WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives.
(Editors note: The records alluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner site, using the search term "Obama". Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)
By Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen
(Updated 7/23/2012)
KEW, SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to look for a birth record of someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II eligibility mandate in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the founding fathers of America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from attaining the office of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the newly formed nation.
In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the part of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to a government website in April, 2011 and found it to be the product of criminal fraud and document forgery.
The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now taken investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being archived in the BNA.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent highschool graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
Based on procedures defined in Britain’s Births & Deaths Registration Act of 1953, The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office states the following:
“Registering A Birth
If your child is born outside the United Kingdom you can register the birth with the nearest consulate (Local British Foreign & Commonwealth Regional Registrar Office), or with our consular department in London if you’ve returned to the United Kingdom...
The standard of birth registration in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Africa and Overseas Territories is similar to the standard of birth registration of the UK.”
The British Registration Service Act of 1953 (UK Revised Statutes) states that the Queen appoints one Registrar General for the registration of vital records. His or her name would appear the same on all birth certificates of children born under British common law in 1961 until the end of their service. Article 1 of the Registration Service Act of 1953 states:
“1 Registrar General…Her Majesty may from time to time under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom appoint a Registrar General…and any person so appointed shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by or under any enactment on the Registrar General, whether described by that title alone or with any additional description, and shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”
The specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files:
General Register Office
SERIES RG36
Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia
|
|
Legal status: Public Record(s)
|
Language: English
|
Creator names: General Register Office, 1836-1970
|
Covering Birth Registration dates: 1895-1965
|
Physical description: 15 volume(s)
|
Access conditions: Available in microform only
|
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
|
Scope and content: Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates.
|
Publication note: Geoffrey Yeo 'The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom', London, 2nd edn, 1988.
|
Related material: Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general.
|
Place: Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 - 1963
|
|
Subjects: Birth: registration
|
Courtesy: British National Archives
Recall, on August 1, 2009, Dr. Alan Keyes, Pamela Barnett and 42 other plaintiffs filed evidence in a lawsuit challenging Obama eligibility which included a copy of an image of an alleged Kenyan Copy of Certification of Registration of Birth (CCRB). In the hours after the image appeared on the internet, MSNBC and other liberal mainstream, pro-Obama networks went ballistic attempting to debunk the idea that such a document exists.
The liberal media went out of its way to discredit the image, protesting too much, going as far as to claim that the Kenyan CCRB image was forged based on an Australian birth certificate which was miraculously discovered by an unnamed blogger for a man named Bomford.
On August 2, Keith Olbermann led the deranged effort on his now defunct "Countdown" show to lie and propagandize the CCRB using insults and baseless criticism of unknown "birthers" who he claimed "attempted and failed to pass off a forgery."
Strangely, however, no one in the mainstream liberal media would address the question now answered by the recent discovery at the BNA. The Bomford document and the Kenyan CCRB would indeed appear the same under British birth registration processes and documentation formats because both municipalities in Kenya and Australia, in 1961, operated under the Registrar General of the British government.
It is now supported by the evidence discovered in the BNA that the Bomford document image from Australia was accessed and used by pro-Obama operatives as a template to alter the image of the Kenyan CCRB image in order to make it appear that "birthers" had created a bad counterfeit of a Kenyan birth record for Obama. This was done by Obama's forgers to create "shell game" confusion among the public and misdirect media attention from the truth that an original, unaltered Kenyan CCRB, which was never allowed to be publicly seen in its original form before Obama's forgers were able to access and change it, was actually an image of a legitimate document posted by unknown individuals who were known by Obama to possess the document before hand.
Essentially, the Bomford affair was just another coverup to hide Obama's foreign birth records.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.
However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clintons arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.
OBAMA’S FATHER FAILED TO INCLUDE BIRTH OF “SON” ON INS APPLICATION
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name is newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.
THE UGLY TRUTH
However, the sad and pathetic truth about Obama’s covert natal history and his illegitimacy lies at the bottom of a sordid pit of lies surrounding the paternity of his birth. Doubts about his identity, his eligibility, his intentions, his honesty and his honorability as a man stem from what appears to be an ugly truth about his mother’s probable sexual involvement with multiple men associated with the radical socialist movement in 1960’s Hawaii.
Obama and his horde of abettors defend an improbable narrative about his identity. The veracity of this narrative has been damaged under the weight of a steady stream of crushing evidence demonstrating more than 180 disparities and contradictions to Obama’s claims of natal legitimacy as president.
If Obama’s cause as a usurper of power is to avenge his father’s culture, he made the worst possible error in lying about who he is. Vintage America is on to him. Their instincts are slowly turning Obama’s fantasy of a socialist utopia for those he believes are humanity’s offended into a laughingstock. By building his vision for America on clay feet of lies about his who he is, he has undermined any intention of doing something good and right. He is not to be trusted.
Moreover, Obama is learning the painful lesson that a message of “Hope and Change” means something vastly different to vintage America, the most powerful and affluent culture in human history, when that message has been proven to come from someone as audaciously dishonest and deceptively calculating as this son of otherness.
Recall, in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. In some cases, the biological father may not even know he is the father if the mother has had more than one sexual partner prior to the pregnancy. There was no DNA test in 1961, however the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report shows there were more than 1000 such “illegitimate” births reported in the state of Hawaii during that year, about 1 in 17.
Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
However, notations indicating that a certificate contains updated paternal information would be typed or printed in the lower margin of the new certificate, below the signature section. This lower margin of the image of Obama’s certificate has been shown by computer experts to be concealed by forgers using a “clipping mask”. A clipping mask is a feature available in Adobe software which limits the viewable area on a document image through which only selected information can be seen. In the case of Obama’s forged certificate, the information we have been allowed to see within the frame of the clipping mask may merely reflect an amended birth record while concealing notations of the amendments which exists in the lower margin outside the frame of the clipping mask.
Regardless of any level of truth about any individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the product of criminals and liars.
If Obama is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.
Cowardly judges refuse to allow any exposure Obama’s actual natural born identity and, in their dereliction, have conjured a legal fantasy filled with pressurizing wrath in which a candidate’s eligibility for president is not only declared legally uncontestable but is also automatically preeminent. In allowing this, judges have allowed a dangerous precedent in which any foreign invader can covertly usurp the power of the U.S. government simply by lying about their citizenship status and hiding documentation with the help of the American media and a complicit legal system.
THE MARRIAGE SHAM
On his application, when asked the name and address of his spouse, it appears Obama may have first written the name of his actual wife in Kenya before blacking it out and writing “Ann S. Dunham”.
Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child. A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.
THE INS’ PERSPECTIVE
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.
From the perspective of an INS agent, the circumstances surrounding Obama’s relationship with Dunham would have raised suspicions. Immigration fraud was rampant during Hawaii’s foreign birth accommodation era in the 1960’s.
Since Obama was a foreigner wanting to extend his temporary visa, the INS certainly understood that by claiming a marriage to Dunham, it would promote INS approval of an extension, but in Dunham’s case there was an added risk to the relationship for Obama…she was pregnant.
It appears, from the contents of documents in Obama’s INS file, when pressed by INS agents and school officials on the actual validity of his relationship to Dunham and baby Obama, having certainly been advised of legal ramifications for lying, he refused to name Obama as his child but maintained that he was married to Dunham. This indicates that Obama was either not certain if he was the biological father, or that he knew he wasn’t.
Under child protection laws in many states, including Hawaii, when the biological father is deceased or unidentified by the mother, the man who is married to the mother at the time she gives birth automatically becomes the father named on the official birth certificate until it is proven in court that he is not the biological father. “Mandatory Legitimacy” applies even if the birth is the result of adultery, when the mother is married at the time of birth, until paternity is successfully contested. Today, DNA testing allows for conclusive determinations about paternity, but in 1961, it was more difficult to determine paternity. Hawaii’s child welfare statutes indicate the “statutory” father’s name on the certificate may be removed by court order, if paternity is successfully contested, after a judge has decided the case in the interest of the child’s welfare. This law is intended to protect the child if the mother dies.
DELUSIONS OF LEGITIMACY
Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president when he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.
Ignorance, lies and lack of understanding about the difference between a medically verified birth and a legal registration of birth has confused the public about Obama’s natal history and eligibility.
Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.
The elder Obama’s name appears as the father of a newborn son in images of two birth announcements appearing in two Honolulu newspapers on August 13th and 14th, 1961. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 were published automatically from a birth registration list provided directly to the papers by the Hawaiian Department of Health. The notifications of births provided to the Health Department, however, were not only the product of information provided by hospitals and doctors, alone.
The distinction between the information used by the hospital to create a “Certificate of Live Birth” and the information used by the Department of Health to create a birth registration is that information used to create birth registrations were allowed to be submitted from anyone possessing credible information about the birth, including family members, witnesses or attendants, regardless of the actual location of the birth. Contrarily, the information on a “Live Birth” record must be verified and attested by a licensed medical doctor qualified to determine the characteristics of a live birth event. This is important in cases when a distinction was needed between a “still birth” and a baby that may have been born alive but then died upon delivery. In the latter case, both a birth certificate and a death certificate are required while a still birth requires only a death certificate because of the definition of a live birth under HRS 338-1.
Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting guidelines are not conducive with determining the natural born status of the child.
For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted all residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the Census when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county through the information provided by others. This applies even today.
Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was determined that births must be accounted the same way for all usual residents regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event when that resident mother intended to return to that county. In Hawaii, if a child did not have an official certificate prior to the mother’s return, the local Health Department was obligated to provide one under the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public Health Regulations and HRS 338.
The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. Vital statistics are reported annually, but the Census only occurs every ten years which means there is large volume of population which goes untracked between Census years. If births and deaths were not allocated to the residents of each county, regardless of the location of the vital event, the results would cause large disparities when compared with the Census data.
