Main Menu

Archive | April, 2011

It depends on what the definition of “says” says

WorldNetDaily, always happy to quote somebody else telling lies against Barack Obama, published this comment from Mario Apuzzo:

He said in American jurisprudence “there is not one case that says being born to an alien parent creates a natural born citizen.”

Certainly there are cases where courts wrote in clear language that the child born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen. Examples include Lynch v Clarke and Ankeny v Daniels. If by “says” Apuzzo means that the court made a specific ruling making the children of alien parents natural born, then he is technically accurate although misleading since no court has “ruled” on the question in any fashion.

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Lynch v Clarke NY (1844)

In either case Apuzzo and his client Charles Kerchner are trying to hide behind the general population’s ignorance of Constitutional law when they make this argument. The authorities are clear: being born a citizen in the country always makes a natural born citizen. Read your high school civics book.


Kreep: “Computers are too good these days.”

The birther talking points always include the question: “why doesn’t Barack Obama release his long form birth certificate and make all this go away.” Well, this is the third day of the long form era, and I have yet to see anything go away. Case in point: Barnett v Obama. The RamonaPatch newsletter reports this today from attorney Gary Kreep:

“We don’t know whether it’s a real birth certificate until our forensic expert has a chance to look at the original,” he said. “All we can go by is what’s on the White House website, which looks like a combination of several documents. Computers are too good these days.”

One wonders why they can’t go by what two Hawaii governors, one Republican and one Democrat, have said, but I digress.

The 60-year-old Kreep is looking forward to what he says maybe the most important 10 minutes of his life next Monday, May 2, when he presents oral arguments on behalf of Wiley Drake and  Markham Robinson before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Kreep says that three other unnamed attorneys are flying in to help him and forensic document analyst Sandra Lines is also coming. Kreep will share the spotlight with Orly Taitz who will also have 10 minutes to present her argument on behalf Alan Keyes and of her bevy other defendants. Kreep notes that this is the first of the eligibility cases to reach oral arguments at the appellate stage.

Like all Obama eligibility cases the key issue is that of standing. Can the Plaintiff bring a suit that the court has jurisdiction to hear? This case brings an interesting mix of plaintiffs, a failed presidential candidate, electors, active and retired soldiers and just plain voters. Judge Carter, who heard the original case, said no standing. Readers may recall that this is the lawsuit when Orly Taitz filed not one but two fake Kenyan birth certificates and her infamous claim that Obama has 39 social-security numbers.

The RamonaPatch newsletter is one of those special local sources of in-depth coverage that we so benefit from. Ramona, California, is Gary Kreep’s home town.


Letter from the President?

As you know, I have spent many hundreds of hours on this web site and elsewhere debunking conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Today, in appreciation, I received the following email from BHO himself:

From: Obama <>1

Subject: You retarded white trash, inbred, S***-eating2 moron!

I WAS born in Kenya, and I am proud of it.

I just like telling lies to you stupid white trash super f*** morons.

You retarded idiot. Your mother should have aborted you, in the outhouse when she had the chance.

Whenever, you get tried of sucking my d*** and s*** out of my a**, you might want to wake the f*** up.

Yours Truly,


1The real White House Internet domain is
2I thought the original email was inappropriate for general audiences, so I put some asterisks in.


Hawaii press release on Obama long form

The following press release is from the Hawaii Department of Health web site. I reproduce it here because it has a number of important points that address issues that have been raised about Obama’s birth in Hawaii, the Department’s policies and Hawaiian birth certificates  in general.


April 27, 2011


HONOLULU – The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.

“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.” Continue Reading →


DOH policy on certified copies

Old News. Here is the Hawaii Department of Health’s 2001 policy on the issuance of certified copies. This is linked to on the Health Department’s Obama FAQ page. It clearly states that they will not provide certified photocopies of records. The policy was issued under the authority of the Director of Health, then Bruce Anderson. Since the Director made the policy, the Director can waive the policy, which was done in the case of Barack Obama.


Obama’s birth certificate number

Even before Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate was released this week, stories were being told about the certificate number, claims that it was bogus because it was out of strict time sequence with another birth. Now that we have the long form, fresh from Hawaii, that possibility of a fake number can be ruled out; however, we have a new bit of information that might help explain the evidence.

We know these certificate numbers from August 4th and 5th:

  • Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
  • Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
  • Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
  • Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961

The list is sorted numerically by birth certificate number; however, you might also note that they are alphabetically sorted by surname and that they are not in order by date of birth. My hypothesis is a batch of certificates was alphabetized by surname and then fed into the numbering machine and that hypothesis is borne out with the new information provided by CNN of the Waidelich certificate number. Note that NORDYKE and OBAMA are close both alphabetically and numerically (just 4 off) and that WAIDELICH is not close numerically nor alphabetically. Armed with these examples, is it possible to estimate the size of such a sorted batch?

It might be possible to get a better sample, but I have a readily available list of 88,799 surnames of those in the United States from the 1990 census. Names between NORDYKE and WAIDELICH represent 27%1 of all individuals. The certificates between and including NORDYKE and WAIDELICH number 284, leading to an estimate of 1050 certificates in the entire batch (284 / 27%)2. Hawaii reported 17,616 births in 1961, or an average of 339 per week3. So the batch size, based on an alphabetization assumption, is almost exactly 3 weeks worth of births.


1The surname frequency table lists all surnames, but only the frequency of those names exceeding .001% of the population (about 18,000 names), representing 80% of all persons. The name frequencies added up between Nordyke and Waidelich were adjusted by dividing by 80%.

2The calculations were done to a higher precision and so the rounded math here will be a little off.

3In tropical regions (such as Hawaii), children are born pretty much evenly spread throughout the year, unlike the seasonal patterns found in temperate zones.