Listen to internet radio with R C on Blog Talk Radio
If you're    ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency.    emergency.cdc.gov
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« Dispatches from Birtherstan - 3-4 January 2012 | Main | Dispatches from Birtherstan - 7-9 January 2012 »

January 06, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e553b3b3a788330162ff065d13970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dispatches from Birtherstan - 5-6 January 2012:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dean Haskins

Well, Patty, I've got to hand it to you. You certainly put a lot of time and effort into demonstrating to your 12 readers that you know nothing about the federal and state laws mandating birth record procedures (both now and in 1961). Fortunately, we do--and you're not even close.

DP

Wow, a little coup! You actually got one of the pathetic idiots themselves to come over here and defend their rancid excuse for honor.

Haskins is a guaranteed loser in this. If he has a brain in his head, he knows it and is simply braying with the sociopathic false confidence all grifters learn over time.

Wild Bill

Really Deano? Enlighten us. Give us citations to federal alw "mandating birth record procedures" from 1961. I'd love to benefit from your wisdom.

Dean Haskins

I have no interest in enlightening you; however, I do quite enjoy pointing it out when you are seriously devoid of factual knowledge (as Patty clearly is with his moronic conjecture about birth certificate procedures).

I wonder how many hospital employees in Hawaii Patty has engaged in conversation about their procedures. I wonder how many federal and state statutes Patty has actually researched. I can tell you how many, based on the level of stupidity he shares with you all. Zero. How ironic that he shills for the big "O".

Estiveo

Deano! How ya doin' bud? I want to thank you very much for the entertainment you provide. Me and the other 11 of Pat's readers hold you in a very special place in our hearts. You beez the gift that just keeps on giving. Don't change a thing that you do, Broseph.

Xyxox

Wow, Dean Haskins has demonstrated he is the most ignorant birther in the birtherstani ever. I never would have believed anybody would be more stupid than Orly Taitz, yet Dean Haskins proves he is the more stupid of the stupid than Orly Taitz.

Unb-friggin-believable

Patrick McKinnion

Actually there are no Fedearal Laws mandating that everyone have a birth certificate. There are state laws mandating such, but the Federal side of it is NVSS, which NCHS uses for national collection and publication of births and other vital statistics data.

Quick trivia question, what was the last state to legally require that all new births have a birth certificate issued?

Answer - Florida, which passed a law mandating such in 1963

Oh, and just for grins and giggles, I checked out my conjecture with some relatives that handle genealogy, as well as some retired nurses I know. All of them indicated that both methods I came up with were quite possible in a pre-computer environment when it was important not to accidentally duplicate numbers.

My you are quite thin-skinned, aren't you? I haven't laughed this hard at an answer from you since you claimed that a copier would copy the white background of a document onto security paper. Anyone who's ever loaded a copy machine with coloured paper knows differently.

*Chuckle*

Patrick McKinnion

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm

"In the United States, State laws require birth certificates to be completed for all births, and Federal law mandates national collection and publication of births and other vital statistics data. The National Vital Statistics System, the Federal compilation of this data, is the result of the cooperation between the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the States to provide access to statistical information from birth certificates."

Shay

I have no interest in enlightening you

Funny, innit, how he clutches his pearls and flounces away. Hermione Bucket couldn't do it better.

Shay

Hyacinth. Not Hermione.

(at least I got the pearls and the flounce right).

Estiveo

It's Bouquet, dear. Just like John Dummett is Doomay. *schnort*

G

Hilarious! Thin-skinned and thick-headed Dean Haskins can't resist throwing a tantrum every time his clown show get's reported and and he get's laughed at! ROTFLMAO!

His furious posts here have just added to the entertainment!

Poor Dean, he's got his hopes up so high. Its going to be fun to watch him get direct experience in having his very own Birther Court case fall flat...

Silly Dean can't seem to think of any reason why the birth certificate number in this case differs from the others...gee, birth hospital location perhaps, Dean? *duh*

Patrick McKinnion

G - Exactly.

Of the certificate numbers we have from that period, all of them are in alphabetical order save one - and that was the child that was born in a different hospital AND passed away shortly after birth.

So there are two separate reasons why, statistically speaking, that datapoint would be an outlier.

But that's the problem. I'm looking at it logically and with an understanding of statistics and procedural probability. A birther is looking at it as another ingredient in a conspiracy gumbo

richCares

Haskins is brilliant, he is suing for a dead girl’s birth certificate that was born on the same day as Obama, but in a different hospital, in a different city and with a different BC number. That is brilliant move. It's time for the frog marching, Obama has no way to beat this rap, he is toast. I ran out and bought 6 frogs for the marching. Congrats Haskins, your pay pall must be very busy.

jtmunkus

He'll be back to defend his exceptionalistic self. Momma won't let him play after dinnertime.

Patrick McKinnion

BTW Dean, I noticed something odd.

You claimed that 1961 birth certificates cannot be copied onto security paper.

Yet at http://www.birthersummit.org/images/stories/photos/VS_DC.jpg , you show part of that child's death certificate.

Copied onto security paper.

So exactly why can a 1961 death certificate be copied onto security paper, but a 1961 birth certificate cannot??

Hmmm....Maybe I should open that graphic up in Adobe Illustrator, see if there's any layers....

GeorgetownJD

Hey, Deano. How much did you pay your sov cit new BFF Duncan in champerty dinars?

The Magic M

> since you claimed that a copier would copy the white background of a document onto security paper

I just read that argument (don't remember if from Dean-O or Farrar) over in the WND comments section. Priceless crapfoolery. ;)

Suranis

So, Deano, what are you trying to prove here. That Obama at some point swapped BC numbers with this infant and went through his life pretending to this alternate person, Virginia Sunhara?

Or in fact Obama is really a woman and swapped BC numbers with a boy named Barack Hussien Obama as she knew a Black Man with a Muslim African name would have an easier time getting into the Whitehouse? And he knew that his mother would never remember the gender of her stilborn child?

Please, tell us the whole point of the fraud here. I'm a quivering to know.

Dean Haskins

First, I never claimed that a copier would copy a white background--I stated that it would copy the existing background (which was not all white). Again, Patty is a habitual liar (but, when called on it, he relies on his hackneyed "thin-skinned" whine).

But, to answer your question, these documents are scanned using software that removes the background and stores them in TIFF format--which (a) makes the files much smaller for storage, and (b) allows them to be printed onto safety paper without any of the original background.

This fact alone shows that Patty is without even a shred of knowledge in this arena--and it should call most anything he "reports" (LOL!) into question.

Suranis

Well then you were wrong, Deano. A copier wont do that. It just shows you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You see, what you are describing is what a SCANNER will do, not what a COPIER will do. I'm sure you are brilliant enough to know the difference and will invent some reason why that's what you were really talking about in the first place. Oh, how much do you spend on white toner?

Dean Haskins

Siranus--obviously you can't read.

Suranis

*Smiles Sweetly* Well then, you will have no problem telling me what I got wrong, darling.

Oh, by the way, would you answer my questions about how Obama swapped identities with a woman? *flutters eyelashes*

Reality Check

If Dean is indeed out to find the truth why would he only mention the Nordyke twins and the Obama BC numbers in his article. There are at least two other known certificates from August 1961. We have these numbers:

Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
Sunahara, Virginia - 11080 - August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th

If you are making the astounding claim that someone committed fraud just because the numbers do not fit the sequence for the dates of birth then you had better be able to explain the Waidelich and Ah'nee numbers. What say you Dean? You claim to know all from your extensive research in Hawaii.

Reality Check

Any bets that Dean's answer includes words to the effect that "We know things you do not know but we are not ready to release them yet"?

Any day now.....
Something big is coming...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bad Tips

Help my blog?

Tip Jar

Crazy Internet People

Barackryphal

Obama Conspiracy Theories

Oh, For Goodness Sake

Reality Check | Blog Talk Radio Feed

Reality Check Radio Blog

Rumproast

Thunderhaven

Turning the Scale