Clinton Tears Apart Trump For Refusing To Say Obama Is A Natural-Born Citizen
“When will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry?” Clinton asked.
After a couple days recovering from pneumonia, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is reenergized and ready to take the fight to Donald Trump.
At the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Gala on Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was quick to respond to a new Washington Post interview in which Donald Trump again refused to acknowledge that President Obama is a natural-born American.
He was asked, one more time, “Where was President Obama born?” and he still wouldn’t say Hawaii. He still wouldn’t say America. This man wants to be our next president? When will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry? He’s tried to reset himself and his campaign many times. This is the best he can do. This is who he is. And so we need to decide who we are.
If we just sigh and shake our heads and accept this, then what does that tell our kids about who we are? We need to stand up and repudiate this divisive rhetoric. We need to stop him conclusively in November in an election that sends a message that even he can hear.
Clinton’s impassioned plea to voters to reject Trump’s rhetoric didn’t end there. She also called the Republican nominee’s campaign “the most divisive” of our lifetimes… Politicus USA
After Hillary Slammed Donald ~ He Conceded And Was “Welcomed Back Into The Circle Of Trust”
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
Bill O’Reilly ~ With Egg On His Face!
If you listen carefully at 48 Seconds on the video time bar, Bill O’Reilly makes the statement that the birth & the birth announcement was made “on the day he was born” in the newspaper. This is not so, the newspaper announcement was made 9 days after the fact. The announcement was not a ‘birth’ announcement but a registration announcement that is consistent with anybody obtaining a COLB and moving to Hawaii.
Here is the newspaper announcement. Notice the date of publication being August 13, 1961 and the red arrow where a [[registration record]] is filed with the Health Bureau Statistics, which shows a son is born “somewhere” on August 4, 1961.
This is NOT a ’29 Gazillion to one’ , this is normal protocol of the Health Bureau of Hawaii. It simply shows someone filed & registered for a COLB in Hawaii, much like Sun Yat Sen did in April 1904. A COLB is not a ‘Live Birth Long Form Certificate’, in fact, A COLB cannot even be used by native Hawaiians to obtain a drivers license.
A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, conclusively, they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified “Live” birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined “vital event” designated by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols.
- 9 Indisputable Facts About Scientific Conspiracy Theorists
- Immigration & Naturalization Service DOC Found: U.S. Certificate Issued To One East African-Born Child Of U.S. Citizen In 1961!
29 Gazillion To One FOUND!
Did you know that Sun Yat Sen was born in China moved to Hawaii (where he received a COLB just like obama) in order to escape the death penalty and then return to China in 1917, to establish the centralization of the banking system to Rothschild London base?
After Sun Yat Sen, Mao Tse Tung Takes The reins to depopulate through socialism’s off spring [[communism]]. Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director for Obama when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students. Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1975) killed 70,000,000.
This is evidence discovered within the vital records archives of the United States, Great Britain and the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan which shows that Barack Obama exploited the municipality of Hawaii and U.S. Vital Statistics reporting methods in order to counterfeit birth records in a criminal attempt to deceive the American people and fraudulently usurp the power of the U.S. Presidency.
New York, NY – Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be President remains the most troubling concern for the American people over the past four years. The issue outweighs concern over healthcare, the economy and the war on terror, combined.
- Rolling Stone: “Conspiracy Theorists Of The World, Believers In The Hidden Hands Of The Rothschilds, We Skeptics Owe You An Apology.”
Regardless of transient political and social lusts, immovable Constitutional prerequisites dictate that no office Obama holds, or policy he implements, is legitimate without proving that he is qualified to implement them, first.
Compounding our constitutional crisis, an ineligible President only makes these problems worse, no matter what party he or she represents. Marco Rubio will come to understand, just as Obama has, that hypocrisy is not a part of the constitutional eligibility platform.
Despite spineless commiseration with Obama by the mainstream media complex, including abettors at Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC, public sentiment demanding a formal investigation into the matter of Obama’s Natural-born status, and thus his eligibility, continues to grow beyond the control of our government and media.
Soon, the vast and shocking truth about Obama’s otherness, based in part on evidence revealed in this report, will begin to rupture the constructs of Obama’s massive deception.
Presented here for the first time, in coordination with longstanding evidence supporting charges of fraud against Obama, is documented proof demonstrating multiple discrepancies between the dates and locations of Obama’s alleged birth registration and uncorroborated claims that his birth actually occurred on the island of Oahu, Hawaii in 1961.
Along with valid proof that the image of Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally manipulated forgery, analysis of data on the image in reference with 1961 vital statistics reporting methods reveals there are conflicts between the vital statistics data educed about Obama and his ambiguous birth narrative.
As this report will show, the proof of Obama’s fraudulence resides in the domain of publicly accessible records which show that the birth registration procedures, federal vital statistics reporting methods and organizational structure of the Hawaiian municipality expose these contradictions and reveal that Obama’s Hawaiian birth is a fabrication of modern administrative processes and that his actual natal biography has been actively and intentionally obscured by present-day governmental officials.
REGIONAL NUMBERING OF VITAL STATISTICS
Vital statistics reporting methods in 1961 dictated that when births were registered in Hawaii, the official vital record was coded with a seven digit number called a geographic reference codes (This code became nine digits long in 1962).
Hawaii’s vital records are reported to the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health in Honolulu from five counties comprised of seven geographic reference codes as shown in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for Births occurring 1960-1961. In Hawaii the geographic areas, numbered in alphabetical order by name of county, were coded as follows:
READ ABOUT THE HISTORY OF VITAL RECORDS IN THE U.S.: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf
Geographic reference coding is essential in vital statistics reporting due to the need for accurate accounting of vital events across as many demographics and populations as possible. The geographic reference table shows the alphabetical order in which the counties of Hawaii were numbered by the National Vital Statistics Division and how vital statistics were required by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to be reported using codes indicating the state (first and second digit), county (third and fourth digit), population (fifth digit) and City or other geographic unit code (sixth and seventh digit).
Cities with populations of 2,500 or more within each state are numbered in alphabetical order. Rural areas not identified in birth records which have a population up to10,000 are numbered 9 in each state. In 1962, there were only two incorporated areas in Hawaii, the City of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu, and the City of Hilo in the County of Hawaii.
As indicated by this code, in reference with the population codes, the city of Honolulu was reported by 1960 Census figures to have a population of 250,000 to 500,000 (Code 2), and the city of Hilo, 25,000 to 50,000 (Code 5) with the City of Honolulu being designated as the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Notice, according to the National Vital Statistics Division, Hawaii contained only two geographic references with populations specified as greater than 25,000. They are the incorporated area of Hilo in the County of Hawaii, which is located on the Island of Hawaii, and the incorporated city of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu on the island of Oahu which is also part of the state of Hawaii.
The incorporated area of Honolulu County covers the City of Honolulu for Region 3. This the region in which Obama’s birth would have been recorded as occurring if his mother’s usual place of residence was at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, Hawaii, the address appearing in the announcements in two Honolulu newspapers.
OUT OF ORDER: BIRTH REGISTRATION NUMBER EXPOSES OBAMA’S FRAUD
As first reported by The Daily Pen in 2010, in order to streamline accounting of millions of births reported by all the states in 1961, the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD) of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, as it was known, mandated a 50-percent reporting method from state agencies using even-numbered certificates only.
This commonly practiced statistical accounting method was implemented periodically in order to accelerate the quantification and categorization of natal statistics while preserving the margins of accuracy of the data to be included in various reports and Census data.
In Hawaii in 1961, birth registration records were collected by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health each week for births registered throughout the five regional offices between the previous Sunday at Midnight through Saturday at 11:59 p.m.
Records from the five reporting counties were grouped in order by their geographic reference code into the seven groups shown above. Then the state of Hawaii’s Vital Statistics Registrar assigned birth registration numbers based, first, on regional occurrence with secondary consideration for chronological occurrence, as so stated in the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in Section 5, pg. 5-8.
In 1961, upon receipt of the states’ data by the U.S. DHEW, the final even-number total for each reporting region (divided by counties) in each state was simply multiplied by two, thereby assigning an equal statistical value for the unreported odd numbered certificates. The resulting number was published in the annual 1961 “Natal Statistics of the U.S. Report Volume 1: Natality” issued through the National Center for Health Statistics headed by Dr. Forrest Linder and members of the National Vital Statistics Division at the time.
Since state-level Departments of Health were mandated by the federal government to convey their data by the 50-percent reporting method using only even numbered registration numbers, the states’ health departments were not able to utilize “chronological” birth numbering to account for births in 1961.
This means that as birth registration requests arrived at states’ main Department of Health offices, registrars had to first account them in order of receipt from regional office locations around the state. These were the offices in outlying and unincorporated areas (non-metropolitan areas) which most often provided birth registration services for rural, non-hospital, indigenous and foreign births since most main offices are nearest to major hospitals and city populations.
Understanding this regional birth registration system is critical when analyzing Obama birth records and it is essential to understanding why his birth registration number indicates that he has provided fraudulent birth data and, also, why it is out of sequence with other birth registrations.
REGIONAL VS. CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH REGISTRATION
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals there were 17,616 births registered in the state of Hawaii between midnight, January 1, 1961 and 11:59 p.m., December 31st, 1961. This means that the State of Hawaii reported 8,808 even-numbered registrations to the U.S. Department of Health.
Of the total births registered in the State of Hawaii, 14,906 were registered in the County of Honolulu, alone. This means that almost 85% of births are registered in just one of the five Hawaiian counties using 7,453 of the 8,808 even-numbers available leaving only 1355 even numbers for the remaining six regional birth registration areas.
If the state of Hawaii had assigned birth registration numbers in chronological order, without consideration for the regional origin of the birth registration, many of the remaining 2710 births in the four remaining counties would have been assigned a disproportionate number of odd registration numbers because they were “outnumbered” by Honolulu County births by 5.5 to 1.
Statistically, for every 16 births registered in the City of Honolulu, only one birth is registered in the City of Hilo. If the birth in Hilo were chronologically numbered among those other 16 from Honolulu and just happened to receive an odd number in 1961, it would never be reported as ever occurring. Worse yet, what if all 524 births in Hilo were randomly assigned odd numbers because of their chronological occurrence with the 14,906 births from Honolulu County. This is not impossible considering there are 7,453 odd numbers available.
The data reveals there were a total of 17,616 births registered and reported to the U.S. DHEW from the state of Hawaii in 1961. Of these, 9348 were registered outside the incorporated area of Honolulu leaving more than half the birth registrations of the Hawaiian Islands from places outside the shoreline boundaries of Oahu and, thus, outside the geographic authority of the Honolulu based Department of Health.
As shown in the table below, births were registered, numbered and reported from seven different regional groupings among five counties (Hawaii, Honolulu, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui) which are numbered in alphabetical order, according to NVSD protocols outlined in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II, Section C – “Geographic Code”.
In order to avoid this statistical inaccuracy, states adopted regional birth numbering which assigned an equal percentage of even numbers within all birth regions, not just cities and densely populated areas. This allowed rural and urban births to be accounted accurately regardless of their chronological occurrence.
The only way to make sure there was an accurate accounting, based on the federal health department’s request that states use even-numbered reporting of natal statistics was for the states’ main DOH office to number births in order of receipt from regional offices, first, then consider them chronologically, second.
Therefore, the State of Hawaii, like many states, implemented a regional numbering of birth registrations to ensure that births outside of the urban area of Honolulu would be accounted for using the 50-percent reporting method using even-numbers only.
This “regional” ordering of birth registrations prevented an over-counting of native urban births because urban births occur in a much higher density and frequency and, therefore, are statistically more likely to receive an even number if only chronological birth numbering were used.
Compounding this problem in Hawaii is the fact that births can occur in a region stretching more than 1500 miles across the Pacific Ocean and still be called “Hawaiian” births. Hawaii’s municipal government does not operate like one in a mainland state. In 1961, the geographic chain of Hawaiian Islands stretched far beyond the reach of Honolulu’s municipal authority.
The main offices of the Hawaiian Health Department had only enough resources to take registration information at face value and create documentation without investigation. It did this so often, it eventually became permissible by law via HRS 338 and Administrative Rule 91.
Also, five of Hawaii’s regional birth registration districts are separated from the City of Honolulu by oceanic boundaries and open water of the Pacific Ocean. In 1961, the municipal government of the State of Hawaii did not have computer technology and had tremendous difficulty in implementing native birth verification and immigration laws.
The regions from which birth registrations were received by the Hawaiian Department of Health’s main office in 1961 were:
1. Births registered in the County of Hawaii and within the incorporated area of Hilo on the island of Hawaii – 524 births.
2. Remaining births registered in the County of Hawaii (births registered outside of Hilo yet on the big Island of Hawaii) from the areas surrounding Hilo – 668 births.
3. Births registered in the County of Honolulu and within the incorporated City of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu – 8,268 births (Registered in Kapiolani Medical Center…i.e. the Nordyke twins 10638 and10637, and, allegedly, Obama with 10641);
4. Remaining births registered in the County of Honolulu in remaining areas surrounding the incorporated City of Honolulu on the island of Oahu – 6,638 births;
5. Births registered in the county of Kalawao on the north shore of the island of Moloka’I – 0 births.
6. Births registered in the County of Kauai which consists of the islands of Kauaʻi, Niʻihau, Lehua, and Kaʻula – 604 births, and;
7. Births registered in the County of Maui which consists of the islands of Maui, Kahoolawe, Lānai, Moloka’i (except for a portion of Molokai that comprises Kalawao County), and Molokini – 914 births.
The following table illustrates Hawaii’s regional statistics and shows the order of the numbering sequence as it applied in 1961.
OBAMA’S BIRTH REGISTERED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, NOT PLACE OF OCCURRENCE
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals in Section 5-5 that birth statistics are classified by the mother’s usual place of residence. This means that, in Hawaii in 1961, if the mother of a child resided in Region 4 (in Honolulu County but outside of the Incorporated area of the City of Honolulu), but came into the City of Honolulu (Region 3) to have the child at one of the urban hospitals, the vital statistics for that baby were recorded by the Department of health as occurring in Region 4, not Region 3. However, if the father was a resident alien, foreign student or undocumented immigrant, the mother’s usual place of residence was considered the place of occurrence, regardless of the birth location.
Contrarily, if someone wanted to conceal a birth or obscure its data, registering it in an outlying area would accomplish this.
Therefore, chronological birth registration numbering creates a statistical accuracy problem when attempting to account the births which are not registered in major hospitals because those less frequent births might just happen to occur in a chronological order which renders a disproportionate quantity of them with odd numbers, therefore, preventing them from being reported by the 50-percent, “even-number-only” method.
Because of the even numbered reporting in Hawaii in 1961, if the birth registration numbers were assigned chronologically, and those from Hilo, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui counties were lumped in with the births registered in Honolulu county, they would not be accurately counted by the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education because their fewer numbers would be vulnerable to odd numbering in higher proportion.
If this were allowed to happen without regional consideration, those rural or foreign birth registrations would not be reported to the U.S. Dept. of Health, and therefore, they would not receive “credit” for future federal services and funding of various programs.
Therefore, in 1961, the “50-percent” reporting method of even-numbered certificates only, forced state vital records agencies to use the Regional numbering system, instead of exclusive chronological numbering in order to make sure an accurate proportion of even numbered rural, foreign and non-hospital births were accounted for census and natal statistics reporting. This is one reason the U.S. DHEW added data categories to the official “Certificate of Live Birth” template in the 1950’s in order to account for non-hospital births in comparison to the higher number of urban births.
The table below demonstrates the importance of clarifying birth registrations by regions in Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Health wanted to know the natality rates and status of births not only in highly populated areas, but in rural areas and non-metropolitan counties of each state.
In the alleged year of Obama’s birth, regional clarification of birth data allowed Hawaii, with its scattered indigenous population and foreign birth registration history, a way to modulate the birth registrations from foreign, unnattended and non-hospital births without allowing them to be lost in odd numbers of the 17,616 total births that year and therefore promoted the Hawaiian municipal government’s need for federal funding for its population growth and expanding municipality.
As a result, Obama’s birth was registered in a region whose certificates received a higher number even though his birth outside of Honolulu was recorded as allegedly occurring earlier than the Nordyke twins, because the regional offices, including the one which registered the Nordykes, had a lower regional reference number and served the main hospital at Kapi’olani.
Obama’s birth did not occur in Kapi’olani Medical Center and these data prove it.
THE NORDYKES BORN IN HAWAII KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER, OBAMA WAS NOT!
There were an average of 48 birth registrations per day in the state of Hawaii in 1961. That extrapolates to about 338 registrations per week. The Hawaiian Health Department issued a birth list to the newpapers for printing announcements in the papers’ “Bureau of Vital Statistics” section. However, the newspaper editors did not investigate the circumstances of the registered births on the list, they simply printed the information as they were given it by the Department of Health.
Therefore, since we now know the Hawaiian Department of Health issued native Hawaiian birth documentation to foreign-born children as part of the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” program from 1911 to 1972, as well as to children from Asiatic nations whose parents had migrated to Hawaii since the late 1800’s, we understand that newspaper announcements are not accurate with regard to three vital pieces of information about the birth.
One, the marital status of the parents was not accurate in many announcements. Announcements were always printed showing the parents as being married even though NVSD statistics show that 1044 births in Hawaii were illegitimate or with only one parent of record in 1961.
Two, the location of the birth is not printed. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 did not reveal the name of the hospital or the location of birth. The birth announcements were printed with the address of the registrant and the last name of the parents only without clarification whether the address was the actual usual residence of the mother. Public records reveal that many Hawaiian birth announcements show addresses where the baby’s parents did not reside. We now know that Obama’s father was not a resident of the address printed in the announcments for Obama’s birth.
Three, registration dates are not printed along with alleged birth dates. The order of birth announcements are based on the order of regionally assigned birth numbers as they are provided by the Hawaiian Department of Health. They are not ordered chronologically by date of occurrence and, therefore, information about whether the child was native born or foreign born is not determinable.
Of the average of 338 state-wide registrations per week, the County of Honolulu and remaining Island of Oahu, Regions 3 and 4, registered 286 of them to mothers who stated their usual place of residence was on the Island of Oahu with more than half of those, about 159 per week, stating their residence was within the incorporated City of Honolulu of Region 3. Therefore, birth announcements appearing in the Honolulu newspapers required more column space over several days in order to include them all.
Moreover, the newspapers printed their birth announcements in the same order the certificates were numbered and in the order they were regionally registered by the main office of the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health in 1961.
Notice where Obama’s announcement occurs within the columns of the two newspapers compared to the dates of other births in other announcements. Several births are dated days after his yet they are printed above his. This is because they were registered either in a lower numbered region or in the office serving Kapi’olani Medical Center and, therefore, received a lower registration number despite occurring after his birth, chronologically.
At the top of the column, why does the birth announcement for the Kitson’s August 6th birth occur before the Ayau’s July 31st birth? Because the birth of the Kitson’s son was registered with a lower number than the Ayau’s registration.
The Nordyke twins’ birth announcements appear several days later, on August 18th because, although they were born just a day later than Obama, their births were still numbered higher than other births at Kapi’olani that week because they occurred on the last day of the reporting period on August 5, which was a Saturday.
The regional batches of births were printed in their respective groups by the newspapers with respect for column space available.
This is yet another indication that the Nordyke births were registered in the Honolulu county main office while Obama’s was registered in an outlying regional office. His birth announcement appear before the Nordykes even though his number is higher, because his birth was registered with a batch of regional births requiring less column space to include the entire week’s registration from that region.
The fact that Obama’s birth registration number is higher indicates that his birth was not in the same order with other births in Region 3 because his birth did not actually occur in the City of Honolulu. In fact, his birth was registered some time after once a registration number became available in another region. In this case, probably region 4.
Therefore, this statistical evidence is a powerful indicator that Obama’s birth was not registered as a result of a birth in Kapiolani because his registration occurred after registration numbers were already applied to births for the week ending Saturday, August 5th, which did occur in Kapiolani medical center.
FOREIGN BIRTH SHELTER IN THE PACIFIC
It should be no surprise, given the Obama eligibility saga, that the word “Honolulu” means “place of shelter” in native Hawaiian language. In June of 1959, two months before Hawaii was officially granted U.S. statehood, the governor-to-be of Hawaii and the mayor of the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan met to discuss, among other things, a way to “streamline” immigration and citizenship rights for residents between the two states and, thus, help struggling Japanese citizens find refuge in the wake of the destruction wrought by World War II.
The relationship between Hawaii and Japan was originally seeded by the “People to People Program” established by Eisenhower administration in the 1950s to promote peace and mutual understanding between citizens in the two former enemy nations.
In that same year, government officials of Honolulu and the city of Hiroshima officially adopted each other’s city as a “sister city” paving the way for an open and cooperative induction of bureaucracy, commerce and migration between the two municipalities. However, records show that the symbiotic history between these metropolises extends even deeper into Hawaii’s history than the 1950s and reveals that thousands of Japanese immigrants, since the mid 1800s, have entered Hawaii and received official native birth and citizenship status from the Hawaii Office of the Secretary of State via the Hawaiian Department of Health.
- Senior Hawaii Election Official, “I Will Testify Obama Definitely Not Born In Hawaii”
- Democrats Mounted Concerted Effort To Eliminate ‘Natural Born’ Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5: Of The U.S. Constitution Just Prior To Obama’s Election!
Most mainlanders do not realize that Hawaii has been under American statutory and legislative influence since 1898, 61 years before officially becoming a state. In 110 plus years, Hawaii has had 19 governors, 12 appointed prior to statehood, seven elected since statehood. Stanford B. Cole was the first governor of Hawaii, appointed by the McKinley administration from 1900 to 1903, 59 years before Hawaiian statehood. William Quinn became Hawaii’s first elected governor upon statehood in 1959. Between these two administrations, Hawaiian laws evolved out of what most Americans would consider foreign influence and cultural exclusivity.
From its earliest history, Hawaii cooperated with Asiatic nations in creating a model of immigration which, while intended to improve the lives of suffering immigrants, actually evolved out of social values and cultural homogeny into the very laws and administrative regulations of the state of Hawaii which would eventually facilitate Barack Obama’s illegal presidency.
Essentially, by exploiting Hawaii’s cultural history of drawing poor foreigners through its municipal exclusivity, without accountability to mainland America, Obama was able to deceive America. By using Hawaii’s municipal history and vital records processes to create a façade of legitimacy, Obama simply did what foreign immigrants have been doing for 100 years in Hawaii. Lying about who they really are, and where they actually come from.
The result of this deception was that he was able to hypnotize a bowing liberal consensus into accepting, wholesale, that he was eligible to be president by exploiting their willful ignorance and emotionalism.
ANCHORS A WAY!…TO ARTIFICIAL U.S. CITIZENSHIP
The exploitation of babies by their foreign-born parents as a means to achieve sanctuary within the U.S. and its affiliated territory and states has been around long before border jumping from Mexico. It appears that Hawaii, not Arizona, was the first anchor-baby harbinger in the U.S.
As stated, Hawaii has strong historic ties to Hiroshima. In as early as the decade between 1885 and 1894, approximately 30,000 people arrived in the island nation from Japan, primarily to work in the sugar industry.
Among these earliest recorded Japanese-to-U.S. immigrants were more than 6000 Japan-born children who received native Hawaiian birth records and, thus, native Hawaiian citizenship allowing their parents a legal mooring for residency and land ownership. Many foreign-born Japanese adults also received birth records which legally stated they were born in the territory of Hawaii. An estimated one-third, 10,000 of these 30,000 immigrants, came from Hiroshima.
New and not-so-new arrivals could receive birth records from the Hawaiian territory’s municipal records office by presenting nothing more than a handwritten or verbal testimonial of native birth from one witness (a medical doctor was not required), and an application signed by the applicant, the witness and the Territory’s Secretary of Records.
- Israel Sends Ukraine Nazis Assault Weapons After Obama Sends Netanyahu $40 Billion For Military Armament
Archive records and recently filed vital statistics reports by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics via the Sinclair and Hamilton libraries show that more than 357,000 Japanese citizens entered the U.S. through Hawaii illegally between 1911 and 1972.
With them, were more than 41,000 young and newborn children who were relocated with many being granted Hawaiian native birth status and, thus, citizenship in the Hawaiian Islands and, eventually, by default as a result of statehood, citizenship of the U.S. At some point, soon after 1959, this infiltration of nameless hordes triggered a formal response from the government of the State of Hawaii to introduce “accommodation” policies.
Therefore, Hawaii’s administrative authority formed the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” program in which anyone willing to apply could receive a Hawaii birth certificate regardless of where they were actually born.
“This is unprecedented in American immigration history. Essentially, immigrants who were already present in Hawaii at the time of statehood were automatically granted U.S. citizenship by default when the islands became a U.S. state, and they were provided false birth documentation as a primary form of official U.S. identification,” says Dan Crosby after his investigation of the history and vital records processes in Hawaii.
“Municipal officials and law enforcement personnel working in Hawaii simply did not question identity and citizenship at that time. It would have been like verifying the source and identity of a grain of sand on a Hawaiian beach,” Crosby continued.
“Once you look at the history of this place in depth, it really is not surprising to learn that many of these ‘citizens-by-presence’ simply claimed that their children were born in Hawaii so they could have an identity as Hawaiian citizens, nor is it surprising, once you look at the dynamics between Hawaii and Japan, that they were issued simple birth records stating so. In fact, it seems logical that they allowed it,” says Crosby.
“Unfortunately, however, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution when one of those foreign-born Hawaiian orphans tries to run for president.”
Crosby explains that the large volume of people actually prevented an extensive legal verification process because the time and resources required to accomplish it were simply not available. He also gives compelling reasons why it was actually a benefit to Hawaii to declare foreign-born children as native Hawaiians.
“Money. Duh!” quips Crosby.
“The bigger the population native to Hawaii, the more financially viable the demographic is to the federal bureaucracy. Tax payers and municipal services keep the federal government in business. Keep in mind, there was little to no official immigration enforcement in Hawaii before statehood. Hawaii just didn’t have the municipal resources from 1898 to the 1960’s to verify the legitimacy of applicants’ birth claims and parentage, so they just handed out birth certificates like candy,” says Crosby.
- Obama The Impostor From Indonesia
- The Destruction Of Indonesia: British Petroleum’s Indonesia EcoTerrorism
- Obama’s Sister Maya Soetoro’s Long Form Vault Birth Certificate From Indonesia, Has Hawaii COLB Just Like Barack
- Obama’s Indonesian Chronicles: Where Is The Proof He Officially Changed His Name From Barry Soetoro To Barrack Obama
- Update On The Sudden Death Of Obama’s Sister Lia Soetoro: Information From The Consulate General Of The Republic Of Indonesia
- NWO’s British Petroleum Ruin America’s Gulf ~ But Drills 15 New Oil & Gasoline Projects In Obama’s Indonesia To Be Online In 2012
“Eventually, the informal social precedence became statutory law and the state of Hawaii, after 1959, simply made it a policy and formal process to issue native birth records to foreign born children because it was so burdensome to enforce rigid verification standards for so many entering the islands from all sides. Remember, this is not Oklahoma or North Dakota…this place is in the middle of thousands of square miles of open water directly accessible to more than 80 different countries.
This little island didn’t stand a chance. You could’ve had Asian immigrants walking into Hawaii after swimming the Maui Channel between islands. Once they got here, who the hell is gonna know they aren’t native? There is no immigration enforcement body. Who would care when everyone else is lying too?”
Wayne Miyao, president of Honolulu Hiroshima Kenjin Kai and chairman of the Hiroshima-Hawaii Sister State Committee says, “The numbers seeking a new life were staggering. Thousands of Japanese citizens who had been struggling for years since the end of the war were desperate to enter the U.S. via the remote, unchecked Hawaiian Territory after 1945. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering what happened in Hiroshima.”
OBAMA BENEFITTED FROM A CULTURE OF “ATOMIC GUILT”
Supporting Hawaii’s explanation for its failed immigration and vital records enforcement policies between 1945 and 1964 was that those living and working in Hawaii were torn between their political moorings with the U.S. and their sympathy for atomic bomb survivors from Japan.
“This is at the heart of the two city’s sisterhood celebration here,” says Crosby, “The sentiments over this issue were so deeply held and so evocative that it was essentially made a law of social nature that Japan had open and unfettered access to Hawaii. From there, I believe the social attitudes and municipal policy of Hawaii officially supported, if not actively promoted, the extralegal assimilation of all foreigners into the American landscape. Ultimately, these attitudes and ‘creeping warrants’ is how Obama ultimately became an illegitimate president. Guilt and shame, not hope and change.”
In 1985, the Prefecture of Hiroshima presented Honolulu with the Hiroshima Peace Bell. A bell-ringing ceremony is held each year at the Izumo Taishakyo Mission near Chinatown to mark the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Included in the ceremony is a traditional Shinto offering of fruits, vegetables, sake and rice for purification and blessing.
In 2001, the Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hiroshima Prefecture, and the City of Hiroshima presented to the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce a replica of the Torii Gate at Hiyajima, a World Heritage Site, as a symbol of our everlasting friendship. In 2002, the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce presented the same token of friendship to the City and County of Honolulu.
This $165,000, tax funded, 26-foot-high structure, a symbol of Japan’s illegal immigration into the U.S. and the preeminent symbol of the Shinto religion, now stands on public land at the intersection of King and Beretania streets, in Moiliili.
In 2009, the cities of Hiroshima and Hawaii celebrated the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Sister City Relationship between the City and County of Honolulu and the City of Hiroshima.
“Hiroshima was Honolulu’s first sister city, and we’re very proud of our warm and strong relationship,” Mayor Hannemann said. “It’s very important that we celebrate this historic occasion appropriately and continue to share our aloha with the wonderful people of Hiroshima.”
….and a few other people, it appears.
SHOCK AND ODD –Along with previous evidence proving the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet in April, 2011 was digitally fabricated, we reveal powerful new evidence which shows that data contained on the document contradicts Obama’s birth narrative and vital statistical accounting methods used at the alleged time of his birth.
Vast disparities between the natal information appearing in the image and the standard methods used by federal and municipal governments to code, identify and report the contents of U.S. vital records prove that Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth record was assembled to intentionally obscure the truth about his natal biography.
By Penbrook Johannson and Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – An intensive examination of the contents of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” image by the most respected experts in vital records accounting and identity investigation reveals that much of the contrived information about his alleged Hawaiian birth simply renders his Natural-born status impossible.
In cooperation with former members of the Social Security Administration’s Records and Claims Investigation office, along with information provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), this installment of our report reveals evidence, for the first time, which shows the content of Obama’s document image was hastily and recently manufactured by criminal counterfeiters secretly working in collaboration with both the White House and the municipal government of the State of Hawaii.
Most importantly, the actual data found in the document image reveals that Obama’s natal history is in direct, and even absurd, conflict with historical precedents defining citizenry, demographics and birth metrics as well as protocols governing vital statistics accounting while exposing epic deceptions on a scale never before seen in American political history.
Aside from the contextual contradictions revealed by Obama’s alleged 1961 birth records, it can never be dismissed that, according to centuries of legal and doctrinal precedence, the fact that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth forever disqualifies him from ever being eligible to hold the office of president unless the Constitution were to have been legally changed prior to his presidency.
A natural-born citizen is one born of geographic and biological circumstances, and to have remained under those citizenship metrics from birth to election, which make it impossible for any authority or public perception to consider him or her allied with any status other than naturally-born as a citizen of that nation.
Being born in a geographic location which is under the protection of the U.S. Constitution to two citizen parents are two of the three major components of natural-born citizenship according to historical authority defining the term. The third requirement of natural-born citizenship is continuity of that status without renouncement, voluntary or not, by expatriation, extradition or adoption to foreign parents.
These metrics were not made to hurt the feelings of those not qualified. They were intended to protect the sovereignty of the United States of America and its Constitutional rights through ensuring, to the highest possible degree, the allegiances of its executive powers. For, only the executive branch is led by one.
Failure to understand this is tantamount to willful ignorance and inferior understanding of the reason why America remains the greatest santuary of freedom and protection in world history.
The biggest misconception people have about birth certificates is that they always reveal the geographic location where the baby actually emerged from the mother’s womb. This is not true. In most cases, the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” indicates the location and facility of “origination” of the certificate in conjunction with the first time a medical authority was able to verify birth metrics either through actually attending the birth, or by a first examination of the mother and child.
Vital statistics reveal that 96% of birth certificates are originated in hospitals, but that a large number of those birth’s did not actually occur in the hospital shown on the certificate.
The evolution of methods used to collect, prepare and report vital statistics must be carefully examined in order to understand how Obama exploited Hawaiian culture and its municipality to become America’s first ineligible president.
Vital statistics reporting methods fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health, Center for Disease Control, Census Bureau and multiple branch agencies in public health monitoring. This federal cacophony of bureaucracy works in collaboration with the state health municipalities in each state and U.S. territories to manage the nations vital records and statistics standards.
Vital records are implemented without concern for defining the citizenship status of the subjects on the vital records. Regulations governing the collection and reporting of vital statistics are purposed for improving accuracy, timeliness and availability of vital statistics data to be used for public health services, disease prevention and population.
Most certainly, vital records and statistics were never intended to be used as evidence for determining the eligibility of individuals to hold public office. The information contained in them does not provide an accurate portrayal of the specific natal circumstances, biographical events and geographic indicators required for determining Natural-born citizenry. Vital records simply are not qualified for making such determinations, but in the absence of other vetting resources and effort by authorities, they serve as a starting point for investigation.
Since some have chosen to elicit validation from the absurdity of internet images of alleged 50-year-old birth records, without so much as questioning their authenticity or origins, to determine a previously obscure politician’s eligibility to hold the most powerful and dangerous position in the world, they get what they deserve in their failure to demand a higher vetting standard.
Not only has the American public descended to new depths of endemic irrationality over Obama’s alleged birth records, the complex world of vital records and statistics has been breached to reveal some of the most bizarre protocols and complex logistics of any municipal service.
Tragically, so many remain willing to accept an ambiguous, uncorroborated image of an alleged document posted to the most corruptible and unreliable source of mythology in history, the internet, as the holy grail of some politician’s legitimacy to hold the greatest executive and military power on earth.
OBAMA’S STATISTICAL CONTRADICTIONS
According to the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Vol.1: Natality (VSUS Report), Hawaii’s 1961 birth statistics were tabulated by the National Vital Statistics office from microfilm copies of the certificates provided by the State of Hawaii’s main Vital Records office in Honolulu.
The records were organized by the main Hawaiian Vital Records office in order of “regional” sequence according to the alphabetical order of the five counties and two metropolitan areas in which the birth record was originated, not where the birth occurred. They were then assembled into “blocks” of 20 records and microfilmed.
Upon delivery to the NCHS, the data was transcribed by personnel and then manually “punched” onto cards prior to their insertion into a card-reader where the data was stored on magnetic tape in a 150+ digit string of code numbers for each record, each digit specifying a distinctive piece of data on the certificate accounting for birth metrics, demographics, age, location, parentage, health statistics, etc.
In successive years, according to the U.S. Vital Statistics System guide, beginning in 1962, the NCHS evolved to electronic data allowing each state to place the records on magnetic tape themselves as the preferred media for delivery of birth data. Computer processing and software media began to be used in the early 1980s.
In 1961, the NCHS stored birth statistics in “blocks” of 20 records on magnetic tape based on a 50-percent sample of even-numbered certificates only. This fact raises doubts about the authenticity of Obama’s alleged certificate given its alleged odd number and yet it contains preliminary codes scribed in the margins of the item entry spaces.
Many have asked why, if only even numbered certificates were tabulated, are these marks are also present on the odd-numbered certificate of Susan Nordyke, one of twins, allegedly born on August 5th after Obama. This is because the statistics for plural births must be accounted exclusively.
Notice the “X-X” notation in the “Plural Birth” entry on the image of Obama’s alleged certificate, as opposed to the “1-2” (one of two) and 2-2 (two of two) on the Nordyke image. This indicates the entry code for non-plural birth.
According to NCHS protocols, tabulations were always taken from all certificates of plural births (twins, triplets etc.) because not all plural births are same-sex or even numbers of births. Therefore, natal statistics must be accounted for each birth of a plural event for statistical accuracy. Otherwise all twins, triplets, etc., would be accounted by the NCHS as the same-sex and if only even-numbered certificate of triplets are accounted using the factor (times two), the result would inaccurately indicate four births or two births, not three. (Odd birth + Even Birth + Odd Birth = two births based on the even-number sample x 2 factor or, even + odd + even = four births based on even-number sample x 2 factor). Therefore plural births are tabulated separately using a 100% certificate sample.
Pencil marks indicate Obama’s certificate was prepared for coding and statistical tabulation.
Data found in the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” demonstrates the disparity between the documented evidence about his birth facts and the propaganda supporting his claim to natural-born citizenship as well as America’s first so-called “black” president.
According to the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” reveals that he is actually not America’s first “black” president. In fact, by vital statistics reporting standards, he is not even bi-racial. This is significant not to the issue of his race, but to the accuracy of the information on the image in comparison to his widely accepted birth narrative, in general.
Demographic coding of the information as it is stated on the image causes him to be classified as “white”, not “black”, contrary to what media propaganda has tried to convince us. Vital statistics reporting protocols state that a child’s race is classified by the race of the parents with consideration given in the following priority.
1. If the race of both parents is coded the same, the child is that race, as well.
2. If one parent is classified as white (Code 1) and the other is classified as one of codes 0 or 2 through 8, then the child’s race is also classified as one of the classification codes found in 0 or 2 through 8.
3. The child’s race is classified by the father’s race unless the father’s race code is 9, which means “Not stated” or “not classifiable”, then the child’s race is classified by the mother’s race.
Race codes for reporting the mother’s and father’s race on the standard Certificate of Live Birth in 1961 were the same codes and were as follows:
Recall, Obama’s father’s race is shown as “African” which does not appear in the “Detail Race of Father” table as a classifiable race according the NCHS. It is coded as a number 9 which is “Not Stated”. Therefore Obama’s race is based on his mother’s, not his father’s, by federal law. We know the vital statistics of Obama’s father’s race was recorded using this code because within the margins of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” there are preliminary coding marks written in pencil as prescribed by the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1961 reporting. Obama’s certificate has the number “9” scribed in the margin of the item for his father’s race.
According to vital statistics coding protocols in 1961 this code dictates the race of his father is “not stated” and, therefore, according to the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942 (MSVSA) and the VSIM issued by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Obama’s race must be classified by his mother’s race when the father’s race is reported as “not stated” or “not classifiable”. Therefore, since his mother’s race is classified as “1 … White”, according to the reporting code found scribed next to her race on the image, Obama is “white” according to the NCHS.
Table above shows the term “African” coded after 1989, not number 9.
Propaganda supporting Obama’s birth narrative pushes the lie that he is America’s first “black” president which would mean that either parents’ race would have to be coded as the number 2, not 9, with other parent being coded number 1. Otherwise, if both parents are not coded as 1 or 9, then the father dictates the race of the child.
For example, if the father is coded “1” and the mother is coded “2”, then the race of the child is “2” because “2” is the non-white code of one parent. If the mother’s race is code “2” and the father’s race is code “5”, then the race of the child is coded “5” because both parents are non-white but the father’s race dictates the child’s race when both parents are non-white. However, if the father’s race is “9”, then the race of the child is the same as the mother’s.
This example is just one of the inconsistencies between the data found within Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” and his popular, but false, birth narrative conveyed by propagandists and media abettors.
THE LEFT MARGIN
Many have wondered why the left margin of the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is curling away under a digital “clipping mask”. An obvious explanation used by Obama’s defenders is that it was copied from a book of bound certificates in the main office of the Hawaiian department of Health.
However, this explanation does not explain two very significant facts about the image which, when considering vital statistics reporting methodology, render the certificate image a fraudulent document unqualified to determine the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President.
First, the overlay of what appears to be security paper was used around the visible part of the document image to conceal the lower portion of the document which contains birth metrics, health information and coding guidelines about the specific circumstances of the birth and the child’s biography after birth. For example, the author of this story has an original birth certificate which contains notations in this portion of the document indicating a change in paternity five years after his birth.
More importantly, however, the left margin of the document is not visible because the forgers wanted to conceal the codes scribed in that area. A few of these numbers are visible. However, the ones that are only partially visible or concealed are the ones which reveal the codes reported about the location and circumstances of paternity of the birth.
The numbers 6, 2 and what looks to be the flourish of a 5 appear next to the entry boxes for parental information.
The possibility of the presence of a “5” in this location has foreboding implication with regard to Obama’s birth. According to the Vital Statistics Instruction manual, this code means “Other” with regard to “Type of Location of Birth” – Code Outline shown here:
Essentially the presence of this code in any case is an indication of a Place of Birth other than a Hawaii Hospital and other than by a Hawaiian Medical Doctor.
The presence of the “6” next to the “Place of Birth” item is most troubling. As the second digit of the number 56, the 1961 VSIM uses the number 56 to code the location of births which occur outside of the United States but which are processed “in conjunction with” the county of registration. The states and the District of Columbia are numbered in alphabetical order from 01 to 51 while Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were 52 through 55, respectively.
This left the number 56 as the code for classifying “Remainder of the World”. This can be found in the 1961, 1962, 1968, 1977, 1993 and 1999 versions of the VSIM. In 1993, number 55 was the code for New York City because of its large birth volume it was classified as its own major birth rate statistical reporting area.
Essentially, this means the code tape file contains two spaces for the state to record a geographic code for the foreign location of the occurrence of the birth without showing that location on the certificate for a resident mother.
The presence of a “2” is probably the second digit of “12” which is the indication of the VSIM geographic code for Hawaii as the state of the Mother’s “Usual place of Residence”.
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
According to the NCHS, the birth rate of residents of any statistical reporting area must be based on the total population of the residents of that area in order to be accurate. Therefore, according to the historical methods prescribed by the NCHS from 1945 to 1968 for attributing birth statistics to location, it is a requirement for State Vital Records and Statistics reporting offices to include births of residents in the birth rate no matter where the birth occurs. Logically, this is essential because the population and, therefore, municipal services are affected by those births when the mothers return to their residence with the child.
- Obama’s Perjury Of Oath Of Office: The President “Shall Take Care That The Laws Be Faithfully Executed.”
This circumstance is the impetus for Hawaii’s flexible birth registration process which allows residents of Hawaii, within a year of the birth, to register the birth in Hawaii up to one year after the birth. Theoretically, a pregnant woman who considered Hawaii her usual place of residence up until January 1st, 1960 could register a birth that occurs on December 31st, 1960 as late as December 30th, 1961, and she would not have had to live there for almost two years (See HRS 338-17) and the Certificate would not be marked “delayed” (See MSVSA, Reg. 3.1)
In the alleged year of Obama’s birth, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) published data in its 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report (VSUS Report) which shows that the state of Hawaii had the highest rate of Resident Birth Allocation by its state Department of Health than any state by more than 41 times the national average.
Areas directly outside of U.S. cities between 1950 and 1970 show a comparable annual rate of population increase using a ratio of birth rates, mortality and immigration rates with existing population. In the United States in 1961 birth data reveals that births to nonresident mothers in all counties occurred at a rate of 16.5% throughout the nation which matches the expected yearly population increase rate over the previous 10 years.
However, in the state of Hawaii in 1961, this rate was shockingly disparate with only a 0.40% birth rate to nonresident mothers while population outside of Honolulu increased by an annual rate of 96.4% in just ten years. This means that, in 1961, Hawaii registered births to mothers who were allocated residence in Hawaii on the birth certificate at a rate 41 times higher than the rest of the nation even though the population within the largest city, Honolulu, increased at the same rate as the rest of the nation (about 18.6% in 10 years).
For example, if a small U.S. county of 1000 people contains 100 pregnant residents and 50 of those women happen to give birth to one child each while traveling to various places outside of the county, including foreign countries, while the other 50 give birth to one child each while in the county, the native (non-immigrant) population of the county will have increased by 100 when the 50 travelers return to the county with their babies. Therefore, according the VSUS Report, Part II, it is not accurate to account births which only took place in the county because that would give a false birth rate of 0.05 if they are accounted by place of occurrence. Reporting the actual birth rate of 0.10 must include residents who give birth outside of their usual place of residence.
However, in Hawaii, this was opposite in effect with regard to natal statistics reporting. Census data shows massive population growth outside of Hawaii’s metropolitan area which is shockingly incongruent with national birth rate statistics. This is because the Hawaiian Department of Health refused to distinguish between mothers of foreign, non-resident and resident births. Aggregately, Hawaii’s population rate also exceeded the national average, overall, based on the ratio of birth rates, immigration, and mortality rates.
Hawaii was the easiest place for a foreign mother to list Hawaii as her place of residence and have her birth allocated to that state than any other state. Likewise, Hawaii was the easiest place for a resident mother to give birth in a foreign country, return to Hawaii and have her birth registered as occurring in Hawaii. The two predominant reasons for this are a chronic misallocation of “usual place of residence” as the location of the birth and Hawaii’s isolated geography.
“Usual Place of Residence”
The “Usual Place of Residence” allocation for birth statistics was based on criteria described in both the 1960 Census Report published in October of 1961, and Section 5-11 of the 1961 VSUS Report, Volume 1: Natality. Census criteria describes “Usual Place of Residence” as “the place of residence where one lives and sleeps most of the time…”
Additionally, adopting the definition for birth statistics, the VSUS Report, section 5-11 states, “Errors in residence reporting result in a significant overstatement of births to residents near urban places…”
Therefore, cross referencing statistics of Hawaiian population growth between 1950 and 1960 with “birth-by-attendant in hospital” data in the VSUS Report indicated that significant errors in Hawaiian “birth by residence” reporting was the result of widespread overstatement of births to mothers who claimed Hawaii as their place of residence but did not actually give birth in a hospital in the state of Hawaii.
Recall, as of today, Obama has never provided a corresponding copy of his alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” directly from the alleged hospital of his birth. The absence of his birth documentation is supported by these statistical facts.
Hawaii’s “birth by residents” data errors were the result of basing census population growth indicators from native birth registrations without natal statistics supported by hospital records and prenatal medical services. Babies were appearing everywhere in Hawaii according to native residence census data, but, unless everyone was having twins, no one could account for these births as occurring in Hawaii according to Natality data and American Hospital Association (AHA) statistics.
The only other state to show such disparate native birth statistics in relationship with normal native birth rate (non-immigration) population growth in the same period was Florida…as a result of mass exodus from Cuba. Like Hawaii, one year old “American” babies of “resident mothers” were showing up in doctors’ offices and state department of health offices in Florida, but no one could account for their hospital birth rates or location of occurrence.
This is important in the case of Obama’s ambiguous birth narrative because he was born at the height of Hawaii’s natal accommodation movement. Municipal funding struggled to keep up with demand as areas outside of Honolulu exploded. Accounting foreign births as native births greatly assisted Hawaii’s justification for federal tax funding to build infrastructure, providing municipal services and, most importantly, expanding public health/natal care services.
Therefore, because of decades of “open door” immigration policy in Hawaii prior to statehood, unless special care was taken in asking for residence information on birth certificate applications, mothers were simply identified as being Hawaiian residents outside of the central city when they registered the births within a year of their occurrence. The idea that such misrepresentation could affect political eligibility or citizenship status under the weight of Hawaii’s municipal development challenges simply was not considered by state and local governments.
In 1960, this situation assumed special importance with the completion of Honolulu International Airport renovations and international aviation service expansion. The increased use of air travel made utilization of American hospitals in cities by non-resident aliens easier creating a massive transaction of people via Hawaii and Asia between 1945 and 1965. Likewise, it made departure from, and return to, Hawaii for residents more efficient as well. This trend saw a pronounced increase in the years 1959-1961 when commercial aviation development reached its peak in Hawaii.
Frustrated and overwhelmed, the Hawaiian Vital Records office, under Title 11, Chapter 8 of its Public Health Regulations, following a radical interpretation of NCHS birth statistics reporting protocol, implemented a remedy for this disparate anomaly after the 1960 Census. In what can only be considered one of the most bizarre examples of twisted municipal logic, rather than record foreign births, the Hawaiian government simply decided the local office where the record was submitted was the location of the occurrence of the vital event, no questions asked (or, at least very few).
Essentially, this means that births could occur anywhere else in the world and the parents could apply for a birth certificate knowing the state vital records and immigration authority would not investigate the circumstances of the birth. This was the case with more than 6000 reported cases of immigrants from the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan, China and Siam from 1946 to 1959, as well as the oft noted case of Chinese born Sun Yet Sen, leader of the democratic movement in China, who was born there but possessed an original birth certificate from the state of Hawaii stating he was born in that state.
Shockingly, statistical comparisons of birth data between 1950 and 1960 reveals that Hawaii’s birth registration volume was higher than the calculable volume of births based on the ratio of non-immigration population increase to birth rate. This is because Hawaii registered births as occurring in Hawaii which do not actually occur in Hawaii and then reported them as native birth statistics to the federal government in order to inflate its statistics triggering federal funding for public services.
The foul reality is that any member of Barack Obama’s family could exercise specific legal and administrative procedures clearly outlined in statutory language and acquire an official, original, standard “Certificate of Live Birth” which, by evidentiary provision after the fact, can legally state he was born in Hawaii, without him actually being born there. The only three things needed for this to occur for Obama is that a lie be told, an affiant confirm the lie, and the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health rubber stamp it.
Though legal in Hawaii, such misrepresentation disqualifies presidential candidates because it does not endow Natural-born citizenship as defined by the legal foundations of the U.S. Constitution.
Enemies seeking to confiscate the power and resources of any nation will attempt to infiltrate its citizenry and government structure through the most unmonitored, isolated and easily bypassed points of entry. In 1960, that point of entry in the U.S. was Hawaii.
The Hawaiian islands sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at an equal distance from 18 different countries, all having direct flight access to more than 15 airports on eight different islands all of which are within 190 miles of Honolulu. No place in the world in 1961 was more traveled by people from more destinations that the Hawaiian archipelago.
Research also reveals that no state in American history has enacted more customized laws to facilitate an open birth documentation process than Hawaii. The perplexity of the Aloha state’s vital records administrative processes are the result of that states struggle to account for native indigenous Hawaiian heritage, U.S. citizen non-residents and foreign immigrants.
Essentially, Hawaii’s vital records laws are intended to integrate indigenous and migratory populations with American economics and modalities while, at the same time, maintain cultural exclusivity through oscillating statutory revision. Hawaii’s vital records management system has never been exempt from this ever adjusting accommodation.
These enigmatic warrants originate long before Hawaii’s statehood in August, 1959. For more than 110 years, indigenous populations, geographic isolation, unmonitored migration, international tourism, transportation modalities, municipal underdevelopment and multicultural inclusivity make Hawaii the single most unaccountable native birth allocation destination in American history.
OBAMA’S VERY “ODD” CERTIFICATE
One misconception about Obama’s natal records is that the alleged date and time of his birth are responsible for the allocation of the certificate number shown on the upper right corner of the images posted in 2008 and April, 2011. The image of Obama’s 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” shows it was allegedly stamped by the main office of the Hawaiian Health Department with the number 151-61-10641.
There are three successive sets of circumstances which impact the assignment of a record number found on vital records, the least of which is the date and time of the occurrence of the birth.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics and the Model State Vital Statistics Act, Section 1, in order for birth records to be official they must:
1. Establish a date, time and location of the birth based on medical or administrative authority (administrative declaration must be used if occurrence was in the absence of medical verification);
2. They must be submitted to a local (county) registrar jurisdiction in an appropriate location as defined by state public health regulations prior to legal deadlines governing birth registrations and;
3. Upon receipt by the main office of the state Health Department’s Vital Records Registrar, they must be stamped with an official record number and affixed with a state registrar seal.
In the case of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” the progression of these circumstances combined with Hawaii’s extremely liberal public health regulations reveal shocking misrepresentations.
Date, Time and Location of Birth
According to the MSVSA (Rev. 1959), the network of local (county) registrar offices in the seven jurisdictions of the state of Hawaii were not under the official authority of the main office of the State Health Department’s Registrar (until 1977) as much as they worked collaboratively within best practices to implement an effective vital records system among a geographically challenged and culturally complex population.
Births were recorded under two circumstances. Upon the attendant’s filing of a birth certificate within seven days of the occurrence of birth or the filing of a certificate upon examination of the child for the first time by a Hawaiian medical professional with competent jurisdiction to determine if the birth had occurred within one year of the examination. Both circumstances allow for the filing of the same standard “Certificate of Live Birth” based on the certification of a medical authority without special indications as to the date of registration or actual location of the birth.
Therefore, many assume Obama’s record number would have been stamped to the document in August of 1961 because that is the date of birth shown on the document. However, according to Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title 11, in coordination with the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942 (Rev. 1959), this is not true.
For the past several years, many have wondered why Obama’s alleged record number is higher than those of twin sisters, Gretchen and Susan Nordyke, since the widely accepted account of his birth is that it occurred in the same hospital 19 hours before the twins. The Nordykes’ certificates were assigned the lower numbers of 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638.
After months of ambiguity by Obama, conflicting hearsay and wrangling by world-wide media sources over the actual place of birth, leading up to the 2008 election, it was finally decided by Wikipedia (Wiki article: “Barack Obama”, August 2008) that Obama’s birth must have occurred in the Hawaiian hospital at 7:24 p.m., August 4th based on uncorroborated documentation from unanimous, unaccountable sources. Interestingly, ensuing discussion was no longer permitted about the subject on the site’s “talk” page. Therefore, simply taken, if record numbers were thought to be assigned chronologically in order with the date and time of occurrence of the three births, sequence dictates that Obama’s number should be much lower.
Theoretically, based on data provided by the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Vol. 1: Natality, which indicates an average of approximately 48 birth registrations per day (one every 30 minutes) throughout Hawaii, this would mean that there were approximately 38 other births registered between Obama’s and the twins, based just on date and time of birth, alone.
However, an accounting of newspaper announcements for all births appearing on August 4th and 5th reveal there were as many as 46 between 7:24 p.m., August 4th and 2:00 p.m., August 5th. By these statistical disparities, one might expect Obama’s actual birth registration number to be around 10591 (subtract 46 from 10637) based on the alleged date and time of his birth.
However, record numbers were not assigned by date and time of birth in Hawaii in 1961 as indicated by Hawaii Administrative Rule 117 of the Hawaii Public Health Regulations.
Date and Time of Submission
Upon an extensive examination of 1961 Hawaiian birth announcements in comparison with vital records archives, it was discovered that announcements were published based on the order of submission to each local office within each region of Hawaii, not the date of the occurrence of the birth (see Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Section C, p. 55 and Model State Vital Statistics Act Section 6(c)). However, birth record numbers were not assigned by this local submission sequence, either.
Hawaiian Public Health Regulations for Vital Records Processing (HAR 117, Section 2) dictated, then and now, that when a vital event occurred with an attendant, the vital record must be submitted within seven days to the local vital records receiving office (this became five days in 1977) of their occurrence and duplicates maintained within the local jurisdiction of their origination (See Section 2 and Section 8 of HAR Title 11.117.8).
In Hawaii, there are several variables which affected the definition of “origination” of a vital record in 1961. Origination was not always defined as the location of the vital event but rather wherever the birthed subject was first examined by a medical professional of authority as defined by the Health Department.
The most significant development, and one that opens Obama’s eligibility to intense scrutiny, is that the NCHS made the distinction, for 1961 statistics, (after Census data and the addition of an additional entry box for the revision to the standard certificate in 1956) between a mother’s location of usual residence and the actual location of the occurrence of the vital event, regardless of where she was when the event occurred.
This distinction was made because, as transportation modalities improved and hospitals developed better natal care facilities, previous birth records did not account for a sudden accelerated increase in birth rates shown in the same counties as the hospitals. These modern developments skewed data making it appear as though virtually all the births in a state were by mothers who lived in the same county as the location of the hospital. They didn’t, they just traveled there from another county to give birth.
This is particularly significant in Hawaii in 1961 since Hawaiian counties and their populations are separated by ocean. The statistical distinction was eventually morphed and contorted as part of the justification for passing latter sections of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 governing the issuance of original Hawaiian birth certificates to foreign-born children as late as up to one year after the birth (See also Model State Vital Statistics Act, Regulation 3.1), further confirming reasons that birth records from Hawaii should never be relied upon for determining the eligibility of a President without extensive investigation of the circumstances of their origins.
We now know that Hawaii’s derelict laws pose a serious threat to national security with regard to its permissiveness of false natal citizenship status for aspiring presidential candidates.
Additionally, a mapping of birth announcement addresses with respect to their order of newspaper publication reveals their sequence was established by the order of their submission from the State of Hawaii Department of Health main office to the newspaper, which, prior to this, was established by the order of their submission from the regional offices to the main office. This multistep process shows that record numbers were not assigned in chronological order of registration, nor were they assigned based on the date and time of the birth. They were assigned first, by region code, which is based on an alphabetical order of counties (See VSIM, Sec. C, p. 55), of registration and, secondly, with time needed to process, by date of receipt and verification by the State Registrar in the main Health Department office in Honolulu. A number was not assigned until the information was attested and verified by a medical authority at some point after the birth, regardless if the birth was attended by the signing physician (see MSVSA, Section 7 and Reg. 3.1).
Recall, as stated in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Section C, “Coding and Punching” and the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Table 3-1, the “regional” ordering and numbering of vital records was necessary to prevent inaccurate accounting of rural, foreign, non-hospital and unattended births, which did not occur with the same frequency as more numerous urban, hospital and physician-attended births. The increase in statistical probability for inaccurate accounting was due to the federally mandated 50-percent reporting method using even-numbered certificates only.
In Part 1 of our report, we showed that the main office of Hawaii’s Health Department processed birth registrations from seven such regions in 1961. They were:
Hawaii County which was divided into:
1. The incorporated area of Hilo and,
2. The remainder of the island of Hawaii (which is the remainder of the county);
Honolulu County which was divided into:
3. The incorporated area (standard metropolitan statistical area) of Honolulu and;
4. The remainder of the Island of Oahu and;
The three remaining counties including:
5. Kalawao County on the island of Molaki;
6. Kauai County which includes the Island of Nihau and;
7. Maui County which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai and Molokai (except for the peninsula settlement region of Kalawao County).
Therefore, along with eliminating time and place of birth, record numbers were also not assigned based on date of submission to local offices.
September Surprise: Receipt of Obama’s Records by the State Office:
The record number is the very last piece of data to officially be placed on a birth certificate. Only after all signatures, information, birth data, stamps have been finalized is the record indexed by the State Registrar’s office.
There were 1472 births registered in Hawaii in August, 1961 which averages to about 48 per day. However, because births outside of Honolulu County were collected by the main registrar’s office on a less frequent basis, Honolulu County births were not only assigned a higher proportion of registration numbers in the reporting period, they were assigned more numbers earlier in the reporting year. About 3% more, or, statistically, about 528 record numbers, over the 1961 reporting year.
This disparity should raise suspicions on its merit as to the number of birth registrations compared to the expectable birth rates among any population.
If birth certificate numbers were assigned based on submission order, not birth occurrence, one would expect Obama’s birth certificate number to be even more disparate from the Nordykes because his birth was allegedly submitted three days before the Nordykes’ on Tuesday, August 8th. The Nordykes’ records were not submitted to the local office in Honolulu until August 11th and were not stamped until at least the 14th, the first Monday after submission.
Chronologically speaking, based on birth rates in August of 1961, if numbers were assigned based on submission dates, this means that Obama’s certificate number should be as low as 10492.
Deadlines for transmittal of completed birth submissions from local offices to the main Department of Health Office varied depending on the location of the local office. The general rule for transmitting vital records in Hawaii in 1961 is outlined in Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Rule 117, Chapter 8, Section 8 of the Hawaii Public Health Regulations for Vital Statistics Registration and Records. The rule states: “Local registrars shall transmit certificates filed with them weekly to the State Health Department, except that on the outlying areas all certificates on hand the 4th of the month following the month of occurrence shall be mailed immediately by airmail.”
The rule does not define “outlying”, nor does it prescribe measures for transmittal when airmail service was not available (which happened four times in 1960-61 due to tropical storms, see History of Hawaiian Aviation, State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation 1925-Present). Also, the 4th of each month occurred on a weekend four times in 1961 in February, March, July and November which means transmittal was delayed at least two more days, or about 400 births, statistically speaking.
This means that a birth registration which was submitted in Lihue, Kauai on December 1st, 1960 could be stored for 35 days before being sent to Honolulu via airmail on January 4th, 1961 where it would be received the next available business day, reviewed and finally be stamped with a number and state seal sometime before July 31st, the mandated federal deadline for reporting of birth statistics to the National Vital Statistics Office. This monthly “stacking” of outlying birth registrations created fluctuations in record number sequencing.
Most disturbingly, however, a birth without a previously established date and time , one that occurs abroad a year before, could be submitted the day of the final filing period for the preceding month, on the 4th day of the next month, if needed, before being delivered to the main state registrar’s office for processing. Perhaps even August 4th. If the record required further verification or other input from the parents or medical examination, it could have been delayed even longer before finally assigned a record number.
Further clarification of the rule through HAR 91 indicates that local clerks’ offices and courts in Oahu are required to transmit vital records to the main Health Department office in Honolulu by hand delivery each week while offices not on the island of Oahu were requested by the main office to transmit uncertified, unstamped vital records, via airmail, but when information on the record was incomplete or unverified, a voucher was sent to the local office asking for clarification which would delay the record another week or two. Meanwhile, the record is held without a record number for all this time while other birth records are being stamped and filed.
Hawaii’s interisland airmail service from outlying islands to Honolulu was conducted from the following airports:
• Lihue Airport, Kauai County (91 miles to Honolulu)
• Kahului Airport, Island of Maui, Maui County (89 miles to Honolulu)
• Lanai Airport, Island of Lanai, Maui County (63 miles to Honolulu)
• Kalaupapa Airport, Island of Molokai, Kalawao County (54 miles to Honolulu)
• Hilo International Airport, Hawaii County (incorporated) (189 miles to Honolulu)
• Keahole International Airport or Waimea-Kohala Airport, Hawaii County (unincorporated) (151 miles to Honolulu).
In Hawaii, in 1961, birth registrations occurring outside of Honolulu County (off the Island of Oahu) were collected on a less frequent basis than births in Honolulu County, but the totals were divided into monthly statistics based on registration dates, for federal report data. Since the main health department office was in the city of Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, and more than 85% of the births in Hawaii occurred on Oahu, which is Honolulu County, it was beneficial for the registrar to account these births on a more frequent basis due to their higher volume. Birth registrations occurring inside of Honolulu County were accounted in the State of Hawaii’s main Department of Health Office each week. This is confirmed by the accounting of birth announcements in the newspapers with registrant addresses located in Honolulu County compared to those announcements for births whose registrant addresses are outside of Honolulu County.
This is a significant discovery given the disparate record number appearing on Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth”. The fact that his birth registration number is out of sequence with other births is an indication of anomalous circumstances involved in its assignment.
Additional to Hawaii’s geographic challenges, the state Health Department’s contract agreement with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) stated that birth statistics were to be reported before July 31st of the following year in order to be included in publication for the previous year’s statistics report.
The 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. report shows there were 826 male child births in Hawaii in the month of August, 1961. A cross reference of addresses found in birth announcements published in the Hawaiian newspapers in August of 1961 with archives of residential listings shows that, out of all 826 births, only Barack Obama’s birth was registered to an address where the stated father did not live. According to reporting protocols this fact forces the Department of Health to allocate the usual residence of the mother as the location of the birth, no matter where the birth actually occurs. This was done to protect the custody rights of the mother and welfare of the child in cases when custody was challenged by a father residing in a foreign country. The child was declared a U.S. citizen by default of the mother’s usual place of residence and thereby protected under the U.S. Constitution.
This registration number is also out of sequence with other registered births in the same region Obama is alleged to have been born. This indicates that Obama’s registration number was assigned based on the occurrence of the birth registration in another location, and it was assigned up to a year after the actual occurrence of the birth using a number made available after the official reporting period, perhaps by a previous fetal death which authorities simply chose to classify as a non-Live birth event after the fact.
The registration number has no association with chronological ordering of birth occurrences. In 1961, the first three digits of a birth registration number represents the NCHS code for each Standard Metropolitan Statistics Reporting Area (151 for Honolulu), the following two digits were the year of the registration and, final five were the yearly accounting of birth registrations based the next available number for that region and registration period. This five digit number was expanded to six digits in later reporting periods to account for increase in yearly birth volumes.
Since Hawaii allowed birth registrations up to one year after the occurrence of the birth, it was impossible to keep sequential record numbers based on the time of each live birth event. For example, a birth which occurs in August of 1960 can be registered with Hawaii’s Health Department in August of 1961, but this birth would be given a 1961 registration number, not a 1960 number if the birth date was not established. 1960 registration numbers would be reported by July 31st of 1961.
WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY
Upon analysis of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” image by former Social Security Administration record investigators consulted for this report, artifacts appearing on the document indicate this document is not a reliable source of identity verification. They provided this assessment for our report:
Thank you for inquiry regarding the contents of the document image you submitted on February 8th, 2012. We are familiar with the controversy surrounding this particular document and have included our best possible evaluation without access to the corroborating information.
ITEM 1: The image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to the internet in April, 2011, contains handwritten (penciled) numeric and alphanumeric characters which confirm that preliminary coding marks were applied to the document.
On authentic certificates filed by the Health Department, these penciled notations were used on the original, paper version of the record kept by the State-level office of the Department of Health after a photo static copy was provided for medical record archives to the facility shown on the certificate. Moreover, they were applied to even-numbered certificates in 1961, which were those from which statistics were reported to the National Center for Health Statistics. Typically, they are not found on an original certificate which was prepared by an attending medical authority present at the live birth event because the medical personnel do not report natal statistics, the state registrar’s office does.
Therefore, an official copy of the hospital version of this same document in coordination with the code file tape created by the National Vital Statistics office will confirm whether the birth information is accurate between the four agencies who processed it, including the local registrar office, the state registrar, the hospital and the U.S. Vital Statistics office in the appropriate reporting region. All should have copies of this record.
If Obama’s birth occurred in 1961, it would be subject to the NCHS reporting methods and coding for that year. Therefore, his birth statistics would have been tabulated in the State office but not necessarily recorded and published by the NCHS statistics report. However, if the tape file record of his birth were discovered in the NCHS tape file archive, this would be contradictory to what we have been told about his birth.
Therefore, according the SSA panel, it is unlikely the certificate would not have been coded with preliminary notations in 1961, since vital statistics were coded from microfilmed images and translated to punch cards which contained approximately 150+ digit spaces for each birth registration. These cards were tediously completed, in blocks of 20 birth records, with a majority of the records being required, by contract with the NCHS, to be completed by July 31st of the following year.
Beginning in 1960, punch cards were hand-fed into a scan machine and the resulting data was then stored on a magnetic tape reel by the NCHS. According to the official U.S. Vital Statistics System Development handbook, this procedure required several hours for each record and was in effect under Hawaii’s contract with the NCHS until 1971.
ITEM 2: It is important to remember that births are just one of four types of more than 40,000 vital records which required processing, copying and filing in Hawaii. State vital records registration officials simply could not afford to spend time applying preliminary handwritten codes to vital records which were not going to be included in the annual reporting block.
Adding to the challenge, unlike today’s electronic system, the initial coding process was manually performed in 1961. With more than 40,000 records in need of processing and microfilming, why would a municipality waste resources to do unnecessary accounting? The resources were simply not available to do this for all the births, deaths, marriages and divorces in the time frame required, so the even-numbered reporting method was introduced. Besides, the NCHS contract with the states paid only a few cents per record to the (state) Health Department. If these penciled numbers appear on a vital record, the content of that record was reported as part of the even-numbered certificates to the NCHS as required.
Based on this, it is conclusive that Obama’s certificate number is either fraudulently assigned by forgers, or it was changed to an odd number after the original contents of the document were entered in order to prevent inquiries into Obama’s record file tape. Under either circumstance, information about Obama’s birth is being intentionally obscured in order to hide his actual natal history and the negative impact it would have on his eligibility to be president.
It is our recommendation that the identity of this individual, including his natal history, as well as all major forms of primary identification including social security number, education records, licenses and travel records be formally and thoroughly investigated.
Based merely on the fact that Obama’s stated father, as shown in the image of this alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth was not an American citizen, Obama is not eligible to president of the United States. However, the NCHS coding and vital statistics reporting methods have left more than ample artifacts to formally investigate the truth about this most ambiguous shell of a man.
Perhaps it’s time for America to embrace the truth, engage the consequences of this deception and lies and, then…move on.
DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: Historical evidence provided by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Reference Library System now confirms the information appearing within the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” disregards his actual foreign birthplace while, instead, providing a statistically based “geographic allocation” which is a result of a widely misunderstood natality data reporting policy which began in 1950.
Stalling for four years since Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007, under mounting political pressures and legal challenges, the White House unveiled a lone scrap of counterfeit information in the form of a desolate internet image which, after a six month criminal investigation, now confirms that Obama’s presidency is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
By Penbrook Johannson and Daniel Crosby
Of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – Barack Obama has misled millions into believing he is eligible to hold the office of the U.S. presidency by exploiting a little known secret about his Hawaiian-based natal records.
Obama’s birth certificate was issued in conjunction with a commonly used, but publicly misunderstood, vital statistics reporting anomaly used to allocate birthplace according to residency, not citizenship, by the State of Hawaii in 1961.
Following a six month investigation by an Arizona-based law enforcement agency proving that the image of Barack Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally fabricated forgery, it has now been confirmed that the information contained in the document, which claims he was born in the state of Hawaii, is nothing more than the result of a widely misunderstood statistical reporting trick.
As early as 1934, this arbitrary, but necessary method was enacted by the U.S. Census Bureau and later written into law with the passage of the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942. It was then fully adopted by all state-level vital records agencies, including those within the then territory of Hawaii, in 1950 in order to improve the collaborative accuracy of data harvested by America’s decadal census and statistics reported annually by state vital records agencies.
Though commonly practiced by vital records data collection agencies of federal and state governments as a means of defining “residency” in birth data reporting, the policy completely disqualifies birth records as the only source of information about a candidate to determine Natural-born eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
The birthplace shown on a birth certificate is entered as the result of the mother’s place of residence, not the location of the occurrence of the birth.
The truth about this information is so damning to Obama’s fraudulent assertions of presidential eligibility, counterfeiters and leftist propagandists operating on behalf the liberal establishment chose to digitally fabricate, conceal and misrepresent these critical facts prior to submitting public information about Obama’s natal history.
CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MISALLOCATION OF BIRTHPLACE
As discussed previously in parts one and two of this report, the combination of Hawaii’s unique culture, isolated geographic characteristics, unfettered immigration policy and municipal development challenges in the 1960s prompted the use of vital records registration protocols by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health which undermine the reliability of birth certificate information as a means of determining the natural-born citizenship of any individual.
However, it is now clear that Obama exploited the existence of a widely misunderstood natal data reporting method implemented by the federal government, 11 years before his birth certificate was issued, based on an arbitrary statistical application which classifies the actual place of birth by allocating it as occurring in the same location as the mother’s “place of residence”. This allocation is made regardless of the actual location of the birth because the data provided about the birth to the Census Bureau is used for calculating the impact of natality on resident population and, therefore, must be recorded by the registrar using the same criteria used to count those defined as residents by the Census.
The VSUS Report states: “The compilation of natality and mortality data on the same geographic basis as the population census requires a complete reallocation of births and deaths to the place of residence. When this reallocation has been made, it is then possible to compute resident rates.”
The allocation of births to “place of residence” protocol was implemented sporadically beginning in 1934 to provide for statistical integrity between decadal Census data collection and more frequently collected natality rates taken from real-time birth registrations. Prior to the implementation of the policy, the accumulative affect of non-resident and foreign birth statistics on U.S. birth volumes caused a skewing of natality rates when compared to Census population rate data. These errors had to be corrected in order to use the data for accurately measuring resources in developing public health services, municipal infrastructure and women’s reproductive health research.
After implementing the birthplace allocation rule, between 1937 and 1949, the NCHS published the annual version of its statistical reporting manuals containing a section called “Vital Statistics of the U.S., Part II Geographic Classification By Place of Residence” which explains, among many other arbitrary rules, the reasoning and methods used to show natal statistics for foreign-born children of U.S. resident mothers.
The manuals repetitively explain that the tabulation of vital statistics taken from birth certificates, on a “place-of-residence” basis, requires that the information given on the certificate must be allowed “to be interpreted in such a way” as to afford statistical classifications of birth geography used to calculate natality rates which are comparable with statistical classifications of population geography used to account census data.
This means the Hawaiian registrar was/is directed to record the place of birth as being the same as the mother’s place of residence, regardless of where it actually occurred. This explains why Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” states that his birthplace was in Hawaii even though he was not likely born there. His birth affected the population of the community where his mother lived, not where she gave birth to him.
Entries to Obama’s alleged 1961 birth certificate show his mother’s place of residence
Since the Bureau of Census held authority over both the implementation of the census and the standards for collecting and reporting vital records until the 1960s, this policy was implemented using the census’ population enumeration protocols as the standard by which all vital statistics data was to be collected and processed.
This is logical since the collection of census data on a decadal frequency is what drives long-term public health services and municipal funding in the U.S. Of course, therefore, population is directly affected by statistics taken from vital records documenting birth data, as well as mortality data.
The NCHS assumed authority over vital statistics management under the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education when the National Vital Statistics Division and the Office of Public Health Survey were combined in 1960.
The Origins of Birthplace Allocation By “Place of Residence”
The Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) and Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report state:
Historical information referencing “resort states” provides a weighty indictment against Obama’s claim to Hawaiian birth origins. The resort states in the U.S. in 1961 were Florida, Nevada (Las Vegas) and Hawaii. An analysis of the changes in population outside of urban areas of these states confirms this report’s accurate assessment. Hawaii’s population outside of Honolulu increased by 97% between 1950 and 1960.
This rate is the highest behind Florida’s, during this same time, whose population rate outside of Miami increased by 161% due to a flood of Cuban aliens fleeing Castro’s communist regime, and Las Vegas’ population which exploded between 1950 and 1960 as a result of that state’s legalization of gambling, prostitution and the development of Las Vegas’ Sunset Strip casinos.
Beginning in 1950, all natality data was exclusively reported based on “place of residence” of the mother. The manual for that year states:
“…births and deaths were assigned to the actual place of residence, no matter where they occurred.”
This scientifically induced indemnity is a logical, but arbitrary, manifestation of statistical standardization meant to preserve the referential integrity between data taken from natal records and their relationship with decadal census population data.
Whereas a population exists continuously and is attributable to a specific geographic location, a birth must, therefore, also be attributable to that same specific location if it is to be considered a valid impact on that population. However, the incongruence between the two data sources is that a birth is a momentary event which has the potential to occur anywhere. This fact affects the constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, whereas a birth’s impact on resident population is a continuously occurring entity defined under the Census Bureau’s treatment of residency, not citizenship.
This statistical methodology disqualifies birth certificates from serving as a source of personal information for determining eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency because it fails to accurately define the citizenship status of the subjects therein. Therefore, Obama’s birth certificate, regardless of its authenticity cannot be used as the primary source of information to qualify his candidacy. The reasons for this are circumspect and inescapable. To violate them brings devastating consequences to those who remain ignorant of their altruistic purpose and enduring implications.
Based on the continued development of criteria between 1935 and 1961, the alleged year of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, the definition of residency in relation to birth statistics collection was refined to provide more accuracy in natality rates so as to demonstrate the impact of births on resident population, therefore, providing better Census and Vital Record data collaboration, without regard for the actual location of the occurrence of the birth.
These revisions included the standardization of the template form of the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”, in coordination with the Public Health Conference on Vital Records and Statistics in 1956, which would clearly provide referential uniformity for NCHS coding efforts when classifying geography of vital records origination. The revisions allowed coding and data collection from the “Location of Birth” and “Usual Residence of Mother” entry boxes from all certificates in the same manner, not just for those recording births occurring in the U.S., but also for births occurring to U.S. residents, anywhere.
The standard certificate used for births occurring in the U.S. must also be used for births occurring outside of the U.S. to resident mothers, but both circumstances had to provide the same formatting of information for data classification. Therefore, the location of the birth must state that the birth occurred in the U.S. in order for data from the certificate to be reported as a birth which impacts U.S. and state population figures. Simply stated, there is not a separate certificate for births occurring in the U.S. and births occurring outside of the U.S. to residents of the U.S., but both circumstances are recorded as births which, obviously, impact the population and municipal services of the U.S.
The problem with this misrepresentation of information is that the NCHS only defines a “resident” of the U.S., not a “citizen” of the U.S. The difference is obvious. Essentially, Obama has exploited this NCHS statistical protocols used to report natal statistics in order to declare himself a natural-born citizen by proxy of his mother’s U.S. residency, without being forced to be accountable for his own Constitutionally disqualified “citizenship” status as president.
Since births are recorded in real time while populations are measured every ten years, the VSIM manual actually acknowledges that the necessity for such interpretation “introduces arbitrary and controversial factors into the procedure of allocation” by each state.
As we now know, the factors applied by the State of Hawaii in granting Obama’s native birth registration has been nothing but arbitrary and controversial.
THE END OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY…BEFORE IT EVEN BEGAN
According to Barack Obama, a natural-born citizen is an individual who is naturally born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.
Stunningly, Obama, himself, confirmed this definition of a Natural-born citizen in 2008 when he sponsored and voted for passage of Senate Resolution 511 which explicitly states that a candidate for U.S. President is a Natural-born citizen definitively and exclusively because he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. The resolution was debated and passed unanimously without inquiry approving the eligibility of Republican candidate, John McCain, during the 2008 election campaign.
McCain was born in Panama in 1936, while regionally under the jurisdiction of the United States following the construction of the Panama Canal, to two U.S. citizen parents who were living there while his father was serving in the U.S. military.
While media abettors like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to report on Obama’s blatant hypocrisy in this matter, Congress ignorantly refused to apply Senate Resolution 511 in equal and likewise measure to the candidacy of Barack Obama whose alleged father, as unequivocally displayed on his alleged birth certificate and confirmed by millions of sources for decades, was never a citizen of the United States.
This fact, alone, bolstered by Obama’s fraudulent natal record and his acceptance of Senate Resolution 511, serves as the only necessary fact needed to convict Obama as an illegitimate president under the U.S. Constitution. By his own validation of a definition of Natural born citizenship under which he fails to qualify himself, without the provision of an amended constitutional law in his favor, Barack Obama is declared illegitimate by his own hand.
Also, in July of 2009, the Director of the State Health Department in Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino, made an assertion, violating her authority and jurisdiction, that Barack Obama was a “natural born citizen.”
In light of the evidence discovered for this report, Fukino violated her jurisdiction because she had only the authority to determine Hawaiian “residency” status, not American “citizenship” status in the reporting of vital records.
With regard to Obama’s birthplace, the only documented reference appears on a digitally fabricated image, proven to be a forgery, posted to the internet and ignorantly endorsed and accepted without inquiry by many. However, we now know that Obama’s actual birthplace information was recorded in four separate sources, not just a birth certificate, by four different agencies in 1961.
His birthplace was recorded by the foreign health agency with jurisdiction over the facility where he emerged from his mother’s womb. It was then recorded by the local registrar’s office upon registration in Hawaii before being reallocated to his mother’s place of residence. It was then recorded by the State of Hawaii’s main office prior to being tabulated and coded for reporting to the NCHS. And, it was transcribed for record exchange with the foreign health agency and recorded by the National Center for Health Statistics for storage to data file tape currently residing at the National Archives and Records Administration, from which Obama restricted its release with Executive Order 13489.
Directives published in federal guidelines provided to Fukino by the National Center for Health Statistics now confirm that she was not only factually incorrect while infringing upon the federal jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service by attempting to declare Obama’s citizenship status, she intentionally lied about it to avert inquiry about the methods used by the State of Hawaii to explicitly issue and process birth records to children born to U.S. residents while outside of the United States.
Having full knowledge of the policy which directed the registrar in 1961 to allocate Obama’s birthplace to his mother’s place of residence, having seen Obama’s “original vital records”, knowing Obama’s actual place of birth was outside of the United States, Fukino intentionally misled the American people in a formal press release by stating that Obama was a Natural-born citizen when she knew he was not.
We now know the information on Obama alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is fraudulent. However, even if it was not counterfeited, it is still not reliable in providing conclusive indication of the actual place of occurrence of birth because of Hawaii’s birthplace by residence allocation policy.
THE END OF THE ROAD: FOREIGN BIRTH TRANSCRIPT EXCHANGE AND DATA TAPE FILE RECORD
The instructions for allocating births to “place of residence” were published in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part 1: “Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars of Births, Deaths and Stillbirths Occurring During 1961.” An internal office copy of this document resides in the NCHS main office in Hyattsville, Maryland, and was made available for in-house review for this report, but was not provided for public disbursement. However, it was provided to all state Health agencies by the vital records coding regulatory office of the National Center for Health Statistics Office of Vital Statistics in 1961.
The report states:
“Allocation of births to place of residence. The allocation of live births to “place of residence” is made according to the same general principles as the allocation of other vital events in the U.S. In the case of births, the usual residence of the mother is considered to be the place of residence of the child, and the allocation of the birth to the mother’s place of residence is not affected by the mother’s length of stay in the location in which the birth occurs. For the purpose of coding natality transcripts, these rules have been expanded in definite coding instructions which state the procedure followed in each case.”
According to the procedures for birth allocation to “place of residence” the NCHS stipulates criteria which aligns with allocation for deaths. They include:
1. Natality data should be compiled so as to correspond with enumerated populations (Census data) on which rates are based. Each birth should be assigned to the area which was the “usual place of residence” of the mother.
2. Mothers who, at the time of the birth, had been living more than one year in a community are considered residents of that community even though some other place may be stated on the certificate.
3. Mothers of births which occurred in nonresident institutions such as hospitals, T.B. sanatoriums, convalescent homes, jails, etc., are reallocated to the usual place of residence if they were confined in the institution for less than one year.
4. Mothers in resident institutions, where length of stay is usually extended, such as mental institutions, orphanages, retirement homes, homes for the blind, disabled and deaf, etc. are reallocated to their prior place of residence.
5. Births to mothers whose usual place of residence is a foreign country or a United States possession outside of the United States are not reallocated to the usual place of residence.
6. Infants born at locations other than the place of residence of the mother are reallocated to the place of residence of the mother.
Essentially, this protocol instructed the Hawaiian Registrars Office to oversee the content of Obama’s birth certificate in such a way that his natal statistics would be tabulated as a result of an allocation of his birth to Ann Dunham’s “place of residence” in the U.S., regardless of the actual location of the occurrence of the birth. Simply, in the interest of data uniformity between the census bureau and the NCHS, Obama’s birth certificate was required to show his birth place as being the same as the mother’s residence because his birth impacted the population and municipal services of Hawaii, not those of the foreign government and population where his birth actually occurred.
The allocation of Obama’s birth to “place of residence” in 1961 was deeply subjected to the Hawaiian municipal agency’s need for conveying natal statistics and census data which would demonstrate the most need for funding and resources needed to expand its public health services, meet infrastructure demands of the population and provide natal-health care for future birth rates. The only way provided by the federal government to do this was by allocation to place of residence using the standard birth report form known as a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”.
Foreign Birth Transcript Exchange
Beginning in 1937, four years after the establishment of the standard U.S. vital statistics registration area, the Vital Statistics of the United States Report published the first natal statistics which included transcripts exchanged between foreign-based vital records offices and domestic Vital Records offices in the U.S.
One such table of this data can be seen in the Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in 1946 which shows there were 50,276 “Resident Transcripts” added to the natal statistics data in the U.S. while 50,659 non-resident transcripts were subtracted. These transcripts were those natal statistics from births which occurred outside of the United States, but which were reported (on the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”), filed and allocated to a place of residence in the U.S. The table explicitly cites under footnote 1 that these transcripts include “allocations of births which occurred outside of the continental United States.”
The 1977 version of the Model State Vital Statistics Act states, “If it is to be respected, the appropriate procedures for recording birth and death information for United States citizens born or dying in foreign countries and certification of birth information for aliens adopted by United States citizens must continue to be the responsibility of those Federal Agencies which retain jurisdiction over recording these events.”
In the earliest available Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, the National Vital Statistics Office provides the most damning historical indictments against the use of vital records for anything other than providing statistical indicators for determining public health service implementation. Throughout the entire history of vital records collection and reporting, there is absolutely no historical documentation in any NCHS or Vital Statistics office publication since 1900 which promotes the use of vital records for determining the eligibility of politicians to serve in American government, especially for the Presidency. The reasons are unequivocally defined.
Recall, the primary purpose of vital records is not to provide an accurate location of the occurrence of a vital event as much as it is supposed to allow an interpretation of data which reflects the vital event’s impact on the municipal and public health services of the attributed geographic population. Therefore, the federal government created data exchanges between foreign and domestic vital records offices which were intended to balance the impact of foreign vital event data on domestic Census population data. The answer to this need for statistical balance was to allocate foreign birth occurrence to the mother’s place of U.S. residence.
Obama’s Natal Data Tape File
Therefore, in the alleged year of Obama’s birth, as in years prior and since, Hawaii’s 1961 natality data was compiled on the same basis as population data from the 1960 census, with regard to geographic consistency. This required that foreign births be allocated in such a way that they would be accounted accurately based on their impact on Hawaii’s population rates. Logically, otherwise, if foreign births to Hawaiian residents were not accounted, they would not be included in the natality data and therefore, would cause a skewed result when compared with Census population data.
In order to align the two data sets in the state, the Hawaiian Health Department was queued by the federal government, along with the other states, to implement rules which allowed a reallocation of foreign births as occurring in the same location as the mother’s place of residence. That way, when natality data, mortality data and census data were compared, the result was an accurate representation of the impact of vital events on Hawaii’s population, and the population of the U.S. as a whole.
The Vital Statistics Instruction Manual provides a concise description of methodology used to transcribe data from birth certificates. The data was entered manually on to punch cards which were fed into a computer. The resulting data was stored on data tape files in the form of data strings containing the codes which refer to the characteristics, demography, time, date, location and metrics of the birth.
The State of Hawaii and the NCHS maintains these data tape file records in their respective archive facilities. These records, as so mentioned in the Instruction manual, have always been available to the public for research purposes. Since Obama’s birth certificate was coded for tabulation processing, his data tape file would appear in the following format containing the data which we already know as follows:
The “X”s represent data codes which have never been disclosed to the public and are related to medical information and data input by the State of Hawaii for internal uses only. However, the first 40 digits of this string are those required to determine if Obama’s birth records are legitimate.
They contain the year, the certificate number, his gender, the actual location of the birth, the age of his mother, the age of his father and biographical and professional information of all those bearing witness to the birth.
If any part of the data string does not match the data shown on the certificate, it can be concluded that his certificate fails to support his claim to natural born citizenship thereby forfeiting his eligibility as president.
CONCLUSION: OBAMA’S BIRTHPLACE BY PROXY
The standard of eligibility for any candidate aspiring for the U.S. president was declared in the Constitution 250 years before Obama was fraudulently elected. In 1961, Hawaii’s birth reporting methods and residency definitions fell short of that standard because they do not clarify natural-born citizenship status, they merely allocated native birth status based on residency.
As stated by the National Center for Health Statistics, the purpose of a vital record is to establish the referential integrity between decadal Census population data and the occurrence of vital events for the effective implementation of public health resources. It is not meant to establish evidentiary consistency in determining eligibility for political office.
The “Current Population Report” Series 98, 223 and 229 published by the Bureau of Census, which were available in 1961, indicate that the population data of the state of Hawaii was enumerated on April 1st of 1961 following the 1960 Census. This means that, based on commonly accepted accounts, Ann Dunham was counted in this census data having moved to the islands with her parents after graduation from high school, in the summer of 1960.
The United States conducts a Census once every ten years. However, vital statistics (births, deaths, abortions, marriages and divorces) are collected annually. Over the course of ten years between Census data collection, many factors impact the consistency of data because of variability in the circumstances related to vital events.
The ability for people to travel outside of their areas of residence must be considered when calculating the impact of the vital events on the population where those people live. Not everyone is born in the same place where the parents claim residence and not everyone dies in the same place where they claim residence. However, those events impact the population of the community where they reside if they did not permanently move prior to those vital events.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) explicitly states that “vital statistics take on their full value only when they are related to population figures by the computation of birth and death rates.”
This means that birth statistics are only valuable if they are relatable to the decadal Census data recorded before them and population estimates occurring simultaneously.
With regard to the birth of Barack Obama, this means that his natal statistics are valuable only when they are related to the population of Hawaii because that geographic population is impacted by the computation of his birth, as a part of the rates affecting those who are considered the constituency of Hawaiian population.
The 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Volume 1: Natality states, “The principal value of vital statistics data is obtained through the presentation of such data, which are computed by relating the vital events of a class (Hawaiian geography) to population of a similarly defined class (Hawaiian residents). Vital statistics and population statistics must, therefore, be classified according to similarly defined systems and tabulated in comparable groups.”
Logically, births and deaths effect population. Therefore, the NCHS employs methods for accounting natal statistics in the U.S. which serve the interests of public health services and municipal agencies which operate on resources provided directly as result of census and vital statistics data. This situation was especially attributable to the new state of Hawaii’s government, just after the 1960 Census in which it was included for the first time.
The 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction manual states: “For State totals, only those persons who cross State lines need be considered in a reallocation by “place of residence”, since any movement within the State is irrelevant.”
In conclusion, with regard to the birth of Barack Obama, the principal value of his individual natal data is obtained by presenting that data in relationship to the community and geography of which he becomes a member as a result of his birth, not migration. It is meaningless for a community to present foreign births on a birth certificate in a manner which prevents the impact of that birth data from being considered in the resident population of the community which is affects.
The allocation of birth place to “place of residence” is a highly significant declaration in determining the manner in which Obama’s foreign birth was recorded, collected, tabulated and reported by the State of Hawaii and how that birth information led him to falsely claim that he is a natural born citizen. Combining the allocation of “place of residence” for birthplace with Hawaii’s unique geographic characteristics, along with its unique indigenous cultural history, we now understand how the State of Hawaii Department of Health issued a birth certificate for Obama’s foreign birth which shows Hawaii as the place of birth by proxy.
Responding to a viewer question about why he’s been silent on a just-completed six-month law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility, top Fox News anchorman Bill O’Reilly replied on video, saying: 1) there’s no hard evidence Obama isn’t eligible; 2) Hawaii newspaper ads proved Obama was born there; and 3) he’s just too busy to look into it anyway.
WND Article at following Link; http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/oreilly-im-too-busy-to-report-on-obama-eligibility/