz to be Natural Born Citizens.
There is also the Resolution, passed by Congress UNANIMOUSLY, that declared that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen, even though he was born overseas, is to all intents and purposes a precedent that settles the matter. Granted it was a non-binding Resolution, it never-the-less makes it very difficult for some future Congress to ignore the situation.
So, bottom line: Those ‘born on American soil under U.S. jurisdiction and without regard to any other criteria’ are indeed NBC – but then so are others. The simplest inclusive definition is ‘born a citizen without regard to any other criteria’.
Coming late to the party tonight. But the paper that you link to published a correction to that article the very next issue. No other paper in the world has ever been found with that same headline and lead. The AP says that they didn’t say that Obama was Kenyan-born, they say that the wording was not in the original AP article. (Note that the ES article misspelled Obama’s name as “Barrack”, it is spelled correctly in the original AP article.) The original AP article
The correction: http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm
The original AP article and the quote from the AP Director of Media Relations: http://web.archive.org/web/20100715212346/http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/
A full debunking is here. http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/other-stuff/#API
So please tell me why you can continue to claim this link as proof of anything. Newspapers make mistakes. Just ask President Dewey.
I would agree with that assessment.
Too long after to be confidently called “related”, and I’m pretty sure the good Corporal admitted accepting info from non-checked birfers between the two events. And almost certain that the requirement wasn’t mentioned until anti-birthers started trying to force him to acknowledge and deal with the Xerox evidence.
after all this time we’ve been hearing about this alleged `british birth record’, no-one has actually seen it, and neither can any birfoon i’ve asked find a link to it.
can you?
i doubt it.
if you go to larry klayman’s rally tomorrow, you might want to ask him why he took the 5th when asked in court about inappropriately touching his kids.
i mean, if he has nothing to hide………
And yet, curiously, EVERY OTHER NEWSPAPER ON THE @#$*ING PLANET did just that. Literally: that was the ONLY newspaper in the entire world that altered the original AP story to say that Obama was born in Kenya.
But you don’t believe the dozens of other papers that published the correct version.
You don’t believe the hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles recounting his birth and childhood in Hawaii.
You don’t believe the newspapers that contemporaneously published his birth announcement.
You reject 99.99% of the reporting, but suddenly decide newspaper articles are authoritative in the .01% of the cases that agree with your prejudices.
That “flaming” you’re complaining about is a reflection of your own hypocrisy on your monitor screen.
Yep. Just like birfers believe that every single piece of documentary evidence of Obama’s childhood is fake except for that one single school registration form from Indonesia. That is the only thing in Obama’s whole life that is unquestionably genuine and all of its content is true. Except for the part on that form where it says he was born in Hawaii. That’s not true. But the rest of the information is.
You are entitled t your own beliefs, but not your own facts. President Obama’s birth has been settled by every responsible authority. There’s a reason why all these court cases fail so badly.
So what is it about Obama that you hate? That he’s black, African, or has connections to the British Empire?
Again, you are not entitled to your own facts…Russia is not Communist any more. The only places left that espouse Communism are Cuba, North Korea, and the faculty lounge at City College of New York.
That reminds me of how whoever runs the ironically named “Free Republic” stopped birthering, because he wants to support Cruz for a Presidential run.
Vietnam.
Cambodia.
Laos.
Nepal.
(need I go on?)
Er, in some places on earth people speak a kind of English that differs slightly from American English. In many countries, particularly those with ius sanguinis, the term “Kenyan-born” does not mean “born in Kenya”, but “born a Kenyan”. The reason why the standard added this tidbit of info is that it is/was a Kenyan newspaper.
Of course, Americans see the phrase “Kenyan-born” and immediately assume it implies birth in Kenya. I wonder why that is so. Oh wait, could it have something to do with the proper definition in American English of “natural born citizen”?
Of course, technically the Standard was wrong in that at birth Obama was not a Kenyan, but a Briton, or rather a British Commonwealth Citizen (without the right of settling in Britain, by the way) and only became a Kenyan citizen slightly later. To lose that nationality again at 18, 20 or 21 (various interpretations of Kenyan citizenship law at stake there).
He was elected by an overwhelming majority of Americans, twice. That’s how.
Oh, I know: I lived in one for a while. And I’m a fan of several BBC TV shows.
I hadn’t heard that particular usage before, except in a context of “condition”, especially social class, like “noble-born” or “low-born”. It makes sense that countries with jus sanguinis might draw a distinction between “adjectival-born” and “location-born” that Americans don’t.
My guess would be that it doesn’t derive from the NBC definition, but from the fact that we have a history of lots of immigration by people who assimilated and “became American”, rather than being “born American”. Although we do have some areas where you’re not truly considered “local” unless your family has lived there for a few generations (our own informal version of jus sanguinis).
That was interesting. Thanks for bringing it up.
Same in my home town (my parents moved here some 50+ years ago but since they weren’t born and raised here, I still don’t count as a “real local”, given I didn’t learn the local dialect at home as a child and still can’t speak it without making locals laugh, and people still tell me I sound like I come from the North – as the 9th Doctor said, “Many planets have a North”. ;)).
They’re entranced by capitalism, too.
But my comment was aimed at Ann Craft and the paranoia right-wing nutjobs have about Communism, which pretty much collapsed along with the Berlin Wall.
Mike Zullo specifically said that he didn’t use the 1961 manual, because the 1961 manual had not yet been published in August of that year (it wasn’t published until later that year) which means that the doctors and nurses would still have been going by the previous year’s manual, the 1960 manual. That’s why Mike Zullo uses the 1960 manual. Besides, even if you were to go by the 1961 manual, it still doesn’t match up. Number 9 on the 1961 manual is “Other – Non-white” but the birth certificate says “African.” So even going by that manual it sill doesn’t match up.
You’ve been fooled by Zullo. Zullo led you to think that he said that he used the 1960 manual for the race codes, but he didn’t say that, and he didn’t do that.
Here are the facts:
1) Zullo stated specifically in the Press Conference that he was using the 1961 manual, but that wasn’t true.
2) The manual Zullo used at the Press Conference was from 1968, not only the codes from 1968 but the actual image from the 1968 manual, dust specs and all.
3) The 1960 and 1961 codes are identical. Zullo’s bringing up the 1960 manual was just a diversion to cover up his lie.
The truth is that Zullo used a 1968 manual, called it 1961, lied about the codes and then tried to cover it up.
I have updated the article with this information in case someone unfamiliar with the details comes upon the article. The update includes links to the 1968 manual Zullo used, and the 1960-61 code sheet.
He said he could get you a killer deal on undercoating, too.
Nathan,
Are you a member of the Cold Case Posse?
That’s what he said in June, 2013 but not what he said in July, 2012.
also you are mixing apples and oranges…
it says “African” because that is how Barack Sr. identified himself, being African, after all…
the code on the other hand is added during processing by government workers, not by the family.
plus, the code for “other” would cover something like, say, African.
Except that’s a lie Zullo in his press conference when they presented the codes stated it was from 1961 when instead he used the 1968 and 69 manuals. Did you see the 9 from the manual in the birth certificate next to the race? Because it’s there. The term African is self designated.
Mike Zullo specifically lied.
Either he had seen the manual, in which case he knew that there were no coding instructions for “Kind of Business or Industry” (making it the wrong manual), or he hadn’t seen it (in which case he didn’t know when it was published).
But, either way, the coding instructions he showed in his video say “(race of parents only)”, and do NOT say “Not stated”. So he lied about what they said, and what they meant.
“African” is what the Obama family explicitly answered when asked by the Hospital Registrar “what is the race of the FATHER”.
“9” is the code that the statistics rule book for 1960 and 1961 should use for the ‘race of the CHILD’ when the Father is “African” and the mother is “Caucasian”.
Please note the difference:
The Birth Certificate lists the race of the FATHER and the MOTHER. It DOES NOT list the race of the child. The values listed are provided by the FATHER and the MOTHER – they are not selected from some restricted value list.
Federal US Health Statistics are interested in CATEGORIES not DETAILS. They want to know which Racial/Ethnic CATEGORY the CHILD is in. Those CATEGORIES are for statistical purposes only and it is this list of STATISTICAL CATEGORIES that is the ‘restricted list’ with a limited value set.
Birth Certificates do not, in general, list the race of the CHILD – the category has to be ‘interpreted’ from the PARENTS self-declared race. The ‘race of the CHILD’ categories do change from time to time as the Health Department focus changes.
The coding books in question have rules that allow the coder to ‘transform’ whatever the PARENTS self-identified as into what the race of the CHILD will be coded as. The rule book specifically says that when a PARENT is black and not born in the United States, the race of the CHILD should be coded as “other, non-white”.
In BOTH 1960 and 1961 (take your pick) the coding book said that “other, non-white” is to be coded as “9”. In 1968 the coding book said that “other, non-white” is to be coded as “7”.
There is no ‘wiggle’ room for equivocation here – the facts are what they are. The CCP said they were using the 1961 coding book when they were using the 1968 book. Then they tried to correct themselves and said that they really used the 1960 coding book because the 1961 book wasn’t available in August 1961. In both cases the CCP LIED to you. They did not use either the 1960 book or the 1961 book, they used the 1968 book and were wrong about the coding values required.
They lied. Period.
For reference, the coding instructions have been kindly posted to Scribd by Doc Conspiracy here: Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961
The coding rules for ‘race of child’ are detailed beginning on page 11 of that document. The summary of the procedure is:
Step 1: Categorize the race of each parent. The rule applying to Obama Sr. would be:
… (3) If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A.,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States, code as other nonwhite.
Step 2: Derive the race of the child from the races of the parents. The rule that would apply to Obama Jr. would be:
… (2) If one parent is white and the other nonwhite, code race of child as that of the nonwhite parent (except as stated in rule 1). [rule 1 pertained to aboriginal Hawai’ians].
Thus, Obama Jr. was to be considered ‘other, nonwhite’ for the purposes of the U.S. Health Statistics. Again, according to both the 1960 and 1961 coding rules, ‘other nonwhite’ was to be coded as a ‘9’.
Zullo Lied.
A clarification:
The penciled codes on Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 are NOT taken from t the 1960-61 federal code set. The actual code set is unknown, probably something unique to Hawaii. From known birth certificate examples, however, the federal codes can be ruled out.
It is not at all clear to me that someone like Barack Obama II would be coded “9” according to the federal rules in 1961. I think the code would be “1” – White for reasons I have written about elsewhere.
In any case, Barack Obama’s birth certificate was not federally coded, nor was it counted in the federal birth tabulation. Only even-numbered certificates were tabulated and the others were estimated. Obama’s birth certificate had an odd number.
OK. Yes, I understood that months ago, but I seem to have had a ‘seniors moment’ when I wrote my screed.
It occurs to me, however, that Hawai’i would have used something very close to the federal standard for the simple reason that to do otherwise would require a double effort for those certificates that are chosen for federal statistics reporting. Undoubtedly they would have had additional codes to satisfy their own requirements, but they would have had rules that allowed them to simply and easily map those codes to the federal requirements in a consistent and meaningful way.
In other words, I’m guessing they may have had who knows how many ‘part Hawai’ian codes, or codes for individuals from specific islands for all I know. But these would all map directly to one of the federal codes.
Furthermore, Hawai’i would have coded EVERY document whether it was going to be selected for Federal reporting or not. The Feds might, at any time, even years later, decide they need to do a study that requires EVERY birth event be reported. It would make no sense for the Hawai’i DoH data entry department to exclude those items that weren’t needed today.
I started my career in local government IT departments. The two primary rules drummed into everyone’s head were:
1) KISS – this is too well known to discuss further.
2) DIRTFT (Do It Right The First Time) – this is less well known, but is at least as important as KISS. Studies showed (at this time, most of these studies were NASA studies – they really needed to know this stuff) that having to re-do something cost as much as 10 times more than just getting it right the first time. Tremendous sums were spent on figuring out how to do stuff right the first time. I had to learn so many ‘methodologies’ it was ridiculous.
But think about how much it costs to recall a car with a defective ‘whatzit’. It probably would have cost 5 cents to engineer that whatzit properly in the first place, but it probably costs hundreds of dollars to replace it. That is insane.
Sadly, much of that lessons have been lost on ‘the younger generation’. The ACA website is a case in point.
I am confident that Obama’s BC was encoded (well that is obvious since it has code marks on it), and that it was encoded pretty much to Federal standards. A mere 10 years after this I was directly involved in many of just these kind of decisions and I know exactly how much we absolutely hated painting ourselves into a corner and setting up for doubling the workload when it could be easily avoided.
John Woodman discussed the codes here:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/exclusive-new-girl-confirms-her-parents-race-and-i-crack-the-actual-entries-confirming-that-arpaios-codes-dont-match-the-hawaii-codes-either/
The thing that is interesting is the father’s race code and his usual business are almost always the same.
I wonder if Corsi ever gave Hawai’i Girl’s birth certificate back.
When preparing the encoding lists, one usually puts the most common ones first. Student is a pretty common occupation. In Hawai’i ‘Hawai’ian is a pretty common ‘race’.
Doesn’t strike me as all that unusual that most people are in the most common categories in different data points.
What we know of the codes so far is:
1 Caucasian/White
2 Hawaiian
3 Part Hawaiian
9 Whatever Obama Sr. was
See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/1961-hawaii-race-codes-disclosed/
I started in government IT also and spent my entire career in the industry. What I found was that there was a high variability in the quality of IT practices from place to place. If you approached me with a need to code some data, I would immediately research whether there was an existing code set that could be used. There are all sorts of good reasons for that, but if you had asked me that question in 1974 when I just started in the field, I would have just made one up based on the answer to the question “what do you want to report?”
What we know is that Hawaii didn’t use federal code numbers, although all known categories were equivalent to federal categories.
I think the best source of information would be the Statistical Supplement to the 1961-62 Annual Report of the Department of Health. I’ve not been able to find a copy without a lot of travel.
On the Nordyke twins BCs father race is Caucasian (coded 1), usual occupation – Private Practice, also coded 1.
Or this 1959 Hawaiian BC Father’s race is Caucasian (coded 1), usual occupation – U.S. Navy Yard, also coded 1
WND article with 1959 BC
Edith Coats 1962 BC does not appear to be coded at all.
Edith Coats BC
And there is this BC in which the father’s race “Colored” was struck out and “Negro” added. It appears to be coded 9. And the Usual Occupation – Porter Service appears to be coded 3.
1961 Hawaiian BC
If that last BC is coded 9 for “Negro”, then President Obama’s was also coded 9 for “Negro” and the actual entry “African” was not struck out possibly because he was not born in US.
Yes, it appears to be a “9” but it’s not quite like the “9” on the Obama certificate (coded by the same person).
There were revisions made to the BC (Mother’s birthplace and Father’s race) initialed by Verna Lee on 6/22. Was it coded before the revisions or after them?