by Penbrook Johannson
New York - No matter how regularly the liberal hackshops at CNN and MSNBC want the eligibility of Obama's presidency to squeeze out, the incontinence of their lies and ignorance just keep them running to the grammatical lavatory of illegitimacy.
It’s no wonder CNN’s and MSNBC’s ratings are tanking. Their personnel either can’t disseminate the difference between an adjective and a noun in their reporting, or they are bald-faced liars. Regardless, these networks have proven themselves to be little more than a propoganda wing of the Obama White House, under the direction of Communications minister, David Axelrod.
Aside from the fact that the words “Certification” and “Certificate” are phonetically different, both have significantly different contextual implications when applied appropriately to describe modern birth records. One is merely a municipally designated header-title of a receipt issued no where else in the world except the state of Hawaii to indicate the recording of a birth registration by the Hawaii Department of Health. The other is a federally published document rooted in more than 150 years of vital statistics reporting system development and identity authentication through the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health. The little weasel media nazis at CNN and MSNBC know this...and they use it for all its worth to control the narrative and pollute the mainstream of truth with lies and misinformation about the Obama eligibility fraud.
Maybe deranged liberals are more inclined toward verbs instead.
Over the past two weeks, we here at The Daily Pen, engaged a fun, but informative, YouTube research project in which we pulled from online videos every example we could find in which a correspondent, videographer or guest on a so-called “legitimate” news network had misidentified or outright lied about the header title of the documents in question regarding Obama’s birth records controversy. Apparently, liberals are very confused about the difference between the noun, “Certificate”, and the adjective, “Certification”.
Differentiation between the two grammatical elements is as desperately needed in the Obama Certi-Fiction saga as is disseminating the differences between a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" and the U.S. NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth".
We have to admit, the first four or five YouTubed instances of this witless mistake was not worth noting. Grace for human error was given. In the beginning, we would quietly sound off, “Found one!”
A few minutes later, another staff member would chortle, “Here's another!”
However, we reviewed more than 400 videos and found a total of 216 instances of media subversion in which Barack Obama’s Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” had been either lazily or intentionally misidentified as a “Certificate of Live Birth” by so called journalists or documentarists.
We literally turned he whole affair into a pizza party here in our New York offices as we went from ho-hum to laughing hysterically at the blatant ignorance and intentional deception.
There is a reason the leftist slew fantasizes that Obama’s Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an actual U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”. They want to endow it with synthetic authenticity. They want America to believe that Obama is an actual president with legal, constitutional authority by the fact that he has been issued a natal document with resembles one which is an authenticator.
Sorry, liberals. It isn't working. The harder you try to make vintage Americans believe Obama is legitimate with illegitimate documents and information the more you look like liars and idiots. On the other hand, the more you try to push propoganda with absurd messages intending to interupt the sturdy domain of obviousness without actually opening the records of legitimacy, the more you look like criminals and fools.
For the sake of establishing inconvenient facts, we’ll let CNN and MSNBC in on a little secret. Consulting the 1961 U.S. Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Volume 1, Natality, which would have applied during Obama’s birth, along with Hawaii’s Revised Statute 338-1 through 338-18, and Administrative Rule 91, we find the following laxatives:
A “CertifiCATION of Live Birth” is an independently published document created by the state of Hawaii, not the U.S. department of Health, as an exclusive, municipally approved, (not federally approved) summary of a birth registration, not birth confirmation. As recently as 2009, this document was not officially recognized as a primary form of identification by any state, other than Hawaii. No other state issues this form of birth registration certification.
Based on Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a “Certification of Live Birth” may be issued for alleged births of children born outside of the United States if the mother of the child claimed Hawaii as her residence within one year prior to the birth. Contrarily, a “Certificate of Live Birth” cannot be issued for a foreign birth or any birth that does not occur in the United States.
A “Certification of Live Birth” does not adequately establish “natural born” status, as is required to be President of the U.S., because it does not provide the actual location of the birth nor does it attest to a “live” birth event with an original medical doctor’s signature affixed at the time of the birth. The NVSD mandates that an authentic birth record must be signed by a consulting physician present at the birth, or in witness of an attendant’s testimony, in order to verify that the child listed on the document was born “alive” in cases when it was required to medically determine whether the child may have died right after birth, or had emerged from the womb still born. Documentation is different for these two events and is recorded differently by the U.S. Vital Statistics and Census offices, so therefore they require accountability by a medical doctor. The definition of a Live birth is described in Hawaiian revised statute 338-1.
Therefore, the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is merely only required to provide the “usual residence” of the mother at the time of birth, not the location of the birth. This administrative directive is based on vital statistics collection protocols adopted by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office in 1959 and are applied even if the birth occurs outside of the state of Hawaii or outside of the U.S. This disqualifies the Certification of Live Birth from serving as official confirmation of Natural Born status.
On the other hand, a “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” is the standard, federal form of birth documentation issued through the former National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (which became the U.S. Department of Health in 1979 while the Departments of Education and Human Services were created as independent agencies), beginning after 1915 (No formal census data was taken between 1900 and 1915 according to the NVSD Report) (See 1961 NVSD report, Section 5: Technical Appendix - 'Standard Certificate', page 232)
The “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” was officially submitted to the states’ Health Departments in 1956, three years before Hawaii became a state and five years before Obama was born, by the National Conference on Records and Statistics, for adoption as a formal, nationalized form of birth documentation. The synopsis of the 1961 Conference describes the “Certificate of Live Birth” as a document rooted in 110 years of input from state and federal officials working to refine the methods, content and accuracy of recording actual vital events in the United States.
In 1959, the state of Hawaii was already employing a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” form since 1911 in order to document multitudes of undocumented indigenous and migrant peoples.
The words ‘Certificate’, ‘Certification’ and ‘Live’ have great significance when discussing the issue of Obama’s natal documentation. In those major news network broadcasts during the past year of the Obama Birth Certi-Fiction saga, hosts, guests and pundits misspoke, mispronounced or misunderstood the difference between a noun and an adjective as they apply to Obama’s estranged birth records.
Here are but a few of our findings:
During 18 different MSNBC broadcasts covering Obama’s birth-eligibility facts in July, 2009, the host or the guest mistakenly referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a federally issued standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ more than 50 separate times.
For example, as early as November 26, 2008, Pete Williams of NBC wrote, “The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate.”
This is a lie. To date, the Obama campaign has still never released any ‘certificate’ for Obama’s birth.
In a December 4, 2008 interview with Jonathan Turley, flaming liberal nutcase, Keith Olbermann vomited all over himself in desperation to promote the Hawaiian Certification as a legitimate Certificate when he also said the state of Hawaii had legitimized the “original birth certificate”. Showing a forged image of a Certification of Live Birth, Olbama-ermann-servant went on to say that even World Net Daily said the document was a legitimate reflection of Obama’s natural born natal identity. This too was an intentional lie.
The stupidity continued. In a discussion about the subject of Obama’s birth documentation between CNN’s Lou Dobbs and guest, Guy Lambert, on July 21st, 2009, Lambert used the word “Live” (L-i-v) rather than the word “Live” (L-eye-v) when he mistakenly described Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of LIVE Birth”. Lambert is an Obama eligibility doubter, but he still did not know the difference between the NVSD Certificate and the Hawaiian Certification. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zettCjack&feature=related
In a subsequent discussion on the subject between Dobbs and Roland Martin, Dobbs referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of Live Birth”. Martin is a rabid liberal with his surrogate tongue so far into Obama’s lie, it’s amazing he can say anything, let alone the word “Certificate”…but, he did, 4 times in about 5 minutes.
In another interview between MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy, posted July 29, 2009, Liddy misidentified Obama’s document as a “Certificate of Live Birth” rather than a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. Matthews pushed the ineptitude to even lower depths by simply referring to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “Birth Certificate”.
In another Hardball interview with Representative John Campbell, posted July 21, 2009, Matthews waggled a cardstock photocopy of a redacted copy (of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy…you get the point), of an internet image of an unsigned Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ in front of the camera and lamented it as a “birth certificate”. In a somewhat less than cordial response to Campbell’s explanation of a need for legislation confirming eligibility of future candidates, Matthews displayed his multiplicated facsimile of an uncertified, unverified, unsigned, Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and told Campbell, “Let me show you his birth certificate! That is the way to deal with this. Mail this birth certificate to the wacko wing of your party so they agree with this…its over.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCmPPxca4s4
Matthews’ idiocy on this issue has been proven time and time again. He is either ignorant about the facts or an intentional liar about them.
In an October 6, 2009 interview with Larry King, Minnesota Congresswoman, Michelle Bachman said, “Obama has shown his real birth certificate. This is a non-issue.”
Bachman is mistaken, but she is not a liar. Obama has not submitted any “real birth certificate” which confirms his natural born natal identity and his legal eligibility to hold the office of the President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWV-ZWJCrY8
At the 43 second mark of his broadcast, CNN’s Rick Sanchez referred to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “birth certificate” on July 21st, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIjnF8ZR4aw
John King also referred to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “birth certificate” on July 30, 2009.
In an interview on July 26th, 2009, CNN’s Howard Kurtz misidentified the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth 3 times and allowed his guests to do it 5 times on his show, Reliable Sources.
Anderson Cooper has misidentified the “Certification of Live Birth” a whopping 9 times in 4 different reports from May 20th to July 17th, and in an interview with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who is challenging his military orders on the grounds that Obama is not a legal president, Cooper failed 3 separate times to correctly identify the Certification of Live Birth even though the Header Titled document was posted right in front of him on an 8 foot tall, high resolution screen.
In a July 25th, 2009 interview with Red Eye’s Andy Levy, David Weigel, columnist for the Washington Independent referred to Obama’s Certification as a birth certificate.
Ironically, all of this hoopla began because of allegations started by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic Primaries in 2007.
These are just a few examples. However, we found the following media “professionals” abuse the basic grammar of the English language in their ignorance about the difference between a noun and an adjective when it comes to accurately describing the Obama eligibility controversy:
Keith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Ed Shultz, John King, Roland Martin, Michael Savage, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Larry King, Peter Williams, Brian Williams, and David Weigel.
Finding ignorance among the Obama junkies at CNN and MSNBC is not surprising. But, when you combine journalistic ignorance with intentional deception, the result is an insidious propaganda complex which should be forcibly eliminated from American society, for the sake of the welfare of the nation.
After more than two hours of video review, it became apparent that CNN and MSNBC are engaged in an intentional misinformation campaign to try to convince anyone who will listen, under the noise of their laughter, that Barack Obama is an actual, real live, legitimate, authentic, eligible, president. As if misusing the noun, “Certificate” in place of a less potent, less authentic, less credible adjective, “Certification” would miraculously make everyone forget about what a fraudulent usurper Obama really is.
Our next project is to identify the number of instances these same deranged Obamanazis have constipatedly pushed and grunted liberal excrement that the Obama eligibility controversy is a matter of Obama’s American citizenship. That class will teach CNN and MSNBC the constitutional difference between generic citizenship and natural-born citizenship.
Hopefully, they will have passed Journalism Ethics 101 by then.