Main Menu

Archive | July, 2012

1961 Hawaii Race codes: disclosed!

It now seems almost certain that in 1961, the penciled codes on Hawaiian Certificates of Live birth were unique to that department and did not follow any federal standard.

In the wee hours of this morning John Woodman published a remarkable article on his blog: Exclusive! “New Girl” Confirms Her Parents’ Race — and I Crack the Actual Entries, Confirming that Arpaio’s Codes Don’t Match the Hawaii Codes, Either, in which he documents that Hawaiian race code “3” designates “part Hawaiian” (not “Indian” as claimed by the Cold Case Posse).

I had disclosed that a few of us knew the identity of the person whose birth certificate Jerome Corsi redacted (inadequately) and published in WorldNetDaily. Mr. Woodman actually contacted the holder of that certificate, who had loaned it to Corsi at the request of a “friend.” She confirmed that her father and mother are of mixed ancestry including Hawaiian. Mr. Corsi, if you are reading this, SHE WANTS HER CERTIFICATE BACK! It was a loan and the only one she has.

Now, thanks to the discovery of another new certificate registered in April of 1961 (signed by none other than Verna K. Lee herself), we have another code:

xxxx certifcate_Detail

Code 2 is “Hawaiian.” This certificate also confirms Woodman’s result that code “3” is “part Hawaiian.”

For the benefit of those not familiar with the coder’s handwriting, here’s another example of the “2” from the same form.

xxxx_certifcate_sex_detail

Update 2:

Lord Monckton published a 1961 birth certificate for an unnamed black man (later identified as James Whitney Gravely, Jr.), and this is the coding for that form clearly showing a “9.” The form also confirms “2” for Hawaiian.

So here are the codes so far:

Race Code
Caucasian/White 1
Hawaiian 2
Part Hawaiian 3
Negro 9

 

Let me remind you of the faux code table that the Cold Case Posse presented:

image9

This  table that the Cold Case Posse tried to foist on the nation as the codes used to code authentic birth certificates from Hawaii, claims that Code 2 was “Negro” and code 3 is “Indian.” Verna K. Lee states that no mistakes were made on her watch and so this proves beyond any doubt that Corsi, Zullo and company lied both about having ANY 1961 race code table, federal or Hawaiian.

In addition to presenting a false code table (actually one from 1968), the Cold Case Posse also played another trick. They made the false assertion that using their table, there was an inconsistency in Obama’s birth certificate because according to them “9” means “not stated” and Obama’s father’s race was stated. However, code “9” (even it were listed correctly in the table) does not mean “not stated” but “unknown or not stated.”

Based on my experience with race codes in health data systems that goes back to 1974, I have never seen a race table where Hawaiian appeared near the top. White was always first, followed by black and then other stuff.  Only a uniquely-Hawaiian code set would be structured like this. The last code in the table is usually the catch all for what doesn’t fit the preceding codes. On some items, code “0” is used for “not stated” such as the “Date Last Worked” item under mother. I have also seen “0” on death certificates when the occupation is not stated.

So what is code “9?” If I had to guess, it’s “other” but we really don’t know; however, there is no evidence of internal inconsistency in Barack Obama’s birth certificate and the codes on it.

Thanks to the individual who pointed me to the certificate featured in this article.

Update:

Since the original publication of this article, I obtained a copy of the Hawaii Department of Health statistical reports from 1961 that shows all of the race categories. There is no category for “Black/Negro” (presumably because there were so few such births) and the final (9th) category in the list is “Other Race.” This new information is detailed in my article “Race tabulations in Hawaii, 1961.”

271

Taitz encourages military to openly demonstrate in uniform against Obama

Citing recent DOD approval for uniformed personnel to march in a gay pride parade, Orly Taitz says the door is open for anyone with a political agenda to push it in uniform.

Taitz said [link to Taitz web site]:

Important: if members of the military can demonstrate in uniforms in gay pride parade, they can demonstrate in their uniforms in front of the DNC convention and demand prosecution of Obama for usurpation of the Presidency using forged papers.

According to the DOD, the gay pride parade was a non-partisan patriotic community event. Read a more serious analysis of the issue from Stars and Stripes.

23

Patience is a virtue

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/drconspiracy1.jpgBack when I was working, our corporation had a “login script” that ran each time someone logged into Windows. It took a while. The first thing the script did was to display the message: “Patience is a virtue.” Among my faults, lack of patience probably ranks up there near the top, and so it is totally out of character for me to do what I am about to do: be patient.

I have spent the past 4 hours researching, writing and rewriting a long article for publication on this web site. It involved some new ideas (for me) about the coding of data on 1961 Hawaiian Birth Certificates. It could be published as it stands, but it could be better with information I might be able to get tomorrow. So I’m going to wait, as much as it galls me. All I will say is that I am not satisfied with ANY of the current explanations of the penciled notations on Hawaiian certificates.

This article allows me to let off some of the tension.

9

Shocking revelation: President Obama may be “white”

imageThis is not a spoof article. It’s literally true. You might think my headline is counterintuitive after looking at the photo of Barack Obama to the right, but bear with me for a minute and I think you will be convinced too.

First, we know exactly who Barack Obama’s father was, Barack Obama, Sr. This fact is verified by Obama’s book Dreams from My Father, his long and short form birth certificates, and verifications directly from the State of Hawaii.

Next, we know that Barack Obama, Sr. considered his own race to be “African.” Again, this is on the birth certificates and verifications from Hawaii.

New information from the US Office of Vital Statistics tells us what all this means. The long lost “Coding and Punching Geographical and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961” has been found thanks to blogger ladysforest. Here’s what it says about dealing with the parent’s race:

Determining race of parent. –Examine the information given for race of father and mother separately, and apply the following rules to determine the race classification for each parent:

(1) if the racial entry is a mixture of Hawaiian with any other race, consider the parent Part-Hawaiian.

(2) Where other racial combinations are involved …

(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 [for the purposes of determining the child’s race]. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.

(5)  If the racial entry of the parent is "Indian" …

(6) If the racial entry is "Yellow," Oriental," or "Mongolian," …

(7) If the racial entry for either parent is not clearly identifiable as one of the races in the code scheme, consult the supervisor.

We cannot be sure, but it is reasonable that the supervisor could not “clearly identify” what race Obama Sr. was based on the combination of “African” and “Kenya, East Africa.” After all, it was a British colony at the time and there were any number of white people in Kenya. That means that Obama Sr.’s race was likely coded as “unknown.”

In determining the race of the child, the rule says:

(5) If the racial entry for one parent is omitted or unknown, code race of child as the race given for other parent.

Barack Obama’s other parent is coded as “Caucasian” which is part of the list for “white.” So maybe the federal government in 1961 would have called President Obama white. Who knew?

33

The 1961 vital statistics instruction manual: well I’ll be damned

In May of 2011, I sent in a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of “Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars for Births Occurring in 1961.” They sent, instead the Geographic Coding Manual, and the “1960-1961 Natality Tape Files for the United States.” I filed an appeal saying it wasn’t what I asked for. Their reply was that the manual probably never existed, but all the subject matter experts they consulted said they had no such manual.

Wrong ❗

The 1961 manual exists, and a blogger contacted the National Center for Health Statistics in Maryland directly and got a copy. Well to put it mildly, I’m upset with the Department of Health and Human Services! Your federal tax dollars at work, indeed.

Of course, codes are codes, and the codes in the 1961 manual obtained by ladysforest are the same codes used for the tape files that DHHS sent me. So it turns out that if the Cold Case Posse ever had the manual, they outright lied  because the codes they showed on screen are not the codes in the manual, and in particular, code “9” is not “Not Stated.” If they didn’t have the manual, they lied about having it or documenting the the value of code “9.”

I’d love to leave a congratulatory comment over at the My Very Own Point of View blog, but three’s no comment box available. If it’s just me that’s blocked, I hope someone will post this:

“According to the Vital Statistics of the United States – Natality – 1961, the federal government classified and punched its Hawaii data from microfilm copies of state records. Any coding on the original Hawaiian forms was done by Hawaii and for Hawaii. The very fact there are code values on Hawaiian forms that are not in the federal data set proves that they were keying for themselves. At this point, it appears that neither the 1961, nor the 1968 federal codes are consistent with codes used by Hawaii for race. Good luck finding out more information.”

I would think that increased confidence in the documentation of the President of the United States would be good news for everyone, but not for ladysforest, who opened:

It’s never a good feeling to get bad news.  In this case the bad news is that the “shocking” information which Mike Zullo, Cold Case Posse leader, released on July 17th is debunked.  Yes, I said debunked.  By the actual 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual. 

Update:

There is something extremely interesting about the coding of birth place of the mother. Let me quote what the manual says and then explain its significance:

If the birthplace is omitted or unknown, and race is stated as Negro, Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian, or Part-Hawaiian, punch 1.

If the birthplace is omitted or unknown, and race is stated as Negro, Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian, or Part-Hawaiian, punch 1.

Code “1” is the code for “Native” (i.e., born in the United States). The federal government in 1961 recognized that the term “negro” was an American term so strongly attached as to assume that anyone “negro” was born in the US! No such association was made for “white.”

What is equally discomfiting to the birthers is that despite their claims that “African-American” could never be used in 1961, look at what the manual says:

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 [for the purposes of determining the child’s race]. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.

And finally, if no race information is known at all, it is coded “white.”

You see why I wanted this manual?

I have a FOIA already submitted for the 1961 data. Note that this data set does not have personally identifying information. Data from later years is available.

Here’s the damned thing:

Continue Reading →

50