Powered by TypePad

« Shrum Lives! | Main | Passing Health Care (Or Not...) »

August 09, 2009

Comments

fdcol63

You know you're in trouble when you hear:

1) Trust us, we're from the Government.

2) Trust us, we're from FactCheck.org.

3) Trust me, I'm Andrew Sullivan.

4) Trust me, I'm Barack Obama.

5) Trust me, the "public option" will not kill private insurance, you can keep your own plan and doctor, this will save America money, and we won't tax the middle class to pay for it.

Carl Icahn

Born in the former Soviet republic of Moldavia, Taitz is a peroxide-blonde SoCal dentist with a law degree from an online academy and a black belt in Taekwondo. More than anyone else, she has vaulted birthers—their preferred nomenclature is "doubters" or the "eligibility movement"—into the public eye.

In 2008, Taitz helped to bring a lawsuit on behalf of Alan Keyes, disputing the validity of Obama's birth certificate. This year, she hit the headlines again when she filed another lawsuit from an Army reserve major who charged that "Barry Soetoro" was not his lawful commander in chief. Both suits were rejected, prompting Taitz to accost Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia at public events to demand an investigation into the matter. All of this has won her generous, but not always flattering coverage from television personalities like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and David Shuster, who Taitz has described as "brownshirts."

Berg is a 9/11 Truther who hopped the birther train after a brief detour with the PUMA crowd—the small but noisy band of Hillary Clinton supporters who refused to accept that Obama had won the 2008 Democratic primary. A former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general, Berg is no stranger to long-shot lawsuits—he previously sued George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, alleging that they were complicit in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

After being approached by a disgruntled member of PUMA (formally: People United Means Action; informally: Party Unity My Ass), Berg brought the first lawsuit claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. In fact, Berg has said that he believes that Obama is an illegal alien who was not even qualified to represent Illinois in the US Senate. He recently disseminated a press release saying that he is also suing Orly Taitz, who he said was so unprofessional and unethical that she could possibly be an Obama plant working to bring down the eligibility movement from the inside.

Alan Keyes
The perennial candidate, anti-gay crusader, and anti-abortion activist is nevertheless perhaps the birther movement's most credible member—which isn't saying a lot. A party to the Taitz lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility to hold the presidency, Keyes, who calls Obama a "radical communist” and a "usurper," says he refuses to acknowledge Obama as president. Following the election, Keyes said: "He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist… The man is an abomination… We're in the midst of the greatest crisis this country has ever seen and if we don't stop laughing about it and deal with it, we're going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion, and Civil War."

Carl Swensson

A Georgia-based activist, Swensson is spearheading a novel but legally meaningless tactic: convening "citizen grand juries" to file "presentments" indicting Obama for fraud and treason. So far, Swensson says juries have met in several states and pronounced Obama’s claim to office to be illegitimate. According to material posted on Swensson's website, the citizen grand juries derive their authority from the Magna Carta and can assume ominous powers: "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."

But don’t worry! The same document also says: "The grand jury may not imprison or execute any government personnel or their children."

Dr. Ron Polarik
Polarik (not his real name) claims to be a "document imaging" expert. He says his four-month examination of images of Obama's birth certificate offer "conclusive and irrefutable" evidence that the document is a forgery. In a lengthy treatise, dubbed "Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy" and published on the conservative web site FreeRepublic, Polarik describes his quest for the truth as his "Holy Grail." He concludes: The answer to "What's on Barack Obama's real, original birth certificate" ranks right up there with some of the great mysteries of our time—and that is really hard to swallow. That a man, with a dubious background, has been elected to the highest office of the greatest superpower in the world without ever having to prove who he says he is! That is not "nutty," that's just plain insane!"

Who is Polarik, really? Blogger Loren Collins claims his real name is Ron Polland, and he's not the expert he says he is. "He has no degrees relating to computers or technology. He is not a computer expert; he has used computers. He is not a scanner expert; he has used scanners. At best, he is an amateur photography buff." If Polarik and Polland are indeed one and the same, then he also fancies himself an expert in another area—Internet dating. He once ran a web site, MyLoveNeeds.com, devoted to showing "you how to find safe and satisfying relationships using the Internet by avoiding potential problems." Sorry, folks, it's since been taken offline.

Andy Martin
Who started the rumor that Obama was a secret Muslim? Martin, whose real name is Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, usually gets the credit. He's run for public office during almost every election cycle since 1978, twice for the presidency. Thankfully, voters have never seen fit to elect him—certainly his 1986 campaign vow to "exterminate Jew power in America" didn't endear him to the electorate. Despite his own history of anti-Semitism, during the campaign Martin slammed Obama’s “long associations with anti-Semites and anti-Americans."

Martin, who considers himself the "godfather" of the birther movement (he also refers to himself as an "internet powerhouse"), sued the state of Hawaii in October 2008, seeking access to Obama's original birth certificate. In addition to questioning Obama's origins, he has also suggested that Barack Obama Sr. is not the president's real father. After Orly Taitz came forward with the fake document that she claimed was Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, Martin held a press conference casting doubts on its validity. Instead, he offered the novel theory that Obama himself had forged the certificate "as part of his 'affirmative action' application to Occidental."

Oh, and during the early days of the Iraq War, Martin also claimed to know where Saddam Hussein was hiding.

Joseph Farah

Farah made his name in the conservative movement pushing conspiracy theories about the death of Clinton associate and former White House counsel Vincent Foster. Now his right-wing website, WorldNetDaily, has become a clearinghouse for all things birther, interspersing shocking new "evidence" with special offers for colon cleansers and emergency survival kits. In addition to its wall-to-wall coverage, WorldNetDaily also sponsored “Where’s the birth certificate?” billboards that have sprung up in California, Louisiana, and elsewhere, and launched a line of 'eligibility' products for purchase on its website.

Jerome Corsi
You may remember Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command, for his leading role in swiftboating Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 election. During the 2008 election cycle, he released The Obama Nation (get it?), an attack on Obama's candidacy so riddled with errors and falsehoods that FactCheck.org said "a comprehensive review of all the false claims in Corsi's book would itself be a book." Given his past exploits, it's hardly surprising to find him at the center of the birther debate. Writing for WorldNetDaily, he's published a series of stories advancing the phony birth certificate meme. In an interview with Fox News, he claimed the Obama campaign had posted "a false, fake birth certificate." His proof? A "good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop." The source: another anonymous "forensics specialist" who goes by the handle TechDude.

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan
Sullivan, an Air Force veteran, unsuccessfully sued North Carolina's secretary of state and board of elections in an attempt to block the state's electoral college votes, on the grounds that Obama was ineligible to hold office due to questions over his birthplace. This was not Sullivan's first time going up against the government. In 2003, he sued the Bush administration, claiming the Iraq War was illegal. Prior to that, he was enmeshed in a lengthy dispute with federal and state agencies after "carving drainage ditches through a wetland-laced portion of the property in 1999," according to the Wilmington, North Carolina Sunday Star-News. In 2001, the paper reported:

Upon discovering last month that the N.C. Division of Water Quality had taken to the air for inspections, he warned the agency's regional chief, Rick Shiver, to get written permission in the future or fly over his property "AT YOUR OWN RISK!"

Mr. Sullivan's multipage screeds against a "government out of control" have struck some regulators as possible threats. Army Corps of Engineers officials consulted the FBI about him last year. And last month, Water Quality referred his warnings about fly-overs to the State Bureau of Investigation…

Last June, Mr. Sullivan wrote to members of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission as they considered adding some reporting requirements for forestry operations in wetlands. He said he wanted to attend a Wilmington hearing on the matter, "but it has become so personal for me I was afraid I would lose my temper and hurt someone."

"If anyone comes on my private property violating my Constitution, you can be assured he will be required to pay a very high personal price," Mr. Sullivan wrote to the 17 EMC members. "Should he survive, he will be vulnerable" to laws mandating fines and jail time for any public official who abuses his authority.

More recently Sullivan has run afoul of local authorities for engaging in his own brand of anti-government activism—refusing to put license plates on his car. "I can govern myself," he told a local TV station.

Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III
Fitzpatrick was once a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy, but departed after being court-martialed in 1990 for improper use of Navy funds. (He claimed he was the victim of a vendetta.) Today, he is one of a small group of figures with military ties who have challenged Obama’s authority as commander in chief. (There's also Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who, with assistance from Orly Taitz, sought conscientious objector status because he believed that Obama could not legally order his deployment to Afghanistan.)

But Fitzpatrick has attacked the president with more extreme language than most. In March, he wrote to Obama, saying "you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit." He continued: "We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger… Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy."

Leo Donofrio
Donofrio is a retired lawyer and professional poker player who, according to Bluff magazine, competes under the moniker "Jet Schizo." A bipartisan birther, he tried to get both Obama and McCain removed from the New Jersey ballot last year. Donofrio is perhaps the closest thing the birther commuity has resembling a cool head. For instance, he denounced the citizen juries on his web site for claiming that they have the ability to enforce their "presentments" by seizing land and property, calling this argument "criminal insanity."


And on it goes. But you get the picture, don't you?

Pofarmer

Them old guys were pretty sharp.

narciso

Cutting and pasting from McClatchy is not going to win any points here. In the LUN, a whole selection of Twain's choice comments on Congress

Captain Hate

Yes Carl, we get the picture, you stupid wank. How much stimulus funding was responsible for accumulating and sending it to mindless bots like you? Are you in SEIU, genius?

Original MikeS

There is unreleased birth information on Obama's original birth certificate which is not on the released COLB. So, there are facts that we just don't know about Obama's birth.

There are other facts that we don't know about Obama. We don't know the identity and travel information contained in his passport. We don't know almost all the information in his academic records. In fact we know almost nothing about Obama that he didn't write himself.

We do know that he is not the post partisan, post racial, moderate politician he claimed to be during the campaign. We know that his stimulus plan is not what he said it was. We know that the health reform bills under consideration are not, according to the CBO, what he claims they are.

Carl Icahn

"Are you in SEIU, genius?"

Cutting and pasting is highly underestimated, as your objection clearly shows.

Captain Hate

At least you have a serviceable sense of humor, assuming nobody's sockpuppeting you.

Parking Lot

Carl Ichan is probably a plagiarist, spamming a long article that he probably didn't write himself, without a link or attribution.

You get the picture don't you?

narciso

Turning to more serious news, for a minute, Yochi Dreazen, one of those Journal reporters always crying 'quagmire' seems to have gotten MacChrystal to say the Taliban is winning, if only to press for 45,000 more
troops in Afghanistan. Seeing as Jones really doesn't run the Natl Security shop, McDonough and Rhodes do, I don't see the point of that gambit.

Parking Lot

((Cutting and pasting from McClatchy is not going to win any points here. In the LUN, a whole selection of Twain's choice comments on Congress
))

Aha, so Carl IS a plagiarist!

tsk, tsk, passing off a post as his own creation. Isn't that against typepad terms of service or something?

Carl Icahn

oops...the link didn't show.

Here it is. I'm sure you will devour
the whole article.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/meet-birthers?page=3

Captain Hate

Yeah narciso, when I saw that headline I was thinking WTF.

Pofarmer

Got this this morning from David Axlerod.

(Yes, apparently I'm on the whitehouse mailing list)

"Dear Friend,

Anyone that's watched the news in the past few days knows that health insurance reform is a hot topic — and that rumors and scare tactics have only increased as more people engage with the issue. Given a lot of the outrageous claims floating around, it’s time to make sure everyone knows the facts about the security and stability you get with health insurance reform.

That’s why we’ve launched a new online resource — WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck — to help you separate fact from fiction and share the truth about health insurance reform. Here's a few of the reality check videos you can find on the site:

CEA Chair Christina Romer details how health insurance reform will impact small businesses.
Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes tackles a nasty rumor about euthanasia and clearly describes how reform helps families.
Matt Flavin, the White House's Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, clears the air about Veteran's benefits.
Kavita Patel, M.D., a doctor serving in the White House's Office of Public Engagement, explains that health care rationing is happening right now and how reform gives control back to patients and doctors.
Bob Kocher, M.D., a doctor serving on the National Economic Council, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will be financed by cutting Medicare benefits.
There's more information and a number of online tools you can use to spread the truth among your family, friends and other social networks. Take a look:

We knew going into this effort that accomplishing comprehensive health insurance reform wasn't going to be easy. Achieving real change never is. The entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo always use their influence in Washington to try and keep things just as they are.

But don't be misled. We know the status quo is unsustainable. If we do nothing, millions more Americans will be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or see their coverage suddenly dropped if they become seriously ill. Out-of-pocket expenses will continue to soar, and more and more families and businesses will be forced to deal with health insurance costs they can’t afford.

That's the reality.

Americans deserve better. You deserve a health care system that works as well for you as it does for the status quo; one you can depend on — that won't deny you coverage when you need it most or charge you crippling out-of-pocket co-pays. Health insurance reform means guaranteeing the health care security and stability you deserve.

President Barack Obama promised he'd bring change to Washington and fix our broken, unsustainable health insurance system. You can help deliver that change. Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck, get the facts and spread the truth. The stakes are just too high to do nothing.

Thank you,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Advisor to the President "

I don't think the links are going to come through.

Carl Icahn

Any comments on the nutburgers?

How is your digestion, Tom Maguire?

Ignatz

--"Two California Democrats have introduced legislation that would all but ban the practice of shooting wolves from airplanes to control their numbers....."--

If the gentle idiots will suspend I'd like to offer my amendment substituting congress for the wolves.

Captain Hate

Hmmmm, which one of the trolls considers Mother Jones to be an unimpeachably objective source of facts?

Ignatz

--Any comments on the nutburgers?

How is your digestion, Tom Maguire?--

In general, people do not respond to logical fallacies.

Carl Icahn

"unimpeachably objective source of facts?"

Feel free to debunk, if you can.

narciso

Right off the back, I'd say all of them. I can't believe that MacChrystal would say something so tone deaf, considering his record in tracking down Zarquawi, then again
he was approved by Obama, so nothing's off the table. One recalls that General Michael
Rose, one of those other 'snake eater' types
wimped out when appointed to UNPROFOR in Bosnia

Sue

This may have already been mentioned, but if the person is still alive, the connection would have to be closer than 5th cousins, twice removed. Obama, his spouse, his children, his parents, his grandparents, his sibling would be the only ones that could obtain a copy of his birth certificate.

Think George. He needs the money. ::grin::

DebinNC

Given the basketcase that CA is, their politicos trying to legislate Alaska wildlife policies puts the "hutz" in "chutzpah". I guess Miller and Feinstein also choose smelt over CA farmers.

DebinNC

Great pics, Po.

Captain Hate

Feel free to debunk, if you can.

I spend enough of my time in activities that I consider less productive than they should be than to attempt to debunk a bunch of strawmen.

Carl Icahn

"Cutting and pasting is highly underestimated, as your objection clearly shows."

Yes indeed,it means I have graduated from the coloring book to the blunt ended plastic scissors. In the institution I'm in that is quite something

Parking Lot

Geez last week the talking point was that 0 was delerious with joy about the birthers because it made the right look like a bunch of crazies. Now this week we have the digital stormtroopers trying to put a lid on the birthers by posting their trademark ad rebuttal to anything and everything: ad hominem.

Tell me again why the 0bots want to shut up a controversy that makes the right look crazy.

(I love the idea that the 0bots are burning the midnight oil researching dirt for their ad hominems and even more time designing punkish forgeries and such; what a lovely, time consuming distraction that is from all the other mischief they get up to; that in itself makes the birther controversy worth its weight in gold.)

Cecil Turner

Any comments on the nutburgers?

Are you seriously suggesting ad hominem is now a convincing form of argument? If so, I'll raise you a Reid and a Pelosi, for starters. Those nuts are actually in positions to do some damage, unlike Taitz, et al.

L anarchic

Don't you recognise me?

bad

Love the pics, Po!! I could smell the freshly mown fields and the newly baled hay.

glenda

daddy, let's load up a few of the wolves in question and drop them off in Sacramento. Or the Hills across from Malibu. Hee! And with Ras already going back down from the two-day uptick, I would think most know the truth by now about who the real thugs and mobs are..
Now, if we could just argue Obama's secrets and lies, instead of his birthing experience-we would be further along in getting the bums out!
Axelrod and Rahm love the birthers too much--it's cover for what happening now, not what happened in 1961. We should be making noise about his campaign $$ questions, his czars, his "trips" that are actually personal biz.The staff that Michelle(no wonder she's proud of her country, now) has compared to previous 1st ladies. So much more..

MJW

Sara: I don't know what to tell you then. A common ancestor WITH the registrant could be a sibling, a cousin, a Grandparent, aunts, uncles. Are you sure that this section isn't generic and then it is flushed out in other sections covering the various choices? A child would have a common ancestor, but the list specifically lists descendants, so a child would be covered there.

That's a good point that several of the other categories would be unnecessary, since they'd clearly share a common ancestor.

I hesitate to post something so lengthy, but here's the entire section:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.
[L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

The phrase I emphasized may be the basis for the department of health's power to control access within the categories, though it seems to me the use of the word or implies the department may expand access beyond the stated categories rather than restrict it within the categories. I agree with Sue that logically "if the person is still alive, the connection would have to be closer than 5th cousins, twice removed." I'm just not certain where the department derives the authority to restrict the access, particularly in light of section 338-13's seemingly mandatory use of shall: "Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." Perhaps one of JoM's lawyers will weigh in (preferably with using the term "loonyville").

Sara: Have you checked the index for the LDS library or Ancestry.com to see if they have the Advertiser listed as one of the papers they have on file. You can do that online.I live near the LDS Family History Library, and stopped by last week. Unless I missed something, they don't have it.

daddy

Glenda,

You have no idea how much I would love to load up a 747 full of wild Alaskan wolves, fly them to DC, and release them into the US Capitol Building while Congress-critters are in session. What a wonderful pipe-dream:)

MJW

Without using the term "loonyville"

MJW

Lizard: Is the whole Honolulu Advertiser story just another mirage? It seems like everybody has just accepted it as true, without verification ....

I read the article (which is a bit unfocused), but it seems to be contradicted by the file I linked to in the very comment you're responding to. If you click on the link, you'll get an almost full-page image of the newspaper. I suppose it could be fake, but that would be so easily proved that it seems unimaginable anyone would try. Though microfilm of the Aug. 13, 1961 issue of the Advertiser may be difficult to find, it's available to anyone in Honolulu, and probably Washington D.C.

MJW

Here's something semi-interesting I just realized. I've assumed the list of births posted in the Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin was a weeks' worth. I'm not the only one, either. In a widely distributed comment, apparently originally made on the TexasDarlin blog:

Hi, I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser. In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records - we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.

Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th. Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes. So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 - 5 days at the time. Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement.

In Honolulu at the time, paid birth announcements weren’t in vogue. Frequently families would post one year announcements that included pictures from the party, etc. I haven’t checked to see if that exists.

The problem with this assumption is that there were about 8,268 births in Honolulu in 1961, which is 22.65 births per day. There are 25 births listed in the the Sunday Advertiser, which is obviously about a days' worth. The Star-Bulletin's list seems to contain additional names following the names listed in the Advertiser, though unfortunately only the first is partially visible, so I can't count them. Perhaps there are two days' worth, though of course I don't know.

This probably doesn't provide any significant information; I just found it surprising. If anyone can provide any more definitive information, I'd certainly appreciate it.

MJW

I may post this in a new "birther" thread when one appears since this thread seems to be abandoned, but for continuity with my previous comments I'll post it here for now.

There's an aspect of the Sunday Advertiser registration list that should be investigated. It could provide strong evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu, or it may support or cast doubt that he was born in the hospital he said he was, or it may perhaps mean nothing.

The list contains 25 names. The first 12 appear to have no particular order. However, the last 13, which includes Obama, have a definite order: the first 2 are for Aug. 7th, the next 2 are for Aug. 6th, the next 5 are for Aug. 5th, and the final 4 are for Aug. 4th.

Why do the first 12 have no pattern while the final 13 have a clear pattern? I don't know. Possibly the final group are from the same doctor or hospital. I think it's unlikely over half the list was from one doctor, and somewhat unlikely they were from one hospital. Also, if the hospital is Kapi'olani, where Obama said he was born, it's a bit odd that the Nordyke twins weren't in the list; though that could be explained by when the particular doctors signed the paperwork.

One interesting idea I thought of is that Honolulu had two local registrars, and that one of them sorted the registrations while the other didn't. That would nicely account for the fact the sizes of the two parts are nearly equal. I haven't been able to find any data on the current Honolulu registration districts, much less those from 1961.

If some of the other parents in the list submitted paid birth announcements, that might answer some questions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame