Birthers, ever a nuisance to the folks in Hawaii, visited the Kapi’olani Medical Center and the Hawaii Department of Health. This time the birthers de jour are Dean Haskins and Miki Booth. Haskins wrote about their trip in a couple of articles:
- The Birther Summit in Honolulu: Day 1 (Sept. 14)
- The Birther Summit in Honolulu: Report 2: More Of Dean and Miki’s Excellent Adventure (Sept. 15)
At the hospital
So what’s the substance of these articles (which of course you can read for yourself if you want)? Here’s the first torpedo:
I [Haskins] asked, "Back in 1961, would anyone have ever entered ‘African’ as the race of a parent?" She [unnamed clerical worker] said, "No, back then they probably would have listed a black person’s race as ‘negro.’" I asked, "So, the word ‘African’ wouldn’t have been used, because that is a nationality and not a race, right?" And she responded, "Right. Nowadays we can use ‘African American’ though." To which I added, "But, the word ‘African’ by itself has never been used as an entry for race?" And she simply said, "No. Never."
Now it is fairly unlikely that the person who said this (presuming that someone actually said it), was working at Kapi’olani back in 1961. So there’s no reason for this clerical employee to have any knowledge whatever about race codes in 1961. Initially the clerk indicated that she was speculating when said “probably” but was led to be more emphatic later on. I work under the general rule that if someone has no reasonable chance of knowing something, then there’s no reasonable chance of them speaking accurately about it. In fact we know from the 1961 document itself that there were no check-box categories on the birth certificate, and on other forms where parent races are listed, there is always a blank line for other entries. Other Hawaiian certificates show all sorts of non-standard races. It is certainly not true that there is a list of exclusive races on modern forms either.
There is an anonymous (so far as I know) report (cited by Haskins) that said someone called Kapi’olani and received the reply that the Haskins story was false. That, as well as the original report is hearsay. I just report these so you’ll know what is being said.
At the Department of Health
Haskins continues the narrative at day 2:
I can assure you that the gentleman to whom she spoke was not happy that we were there. His name was Jesse Koike. At one point, Miki pointed out that on Obama’s "long form birth certificate," the word "THE" in Alvin T. Onaka’s stamp was misspelled, and that it actually shows "TXE." He seemed not to be aware of that, but then explained that they have THREE different "sealers," so one of them might contain that misspelling. Later on in the conversation, Jesse explained that they have FIVE different sealers, so one of them might contain that misspelling. Hmmmm . . . is it three or five? When Miki asked to see the sealers, he conveniently declined.
Of course there is no misspelled “TXE” registration stamp; it’s only an optical illusion that goes away when one looks at higher-resolution copies as I detailed in an earlier article: Long form artifacts vanish at higher resolution. The essential characteristic that underlies conspiracy thinking is imagining data in noise.
Haskins then gives misinformation when he says:
Onaka conveniently changed the rules during this Obama debacle so that nobody in Hawaii can actually obtain copies of their actual LFBC.
Documentation shows that this policy was put in place when the DoH went paperless in 2001, not “during this Obama debacle.”
So in this episode birthers elicit comments from people who aren’t in a position to give authoritative answers, and then throw in some of their own misinformation.
I promise we will not grow weary in well doing, and thatwe [sic] have only just begun to fight to expose the truth that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president of our great nation.
I promise not to grow weary labeling BS when I see it.
Dean should have mentioned the smiley face on the Alvin Onaka stamp. The smiley face can clearly be seen on Obama’s long-form birth certificate and is blatant even on the high resolution scan. Regardless of how many theories are put forth and debunked, Obama’s long-form birth certificate still a forgery. It has been altered and therefore is not valid. If one takes a close look at the smiley face on the high resolution scan, it appear the smiley face was created using the letter “E” or letter “C” and then overlaying the letter “A” from Alvin on to it. It appears that Alvin Onaka modified his own stamp to produce the smiley face. Onaka probably had a sense of humor and was taking a jab at birthers. Because Onaka modified his own signature stamp, he essentially invalided the birth certificate and therefore it is a forgery.
Leave it to the birthers to think that Africa is a country, and then be f***ing glib about it. These people are retarded.
@john is precisely the sort of “retard” I was referring to with my last comment. Of all the hair-brained, debunked and mockable “theories” out there, the “smiley face” theory must be the very most bereft of critical (or for that matter, any kind of) thought. Hey @john, does it invalidate my birth certificate if you see a cloud that looks like a hamster, you garrulous nitwit!!
since the state of Hawaii certified and verified Obama’s BC, then john must believe that the State of Hawaiii forged it (a day old Obama could not)
hey john, call the FBI and report Hawaii is forging BC’s, will they laugh at you?
It should also be noted that, if I’m not mistaken, the “African” reference on the BC was to Obama’s father, not Obama. While they may not have recorded the newborn’s race as “African”, if they ask the father what race HE is, and he answers “African”, then that’s what they would have entered.
Asked and answered: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/08/noise-2/
John, of course, is the same person who used to claim that Obama’s COLB was invalidated when the certificate number was redacted before it was posted on the Internet. He obviously has a problem distinguishing an original document from a copy of a document.
As a general rule, John is good for at least one hearty laugh per day.
And, to add to the fun, the top story on ORYR right now is that the Nordyke twin certificates, used for over a year as “proof” that Obama’s is fake…they now claim are also forged.
So in essence the birthers are claiming that there are essentially ZERO legitimate documents that exist from 1961 from the state of Hawaii, and that large numbers of random people are all connected together in an intricate web designed just to convince people…I’m not sure what exactly anymore.
Oh Lordy, so many logical and legal fallacies in just one sentence.
First, if, arguendo, Onaka “modified his own stamp”, it’s still legally his signature stamp, so it doesn’t invalidate anything. You confuse this with the seal for which there is a legal prerequisite. But if Mr Onaka wants to add a “smiley face” to his stamp today and a picture of a rubber duck tomorrow, that’s his decision.
Second, even if, arguendo, such an alteration had a legal consequence, it would mean the certified copy is invalid, not a “forgery”.
So you fail the intelligence test for a fifth grader. Pathetic.
“So you fail the intelligence test for a fifth grader. Pathetic.”
“So you fail the intelligence test for a first grader. Pathetic.”
My brother’s friend Steve works at a hospital in Hawaii, doing some kind of clerical work. Steve was born in 1982. If we asked Steve “Would birth certificates in 1961 use the term ‘African’ to describe race?” and he said “Yes”, would that be taken as reliably as these Birthers take their source’s “No”?
WTF? Are you talking about this?
I’m squinting and staring like I’m looking at one of those magic eye pictures, and I can’t see anything resembling a smiley face. Just a cursive letter ‘A’ with a slight smudge.
Let’s review, shall we?
As has been discussed here many times, the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitution (Artilce IV, Section 1) says that if the state of Hawaii declares a state record to be authentic and valid, every other state and the federal government will accept that record as authentic and valid.
In 2008 the Republican administration of Governor Lingle declared Barack Obama’s birth records to be authentic and valid. In 2011 the Democratic administration of Governor Abercrombie has declared Barack Obama’s birth records to be authentic and valid.
No Court in the nation and not one single judge or justice in the nation has ruled Barack Obama’s birth record to be fraudulent or invalid. There have been more than 130 lawsuits concerning Obama’s eligibility.
The adjudication scoreboard is Obama’s eligibility: 130/Birthers winning a ruling that Obama is ineligible: 0
Not one second of congressional hearing testimony has been held concerning the validity and authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth record.
This is a settled legal issue to all but the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists.
one more mention of “African”
I knew African exchange students at University of Hawaii in 1961***, none of them would use the American term “Negro”, if asked for race their answer is “African”, many of you have same experience with African exchange students.
*** possibly Obama’s father as well! the student I knew had a white wife that just gave birth, though I don’t remember names, who could that be?
john is competing for dimwit of the year award (Orly is favored)
I can’t make up my mind if Birthers are moving toward consistency, by at least applying the same weird standards to ALL birth certificates, or further into the field of lunacy.
Dean should offer $10,000 to an individual who can produce a US birth certificate that lists a parent as “African” for the race. (besides Obama of course) Even assuming Obama Sr. listed himself as “African” under race does that mean we take that his allegiance was to Africa (Kenya) not to the US in terms of race. Obama Sr. was in the US. He was supposed have allegiance to the US. Therefore, his race was “black” or “Negro” not “African”.
I looked closely, and it is NOT a smiley face. It’s a unicorn.
What did you do in school, besides take up space?
He probably just went to school for the free lunch.
Look on Orly’s World. There was both a phone conversation and an e-mail. The e-mail basically said they can’t comment on anything but to say the story was a lie.
All you can eat library paste, I’m guessing.
What “smiley face?”
Internet posted, Adobe photoshopped and optimized scans of a Hawaii birth record are legally irrelevant.
The only birth record that matters is the one that both the Lingle Administration and the Abercrombie administration have confirmed as authentic and valid. It resides in a safe in the Hawaii Department of Health records in Honolulu and the only people who have seen it are Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Ms. Loretta Fuddy and whoever the Health Department employee was who made photocopies of the original.
Fox News: Obama Birth Certificate Moved to a More Secure Location Months Ago:
Doc, I enjoyed the article. But don’t you mean “birthers ‘du jour’?” Just a very minor point. 🙂
“I promise not to grow weary labeling BS when I see it.”
Give ’em hell, Dr. C!
Well what about the face on Mars, and the man in the Moon?
Seriously dude, wtf kind of drugs are you OD’ing on???
Definitely further into the field of lunacy.
Actually, I probably meant birthers au jus.
I would expect African would be pretty rare at least in Hawaii, but I would think things like Chinese or Indonesian are fairly common. I have seen Japanese. Allegiance has nothing to do with race and in any case the 14th amendment says “jurisdiction” not “allegiance.”
I don’t see any conflict here. Insanity can be internally consistent.
So, white people shouldn’t be listed as “Caucasian” since that is a mountain range in Armenia and Georgia (not the Georgia in the US). Nor should they be listed as “European” since that really no different from “African”. To be honest, oustide of albinos, “White” is not really correct either. Besides, a southern Italian may have skin darker than some North Africans and certainly much darker than most Swedes.
That is why I simply list “Human” when asked for race (though I suppose some who know me might argue that point).
Philosophically, one could make the case that ALL birth certificates contain an element of fraudulence since they are mere a simulacrum of the person and of the actual birth event. One could further say that basing anything on mere accidents of birth, whether place or parentage, is morally dubious. Perhaps we ought to follow Aristotle and base citizenship on one’s participation in the community, rather than mere accidents of which gametes fused or which patch of dirt the parturition occured on.
You are very generous with other people’s money, aren’t you? Why don’t you put up YOUR cash, wise guy?
“He was supposed have allegiance to the US.”
how brilliant john is, what a great comment, how lucky to be so smart, we should all aspire to reach john’s level. john didn’t come from no monkey.
john’s comments prove that hating Obama causes brain damage.
No. No. It’s clearly John Candy in profile. Before he died, of course.
This is new….from what I’ve seen here…..and I’m probably going to regret asking but…..why would Onaka do this?
There have already been examples of Hawaiian birth certificates from the 1960’s posted on the internet that list “Chinese” as the race, “Japanese and Korean” as well and also
birth certificates that list “Portuguese” as the race.
On the Louisiana birth certificate that Republican Governor Bobby Jindal released, his parents race is listed as “Indian.” Is India a race?
The following illustrates what I’m saying above:
Here’s an example of a Hawaiian birth certificate listing parents’ races as:
People tend to forget that Hawai’i has always been our most mixed race state.
And here’s one where the parents’ races are “Caucasian”/”Japanese”
Is it so hard to imagine that as multiracial a place as Hawaii might accept “African” as a racial designation?
To make fun of the birthers. (At least that’s what some of the birthers think…they are being taunted with a smiley face in an “A.”
Hey thanks. I’ve been trying to find that certificate again.
“examples of Hawaiian birth certificates ”
my daughter, born in Hawaii in 1965, BC shows mother=Japanese, father=Polish. I guess my wife said Polish when they asked her. Reall, really common in Hawaii to list nationality as race. john don’t like that
john saw many of his OMG moments fail, so how many does it take to get john to pay attention to reality? Actually not “many” but “all”. Tell us john hw many failures before you listen to reason?
He didn’t. It is a birther rorschach test.
Glad to help out, Doc C!
I know he didn’t. I’m just curious why John (and other birthers?) think he would do it.
Easily taunted bunch aren’t they?
And they make it so cost efficient to torment them. Onaka and the DOH can drive them batty with just one of the following:
1. Dried ink
2. A piece of dirt
3. Ink Pad Fuzz
Hawaii can provide full tormenting value at a minimal cost to John Q. Taxpayer. Fun for the whole family.
Obama Sr. was in Hawaii on a student visa. Why was he “supposed” to have allegiance to the U.S.? Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, so presumably his allegiance was to Kenya.
If you became a Rhodes Scholar and went to Oxford, would you suddenly have allegiance to Great Britain?
…..and let’s not forget that in the course of Kenyan census information gathering in the 60’s Kenyans were recommended by their Govt to use “African” as one choice of description of their own race. So it was not just common for Kenyans to describe their own race as African (that’s a big surprise eh?) it was formal customary practice to do so.
Here’s an actual “Birther Report” post from today:
I like Lame Cherry’s explanation of that smiley face…that that was BHO’s personal contribution (flipping off the American people) to the forgery. He says, look at the forged Selective Service application – the “O” in BHO’s signature contains a peace sign. There is a pattern here.
September 17, 2011 4:01 AM
Indeed there is!! But not what Lame Cherry thinks.
Aloha Dean: I tried to post this comment at the WND site
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=345157, but it wants
me to post via Yahoo etc etc none of which I use, so I have not
learned how to post comments. Can you copy and paste my comment
below into the comments section at that URL for me ? Let me know.
mahalos, George Peabody
I can tell you as a first hand witness that the conversation between
Haskins and the hospital records clerk at Kapiolani did take place
exactly as reported by Haskins. I was sitting in the chair next to
Haskins, and I was a little surprised the clerk lady gave such
stright forward reply. Too bad it was not recorded, but, again, I
was there, saw it, heard it. George Peabody reporter for
http://www.MolokaiAdvertiserNews.com/ since 1984.
I personally believe your story with the proviso that the clerks exact words may be different then as you reported.
I also believe that the director of communications says the story is false. The problem is that you and the director are talking about two different things.
By being false the director is referring to the use of the word African not being permitted, that is what is false, not that you talked to a clerk.
Truthers and Fluoride conspiracies… what fun, That will sure help add credibility.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would ask a regular employee, a clerk, what the policy was 50 years earlier. That just makes no sense to me.
Think of any job a person might have, would you ask the receptionist at a auto mechanic shop how they changed carburators in 1960 and expect real professional knowledge?
When factcheck.org asked the Department of Health about “African” back in 2008, Kurt Tsue, who was an official spokesperson for the state Department of Health in Hawaii said:
“we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.”
To back Mr. Tsue’s statement, there are examples on the internet of other Hawaii parents entering non-standard racial identifications.
Joey–I had no intention of speaking to the clerk–that was not why we were there. However, when I heard her ask someone else a question specifically about the “race” field on a birth certificate (she was asking something about a Native American), I simply struck up a conversation. Joey, your analogy doesn’t work, unless the receptionist were actually changing a carburetor when the question was asked.
Northland10–typical, attack the messenger because you don’t like, and cannot refute, the argument.
gorefan–as George Peabody noted, the conversation was just as it was reported–but I understand the distinction you’re making.
So the clerk was actually obtaining information from the parents to fill in a Birth Certificate at the time the conversation took place?
Receptionists don’t visit the shop floor to replace carburetors. DoH Customer Service Clerks don’t visit hospitals to talk to the parents. The analogy holds.
Obama was born in Hawaii as stated by Hawaii. Therefore, he is a Natural Born Citizen. You can claim the pdf is a fake but when Hawaii DOH confirms that he was born in Hawaii, he was born in Hawaii.
There is your refutation.
Where is your proof your conversation happened. I do not know if it did or not as I was not there, but the memory of a clerk who was likely not working in the hospital in the early 60s would not be convincing evidence. Mr. Peabody’s history does not help in accepting him as a credible source (i.e. somebody with a vendetta against Hawaii requires more than a simple, I said so, to be credible).
Whether the conversation happened or you only remember it that way is moot. Your subject was not there so it would be her idle speculation. Again, you have nothing.
Northland10–using your sophisticated logic then, how can you state that Obama was born in Hawaii if you weren’t there? If Hawaii DoH said I was born on Jupiter, would that make it so? How many times have you visited the Hawaii DoH? After what I saw and heard there, I wouldn’t believe much they had to say.
Given your interest in the matter why didn’t you get the clerk’s name?
I wonder if Terry Haskins would have approved of the bigotry and rush to judgement behind this birther nonsense? He had strong and productive bipartisan relationships and endorsed affirmative action as well as the election of African American judges. It seems difficult to believe he would have approved.
So Deano dear, “African” is neither a race nor an acceptable entry for a BC…?
What about “Hawaiin/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese”
The Birfoon source of all truth states this is a good to go BC.
So, that really means your entire thesis is full of the bovine brown and stinky.
Dean: I want to thank you for your perseverance. I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that may help your quest.
Because N10 is using the Hawaii DOH, THE authoritative source, as the basis for the statement, exactly the same way a court would if this nutbaggery ever made it to court past the initial requirements.
You, on the other hand, and your “witness” are a couple of fringe nutbags well know for fabricating complete and utter lies about a non-issue that you and your fringe nutcase following have concocted. You are neither disinterested nor non-biased, and unlike the DOH, you have every reason to further concoct utter fabrications to support your nutbaggery.
No, because Jupiter is outside the Hawaiian jurisdiction, so the Hi DOH wouldn’t be saying that.
However, if the Hi DOH had recorded of some person being born there, and said so by way of two certified BC’s, then yes, by definition, and in every legal sense, that would make it so. That is why everyone but the lunatic fringe realizes this is not an issue.
And we know reporters never misquote anyone.
On another subject. Your visit to the DOH. The clerk told Miki that they just started to put parents birth place after 1976, IIRC. But the Nordyke’s has parents place of birth and Miki’s husband’s 1949 has parents place of birth.
I don’t believe he is lying, just mistaken. It’s entirely possible the clerk has never seen a pre-1976 BC.
Also, please look at the high resolution image of the LFBC posted on ABC News’ website. It is clear that it is not TXE, but THE. For some reason, the ink did not transfer from the stamp to the paper. The E and the T are also missing ink in spots.
Why is this important – if your credibility means anything to you, it would be a disaster to promote something that is so easily debunked. BTW, the smiley face also disappears on the high resolution copy.
George Peabody is a birther, a truther, and a sovereign citizen.
Hey George, how did your run for Governor of Hawaii work out? Oh yeah, you collected 322 votes in the Republican primary. Well, better luck next time.
Why people don’t believe you, Dean:
1) We have seen claims by you before
2) You didn’t even get the woman’s name or
3) A very, very good description so that one can figure out who she was
4) People contacted the hospital
5) Your doubling down without providing more evidence so as to confirm it
First, Bran, you don’t speak for “people,” you speak for you. Second, you have seen no claim by me that wasn’t true. Third, “people” didn’t contact the hospital–Cindy the mouth breather claimed to call the hospital, and claimed that somebody who wasn’t even in the room stated it wasn’t true, while there are two other people who were in the room who have stated it is true. And, last, what you believe doesn’t amount to a gnat fart in the scheme of things, so it isn’t likely that anyone, let alone me, cares what you believe.
Rickey provides further insight into the complete lack of character of these creatures.
Majority Will, I can state unreservedly state that my brother would have pursued the same truth I do, as it has nothing to do with race (fraud is not a color). You, on the other hand, are a vile racist, as it is only a racist who see race in everything.
People here don’t believe you. It is more than me.
1) I’ve seen Cindy for quite some time on the net, on WND. She isn’t just a noone. She doesn’t say she did things and not do it. On the other hand, we know CLAIMS you have made in the past which were false. So who should we believe?
2) One witness you have already given is another debunked, unreliable source.
3) The fact is, you have not been able to provide details – that alone makes it clear that your claims are a farce.
Oh, and in the grand scheme of things, your whole birther summit is a bunch of bullshit which means nothing to the nation. Good day — we both know you are a liar.
Funny, he is the one who showed YOUR WITNESS is the one who lacks character. Funny that.
“People here don’t believe you.” ‘Nuff said, loser.
Who cares whether he’s lying or not. The argument is pathetic. A person in the hospital today has no idea how an african would have charactorized his race 50 years ago. If black Americans called their race “african americans” why wouldn’t a black african call his race “african?” This really might be the dumbest of their arguments, which is really saying something.
Ballantine wins the depth-less intellect award. “African-American” is nothing but American political correctness lunacy, and had not even been invented in 1961. The Ineligible One’s father stating his race was “African” is about as likely as my father stating his race was “North American.”
Hi Dean. Thanks for coming by.
I personally think think that you reported what you heard. You may have “remembered” the exact wording based on your biases, but I don’t think you made it up.
What I said in the article was simply that the person at Kapi’olani that you spoke to had no reason to know what was going on in 1961 and so her comment carries no more weight than when a birther says it based on some generalized preconception of how things were 50 years ago.
In fact, we have examples of nationalities being used as races in Hawaii for the parent’s race on birth certificates and official statements from the Hawaii Department of Health (and from the National Center for Health Statistics) that parental race is whatever the parent says it is.
All your anecdote does is to cast doubt and muddy the water. That’s all birtherism is.
Sorry, you have no idea what an african would have called his race 50 years ago or when “african american” started being used. You do realize the term “negro” was not liked by blacks even in the 1960s, Your name calling show the shallowness of your silly arguments.
Google books from 1955-1965. Hundreds of books contained the term “african american.”
North American? How about “Asian?” Having worked my whole career in public health and vital statistics, I can tell you that “Asian” is about as standard a category as it gets.
The problem is that birthers in general object to African based on their memory of how things were 50 years ago rather than doing actual research.
Actual research shows that the category “African” was one of the standard responses for the Kenyan census in 1962. So a Kenyan asked his race in 1961, giving a standard answer for him, would say “African.”
Sample certificates and an official statement prove that the parental race question was open ended. Look at this one:
So this whole “African” thing is an attempt at spreading misinformation. Wrong is wrong — whether the most rabid birther or a Hawaiian medical records clerk speculating outside of her experience.
Deano, still waiting on your sad ad-hominem fail response
Yes, nuff said. You are a loser.
And no, I don’t believe you. I believe you are a well known story-teller. And when others who don’t have that baggage claim they checked up on you and reported that your claims didn’t happen, I would believe them over you.
The fact that you keep repeating known bullshit, long exposed to be bullshit, and act surprised when you hear it again says either you have memory problems or you are once again trying a con game.
Oh, and you said you were not interested in my thoughts/opinions. Bullshit again. For someone not interested, you sure talk a lot to me.
Google book search 1950-1970. Hundreds of books containg the phrase “the african race.”
I like this one from the debates of the Keynan National Assembly official record in 1965:
“Our languages, our customs, our history are our roots, Mr. Speaker, and it is obvious that unless the African race goes back to grow from its own roots, the African race will never get anywhere.”
I merely reported what was said in the conversation, which has been corroborated by two individuals who were there, and misrepresented by someone who wasn’t. If you’ll read what I reported, I formulated no conclusions regarding the conversation; I simply stated what was said. The subsequent rabid frothing is drawn from your own conclusions, for I provided none. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/kapiolani-medical-center-confirms.html
And I was just pointing out that your conversation proves nothing as the person you spoke to has no idea what was accepted 50 years ago. You obviously thought it was somehow meaningful, which is really hard to understand. And I provided incontrovertible proof that it was commonplace to refer to their race as “african” at the time. Another bither argument down in flames with a 10 second google search.
Based on your understanding, what would be the race designation of the parents on a California birth certificate if both parents were Filipino in 1955?
Sounds like someone “formulating a conclusion” to me.
“If you’ll read what I reported, I formulated no conclusions regarding the conversation; I simply stated what was said.”
That statement obviously refers to the report itself.
A social worker once showed me an application she gives to the parent’s of children she works with:
Name____________________________ Likes to be called___________________
Under “Likes to be called” the mother wrote “yes.”
That doesn’t mean that her child’s nickname was ever “yes.”
How do we know what your father’s race is and what he might have stated? Supposing your father had said he was “North American” or “European” or “White” or “Caucasian”? What would any of that signify?
So where did the conclusion you drew regarding what Mr Obama said regardinng his race come from?
I have a friend whose (white) father was born in South Africa, but he is now an American citizen. By all rights, he is an African-American. Could you imagine, then, his stating his race was African on his son’s birth certificate? And, since there are federal and state standards that apply, it is hardly credible to believe the state would allow it to stay that way.
Do you know what race black South Africans call themselves?
Well, South Africa is not Kenyan. Also, as you probably know (but you are playing dumb) not everyone in Kenya was seen as “African.” Caucasians were not.
Dean here is the 1962 Kenya Census Form Instructions.
Under Race it lists the following:
“Column 5. Race. – Write European, Arab, Somali or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.”
Is really that surprising that Obama Sr. considered himself “African”?
I asked you earlier why you didn’t get the clerk’s name and got no response. Let me try again: Why didn’t you get her name?
Because I didn’t. It was a chance, extemporaneous conversation, and it didn’t even occur to me to write anything about it until after we had left the hospital. I didn’t go into that office with any notion of having such a conversation, so I wasn’t in “reporter” mode. The genesis of the chat was the clerk’s comment about the “race” field, not any belief I had that I was even going to ask such a question–or get an opportunity to.
I wonder if anyone ever puts down their haplogroup for race.
So Dean based on what we know was used in Kenya in the 1960’s, is it surprising that Obama Sr. would call himself African?
So……when did it occur to you that the clerk had told you something significant?
do you contend that the term “african” could not have been used on a hawaiian BC in 1961?
LOL. I would call that game, set & match.
Look, you said something stupid. A man would admit it. Here are numerous other instances of the Kenyan National Assembly using the term “african race.”
Although the term “African-American” might not have been used in 1961, if the term has any significance, then so does “African”, as Obama, Sr would not have described himself as “American”/ These people just do not think!
You lack imagination.
Still no description of the person, so then people can see if the person is there (it would be easy to figure out who it was), so then they can be asked about the conversation. Why ? It’s easy to see. This conversation is like the millions of birthers: non-existent
B.M.–as I’ve stated, your beliefs are inconsequential.
You formulated one conclusion: that the conversation was worth repeating. I think it disingenuous for you to say you formulated no conclusion in the context of where the information was published and the context of your personal pro-birther campaign.
Again, for the slow-witted, “I formulated no conclusions regarding the conversation; I simply stated what was said” is clearly understandable as regarding the actual report of the conversation. Of course I personally draw conclusions–but those were not part of what was reported.
Now I shall draw another conclusion: it is a vast waste of my time to quibble with the underpanted-in-mommy’s-basement ne’er-do-wells here. I’ve stated what I intend to state.
Not unlike our favorite forger not providing any proof he was ever in Kenya. IOW, don’t hold your breath.
Translation: I will never admit I said something stupid and will instead call you all more names.
i can see a safety pin in the “L” and if you zoom in on the bottom of the “T” it looks like the bauhaus logo ( both the band and the school ).
not sure what alvin was trying to say with those two.
i haven’t questioned your reporting of the conversation, i asked you to clarify your current position.
do you contend that the term “african” could not have been used on a hawaiian BC in 1961?
i will confess to still being in my pajamas watching “nfl today”.
A(n) (dis)advantage of left coast iiving?
So……..how long after the conversation did you wait to draw a personal conclusion?
And given your advocacy why wouldn’t you “report” your conclusion?
I admit that I am a bit surprised that you share my opinion of birthers/truthers/sovereign citizens.
Of course, if you want anyone to regard you as credible, show some integrity and admit it when you are wrong. Several people here have already provided overwhelming proof that:
(a) It was not only possible for Obama’s father to list his race as African, it is unlikely that he would have chosen any other word.
(b) The word “African-American” was in common use before President Obama was born (in fact, according to Merriam-Webster the word dates back to 1855).
By the way, has anyone tipped you off to the fact that you have scheduled your Birther Summit for the week that Congress will be leaving Washington to begin its Easter recess?
……or am i in hawaii ?…..or the international obot/illuminati/spectre/kaos headqurters buried 2miles under an active volcano?
Do the Illuminati make their own light so there is no perceptible drain on the grid?
we’ve got a few solar panels, a home-made geothermal turbine and we’re required to pedal generator-cycles as we work at our computers spreading misinformation about the interwebs. it kinda sucks but it keeps you in shape and the company has a great medical/dental plan. you know, most shadow world domination entities don’t offer dental ( i’m looking at you masons ).
And yet you continue to respond to me. In other words, you lie. Again.
And yet we know that according to a contemporaneous Kenyan census document, that the preferred term for race was “African”
So in other words, there is quite some likelihood that this would be a term chosen by President Obama’s father.
As to the Kenya document:
Column 5 : Race — Write European, Arab, Somali or African etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.
Still waiting Dean, lets at least atempt to show a shred of intellectual honesty shall we?
You have stated that “African” is NOT an acceptable race designation as reported by this imaginary conversation you heard.
And yet in a BC posted by the well of all Birther “truth” the race is shown as Hawaiin/Chinese/Korean/German/English/Portuguese.
How do you close the plain, obvious and painful failure where it is demonstrated that your imaginary conversation is plainly invalid?
For the record, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary says that the earliest known usage of the term “African-American” was in 1855.
I’m interested in how Dean Haskins feels about “Indian” being listed as the race of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s birth certificate.
Is “Indian” a race or is Bobby Jindal’s birth certificate invalid to Dean?
What I don’t understand is why Mr. Haskins is waiting until after the likely Republican nominee has already been chosen. The primary winner will be clear by mid-March. McCain had the nomination wrapped up by February.
I seem to remember one of these birth certificates from Hawaii does have “American” next to race, which is probably why Haskins made that into “North American”.
There is a split between the Orly Night Star faction who say Jindal is ineligible because Vattel is in the constitution on the one hand and on the other hand the Berg Truther faction who do not believe in Vattel but believe Jindal is ineligible either because he was conceived in India (Jindal himself believes life starts at conception, so he should agree) or because his parents were “Indians not taxed” and thus not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Since Haskins is now depending on the words of that “journalist”, he may be a bit more diplomatic with the troofer faction than he was until recently.
See these pages from a 1961 travel guide to Africa. The major races in Kenya were: European, African, Asian (which were Indian or Pakistani), and Multi-racial. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54152116/AFRICA-A-Z
This was the first major travel guide to the entire continent, and the author takes great care to use the race terminology common in each specific country for entries on that country. Black Americans were referred to in the book as “American Negros.”
What does it matter what some anonymous, uninformed person is reported by a third hand account to have said?
Dunno either, but it’s a good idea. I’ll remember to do that next time I have to fill out such a questionnaire. Haven’t seen one for a good long time though.
And is the word ‘Indian’ ambiguous in the North American context?
Have you done one of those genealogy DNA testings? I’ve been thinking about doing it but don’t know which service is best. Any recommendations?
I did it through the IBM sponsored National Geographic “The Genographic Program” back in 2005. I don’t know of any other services.
I am Haplogroup R1b (M343).
Here is an interesting 2004 North Carolina study about reporting race on Birth Certificates.
“For birth certificates, the mother usually fills out a worksheet before delivery, which includes a blank space to record her race and another blank space to record the race of the father (“Specify White, Black, American Indian, etc.”). One race is usually entered, though multiple races are sometimes written in. This text, supplied by the mother, is then entered into the Electronic Birth Certificate (EBC) system by hospital staff. The instructions say “Enter the color or race… of both parents as furnished by the mother or other informant.”
Well. I wish I’d known that Liar Liar Pants-On-Fire Dean’O Haskins was here playing his Sunday games. Too bad that his mommy makes him go inside after dinner, as I’d love to play, too.
Always nice to see that the Executive Director, Chief Operating Officer, President, , Producer, Master of Ceremonies and Mouthpiece of the Birther Summit is hard at work, recruiting for the Big Event. Out there in full public relations mode, working the room, on fire – in the zone. Who wouldn’t want to follow this guy straight down the halls of Congress, ringing bells and calling for the lynching of the dark-skinned president that represents Evil Multiculturalism.
Just my kind of leader.
I think Rickey has caused Deano to blanch and gasp for air a bit. My my my, did Deano not check all the schedules before deciding on a date for his Monster Ball?
Doc, I gotta say you have the patience of a saint. How can you be nice to this…man?
The birthers often play fast and dirty with these terms, failing to understand that birth on US soil basically means born owing allegiance and under jurisdiction.
It’s time for these poor sods to start to understand the meaning of these words in proper context.
But that would destroy their world…
Hint allegiance and protection go together. When under the jurisdiction of the US, one is under its protection and one ‘owes allegiance’. Which is why birth on soil almost automatically includes jurisdiction/allegiance. Those excluded are children born to invading military or diplomats.
It ain’t rocket science.
Exactly right, but again we are dealing with people who do not want to learn. Not sure why the term “jurisdiction” come to be widely used in the United States. Perhaps “allegiance” and “protection” sounded too much like a monarchy and I think there was much confusion over the English concept of “allegiance” as there were multiple types of allegiance that even seemed to confuse members of Parliament.
“Allegiance” simply meant “obediance.” One who owed a duty of allegaince or obediance was owed a corresponging right to protection by the crown. One who was “under the protection” of the crown owed a corresponding duty of allegiance or obediance. “Jurisdiction” simply meant “legal authority.”
The English rule of Blackstone was that one needed to be born (i) within the dominions and (ii) under the protection of the crown. One could re-write this as a requirement that one be born (i) within the dominions and (ii) owing a duty of obediance to the legal authority of the Crown.
One could re-write this rule as a requirement that one be born (i) within the limits and
(ii) under the legal authority of the United States.
Or, since “legal authority” meant “jurisdiction” one could re-write the rule as a requirement that one be born (i) within the limits and (ii) under the jurisdiction of the United States.
This is the exact language used by Horace Binney in his famous paper that prompted Congress to amend our naturalization law only 11 years prior to the drafting of the 14th Amendment. It is also the exact language that appeared in all our naturalization statutes from 1790 on. The 14th Amendment simply changed the “under” to “subject.” but it meant the same thing. Anyone subject to the legal authority of the United States had a duty to obey its law (a duty of allegiance) and was owed a corresponding right ot protection.
A couple of BIG problems with your story, Deano.
Medical Records departments have nothing to do with birth certificates.
Birth certificates are vital statistics records NOT medical records. They are not part of the chart.
Medical records departments file, store and copy records. They go through records looking for missing signatures, flag those and notify the MDs who need to sign. They retrieve records and send them to the floor when a patient is readmitted.
Birth certificates are only handled by the birth certificate clerk who usually has her/his office on or near the maternity ward.
However, since Kapiolani is fully digital, all birth certificate data goes directly from the maternity ward to the Department of Health.
You and your cohorts did not hear a clerk talking about a birth certificate.
Poor Deaner! A lot of his more-overly-sensitive-than-usual reaction must have to do with his creeping realization that the Birfer SumZit is going down like the Titanic.
The birther summit is soaring like the Hindenburg.
He’d better start rearranging those deck chairs. Time’s awasting.