Hawaii's Secret Records Agency Goes Rogue

by Pen Johannson

In June, 2009, The Daily Pen reported that the State of Hawaii had undergone "widespread" internal policy changes in response to the controversy over Barack Obama's covert natal history. In our piece, "The Questionable Legitimacy of the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’", we found that the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, under the direction of Obama sympathizer, Chiyome Fukino, was changing the format, disclosure process and appearance of its natal documentation forms, deviating from the federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" published in America for the past century. At the time, we questioned top level administrative personnel at the Hawaiian agency requesting details on the decision process and the identity of those involved. Since then, we have discovered some shocking coincidences which coordinate with what can only be concluded as an effort on the part of the municipal authority of the State of Hawaii to synthetically conform their vital record forms and processes in order to stem the rising tide of inquisition into Obama's true natal identity.

Never have three letters confused more people in the history of American politics. Simply substituting ‘ion’ for ‘ate’ and, viola! Obama was afforded a “legitimate” birth record according to the rogue policies of an island state's apologist municipality. However, the document is only legitimate in the minds of those promoting his enthronement while denying the vastness of his covert natal identity.

Other states and federal agencies, both within and outside the State of Hawaii refuse to recognize the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a primary source of identification. Others only recognize it as a secondary source of a municipally issued documentation used for determining an individual’s identification, but not for determining natural born citizenship. Until June of 2009, this document was not officially accepted when obtaining a Driver’s License or getting a passport. Therefore, it is absurd to think it is acceptable for determining one’s natural born citizenship and certainly, for determining the constitutional eligibility of a candidate to assume the highest elected office, which is arguably, the most powerful position in the world. Right?

The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" does not show the birthplace of the parents or their citizenship status, nor does it allow for the verification of the place of birth of the individual by way of providing a facility and/or an eyewitness to the birth.

Vital statistics were officially collected in the United States for the first time in1850. However, the national birth registration regions were officially created in 1915 as the national data collection structure for census, and demographics records was formalized. In 1961, as stated in the official Vital Statistic Report of the U.S., the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the prescribed form of legal birth documentation issued through the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division. It evolved throughout 110 years of input from federal and state agencies seeking to improve the collection, accuracy and discernment of natal statistics in the United States. It was made in close collaboration with the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics and was recommended to the States for adoption as of January 1, 1956. In Hawaii, however, the state’s Department of Health has gone astray from this federal standard.

HAWAII ISSUES NATIVE CERTIFICATES FOR CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES

State of Hawaii Revised Statute [§338-17.8] states the following:

(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..."

Therefore, the questions must be answered. Did the state of Hawaii issue Barack Obama a birth certificate after he provided the director of the Department of Health proof that his parents were residents of the state of Hawaii within one year previous to his birth? Does the state of Hawaii consider their form of birth certificate adequate for meeting the requirements of federal law as an original birth record?

According to this Hawaiian law, it is absolutely possible. According to HRS 338 and Administrative Rule 91, the state of Hawaii gives itself permission, through the autonomous authority of the director of the Department of Health, to issue native birth documentation to foreign-born children and, thereby doing so, declare those children as natural-born by proxy of the parent's declaration of Hawaiian residence. The actual location of the birth is irrelevent to the municipal authorities of the state of Hawaii, completely contradicting the authority of the U.S. Constitution's mandate that a candidate for the office of the President be a natural born citizen.

Even more shocking is the revelation that this can be done under the sole discretion of the director of the Department of Health. Therefore, in creating an independently published document called the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, the state of Hawaii has deviated from the original form and intended function of the federally issued record, as it was implemented by the U.S. Department of Health since the early 1900's. This fact is unarguable.

Hawaii is the only state in America which allows this. As early as 1906, the state of Hawaii began to adopt procedures which allowed its indigenous population to apply for and receive a certificate of Hawaiian birth, which was the pre-statehood form of birth documentation intended to account for anyone found living in Hawaii after the island nation became a territory of the United States. Vastly unmonitored immigration and permeable, marine accessible borders allowed virtually anyone to declare themselves Hawaiian born for more than 60 years prior to statehood, regardless of their actual place of birth. The "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program" was formally enacted from around 1906 to 1972, lasting a full 11 years after Obama was allegedly born. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider that Obama's parents could have taken advantage an extremely "loose" birth registration process. Records show that nearly 240,000 people received native birth documents from the state of Hawaii from 1959 to 1972 of which, as declared in the U.S. Report on Vital Statistics, were NOT natural born citizens of the United States. Most were expatriates fleeing political persecution from China, Siam, Japan and Korea. Many were communist sympathizers fleeing mainland America during Congressional investigations of "un-American activities."

Thus, the credibility of Hawaii’s form of birth documentation, in its formal capacity to conclusively define and clarify the natural born citizenship and authentic natal identity of a presidential candidate, is now highly suspect.

The Hawaiian Department of Health began a new policy some time around the Y2K (Year 2000) changeover when indexing and computer file systems underwent a revised dating format. At that time, Hawaii began to issue the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and eventually stopped issuing copies of the federal ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a time conveniently and conspicuously coinciding with the controversy over Obama's secret natal history sometime in early to mid 2007. It appears as though the state of Hawaii contrived new administrative rules governing the procedures for publishing, processing and issuing vital records, and it did this as a direct and obvious consequence of Obama's request for official birth documentation, under the guise of preventing identity theft.

COMPARISON OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH DOCUMENT TYPES

There are 55 Input Boxes Available on the Standard U.S. "Certificate Of Live Birth" Application vs. the mere 24 input boxes of Barack Obama's Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. The number of boxes on the standard, federal U.S. "Certificate Of Live Birth" were reviewed and endorsed by the PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE ON RECORDS AND STATISTICS as the best possible consortium of information providing for vital information on births in the United States. The following is a list of data required by the NVSD for the determination of Natural Born Status which is not available on Obama's Hawaiian "CertificATION of Live Birth".

Hospital or Facility of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Address of Facility of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Inside Corporate Limits of City?
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Married Name of Mother (Last)
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Birthplace of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Age of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Social Security Number of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Street Address of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Mother's birth inside Corporate limits?
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Resident City or Town ofNot Provided
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Resident County of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Resident State of Mother
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Birthplace of Father (State, Country)
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Age of Father
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Social Security Number of Father
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Occupation of Father
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Type of Industry or business
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Signature of Parent or Informant or Witness
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Date of Parent or Informant Signature
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Signature M.D. or Medical Attendant
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Date of Signature of M.D. or M.A.
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Residence of Physician
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Physician License Number
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Name of State/Provincial Registrar at Time of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Signature or Stamp of State Official at Time of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Date of Recording by State Official at Time of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Name of Local Registrar at Time of Birth
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Date of Regstrar's Credential Expiration
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Plural or Single Birth Check Box
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

If Plural, Which Child Is This?
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Legitimacy
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

Photo Image of Bearer (Optional)
Provided on the federal USDH, National Vital Statisics Division “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”
Not Provided on Obama’s Hawaiian “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH”

As indicated in the U.S. Report On Vital Statistics - Natality, Volume 1, this information indicates essential components which must be included for full transparency of Natural Born Citizenship. If any of this information is “not provided”, Natural Born Citizenship is in doubt.

FUKINO ORDERS THE HAWAIIAN DOCUMENT TITLE TO BE CHANGED TO MATCH THE FEDERAL VERSION

There is an indeterminable period of time during which a requester could get both the federal and state forms of birth documentation in the State of Hawaii. The state of Hawaii’s Department of Health refuses to cooperate with inquiry asking for details about its evolving file management system and the possible assistance it provided for the ‘processing and approval" of Obama’s birth records. But, most importantly, we are left to conclude that there are covert reasons why the state of Hawaii and its municipalities found it unimportant, unnecessary or insecure to provide the names of the facility and the names of the eyewitnesses of Obama’s birth. Complicating the matter, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is also issued for every other form of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ previously mentioned, including a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ which also does not provide the names of the eyewitnesses or the facility of birth.

Regardless of its content, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health ordered the document header title to be changed to match the federal version of the NVSD's "Certificate of Live Birth". This was done in an attempt to further protect Obama with yet another layer of ambiguity and propoganda against the public, and create more opacity in the discrepencies between the two documents.

According to a report released by Western Journalism the state of Hawaii has now even attempted to camouflage the history of the HEADER TITLE of the “Certification of Live Birth” document’s identity by changing it to the exact same name as the federal document. The report states:

"On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was "Certification of Live Birth". The
title for the form that a family recently
received in the first week of June 2009 is "Certificate of Live Birth". I called
The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed.
The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but
could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the
first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this
abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live
Birth“. Why?"

"The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like
a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the
Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet
even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the
hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very
convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any
legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live
Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will
produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now
renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in
accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s
Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino."

Above all, it must be noted, within the state of Hawaii, the federal "Certificate" form and the Hawaiian "Certification" form are vastly different in title, quantity of information, presentation, publication, content and source. Simply altering the HEADER TITLE of the document does not validate the document or endow it with any more authority to clarify the natural born status of Barack Obama or authenticate his actual identity unless, of course, it also is altered to include the same information presented on the federal, National Vital Statistics Division form of the "Certificate of Live Birth".

Altering the HEADER TITLE of the "Certification of Live Birth" to match the federal version of the "Certificate of Live Birth" is little more than a blatant attempt on the part of Obama sympathizers working within the municipality of the State of Hawaii to create an "appearance of authenticity" in its birth documentation process by associating their worthless, fallow, inadequate document with the U.S. Department of Health's federal version. The most troubling and divisive fact about the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is that it can be issued by the State of Hawaii without the disclosure of the source documentation from which is was published. Even its name is insidious because it remains an evolving entity seemingly morphing into exactly what Barack Hussein Obama needs to continue this circumvention of the U.S. Constition. The final verdict is that the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ omits necessary biographical information which, therefore, prevents document from accurately conveying the natural born citizenship of the bearer. No effort on the part of any municipal official to change the HEADER TITLE is going to change this fact.

As it pertains to citizenship, whereas the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’’ provides a recognized date of birth, a name of the bearer along with the testimonial location of birth, as they are recognized and provided on the application form according to the statutes of the State of Hawaii, under the authority of the Director of the Department of Health, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not provide corroborated biographical information such as social security numbers, addresses, facility of birth, parent’s birth place, parents occupations, name’s and signatures of attending officials, birth weight, birth length, or race of the child.

The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’’ does not provide the type, origin or manner by which the original documentation from which the information in the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was published. It does not indicate whether the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or a ‘Certificate of Foreign Birth’. And, it certainly does not indicate if the ‘original birth record’ it could be published from was issued by the State of Hawaii through the statutory authority of the Director of the Department of Health, by way of legal hearing or by way of Hawaii’s Late Birth Registration policy. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not actually and conclusively provide fact-based information about the location of the birth. For most agencies and services requiring a legal form of identification, unlike eligibility for the office of the Presidency, the omission of this particular personal information is acceptable simply because the place of birth and natural born status are not pertinent to the acquisition of permission to drive or travel.

The more we learn about the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, how it is produced, and the ominous, secretive, ambiguous, covert circumstances and standards under which it is provided by the State of Hawaii, the more apparent it becomes that this document is disgracefully inadequate for determining the depth of identity required to confirm or disqualify a candidate for the U.S. presidency.

A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, now called a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth", is not an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, nor is it even a copy, of it. It is different than a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ because it is not produced in the same way, under the same circumstances, verified by the same classification of personnel. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published document summarizing the information on an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ in a “short form” format. This means that a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is not the result of a copy from the original document. It is created by an individual working in the Hawaiian Department of Health’s Office of Vital Records office after accessing the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, transcribing a limited amount of information from it, and then manually typing that information into the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ computer format. It is then printed and released to the requester.

A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ contains fewer details and less information about the birth than a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. As an independently published record, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is a document authenticated only by the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records personnel as opposed to a hospital that publishes the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, or a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ issuable by the authority of the Director of the Health Department.

Whenever possible the attending physician, midwife, nurse or deliverer of the child, not the mother, authenticates the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. It is important to emphasize that the personnel at the State of Hawaii’s Office of Vital Records are only applying information from documents they are transcribing, they do not witness the vital event or verify the validity or the source information used for the contents of Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, and they should never make judgments regarding citizenship by the contents of these vital records. This includes making conclusions about the relevance, affirmation or preponderance of evidence in the document’s ability to determine citizenship or the document’s capacity to determine eligibility to serve as an elected official. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ document does not legally do this, therefore, those creating or handling such documents shouldn’t either.

Theoretically, there is a valid justification to challenge the State of Hawaii’s use of the word “Live” in the header title of the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ document for two reasons. The state of Hawaii is not allowed by the U.S. Department of Health to represent the evidence of a "live birth" with an original document without the witness of the birth by a medical professional who actually delivered the live child. Hawaii not only issues the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ in the place of an original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (births witnessed by medical professional as exhibiting the characteristics of a "live" birth), it also issues it in place of ‘Certificates of Hawaiian birth’ which are not attested by any eyewitnesses to the live birth. The other reason is that no physician or medical professional qualified to determine a "live birth" has affixed a signature or professional identification such as a medical license number, on the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’.

Since the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published document with substantially voided information than a federal ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, it does not provide an accurate visual concurrence with the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s' more detailed information. A federal version of a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ will give a better understanding of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ than a Hawaiian ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is merely a surrogate conveyance of truncated information provided through the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records in lieu of allowing public access or release of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ or a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or any support documentation.

The state of Hawaii has endowed an extraordinary amount of federal power to the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. Every birth record, every process, every official involved, and every piece of personal information is impregnated and hidden within the authority, but never revealed, through this document. Never in the history of vital statistics has one document been so ambiguously empowered to conceal the natural born identity of its bearer. Statements from the State of Hawaii about their records processes and systems desperately beg for further clarification. If the State of Hawaii authenticates both the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and the federal U.S. ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, why was there a necessity mandate that recipients receive only a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’? And, when did the inception of this document occur in relation to Barack Obama’s need for it?

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands agency advises against using the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a primary source of identification for those applying for native land rights. In fact, it mysteriously changed the content of its website to coincide with the alteration of the HEADER TITLE of the Certification of Live Birth. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands website now states the following:

“The ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (federal U.S. version) has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (state Hawaiian version), which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth.”
“Although ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a ‘Certification of Live Birth’’.

First of all, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands describes the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a document that “provides specific details of a person’s birth.” This is an underwhelming endorsement of the document which Obama has pushed, and an indication that it actually does not provide details at all, but rather general information in far less detail than what is actually presented in the Certificate of Live Birth on record.

Apparently, the government of the State of Hawaii feels a stronger priority to establish Hawaiian’s genealogical right to purchase native lands than it feels about all of America’s genealogical right to elect a constitutionally eligible President.

If the decision to issue ‘Certifications of Live Birth’ is for the enhancement of identity protection, an explanation is warranted in Obama’s case. By what standards does the State of Hawaii determine which personal data is vulnerable to identity theft, and which is not? Most importantly, with regard to the establishment of authority in this matter, just because the State Of Hawaii issued both documents, this does not obligate the U.S. Constitution to agree. The President belongs to all American’s, not just those in Hawaii to be approved only by municipal standards in Hawaii. Isn't this the exact argument put forth by those opposing the Arizona Immigration law of 2010? The people of America, not the government of Hawaii, determine the standard of birth record acceptable for determining a candidate’s eligibility to be President.

Until June of 2009, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website stated the following:

"In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…"

In the state of Hawaii, as in most states, the federal ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is irrefutable and is never rejected when applying for jobs, passports, Hawaiian land purchase, citizenship or registration as a student, as long as the information provided is attested to by three licensed officials which, in virtually all cases, are a licensed medical professional qualified to the determine the characteristics of a “live birth” under the state’s revised statutes; a licensed professional given oversight responsibility for the creation, maintenance and storage of vital records within the state’s Department of Health and a licensed professional qualified to prepare and issue such records to the public. The ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ on the other hand, requires more extensive verification and other forms of back up identification for completing these applications.

Therefore, in terms of defining constitutional eligibility for a candidate to be elected as President of the United States, there is no other document more important than an official, authenticated Original (Vault), federal template of an NVSD originated "Certificate of Live Birth" issued in the form prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division through the medical verification process of an attending licensed medical or natalogical professional who witnessed the birth, or who examined the records of the birth at the time of the vital event and approved their authenticity. Any other form of birth documentation is insufficient for resolving the essential questions which have been constitutionally determined as the qualifications needed to be President.

To date, Barack Obama has failed to meet this standard. Not only has he failed to produce proper documentation supporting his eligibility, the State of Hawaii has never actually confirmed that they issued the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ to him, which was posted to his website and displayed to members of the press. These are just more reasons to doubt the natal history and natural born identity of Obama. By this reason alone, his eligibility to be President of the United States is suspect and egregiously disreputable, if not outright illegitimate.

Obama is hiding something about his natal information. This is obvious and undeniable. But, what exactly is he hiding? Regardless of the facts he is concealing, one truth remains steadfastly undeniable. He will never attain the level of legitimacy required to be recognized by history as a formidable leader, within the roster of Presidents who came before him, until he comes clean with the American people. Under the weight of this ambiguous authenticity, Barack Obama will only be remembered as a pretend, shadow figure in the history of American politics. Nothing he accomplishes can be actual. Nothing he says can be believed and nothing he becomes can be considered real.

The Unintended Mark Of The Obamacare Beast

by Pen Johannson

Unlike the choice to purchase other forms of insurance of which preclusive conditions are limited to the possession of property and whose policies are attached to only the identity of the individual, Obamacare is the first law in American history which exploits the involuntary possession of a living body and which attaches the mandates to purchase insurance upon the involuntary existence of that human body, not just the identity of the individual.

Without dispossessing the living body, how does the individual abstain from participation in the purchase, enrollment and/or penalties of the individual insurance mandates in this Healthcare Bill? This is truly frightening...

Moreover, it is unconstitutional by violation of the right to life and the liberty to live it without being provided with the legal option to take no action. Affluent citizens with means and resources, who have chosen to pay for health care costs to maintain and care for their own body, and the state of health therein, are left without this individual choice under Obamacare. Therefore, the only option in seeking release from the individual mandates of this law is...well, death.

That's right...death is the only way for the individual to lawfully dispossess their body, and thereby be released from the purchase, enrollment and penalty mandates of Obamacare. This is unprecedented in American history. Since the possession of a human body is the preclusive condition used to mandate either the purchase, penalty or enrollment in some form of individual insurance under Obamacare, the one question every American should be passionately berating their congressional representatives with is:

What provision does this law make for abstaining from its mandate without penalty for inaction, which is based on the constitutional right for me to seek inertial existence?

Of course our law-smithing representatives in government would agree that no law should "trap" free citizens into compliance without providing options to inertly abstain with a lawful choice to commit no action.

The right to take no action with respect to my own body shall not be forfeited.

Congress shall not infringe upon the right of the possessor of their living body to seek an inertial (harmlessly inactive), safe, healthy existence without obligation, penalty, enrollment to or obligation with respect to the direct or indirect unchosen obligation to possess that body. This shall apply whether or not any product, service or agreement is deemed necessary to mandate action to purchase, transact, earn, labor, apply, make, register, enroll, join or take possession of any product, service or agreement which has been enacted as a direct, or indirect, and unchosen consequence of possessing a human body.

In doing so, the Obama administration has now made inertial existence unlawful, for it is between the realms of the right to life and the right to not die where we find Obama’s biophobic government now meddling. The Obama administration has taken a truly malevolent stride toward assuming jurisdiction over the individual’s right to choose an inertial existence and maintain the right in determination of what constitutes care and maintenance while in possession of their own living body.

I have a right to choose an unmandated option thereby escaping the preclusive conditions warranting legal compliance with any law. Obamacare is the first law in American history which offers no exempt status for a choice to remain inactively inert and ineffectual. No government in service of the people has the legal authority to enact such a law which mandates any particular behavior without offering exempt status for choosing to remain alive in a state of lawful inaction.

In one faction, supporters of Obamacare use the example of the auto insurance laws which mandate the purchase of insurance in order to drive a car as an argument in favor of Obamacare. Their ignorance is not suprising. The individual citizen has a right to choose whether or not they want to own and operate a vehicle, and by this choice they choose whether or not to purchase auto insurance. The insurance policy is attached to the vehicle, not the body of the individual. The car can be sold or dispossessed, the body cannot. The option to abstain from the mandates of auto insurance laws are provided in the right to not drive a car, take the bus and/or telecommute, etc. However, under the Obamacare insurance mandates, individuals do not have a choice to abstain from the ownership and "operation" of a living body and the natural-born state of health which resides within it. Obamacare disregards the fact that human beings do not choose to be born, but they do choose to drive a car. Yet, Obamacare will do the equivilent of forcing you to pay for auto insurance regardless whether you drive a car or not. Or, if you can't afford insurance, you will be forced to enroll in a policy which others will be forced to pay for, even if you don't own a car, or have a license to drive!

The problem vintage Americans find with this form of legislation is based on the unnatural impact that such a deeply intimate law has with the universal truth that, at the very roots of America’s origins lie the natural understanding that this nation and our Constitution were founded on the truth that we were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights and a human body to possess. We understand and defend the fact that God is the One who affords us with freedom, life and the pursuit of joy within that body. The nearest of God’s image we find in these blessings is the human body, formed in His image by His very hands and breath.

Vintage Americans understand these rights do not come from our government. Thus, the conflict presented by the imposition of a law like Obamacare is that it attempts to “counterfeit” the identity of God, as Healer, by assuming jurisdiction over the decisions regarding the care, maintenance, healing and fitness of His creation, which is the human body.

As another example, Obamacare supporters use the mandates of tax laws to argue in favor. This is also ignorant. Tax laws give the federal government the legal authority to tax the transaction of money or the earning of income resulting from the chosen behaviors of paid labor and/or the purchase of goods or services. Abstaining from paying taxes is unlawful not because of a choice to not just pay taxes, it is unlawful due to the prerequisite choice to take possession of and/or make a transaction of monetary value prior. The law is only incumbent upon a conscious choice to commit an initial action. Being born with your body was not your choice, despite your experience of possessing it now. The government does not have the legal authority to exploit any unchosen human condition for mandating monetary remittance from the free citizens of the United States.

Possession of one’s own living body is a passive condition. It is not chosen. Therefore, the mandates which make it unlawful to abstain from enrollment, participation, compliance or remittance under Obamacare are unconstitutional because, unlike the the ability to choose to earn a living or make transactions requiring taxation, individuals cannot make the living choice to not possess a human body, which is the sole human condition warranting the purchase, penalty and enrollment in health care insurance under Obamacare. The federal government does not have the legal authority to mandate action, remittance or penalty for an un-chosen condition resulting in the choice of any individual to pursue the continuance of the inertial state existing before the implementation of such a law, nor does the federal government have the legal authority to mandate death, as an option, to remedy any lawful, un-chosen, inert condition.

...Simply put, the only legal power the federal government has is one which can only prevent the commission of an effectual act deemed to be adverse to society, not force you to commit an effectual act it deems beneficial to society.

Another example often cited in support of Obamacare, and one which people also misunderstand, are Good Samaritan laws. Many people think Good Samaritan laws are legislation which attempt to force the actions of bystanders to help when a victim is in need of assistance. This is false. Good Samaritan laws are laws protecting from liability those who choose to act in aid of others who are injured or ill and, thereby doing so, may unintentionally cause further injury. Good Samaritan laws are meant to encourage people to make a choice to act in a helpful way without having to fear litigation or penalty for non-action or an inertial response. Good Samaritan laws do not force anyone to act in a certain way. There is no penalty for choosing not to act by the common bystander because the individual has the right to not render themselves to a situation which they deem threatening or adversely impactful upon them, their property or their family. Individuals, or groups of individuals, do not have a legal right to force me to act because of their emergency when I deem their situation potentially injurious to myself.

Therefore, using Good Samaritan laws to justify Obamacare is the most ignorant argument of all. The mandates under Obamacare which make it unlawful to abstain from enrollment, participation, compliance or remittance are, again, found unconstitutional because, unlike the choice to act with the intent to help another individual(s), free people are not legally obligated to act, or make transactions, in respect of their own body, and the possession thereof, if they deem that taking no action is most beneficial to the welfare of their own physical being. For example, if by unintended, lawful circumstances you find yourself in danger, you are not under legal obligation to call for help or obligate others to assist you. You have a constitutional right to an inertial existence. Contrarily, if your body is in danger, others do not have a right to be asked by you to help.

The Obama administration has enacted this law in an attempt to mandate the right of others to your request for their help. Illness and injury which requires medical attention are passive conditions which do not afford the individual with the legal right to have their care paid for, or provided by others.

A final example used by Obamacare supporters is to argue that military draft and selective service laws require compliant action by U.S. citizens and therefore serve as a model for commanding actions like paying for or enrolling in insurance. This is an unintelligent position as well. There are two conditions which legally defeat this argument. Military draft and selective service enrollment laws are enacted as 1.) part of a national defense against the threat of hostile enemies of the state, national insurance is not a defense against hostile enemies of the state, and, most importantly, 2.) compliance with these laws are free of charge to anyone, by anyone, from anyone. In fact, participation in military service pays the participant for the choice to comply.

Therefore, mandates which make it unlawful to abstain from participation, enrollment, compliance or remittance under Obamacare are unconstitutional because, unlike the military draft and selective service acts, Obamacare is not free to everyone, and is not enacted in the interest of national defense against enemies of the state, nor does it compensate the participant for choosing to comply. The forced act of purchasing or enrolling in Obamacare health insurance is illegal because if damage to the insured “property” results in its death, there is no longer a need for disbursement. If insured property is destroyed, the owner of that property is compensated.

How does Obamacare compensate for the fatal death of a human body when the owner of that body is...well, dead? It can’t. It only compensates for tertiary services when passive, un-chosen conditions arise and the owner’s life is allowed to continue. Or, does the Obama administration now portend to proclaim that the human body, when ill or injured, is now the property of the federal government? We can be certain that the United States declared the third-party ownership of another person's body, illegal under the emancipation proclamation.

These clarifications are important because they illustrate the circumstances under which the federal government does not now, nor will ever have, the Constitutional legal authority to enact laws which demand action for purposes unrelated to the individual’s right over the care of their own human body.

They illustrate that no law can force or compel an individual to act from an inertial state, or state of harmlessness, or static ineffectuality, as Obamacare will attempt to force Americans to do. By proceeding in such a manner, Obamacare promotes a precedence which advocates the potential for the federal government to require the purchase of any privately offered product or service if such a purchase is merely deemed necessary by the federal government. Obamacare makes it plausible that the federal government would be able to mandate the purchase of things like automobiles (deemed fit under environmental protection), or food (deemed appropriate under health care legislation), or housing (deemed fit under energy legislation). Obamacare is nothing more than a gateway law to eventual total control over the personal lives of free Americans.

In order for an individual mandate to purchase insurance to be constitutional, the Obama Administration must contrive an argument which twists the meaning of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in such a perverse way that it will declare inactivity, or inert existence, to be an actual effectual behavior which adversely impacts the general welfare of society, under the guise of health care cost management. Essentially, Obamacare will outlaw being sick or injured without insurance because the Obama administration will have determined that the purchase of insurance is the only possible way to prevent loss from these human conditions. And, in order to do this, it will have to assume jurisdiction over the determination of the positive and negative effects of every possible, and imagineable, human condition and behavior.

Never in the history of the United States has the federal government enacted a law which attempts to penalize free citizens for choosing to not purchase a product or service from other Americans which the government has autonomously deemed a necessary transaction for the welfare and/or care of an individual’s own human body.
Ironically, it is within the vestiges of the most liberal revolution in human history where we find the legal protection of one’s individual right to assume jurisdiction over one’s own physical wellbeing, and the protection of the right to establish a private relationship with a doctor. Roe vs. Wade.

...As human beings, we have a God-given right, not a government-given right, to remain lawfully inert with regard to our own state of being, our health, and our living body, without the threat of penalty or obligation to act against it or, by a tertiary determination, in interest of it.

The United States government does not have the legal authority to mandate a behavior of any citizen to act with respect to the care, healing, maintenance of their own inert body which was the manifestation of one’s un-chosen circumstance of being born. To do so implements federal ownership of the human bodies of citizens and the functions those bodies perform.

In this light, the Obama administration is coming damningly close to mandating the issuance of a federal “mark” upon the human body, in the form of an insurance policy associated with it, and by mandating the possession of a national identification card without providing an option for opting out of the system, penalty free. (Being enrolled in a government program free of charge to you still penalizes someone else by forcing them to pay for your insurance). Free citizens have a right to choose life affirming behavior which relinquishes the law’s hold on them without penalty. You have a right to choose not to murder. You have a right to choose not to steal. You have a right to choose not to lie. You have a right to choose not to act.

Therefore, it is plausible that Obama is attempting to mandate the compliance, remittance, enrollment and/or participation in a system simply for purpose of allowing the federal government to slowly and incrementally gain jurisdiction over and possession of the human bodies of the citizens it serves, under a federal attempt to assume approval, through licensure in the form of insurance coverage, over the event of being born.

When death becomes the only option for seeking an inertial existence with one’s own body, the federal government has stepped over a very distinct, very dangerous, very evil boundary. Obamacare has crossed this line.

Repeal this law, completely, and support a health care reform bill which supports our right to determine the manner of our own inertial existence, the manner of our relationship with our healer, and the method of care of our own body.

Obama’s Birth Questions Reinforced By An Unlikely Coincidence

Hawaii Governor, Linda Lingle and Obama’s DHS Secretary, Napolitano, have been acquainted for some time. And, they both had personal access to Obama’s alleged 1961 attending Obstetrician, Dr. Rodney Thomas West before his passing in 2008.

by Pen Johannson

Conspiracy theories are supposed to lose momentum over time, right?

For those seeking understanding about Barack Obama’s origins, hoping to clarify his constitutional eligibility to be President, this is one that seems to be gaining traction the longer it goes on.

Despite the psychotic paroxysms from the left, questions about Obama’s personal demographic origins continue to be asked with renewed enthusiasm by concerned Americans. And, it seems, no matter how hard MSNBC's Chris Matthews tries to preserve his leg tingle for Obama by shouting down his guests for refusing to kiss Obama's garland, the questions will probably only get louder and more intense. Matthews can be found daily spitting all over himself in a desperate lobby for the validity of a Certification Of Live Birth, a document confirmed by the State Of Hawaii as a “secondary form of identification” and in no way representative of proof of natural born citizenship.

Birther persistence is, in part, inspired by panic-stricken Obama addicts like Matthew’s. Their ignorant caterwauling, and attention, only motivates deeper analysis of the constitutional eligibilty issue. Liberals are even going so far as to demand the firing of CNN's Lou Dobbs just for talking about it.

Now, with the recent announcement by representatives of intentions to support a Constitutional Eligibility bill requiring Presidential candidates to submit a birth certificate in future elections, the Obama Birth issue seems to be having tangible impact on the national consciousness.

But, truth seekers are not acting in a vacuum. They are getting help......from Obama.

With internet search engines full of requests for information about Obama’s family, doctors, friends, schoolmates, addresses, and personal records, there is one individual one might want to take a closer look at with regard to any effort that might have been taken to, well……..lets just say…..keep some of Obama’s records secret.

THE LINGLE - NAPOLITANO FACTOR

Given the roster of characters involved in such a thing, it’s easy to overlook potentially significant relationships that might otherwise indicate a cooperative element among the characters needed for conspiracy. One relationship that strikes a chord of interest is the one between the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle and Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

One of the odd developments in the saga about Obama’s birth certificate is the decision by Lingle to seal Obama’s birth records with the Hawaii Department of Health. Lingle, a republican, did this despite fervent testimony by Obama staffers and supporters that he is a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore eligible to be president. Lingle’s actions left many Americans suspicious and wondering why, if the documents would exonerate Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, they would need to be sealed from public access.

Now, given the history between Lingle and Napolitano, the decision by Lingle to protect Obama’s personal information may be a little easier to explain.

Napolitano was first elected Governor of Arizona in 2002, then re-elected in 2006, serving for two years before being appointed by Obama as DHS secretary on January 21, 2009. She served as the state’s Attorney General from 1999 to 2002.

Between 2002 and 2009, she traveled on several occasions to Hawaii to attend the USS ARIZONA MEMORIAL CEREMONY with Lingle. Photos of the two together are posted deep in the obscure pages of the Memorial’s website. They are also photographed chumming together at the National Governors Association meetings.

It might also be important to note that the Department of Homeland Security has a history of sending senior members to Hawaii to attend the Asian-Pacific Homeland Security Summit, basically an excuse for spending tax money for DHS personnel vacations.

In February 2006, Napolitano was named by The White House Project as one of eight female politicians who might possibly run for president. In January, 2008, Napolitano endorsed Obama as the Democratic nominee for president. On November 5, 2008, Napolitano was named to the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project and on December 1, 2008, Obama introduced Napolitano as his nominee for U.S. DHS Secretary.

None of that, however, is pragmatically more important than the effect these opaque issues have on Obama’s image in the clear conscience of history. The facts of his personal datum may never be known for certain and this ambiguity raises suspicion about not only his identity and origins, but his ideology, in the minds of everyone outside of his inner circles of power.

His behavior, coupled with the absence of basic information raises eyebrows of even the most innocent middle Americans. When a teacher in Colorado explained the issue of Obama’s personal records to her class, one third grader asked, “Doesn’t he (Obama), put his name on his papers?”

The teacher replied, “Sweetie, he doesn’t even turn in his papers.” Because of that, Barry gets an “F” on the self administered “Transparency” quiz. So, what does all of this mean?

Without accusations, let's just ask some questions.

Seeing an opportunity to capitalizing on their previous relationship, did Obama appoint Napolitano as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in part, to provide her with the channels to ensure the secrecy of his birth records while maintaining a “manipulatable” relationship with Lingle?

Given their previous relationship, is it possible that Obama might have rewarded Napolitano with the appointment for her efforts in orchestrating, as a part of Obama's overall grand scheme, a plan with Lingle to keep his birth documents concealed under Lingle’s watch?

Upon Obama’s announcement to run for President, did Hawaii Governor, Linda Lingle and now Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano ever discuss how to "fix" Obama’s birth certificate issue sometime after February, 2008?

And, by that relationship, was Napolitano able to “incentivize” Lingle’s cooperation with the Obama administration? The 2009 FY DHS Budget report indicates the State of Hawaii will receive the largest grant in the state’s history for its Department of Health from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The dynamic here is strategically intelligent on the part of the Obama administration because the political right would be less inclined to investigate the acquiescence of a republican Governor in such a scenario.

And, in a somewhat strange twist of coincidence, both women had occasions to personally interact with Dr. Rodney West, M.D. prior to his passing in February, 2008. West is the Obstetrician who has been attributed by some Obama birth truth seekers as the alleged attending physician at Obama’s birth. West served as a volunteer greeter and presenter at the USS Arizona Memorial and was present at the Ceremonies attended by Lingle and Napolitano from 2002 to 2008.

Is it a stretch? Don’t ask us, were just right-wing wackos.

Obama's Words Reveal His Ominous Psychological Underworld

by Pen Johannson

Barack Obama is still suffering the consequences for “acting stupidly” by commenting on the arrest of black Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, at the end of his primetime press conference on July 22nd.

The presser was scheduled, primarily, to address America’s concerns about the Obama administration’s vast Healthcare reform bill. But, instead, we learned some other interesting things about Barack Hussein Obama….America’s first bi-racial, internationalized, globalist president.

Choosing to conveniently ignore the fact that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by African-American and/or Latinos in communities where they make up the highest percentage of the demographics, and which are communities which must be served by regionally assigned, rather than community based, police agencies, the president said that it is “just a fact" that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stopped by police." And that this was "evidence that race remains a factor in our society."

Well...uh....yes. Perhaps, an analogy about rotten apples might be appropriate at this point.

This was simply an ignorant statement by Obama. His "cherry picking" of statistics on this matter, and his blind partiality for blacks and latinos when they are confronted by white police officers, is a direct consequence of his narrow experience in urban community activism. If he had spent as much time looking at crime statistics in rural areas and suburbs, he would have realized how stupid this statement was.

Aside from any opinions about the appropriateness of Barack Obama’s choice to comment on the benign matter about Gates, his inability to restrain his startling predisposition reveals an ominous underworld of internal substance and motivations regarding race. If it has no other effect, his prejudicial response should have alarmed Vintage America and shaken the foundations of confidence normal people have in the traditional, evenhanded image of the Office of The President.

Many watching the press conference might have concluded that the matter was completely irrelevant to the previous hour during which Obama spoke ineffectively in resolving significant questions about his cataclysmic healthcare reform measure. By his response to Chicago Sun-Times Bureau Chief, Lynn Sweet’s question about Gates’ arrest, Obama actually exposed the preeminent reason for his vigor to effect social change through healthcare reform.

In general, Barack Obama is angry at America. His actions abroad provide adequate insight into his perspective that apologies are required for what he believes are the mistakes of every previous generation of vintage American since America was established by Anglo-Europeans.

Interestingly, Obama seems quite at ease in his role as an apologizer for others when he believes they are at fault, but he seems somewhat impudent when the situation demands recourse from his own error. The Cambridge police department might benefit greatly from an apology by the best apologizer of all, Barack Obama.

In terms of healthcare reform, it should be apparent that Obama resents the quality of life enjoyed by vintage America, in part, as provided by the greatest, and most expensive, healthcare system in the world. Yes, it may be in desperate need of administrative improvement, but even in its current state, it is still the most demanded, best healthcare industry in the world. It employs the best doctors, the most advanced technology and the highest regarded institutions. Obama knows this. He is not stupid. He's simply indignant that some minorities in American society, unfortunately, are excluded for what he believes are reasons of racial demographics, when, in actuality it is because they are unqualified or fail to meet the minimum economic requirements to afford the advanced healthcare offered in the elite sectors of our society. It is the result of the monetization of America's health care industry.

Regardless of the realities of our economy, Obama is possessed by zealotry to redistribute all the components of vintage American life, through the entitlements of healthcare, education and economic preference, to those who he believes are disadvantaged, oppressed and victims of injustice. Victims, like his friend, Dr. Gates.

And, he will attempt to accomplish this by using his speciously endowed power, his ambiguous identity, his ostentatious charm and his secret psychological vendetta to remove monetary and political resources from vintage Americans and reinvest them into demographics he believes are more worthy of his image.

But, the most shortsighted aspect of Obama's ideology comes through his audacious sense of entitlement. He actually believes that affluent members of our society, and medical professionals, have an obligation to provide selective healthcare to minorities.

Obama is proceeding under the resolve that providers must subscribe to his version of entitlement-based healthcare. In the end, this will decimate the quality of the medical profession and utterly drive the best doctors from the industry. No doctor will want to practice medicine in an environment where they are constantly limited in their ability to develop, with their patients, the kind of relationships needed for effective healthcare decisions.

It has become frighteningly obvious that Obama’s agenda, if he succeeds in implementing it, will have apocalyptic ramifications for traditional Americans of vintage heritage.

Vintage America must realize that this man is not intent on changing America for the benefit of all of its citizens. Contrarily, Obama intends to do great harm to the longstanding establishments of traditional America. He is blinded by his personal experience and hatred for the advance citizenry of our nation because he thinks that Vintage America has unfairly assumed jurisdiction over the world's interests. But, what he refuses to accept is that the prosperity of the fittest is a universal truth without regard for his liberal social values.

It is fascinating that Obama has never attempted to conceal his ideology insofar as he has been able to carry out his agenda through traditional political channels and legal shelter. The political climate, and absurd hatred for the previous administration, made his coup that much easier to achieve. And, evidently, we have always had an uneasy suspicion that Obama was a monger of social and community issues related to race, poverty, minorities and entitlement politics to such a degree that the American way of life was at risk.

But, it is only in recent days that we are beginning to see that Obama’s much heralded, inflated personality is beginning to crack and reveal some seething character flaws and a blatantly discriminate mind.

His overt response to a single question about social values, following his mindless rambling around his derisive liberal economic policies, should have told America everything it needs to know about Obama’s authentic motives.

The Mombosan Son has been installed into his place of power. And, now he intends to gain control over the resources, minds and able bodies of the greatest people in human history. He intends to implement a vast policy of indentured servitude designed to evade the conspicuousness of its horror. Although he acts to appease the social values against our historical form of slavery, he is exploiting the shame of those with weakminded contrition and their ignorant hatred for America's societal prerequisites.

Liberal Media Hits Abort Button During Obama's Failed Presser

by Dan Crosby

Displaying his best poker face possible on Tuesday evening during a primetime television broadcast, Barack Obama squandered the better part of an hour-long press conference dancing around, but never actually engaging, every essential, specific question vintage American's have about his apocalyptic health care reform bill.

But, he sure hit a homerun with the proverbial race card at the end.

The evening ended with a question from Lynn Sweet, Bureau Chief of the Chicago Sun Times, which was, in itself, so strangely irrelevant to the previous hour of tribulation over health care reform, that it made the entire press conference seem satirical and meaningless.

But, perhaps distraction was the intention once the liberal media realized how much dumber everyone had become having witnessed Obama's rambling performance up to that point.

So, they hit the most overused liberal abort button ever. Race.

Sweet asked for Obama's perspective on the arrest of black Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., during a response by Cambridge Police to a 9-1-1 call at his residence. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct after berating Sgt. James Crowley, a white veteran officer of the CPD with 21 years of exemplary service.

According to witnesses, Gates called Crowley a racist and confronted him with racially charged insuations, going so far as to use the term "yo momma" when asked to engage the conversation with officers outside his home during the incident on July 16th, 2009.

In responding to the question, while admitting he was not familiar with the facts, President Obama turned a locally benign incident into a national malignancy by audaciously propping Louis' side in the matter, saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in arresting him at his home.

Living rooms across the nation exploded, "What the hell did he just say?"

But, more importantly, why did he say anything? Obama’s response has prompted millions of Americans to wonder if he suffers from some form of involuntary vocal compulsion.

In recent days, a glaring reality has emerged about America’s first biracial president. The strength of his flamboyant personality can no longer overcome the weakness of his ideologically consumed character.

Yesterday's press conference was a violent confirmation of this fact.

Never, in the history of press conferences, has the introduction of race been so inappropriate and the use of the response "No Comment" been so warranted.

However, even worse is that never in the history of the American presidency has a sitting Chief Executive acted so “stupidly” on a matter of such innocuousness compared to the prevailing subject matter of the evening.

Since Barack Obama became president, there may be debatably legitimate questions remaining about his personal demographics.

But, until now, no one has had an obvious reason to question his character.

Ma'am Boxer's Condescension Reveals Herself, Liberals As The Actual Racists Of Our Time

by Pen Johannson

One foot didn’t fill her big mouth. So, she just had to shove the other one in.

Over the past month, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has acquired a taste for her own feet. She is one of those rare individuals who, after inserting one in the yammering hole in her face, blindly lusting so much for the appearance of a liberal’s version of diversity, fairness and equality, must shove the other one in as well.

Contrary to the arrogance she used to berate Brigadier General, Michael Walsh, last month, there are some things Boxer has not had to work hard to become. Some things just come easy for the "Ma’am" from California.

Being worthy of the title of “Senator” is not one of them.

Obviously, one of the things Barbara Boxer doesn’t have to work at is offending those who take time from their worthier functions, as members of America’s military and financial sectors, to appear before the meaningless Environment & Public Works committee, over which she presides. Ironically, Boxer tends to assault those who are invited to offer testimony about things she is completely unqualified to make decisions about.

The other thing Boxer is good at is running her mouth without passing the words through her brain first.

In the first instance, on June 16th, Boxer insisted that General Walsh refer to her as “Senator”, rather than the time-honored, militarily correct title of “Ma’am”.

First of all, Boxer revealed her distinct ignorance for the fact that military personnel, and most decent folks who were raised correctly, refer to women who they perceive as an authority as "ma'am". It is an obligatory term of respect, especially from a longstanding, respected military veteran like Walsh.

Secondly, the title of "Senator" was commissioned during the convening of the 7th congress as a way to address members during open debate, not in committee. Boxer needs to bone up on the history of her profession.

Otherwise, there is certainly at least one other gender-specific four-letter title, other than "ma'am", which more accurately resembles Boxer.............if she pleases.

But, the finale’ in Boxer’s foot feast came last week during a meeting with the Black Chamber of Commerce President, Mr. Harry Alford.

Attempting to shove the issue of race into a discussion about energy, Boxer offended Alford, an African American, by suggesting that his position on Cap & Trade was less legitimate on the basis that the NAACP and John Grant, leader of “100 Black Men Of Atlanta”, had different views than his. Obviously Boxer was using race, and more specifically, african american heritage as leverage against Alford's opposition to some of Boxer's liberal views on energy.

Deepening the crevice, Boxer was obstinate, “I am putting in the record a statement from the NAACP.”

And, Mr. Alford’s response was priceless and perfect.

“WHY?” he asked.

Therein lies the jewel.

Indeed. Do tell, Babsy……

Why?

What relavence does the NAACP have within a discussion about energy and Cap & Trade?

Apparently, according to Boxer, the National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People suddenly becomes a relevant expert on matters of energy when their views align with Boxer's, while opposing those of another black man who happens to be conservative.

When did the NAACP become an expert in energy? It can’t even function in a role worthy of its acronym, let alone how to find sources of energy.

When did John Grant and the “100 Black Men Of Atlanta” become experts on the issue of Cap & Trade? Why, in a meeting of the Environment And Public Works Committee, did chairma’am Boxer inject a memo, which she specifically attributed to the NAACP, into a discussion about energy with the President of the Black Chamber Of Commerce?

Did she have some noble relevance in defense of an oppressed minority group? Was she citing documents from the NAACP in honor of civil rights or opportunities for blacks?

No.

Unfortunately, there is only one explanation for Boxer’s condescension of Mr. Alford. She was exploiting the demographics of race in order to pander for political support. She was letching skin color shared by members of the NAACP, John Grant and Mr. Alford to prop a liberal psychosis against Alford’s conservative views on energy.

And, she revealed something very ugly and insidious about liberals.

Boxer's condescension of Alford was as shocking as it was perverted. Her depth of arrogant presumption to exercise such thoughtless license, permitted to herself through political party affiliation, was abhorent and repugnant. Her deviance will go on record as the most inappropriate exploitation of the issue of race in congressional history. It was truly despicable.

The most tragic thing, however, is that Boxer has so long been a race mongering degenerate subservient to the politics of demography that she can't even remember when she lost her soul. She didn’t even understand what she had done.

On the contrary, she actually had the audacity to defend her gaff as an elevated attempt to show diversity......

.....about energy?

Barbara Boxer represents an epic debauchery which, at some point, blacks must face about liberalism and the Democrat party of condescension. Blacks must wake up and realize that they are only worth to democrats and liberals as much as their poverty, oppression, helplessness and dependence on entitlement policy allows for the liberal establishment to assume and retain power over their lives. Meeting for the cause of the poor black victim is the essence of liberal identity.

For, when a black man or black woman becomes independent, prosperous and successful they become a threat to the liberal establishment's ability to justify its purpose. Successful blacks are worthless to Boxer's liberal cabal.

Mr. Alford’s knockout punch to Boxer came in a final stanza of his response in which he accurately exposed the true, naked, racist character of Boxer and every liberal who has sold their soul to the god of race politics.

“Senator, we’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And, we are referring to the experts. Regardless of their color,” Alford continued, “And, for someone like you to tell me, an African American, college educated, veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other black group, and put aside everything else in here……this has nothing to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Congress. We are talking ‘energy’. And, that ‘road’ the Chair (Boxer) went down….I think is God awful.”

Alford subsequently appeared on the Dennis Miller radio show during which he summed up his exchange with Boxer, “I was there to talk about Cap & Trade and she wanted to go to ‘colored’ town.”

Finally, an African America speaks the absolute truth revealing the true racists of our time. A prominent, colorless member of American society finally recognizes the insidiousness of race mongering by liberals like Barbara Boxer.

In the end, by her own admission, “working hard” to have a title of “senator”, reveals the utter detestability of allowing a true racist like Boxer to become a leader of anything….let alone something like a congressional committee. In order for a menace like Boxer to have any authority, in the real world, she would have to either commit a crime or engage in immorality to achieve it. Because, no decent, sober person would ever pick someone like her in an election if they were actually afforded the opportunity to become familiar with her true nature.

In this case, she exposed the prevailing liberal view of blacks in America. That they are just one big, victimized black person who needs either pity, condescension or charity.

By this, Boxer has shown that she is a violator of every principle prescribed and recognized by far worthier Vintage Americans before her who have lived authentic lives in the customs of decency and genuine identity.

General Walsh and Harry Alford have seen it first hand. The confrontation with them revealed Boxer’s astonishing imperialistic arrogance…………….and ignorance about her own deficiencies.

Unlike Gen. Walsh and Mr. Alford, Boxer was ensconced into her delusional highness by default election results pandered through a liberal, west coast constituency of reprobates. Her position as a political deviant was achieved only because a deteriorating pool of more qualified humanity who, fearing putrification by association, bore enough wisdom to remain as far away from idiocy, like Boxer’s, as possible, and never serve anywhere near the gutter of Boxer's liberal political ranks. Gutter dwellers like Boxer generally fall into their position simply because better people refuse to take it.

But, the final nail in Boxer's credibility coffin was hammered when Alford referred to her as "ma'am" three times in 15 seconds.

Boxer never even noticed.

The Newest Race-Mongering Androphobe At MSNBC

by Dan Crosby

For those of us who relish the self destruction liberals suffer from their beleaguered hatred for conservative white men, Rachel Maddow has emerged as a perfect accessory in the MSNBC tool shed.

When Maddow, the newest, though no less incestuously appreciated, misanglyst of the liberal hackwork, took the air last year, it was easy to overlook her ambiguous feminism. She was a rookie intent on merely doing her job.

Though somewhat mannish, despite her elegance upon the precipice of militancy, Maddow presented herself with agile, sometimes adorable, wordsmithery, while nightly draining herself of a mounting agitation against the melanically challenged.

Then, something happened.

Even though she skirts literalism with the best of them, somewhere along the line, Maddow decided to hate two distinct demographic sectors of American society. Whites and Men.

Watching Maddow now leaves one with an unsettling sense that she thinks her broadcast wedge should end each night praising penis haters everywhere. Unfortunately, Maddow has become yet another nail in the discredibility coffin of MSNBC’s nightly festival of hate against all things Vintage American.

In a recent exchange with Patrick Buchanan, a fellow MSNBC contributor appearing on her self titled happy hour, Maddow probed and prodded the evangelist with a series of blatantly race-oriented questions.

In one completely naked, but characteristic question, Maddow asked, “Why do you think it is that out of the 110 supreme court justices we’ve had in this country, 108of them have been white?”

First of all, only a race-mongering liberal would recognize the demographics of America's supreme court history.

In that moment, only an implement like Maddow could violate the contraceptive against corrupted thought to seek the political nugget of racism within the historical judicial service of vintage Americans over the past 250 years.......when America was founded........by anglo-europeans.......who happened to be from a region of the world where the sun shines upon the surface of the earth at a more shallow angle.......in less duration.........than it does where people have developed a higher density of melanin in their skin......as a natural defense against ultraviolet sunlight.........giving their skin a dark complexion......

In liberal-speak, that means America was settled, created and developed by "evil white devils of non-african origin".

The fantasy response from Buchanan would have been to say, "Well, Rachel, its probably because the United States is overtly favorable to whites and rooted in the belief that light skinned people are just better than dark skinned people in every way. DUH!!"

But, he didn't. But, it would have been fun to hear it. And, this is the mantle for liberals for generations before Maddow was shamefully conceived into American generosity.

Instead, Buchanan’s response was poignant, honest, true, factual and real.

“…White men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution…..and whites were 100% of the people who signed the declaration of independence….”

We will add the "Duh" for Mr. Buchanan.

Maddow looked like a dear in headlights. Running into Buchanan’s brick wall of logic, Maddow zigged with a follow up as her psychosis deepened.

“So, do you think that the reason there have been 108 out of 110 white justices is because they deserve it?”

Again, Buchanan could have answered with devastating logic by simply saying, “Yes.” But, instead he provided a more generous and thoughtful response.

“My argument would be get the finest minds you can get, get real scholars….”

Imagine that.

Choosing the best qualified individuals to serve in places where their decisions actually effect the lives of those they serve is better than choosing individual based on their race.

Maddow isn't even qualified to understand this concept. Her lust for race mongering and harvesting the treasures of the liberal establishment's hatred of white men drives her into an ever vast separation from reality and humanity.

Citing the two mantles of American history upon which our judicial system was constructed, Buchanan should be praised for remembering the essence of what America was intended to be, and for reminding Maddow about what she is causing it to become.

While Buchanan, a conservatively oriented former presidential candidate, presented a sober rendition of the liberal preoccupation with race in each of his answers, Maddow was hell bent on making his pro-anglo responses appear racially insensitive. However, Maddow only managed to confirm the epic suspicions decent Americans have about the corrupted mind of today’s racist liberal. The actual racists of our time.

His point was well made to those who matter. Buchanan was right. Only when America puts away the foolishness of race-based, minority-coddling idiocy in its municipal process will it find sanctuary from the edicts of racism. And, an end to the liberal dissemination of race based politics for its own benefit.

For, it is within the “good intentions” of liberalized measurement by which minorities are discounted, oppressed and forever relegated to a needful regard. Dregs like Maddow are the reason dark skinned people remain in their desolate place. After all, liberals have proven that blacks serve the liberal establishment better when they are victims and slaves than when they are accountable, independent and prosperous.

In reality, liberals, NOT conservatives, are the actual offense to blacks and minorities because only liberals have an self serving interest in keeping them dependent on entitlement and racial politics. Without the insidious sociopolitical value provided for liberals by the disseminations of demography and race, blacks actually have no purpose or value to the liberal establishment. The greatest enemy to a liberal politician is a prosperous, successful, educated, intelligent, decent black man.

Liberals like Maddow hate it when this truth pierces their bleeding heart. And, what’s more, they absolutely disdain it when it is presented to them by a white male, like Mr. Buchanan.

Afterall, white males are the "devils" of humanity. And, without the "evil"ization of white men in America, what do liberals have to propel their desolate ideology? How can they motivate their minions without the false doctrines promoting hate for white men?

Nothing.

Liberals hate the truth from men like Buchanan. They hate it not because they think it’s wrong. They hate it because it is so fundamentally rooted in the truth that it threatens the cognitive structures of dissonance they have strived for so long to erect in convincing themselves of their delusion. The fact that such a devastating testimony comes from a vintage patriarch makes it unbearable for Maddow, and those who have spent their entire lives cultivating a visceral hatred for their caucasian targets.

Maddow probably hates the fact that the emancipation proclamation was created under the administration of a white, republican male. As though slavery and discrimination never existed before America showed up.

Not only is that racist, it’s hateful of America.

Pat Buchanan was honest, thoughtful and correct about the dissonance of liberals and their exploitation of race in this country.

Maddow should be ashamed for allowing her once credible effort at a career descend into such hateful derision.

For all of her fading potential and wonderful naivety, she has become little more than Keith Obermann.....without the vagina of course.

But, then again……she does work at MSNBC.