From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Did Hawaii "Cover-Up" Obama's Natal History?

by Penbrook Johannson

It would be ridiculous to think that a federal policy governing the method of vital statistics reporting in 1961 could actually support a foreign-born citizen in becoming President today, right?

That's crazy. Right?

Well, actually...

We discovered, in the 1961 report on Vital Statistics of the U.S. - Volume 1: Natality, another possible catalyst enabling the state of Hawaii to help Obama circumvent the federal mandate that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen who must actually be born under the geographic protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Our research group sought documented evidence published at the time of Obama's birth supporting the suspected covert protocol used by the Hawaiian Department of Health, under the authority of director, Dr. Chiyome Lei'naala Fukino, which synthetically permitted the omission of Obama's place of birth when they allegedly published his Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" in 2007.

The vast majority of Americans do not realize that the standard, federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth", not the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is the only form of natal documentation qualified to validate the natural-born citizenship of the bearer. This is undeniable for the following reasons:

Only the standard, federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" contains the essential data confirming the natural-born status of civilian, vintage Americans. Throughout the entire century of its preeminence, it has always contained the birth place of the parents and the birth place of the bearer along with the name of the facility of birth, the name of the registrar at the time of birth, the name of the director of the state Health department at the time of birth and, most importantly, it contains the identity and signature of the licensed professional qualified to attend, review and provide a medical verification of the characteristics of a "live birth" event, (The latter of these requirements were established during the early 1900's when fetal death would often occur during birth, or shortly thereafter, and require confirmation and recording of a "live birth" before the completion of a "Fetal Death Certificate", which is treated differently than a normal "Death Certificate" in which the vital event (death) is not always witnessed by a licensed professional). Without these components, along with the complete identity, information and metrics of the birth, no alternative form of birth documentation, including the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", is qualified to verify the natural born status of the bearer.

The standard, federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" is the longest standing form of birth documentation in American history. It first appeared after the establishment of the official birth data regions created for vital statistics study by the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education in 1915. Its template form and publication, as a prescribed document, was coordinated closely with the members of National Conference on Records and Statistics, the National Labor Foundation, the Census Bureau and the directors of health offices in each state. Its content was designed to record, retain and facilitate the use of birth data and statistics by the National Vital Statistics Division. The lack of attributable content found within the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is the primary disqualification for its authority as a formal validation of natural born status for a Presidential candidate. The 1961 NVSD Report on Vital Statistics states the following about the standard, federal NVSD Certificate of Live Birth:

"The Standard Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event..."

Pay attention to the words "attaining uniformity". Ironically, it is those who seek uniformity in the evidence of Obama's natal identity who are accused by liberals of seeking to ostracize Obama as some foreign infiltrator, yet it is Obama, himself, who has chosen to take the malevolent course of denying transparency and honest appraisal of his actual identity through the submission of traditional "uniform" documentation. Because of this, liberals and their deranged, irrational worship of Obama have irreparably damaged his reputation and legacy, forever. Barack Obama will go down in American history as little more than a diminished shadow of his 43 predecessors whose covert void of their authentic Constitutional qualifications forced a pathetic improvisation requiring the fawning assistance of a deranged, bowing liberal concensus, supported by the propaganda of an oligarchical, criminal liberal media.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

“In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline…”

While the election of Obama is said to have embodied a milestone for cultural diversity, it struck a tragic wound upon the Constitutional sovereignty of the greatest nation in human history. Where lies the valued cause for racial integrity when the sovereign nation comprising it becomes just like every other vanquished, pluralized society in the world? What good is America to humanity if it becomes...unlawful and common.


Hawaii became a state 45 years after the authority of the federal, standard NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" had been established by longer standing municipalities in America. The state of Hawaii's decision to create an independently published document initially titled a "Certification of Hawaiian Birth" (1906 to 1972), then a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" (1972 to 2009), and now, conveniently coinciding with Obama's natal controversy, a new 2009 version of the Hawaiian document has been approved for renaming to a "Certificate of Live Birth", was made intentionally to deceive the American people.

The ever-ambiguously morphing identity of the municipal documentation process in Hawaii only exposes the rogue nature of its liberal governing culture. The Hawaiian Health Department, and the state's legislature, has not only attempted to deceive vintage America about the identity of Barack Obama, it has done it with an invalid documentation process which they have intentionally cloned after the federal version not to disclose personal identity, but to conceal it. The State of Hawaii thinks that by placing the words "Certificate of Live Birth" on the header of its municipal birth document, it will miraculously endow it , and those who bear it, with natural-born American though their independently published document was just like the vintage, historical version.

Tragically, however, the content of the new 2009 "Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth" remains just as deficient in its capacity to confirm and verify the natural-born status as the 2008 Presidential candidate it was contrived for.

We already know that Obama's Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is not a valid birth record according to the federal National Vital Statistics Division on the grounds that it is not signed by a licensed physician, attendant or hospital authority who witnessed the birth and consulted with the parents, as required, prescribed in the report, (See excerpt from page 5 of the 1961 Report, shown above). However, the documentation process used in the remote island chain currently violates the doctrines of national security and Constitutional sovereignty which were blood-ransomed by our founders. This is the greatest travesty of the such roguish municipal audacity.

The federal guidelines have left loopholes, as well. With regard for the consideration of place of birth in the birth documentation process, the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Vol. 1: Natality report actually states:

"Place of residence in birth statistics refers to the geographic area which constituted the mother's usual residence at the time of the birth...all (birth) events occurring within the United States, that is, the 50 States and the District ofColumbia, are allocated to a place of residence within the United States. For nonresident aliens, the place of residence is considered to be the same as the place of occurrence..." page 5-5, 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. - Volume 1, Natality.

Yes, you read that correctly. "...the place of residence is considered to be the SAME as the place of occurrence...", regardless of the actual place of the occurrence of the birth.

How might this have benefitted Obama?

First, it means that municipal and judicial personnel are able to claim that Obama's records show that he was born in the state of Hawaii even though he might have actually been born outside of the geographic jurisdictions of the United States. We have already heard Fukino do just this without ever specifically identifying the content or title of the documentation of Obama's natal information filed with the Hawaiian Health Department. Fukino has merely referred to it as an official, original birth document.

The State of Hawaii is able to support this inaccuracy about Obama's birth because Obama's father was a non-resident alien residing in Hawaii within one year before Obama's birth which qualified any location of the birth to be the same as his claimed place of residence in Hawaii if Obama applied for a copy of his birth certificate under HRS 338-5, 338-17.8 and 338-18. Obama Sr. could have taken a pregnant Ann Dunham abroad where she gave birth, then upon returning to Hawaii stated his claimed residence there when the birth was registered.

Or, even more likely, when Obama applied for a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" in 2007, he could have simply provided evidence of both his mother's and father's residence in Hawaii to Fukino who, under Administrative Rule 91 had that location simply printed on the Hawaiian document with no questions asked under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 which states:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.

The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The tragic failure by our federal government in allowing Obama's fraudulence is compounded by the fact that this Hawaiian law essentially circumvents the Constitution by empowering a mere municipal level employee, way out in the Pacific ocean, to become the federal vetting agent enabling any Presidential candidate seeking natal identification as a federally qualified, U.S. natural-born citizen. Without verifiable Constitional standards, the state of Hawaii could essentially empower anyone, from anywhere, with any intention, to be included as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. The level of audacity and potential for corruption by this pitfall law is unlike any found in American history in its ability to impact the entire nation through the falsification of federal eligibility to be President.

Finally, when the report says "...allocated to a place of residence within the United States," the State of Hawaii applies HRS 338-17.8 and Administrative Rule 91 to allow Obama to actually declare Hawaii as his mother's place of residence because the birth occurred within a year of her last proclaimed address there, regardless of where on earth the birth actually occurred. Evidence in the Vital Statistics of the United States Vol. 1 - Natality, 1961 report indicates that the mothers usual place of residence is allocated as the location of birth.

Essentially, as far as the Hawaiian Health Department is concerned, Obama could have been born anywhere and still received a natural-born registration as long as he or his mother or father, any one of them, were able to claim Hawaii as their place of residence under HRS 338-17.8 and the birth registered and reported under the protocols of vital statistics reporting prescribed to the Hawaiian Health Department by the NVSD.

From the moment Obama's birth was registered in the state of Hawaii and anytime thereafter, the state of Hawaii officially recognizes and reports the birth as having occurred in Hawaii. Obama's legal handlers from the Perkins Coie Law Firm began working the problem of Obama's natal history and contriving covert steps toward a solution as early as November 2006 before Obama announced his candidacy in February, 2007. Once they decided that the legal terminology was "ambiguous enough" to protect them from the actual facts of Obama's ambiguous natal history, the "network of deniability" was formed between the Obama administration, the state of Hawaii, the newspapers and the anyone with knowledge of Obama's true identity, still living...or allowed to be alive. As of May, 2010, Obama has spent nearly $2 million dollars in legal fees paid to the Chicago law firm to fight law suits filed by plaintiffs simply asking him to provide this most common form of birth documentation, which all other Americans have.

Thus, the state of Hawaii gives itself permission to recognize Obama as a natural-born citizen by its own autonomous definition despite the fact that its administrative declaration is in complete contradiction to federal Constitutional law which draws discernment as follows:

"The difference between the synthetic endowment of natural-born status provided by the state of Hawaii as opposed to the federal Constitutional requirement is that the federal mandate requires the
candidate to actually be born under medical verification and federal legal jurisdictions. The birth of a natural born civilian must be documented with a standard NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" and it must be signed by a licensed professional qualified to witness and attest to the legal and medical characteristics of a "live birth" at the moment of the birth, within the geographic region affording U.S. Constitutional protection for the witnesses and the child."

America's founders insisted that a Presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen because only a natural-born citizen and those witnessing and attending the birth of a natural-born citizen are guaranteed protection under the U.S. Constitution. The founders undertood that any other form of natal citizenship could possibly leave those involved vulnerable to foreign laws and foreign political influences which, in turn, would compromise the sovereignty of the American government and the people it serves. The intelligence of this mandate is as providential as it is unique in human history. The founders understood with divine clarity that the failure of any government begins with the natal plurality of those who serve within it. They had seen this first hand throughout generations of tyranny under a monarchy. Without sovereignty of leadership, a nation will divide. Would anyone argue against this in an America with Obama as president, today?

In the case of Obama's Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", it would appear the actual location of birth was omitted and replaced with the location of his mother's claimed residence when the birth was registered, which is actually a legalized method of birth registration in the state of Hawaii under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8.


Additionally, the ongoing argument Obama apologists attempt to promote as evidence of Obama's geographic birth location in Hawaii is that two newspapers published his birth announcements eight days after his birth. They ignorantly propose that challenges against Obama's legitimacy by so-called "birthers" are ridiculous because birthers believe the announcements were "planted" in the newspapers by some epic, 47 year-long conspiracy in order to promote Obama's eligibility for President some day.

The bad news for Obama supporters is that the newspaper announcements were not the result of any conspiracy, nor were they the result of information provided about the actual place of birth. Evidence reveals that the announcements were simply the result of "birth lists" created from methods of vital statistics reporting allowing the publishing of the address of the parent's residence, not the location of the birth, or the location of the birth registration. A simple analysis of the thousands of birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 clearly shows that they do not include the location of the birth. Therefore, in the context of what we know about HRS 338-17.8 and the "claimed residence" allowances prescribed by the 1961 NVSD Report, it becomes apparent that actual place of birth and location of residence are completely separate facts, yet they are both allocated, by proxy, as the same location, by Health Department protocols. According to the state of Hawaii, the mother's, or father's claimed residence in the United States at the time of the birth serves as the location of the birth.

The Vital Statistics of the U.S. Vol. 1 - Natality, 1961 Report states that birth registration records are numbered based on the order of their reception from local offices whose numeric order is initially assigned by geographic occurrence of the birth. The report then states that data is published from even-numbered records only based on a 50% sampling method.

Obama's birth registration number has been revealed as an odd number, 151-1961-010641, which means that his unique birth data would not have been included as part of the NVSD 1961 report, if this was indeed his original number. As we have been told by cronies, Obama was a biracial child born to a teen, caucasian mother and a non-resident, black "African" father in the first week of the month of August, in an urban Hawaiian hospital. His natal demographics are rare, if not exclusive, and would have been easy to recognize among the other births registered in August of 1961. In fact, the NVSD Report shows there were only 116 "Negro" male babies born in Hawaii in 1961.

Obama has claimed to be born in the same Honolulu hospital before two other children, the Nordykes, whose birth registration numbers are 61-10637 and 61-10638. Based on this information, it seems reasonable to conclude that Obama's registration number should have been 010636, an even number, or lower, if he was indeed born in the same hospital, as he claims to have been, only hours before. The fact that his registration number deviates from the normal succession means that the registration of Obama's birth occurred under different geographic circumstances, according to the NVSD report, and was recorded later than his birth-mates based on the order the registration was received by the main offices of the Department of Health in Honolulu. The essential question from this evidence is, where was Obama's birth originally registered?

Therefore, the question arising from the excerpt above is: If Obama was born before the Nordykes, in the same geographic location as the Nordykes, then why is his birth registration number out of order?

Since the National Vital Statistics Division allows for the "claimed residence" of the mother and/or the "claimed residence" of Obama's non-resident alien father to be allocated as the same location as the occurrence of the birth, as shown above, the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics legally documents the birth as occurring in the state of Hawaii. In making artificial declarations, the state of Hawaii publishes a standard, original birth record which endows Obama with a fostered, but legal, native Hawaiian birth, "...according to policies and procedures of the Department of Health," as we have witnessed the personnel of the Hawaiian Health Department and the July, 2009 press release from Chiyome Fukino testify.

The personnel of the Hawaiian Health Department are then able to "hide" their "knock-off" birth documentation under the protection of HRS 338-18 which provides a legal shelter against third-party, public requests for Obama's documents under the guise of preventing identity theft. Nice and tidy. The covert jobs of municipal employees have been made easy in Hawaii.

Upon receiving a Hawaiian birth registration, the Hawaiian Health Department then simply passes the information in the form of its "birth list" to local newspapers created from the geographically-based list, (Birth registration order is reported through the birth list not based on chronological or alphabetic occurrence and is so stated in the 1961 report. Notice the announcements are not in chronological or alphabetical order in Obama's case. This is because the U.S. Department of Health receives and publishes vital statistics data based on geographic location of registration regions, not actual location of the event. If someone can discover the location of birth registration based on the order in the announcements, it would be possible to determine if the birth was registered locally or through another office. Please see the 1961 report, Section 5).

Also, all of the announcements for ALL of the births appear in the exact same order and in the exact same context in both papers which suggests that the information used to publish the announcement did indeed come from the same source at the Department of Health who originated the birth documentation for a foreign-born Obama. Notice that all of the couples having babies in Hawaii are apparently all married and living at the same address, despite the fact the 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S. clearly states that there were more than 1040 illegitimate births in the state of Hawaii in 1961. (that's almost three per day!). More specifically, the report shows that 586 of these illegitimate births occurred in the urban classified area of Honolulu alone.

Based on this, one would expect to see at least one announcement showing a single parent or unmarried couple having a child in Hawaii during the entire week of announcements covered in the August 13th-14th issues of the newspapers containing Obama's birth announcements. That is, if the newspapers actually printed vital event announcements for births, marriages, deaths and divorces based on reality, rather than spoon-fed, manufactured information from the local municipality...right?

Based on the fact that the Hawaiian Health Department fosters the location of the birth with the residence of the parents, this brings the validity of the birth announcements into question as to their proof that any birth they represent actually occurred in the United States, let alone Hawaii. If the papers fail to publish vital information about the marital status of the parents, then why is it out of the realm of possibility that they also fail to publish accurate information about the actual place of birth of the child?

Its obvious the newspapers did not verify the facts of the information they used to print announcements. If there is anything more suspicious than a birth announcement that originates from information provided by a private third party, it is a birth announcement that originates from a secretive, covert municipal agency with autonomous self-endowed power to manufacture demographics data based on internal rules rather than external reality. The Hawaiian newspaper's birth announcements were merely printed based on the information manufactured and passed along by the Hawaiian Department of Health's registrar, however, since Hawaiian law and the NVSD methods governing the way the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office reports birth data, the information contained in the regional "birth list" constrains the newspapers to print only what the Department of Health provides in the order and context it provides it. The newspapers are not at liberty to print the actual location of the birth or the actual marital status of the parents if the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office does not specify otherwise. Since the parents "claimed residence" serves as the official location of the birth, the announcements are printed showing the "local residence" claimed by the "married" parents within a year of the birth, not the actual geographic location of the birth, as permitted by Hawaii Revised Statutes and stipulated by the NVSD regional registration data reporting protocols.

Why would editors of a newspaper in Hawaii, in 1961, think it would be necessary to actually confirm the actual place of birth when the authority of the local agency shelters them from accountability? In their minds, they are simply obligated to print what the authority of the local municipality provides. Adminstrative personnel of the two newspapers have stated that this is the method used to publish birth announcements and " always has been."
Based on Hawaiian laws and rules governing the way the municipal vital statistics offices are required to submit birth data, it would therefore not be necessary for any conspiracy on the part of Obama's family to contrive his natal information, or for there to be a conspiracy involving the agencies. So, the whole "presidential posterity" argument flopped by liberals is simply intellectually dishonest and a reflection of their utter lack of education about the issue.
The municipal personnel involved simply are allowed by state level laws, though not federal laws, to omit the actual location of Obama's birth when generating vital records in the state of Hawaii. They are able to do this because they are never required by a higher authority to consider geographic birth location in the succession of documented accounts which move along the chain of possession from the originator to the Hawaiian Department of Health, from the Vital Records Office to the Registrar to the Newspapers.

Based on the documented evidence presented by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961, along with the Hawaiian Department of Health and the Honolulu newspapers, we can construct a plausible succession of actions taken by municipal personnel during the natal registration and announcement publication process. These actions would have provided Obama with all of the fundamental, though ambiguous, forms of evidence he could exploit to promote his unconstitutional form of municipally-crafted eligibility.

We know Obama's parents resided in Hawaii from Summer 1960 until around February 1961, when they are allegedly married. The location of this marriage is unknown and no local announcements or U.S. marriage license or registration have been found

At some point between February and August of 1961, Obama's pregnant mother may have traveled somewhere outside of the U.S., possibly for reasons related to her marriage and/or the family of Obama Sr. Substantial evidence shows that Ann Dunham was unnaccounted for in the state of Hawaii during this time.

In early August, 1961, Barack Obama was born somewhere outside of the jurisdiction of the United States or in a location which might be otherwise ambiguously defined (I.E. in international waters, territory of Zanzibar, etc.). Within a week after his birth, his 18 year-old mother excitedly returns to her parent's residence in Hawaii with her newborn son and, seeking to afford her newborn with the benefits of American citizenship and/or socioeconomic assistance and/or simply a closer proximity to the support of her parents, she registers Obama's birth locally, (perhaps during a pediatric visit, she mentions Obama was born abroad and she is casually advised to register his birth locally) through the hospital or at the state offices of Hawaii.

The Hawaiian Health Department registers the birth at the request of Ann Dunham. Since she previously resided in Hawaii, the Hawaiian Health Department is obligated by law to allow Ann Dunham to register Obama as "native-born" and thereby, receive a local birth registration.

Essentially, local municipal law, in coordination with NVSD birth registration reporting methods, allows the state of Hawaii to actually disregard the geographic location of births in its "official" birth records and its "birth list" provided that the registrant or applicant meets the special requirements prescribed by Hawaiian state law allowing the use of these "covert" procedures. Once the information has reached the local newspapers it has already been processed and manipulated through the municipal entity based on procedures which allow the internal personnel to convey unfactual, synthetic information based on statistical reporting protocols and state-level legalisms.

According to the State of Hawaii, Obama was born there since the law says the state of Hawaii can provide native birth status based on the fact that his parents lived there within one year of his birth and then registered his birth there within the required 30 days as stipulated by HRS 338. Therefore, the state of Hawaii used its own Health agency, legal structure and selected prose from the 1961 National Vital Statistic Division report on Vital Statistics of the U.S. to declare Barack Obama as a natural born citizen.

So, the question now becomes, does the state of Hawaii and its director of Health have the "juice" to circumvent federal, constitutional mandates requiring a presidential candidate, (vying for federal office...not state or local office, mind you), to be an actual natural born citizen rather than a municipally crafted, synthetic one? The municipal policy makers within the state of Hawaii are now and always have been completely ignorant and unaware of any conflict their decisions have created with regard to the Constitutional eligibility of a Presidential candidate. Fortunately, they probably aren't intellectually adept enough to contrive such a scenerio, anyway. Therefore, the only conspirator involved is Obama himself and those possessing knowledge about his actual covert natal history.

However, the absence of documentation of Obama's actual natal information makes people rightly doubt his Constitutional eligibility. Based on the information we've discovered its hard to blame them.

In Hawaii, surrogate documentation policy for recording births was enacted as early as 1902 under the "Certification of Hawaiian Birth Program" which enabled expatriated foreigners to receive synthetic native sanctuary from political persecution during China's communist revolution as well as other international conflicts. This policy was also readily accommodating for immigrants because the U.S. did not account birth data from 1900 to 1914.

The problem this scenerio poses today is that it serves as an administrative vulnerability rooted in local municipal deficiencies which allow for the possible federal election of an individual who might possess plural international interests or, worse, outright foul intentions toward the sovereignty of America and its Constitution. Oh...wait...but, we don't have to tell you that about Obama, do we?
It appears crazy is the new sane.

1 comment:

  1. You cite the following quote in your article with no reference made as to who or what you are quoting. Please remedy that, thank you:

    "The difference between the synthetic endowment of natural-born status provided by the state of Hawaii as opposed to the federal Constitutional requirement is that the federal mandate requires the
    candidate to actually be born under medical verification and federal legal jurisdictions. The birth of a natural born civilian must be documented with a standard NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" and it must be signed by a licensed professional qualified to witness and attest to the legal and medical characteristics of a "live birth" at the moment of the birth, within the geographic region affording U.S. Constitutional protection for the witnesses and the child."