Liberal, Racist Coward Assaults Wife of GOP Leader

by Dan Crosby

The mask is coming off the liberal establishment one violent assault at a time, and there is nothing the radicals in the Obama administration can do to hide it anymore.

Guvinor Spencer, 58, of Greensboro, was arrested on charges of aggravated assault after punching Forsyth GOP Leader, Nathan Tabor, and shoving Tabor’s wife, at a Greensboro Tea Party rally. Spencer was characterized by Greensboro police as “local trouble maker” with a criminal record. Witnesses of the assault also said that Spencer shouted several racist epithets at various rally members before proceeding to threaten and assault Tabor’s wife as Tabor

video taped the event.

Racist and violent behavior by hate-mongers on liberal left is not a new occurrence. More than two hundred such crimes, ranging from aggravated assault to vandalism, have been committed against Tea Party members across the country since Obama’s election last November.

Violence by degenerates, like Spencer, is not surprising. He represents the true, and natural, character of the liberal establishment. What should be expected from an ideology which aligns itself in close proximity with terrorists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8YXGx1rHxY

Ironically, the liberal media continues to diminish criminal behavior on the part of radicals on the left, while attempting to paint peaceful Tea Party ralliers as violent and extreme. To date, there are no documented, confirmed instances of violence committed by any member of the Tea Party movement. Media dishonesty and propaganda in favor of Obama and the liberal establishment remains the primary reason vintage America has such little awareness of racist, violent extremists like Spencer.

Terry Lakin Support Increases, Showing Courage Under Fire

by Dan Crosby

Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is an American hero. His honor and decorated service serve as a light of real hope and much needed change in his righteous pursuit of truth about the covert natal identity and legitimacy of Barack Obama.

Lakin, unlike some renting America today, understands the value in upholding and protecting the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution, to which he took an oath of loyalty forsaking all enemies, foreign...and domestic.

Despite being denied his legal right to obtain of a mountain of existing evidence and testimony which would exonerate him, Lakin has chosen to forego the preliminary hearing process prior to his court martial and proceed directly to trial. It is through this noble process which Lakin has placed the fate of his 20 year career in the military as a decorated medical officer with multiple tours in combat theatre. Acting with undaunted courage and honor, Lakin is taking up a fight against possible infiltrators at the highest levels of America's leadership hierarchy. Lakin understands, like many other vintage Americans, that if we fail to maintain the integrity of our natural-born legitimacy, as a nation and through our leadership, bearing upon the founder's commissions to remain unified in our Constitutional sovereignty as a hope for the world, we open ourselves to the failed pluralities of lesser governance intruding from all manner of remoteness and internationalism.

If it is ever said of Obama that he was treated unfairly, as a man of ambiguity or "otherness", let us never forget that these sentiments were brought upon him as products of his fault, alone. His lack of transparency, his lack of honesty and his lack of disclosure have worked to poison his legitimacy and undermine his patriotism. By these acts alone, Obama is guilty.

Vintage Americans seek the true, full identity of Obama driven not by opposition to his biracial demography, but rather by his lack of demonstrated character as a principled representative of America's independently conservative heritage. Vintage Americans are born with a genealogical predisposition against inauthenticity. They contain the blood of patriots, surging through the passions of a wrought conviction for freedom.

Terry Lakin is a direct descendant of that conviction. If his cause fails, America is truly in peril. Then again, perhaps this is what liars and usurpers deserve.

We pray for Lt. Col. Lakin, as we pray for all brave warriors in service of this nation. We will continue to support his battle against America's enemies in every way possible.

In response to recent misinformation broadcasted through primary media resources, we have composed the following letter to Bill O'reilly following his lackluster embrace of the facts in Lt. Col. Lakin's saga. The following was composed some weeks ago but it remains forever true:

Dear Mr. O'reilly,

Within the spectrum of today’s media resources there are many options encompassing all points of the ideological realm. We prefer your presentation because we have always believed that you are fair-minded and highly pragmatic. Your professionalism and manner of analysis has always inspired our confidence.

Writing this letter is difficult. My family and I have watched the O’Reilly Factor for the entire 12+ years you have been on Fox. We also enjoyed your radio show during its run.

Like you and your family, we are vintage Americans. For 9 generations, my family has produced more than 250 veterans. I am currently one of 235 living grandchildren descending from (est. Providence (Annapolis), Maryland in 1735). The blood ransomed sovereignty of the Constitution is no small matter to us.

Unfortunately, Bill, we are very disappointed in the manner by which you have chosen to address the matter of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin and his courageous stance against the ambiguity of Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. While we understand the reasons you are not willing to present this controversial subject in a formal “on-air” format, it does great injustice to the choice of this honorable man to broadcast mere snippets of information about him which do not explore the deepest truths regarding this matter.

Case in point, we are certain you have received many correspondences in reaction to your claim that your acquisition of two birth announcements from Hawaii proves Obama was born there. In all the years of our patronage, we have never had a reason to question your credibility on any single issue. However, after 3 years of extensive research, and a subsequent 600 page report, we must take a contentious view with your misunderstanding of this matter, which is but one small fraction of the overall evidence continuing to mount against Obama. Unfortunately, you are simply wrong about the validity of the birth announcements in their capacity to prove birth location.

Based on this evidence it is our conclusion that there are two possible reasons supporting doubts about Obama's legitimacy. Hidden documents either contain aversive information about his geographic natal history, or they contain politically damaging information about his demographics (religion, parentage, race, given name at birth, etc.), which could lead to a cascade of consequences to his presidency.

Specifically, our research revealed several undeniable facts which directly contradict your conclusions about the announcements, however.

First, the announcements are published by the newspapers from information provided exclusively from the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics, not a private third party. The editors of both papers are quoted, on record with our staff, as stating that their information used for the publication of vital events is provided by the Hawaiian agency. This means that the information contained in the announcements is subject to the independent processes and formats of natal documentation approved within the confidential procedures of the municipality, unknown by the public.

Second, a comparison of all birth announcements in both papers throughout the month of August, 1961, shows they are all published in the same non-alphabetical order, in the same exact quantity, in the same context between the two papers. Despite the occurrence of 1040 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961, the newspapers show all parents as married and living at the same address. Also, the location of the birth is not published. Only the address of the parent's alleged residence is given. These facts undermine conclusions that the announcements provide reliable information about any birth.

Third, the order of publication is based on a “birth list” compiled by the agency. The order of births in this list is based on the registration location (see 1961 NVSD Report: Volume 1, Section 5), not the date of reception by the agency. The registration number also reflects this geographically-based registration locale. Notice that Obama's birth registration is out of sequence in comparison to other births allegedly occurring at the same time, in the same medical facility. Therefore, the fact that Obama’s alleged announcements appear in any newspaper is in no way proof of his birth location. It simply means that a registration for his birth was filed with the Hawaiian Department of Health some time after his birth, somewhere, and that information was conveyed to the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics which then created a birth list for the newspapers.

Fourth, a deeper analysis of this municipal agency reveals that the state of Hawaii issues “birth lists” based on birth registration records, not documentation of medically verified "live" birth events or their locations. The NVSD Report explicitly states that in order for a birth certificate to be authentic it must be signed by a licensed professional qualified to the determine the characteristics of a "live" birth. Obama's Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth contains no such affixation. This is why the NVSD produced the common document template specifically titled a "Certificate of Live Birth". It originates in 1915 when still births were falsly accounted with the new census creating artificial increases in migrant populations. Birth lists, however, are compiled from a registration docket, not original, official birth records forwarded by doctors, hospitals or birth attendants to the Department of Health.

Finally, a birth may occur anywhere and be registered within the state of Hawaii as long as the parents, or applicant for a birth certificate, provides evidence to the director of the department of Health that they were residents of Hawaii within a year of the birth, regardless of the birth’s location (See HRS 338-17.8, 338-5, 338-17.7). We know at least one of Obama’s parents were residents in Hawaii at any one time from the Summer of 1959 until September of 1961. This qualifies Obama to apply for and receive a Hawaiian approved Birth Certificate, by law, regardless of his actual birth place.

Unfortunately, none of these facts prove that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to serve as a President of the U.S. It is this foundation upon which Mr. Lakin seeks verification, and he is more than justified in doing so on behalf of the sacrifice made throughout the long history of my vintage American family. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Lakin has permission to address this matter in any way he feels is appropriate in order to justify the risk to his very life and well-being which he has been ordered to undertake as a member of our military. His responsibility is to the Constitution, not any individual. His refusal to follow orders on these grounds is his prerogative.

As Mr. Lakin begins the legal fight of his life, we choose to see him as the soldier on the front line of a war against the current administration’s obvious and proven desire to undermine, dismiss and overrule the U.S. Constitution. If George Bush’s eligibility had been in question, we would have supported the same action against him.

Barack Obama has proven his contempt for the U.S. Constitution with his Healthcare law, financial bailouts, executive order 13489, regulatory overreach into private business and a general assault against the rights of a free press and our independent, capitalist society. Terry Lakin is a man who should be supported in every way possible. He is a credible figure with 18 years of highly qualified professional, decorated service to the United States, and moral justification.

In the future, we would simply ask that you either make a full effort, worthy of your profound success, to present all of the facts of this story in your usual proficient manner, or that you avoid it all together. Disseminating false, or loosely corroborated information compromises the integrity of public opinion about Mr. Lakin and, it makes you look less than knowledgeable about the subject. We don’t want either consequences.

Editorially, it begs the question: To what degree of deviation from authenticity must Obama further demonstrate his lack of aptitude in order for the primary media resources (you) to recognize that something is amiss with this man's qualities, legitimacy and, possibly, eligibility as a leader?

The dismissal of this vital matter without a thorough and pressed analysis is quite astonishing, and, I fear, it is allowing untold damage to the integrity of this nation...and our respective family's legacy of vintage inheritance.

We will continue to watch the Factor, as always. We wish you great success.

"Ass-Kicker-In-Chief" Exonerates Bush's Cowboy Quips

by Pen Johannson

Five years ago, some of us delayed reacting to degenerates in the liberal establishment when they ran near-riot wild, gnashing their teeth over what they called George Bush’s “cowboy” personifications.

We knew this day would eventually come.

Exposing liberal democrats, as the hypocrites they are, is not only easy...it’s fun.

Spike Lee’s advice for Barack Obama to “go off” should have been accompanied with a public relations narrative advising Obama that “going off” must also be strategically and appropriately timed to match the development of the events you are “going off” about. Otherwise, you not only look like a desperate, vulnerable, big talking, cowboy, you also appear to be unqualified, or ineligible, to be President to begin with.

Lo’ and behold, Obama, “going off” five weeks too late, became that karmic liberal version of an inarticulate “cowboy” last Monday when he cracked that he's been talking to Gulf Coast experts on BP's catastrophic oil spill not for “academic reasons” but so he knows “whose ass to kick."

Meanwhile, sardonic laughter was heard echoing from a ranch in Crawford, Texas.

If Bush was an incompetent, trigger-happy cowboy, Obama just became a smack-talking, gang-bangin’-wannabe with no street cred. Bush may have been a self envisioned Old Western type, but at least he actually got off his ass and out of the friendly confines of his respectively-winged isography. Bush may have been articulately challenged, but he was still willing to pick up the bull horn and inspire America from ground zero. Obama has done nothing resembling Bush's initiative except the "bull" part.

It’s one thing to back your words with a full frontal, effective military attack against a rogue threat while rescuing 30 million lives from oppression, it’s another to relegate your greatest challenge to yapping about “ass kicking” when the only credibility you have with the subject comes from the experience of having the lips of liberals constantly kissing your own.

We all know Obama is a radical socialist seeking economic retribution for ambiguously documented minorities, but now he just looks like an erratic, uncertain punk when confronted with a real geographic problem that affects an American demographic he doesn’t care about. Comparatively, if Obama had made those comments in any orb other than the friendly confines of Immelt’s protection, the backlash would have rivaled a prison-type relationship in which he would be labeled by a five letter word beginning with the letter “B” and ending with what you remedy by scratching your ass, not kicking someone else's.

Case in point, Bush’s characterization of the late mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, as an “outlaw” as well as his reference to the “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters of the old West with regard to Osama Bin Laden, had uppity urbanites spitting all over themselves with ridicule. However, Bush’s quips were followed by an actual successful action against Saddam’s regime which was, perhaps, the most efficient, quickly achieved objective in American military history.

Whether or not you agree with the reasons for the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, the March, 2003 rescue of Iraq saw the American military move 50,000 troops, weaponry and equipment across 200 miles of barren desert in 48 hours, and completely take over a criminal government, liberating 30 million victims while, eventually, spurring the inception of democratic freedom in the middle of what can only be characterized as a sand-driven hell.

Perhaps, its high (noon) time for liberal and democrats, alike, to choke on the fact that the actual ass kicking already happened long before Obama-come-lately even showed up.

Meanwhile, liberal hacks comfortably perched in air conditioned accommodations, thousands of miles away from IEDs, bullets and suicide bombers, here and abroad, enjoying security provided by soldiers under Bush's command, gorged themselves on self-exalted derision against Obama’s predecessor. They levied accusations and lies while disseminating sympathy for a murderous dictator and the terrorist organizations he enabled, if not outright supported.

Many in the liberal media even decompensated to reverse mythology, in an attempt to synthetically conceal their amoral love for terrorists simply because they perceived suicide bombers as “underdogs” to the “evil American empire”. They said Bush actually failed the values inherited from America’s Old West heritage and therefore was not even qualified to be called a “cowboy” in the traditional sense while they happily exalted Islamic baby murderers as "freedom fighters" and "non-collaborators". One beady-eyed liberal actually said that Bush "did not have the restraint or dignity of the cowboy," even though he was the first to protest his own military leadership when they called for a use of nuclear weapons in Tora Bora in 2004.

As if the sentiment of liberals is even relevant opposite the mass murder of 3000 innocent human beings at the hands of terrorists funded by rich, Arab oil barrons who made their money because those same liberals hinder American energy independence with treasonous enviro-nazism. If Obama were serious about striking his foot upon backsides, he should start by removing one from his mouth and use it on the goebbels and environuts in his own party for legislation which forces energy companies, like BP, so far out into deep ocean water, that accidents become far more destructive than they should ever be.

The teeth gnashing lesson convicting Obama from the Gulf is that, sometimes, the immediate fight for your identity as a leader is about your true association with oceanic geography, not your self-righteous ideology. Sometimes, the most appropriate treatment of an ass requires that you actually get the hell off of it and go to the location of the problem with tools, weapons, machines, manpower and, yes...a bull horn, rather than sitting on it in Rockefeller Plaza imagining solar panel justice and wind farm utopias.

A lot of people want to compare Obama's Gulf disaster to Bush's Gulf disaster. However, if Obama continues to feign outrage, refusing to either admit his incompetency and get out of the way of more qualified leadership, or take the reins as a demonstration that he is actually a delegator of responsibility, this event will begin to appear less like Katrina and more like another more terrible event also occurring, coincidentally, during the first year of the previous administration.

Then again, a lack of ass kicking is why today's liberal establishment politicians turned into characterless radicals to begin with.

Ding Dong, The Witch Is...Forced To Retire

by Pen Johannson

In the immortal words of actress Billie Burke, playing Glinda the Good Witch in a timeless vintage American movie classic, “Only bad witches are ugly.”

Nothing could say more about 90-year-ol', liberal White House press antique, Helen Thomas... and we haven't even began to address her looks, yet.

America might have preferred a house-laden tornado, but "forced retirement" (code words for being fired for thinking your age and experience gives you permission to express public hate for an entire demographic) will have to be good enough for Elphab..er..uh, Thomas. If only ridding liberal anti-Semitism from the world were as easy. In the absence of a heel-clicking Jewish heroine able to melt her with a strategically thrown bucket of water, we will just have to settle for the joy of watching the wicked witch of the liberal east wilt away under a torrent of disgrace and witless dementia.


If respect erodes for Thomas, it’s her own fault. In a recent gaffe loaded diatribe, the liberal hagosaurus revealed her true desire to see the 7+ million citizens of Israel dissolved and scattered, nationless, among the failing anonymity of the various European geographies from whence they sought sanctuary from holocaustic murder and persecution. In effect, Thomas sided with the rising hatred for God’s people in the same manner fomented by every Jew hater since the egyptian pharoah who enslaved them, from Ramesses to Hitler to radical islamists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related

If this is too complex for fragile liberality, let's ponder it in reverse terms. What if a long standing conservative media voice has said, "I think all the blacks should get the hell out of the Lower 9th Ward and go back to Africa.."?

Kinda equalizes the Thomas ilk, eh?

When it comes to hating Jews, liberals are quite proficient. What is the difference between the views expressed recently by Thomas and the intent of those expressed by Iran's Ahmadinijad in his desire to defy the will of the living God and bring an end to the state of Israel? If Thomas wasn’t such a senile biddy, it might actually be tempting to take her militancy seriously. But, really…what is a prune going to do? Fortunately, her existence on earth is about as contemporaneous as her buddy, Mahmoud, can only fantasize Israel’s to be. Unfortunately, we don't have the option of relegating Ahmadinijad to some pristine raisin ranch. Unlike Thomas, we may actually have to drop something on his head from a different kind of Tornado...the GR4 type.

The liberal establishment’s denial of Israel’s right to exist is not surprising. They are, afterall, the actual racists of our time. Projecting their own hate by levying accusations of racism against their political opposition is a pathetic tactic often used by bratty little siblings and the immature left in a desperate lobby for acceptance for their moral deficiencies. However, what is disturbing is the truly evil dissemination of such publicly displayed anti-Semitic ideology among long established persona of the American media. Although, given the hypocrisy by Thomas, farting dust might be just as offensive.

Thomas’ career has taken the misfortunate road most traveled by liberal hacks. The “crash and burn”, "Dan Rather" decommissioning seems to be an irresistible force culling the liberal slag from America’s vintage media purity. To wit, this is not a disappointment, and we can only hope it continues. They deserve their disgrace. We only wish they had been eradicated before being allowed to encourage and embolden the evil, flying monkey Ahmadinijads of the world.

Fortunately, Thomas has since been forced out of her position, into a long overdue retirement. If only she could take the entire anti-jewish establishment, and its Godless, amoral degeneracy with her.

In the end, the vacant, front-row seat in the White House Press Briefing Room will finally be filled by someone far worthier, far less hypocritical and more racially tolerant. Then again, Maggie Hamilton's success may have simpy been the result of Helen Thomas missing the casting call in 1937.

A Message To Bush-hating Katrina Critics: Welcome To Gulf Crisis Hell

by Dan Crosby

For all of the dissonant, Obama-loving critics of George Bush, the epic destruction being wrought by the gulf oil disaster is making Katrina look like spilt milk. Long term estimates place the total economic impact of the oil spill around $200 billion dollars by 2015 and many analysts believe the gulf region’s economic engine will never fully recover.

Kinda makes you miss the run-of-the-mill "racist" gulf hurricane, huh?

Hurricane Katrina and the oil spill are tragedies. They are morose events imposed upon the existence of humanity without probable cause and without full explanation as to how to prevent them or their consequences without destroying the very quality of life previously enjoyed by those who are hurt by them. However, the foul nature of these disasters pales in comparison to the foulest nature of the liberal establishment who point to both as justification for castrating American exceptionalism through psychotic environmental policy.

Barack Obama is no more to blame for the “evil, environment-hating” oil spill than George Bush was to blame for the “racist” hurricane which struck the gulf region, but its exonerating watching the ostentatiously vaunted ivy-league intellect struggle with the concept of the "redistribution" of oil from a 16-inch hole. At least, Katrina was a hundred-mile wide act of God. What's Obama's "oil spill" excuse?

However, for every liberal claiming Katrina was the result of George Bush flapping his arms on the west coast of Africa trying to conjure a tropical storm in an effort to kill black people in Louisiana, here is a more likely truth. Vulnerability to such disasters, regardless of the victim's demographics, is the result of liberal degeneracy preventing economic opportunities for poverty-stricken residents of the region to either build away from, or move out of the path of environmental, and industrial disasters, alike.

Or, there is the option of concluding that Katrina and the oil spill only serve to support Barack Obama's racist fantasy that only dark skinned people are righteously qualified to see the intrinsic value of worshipping the "god" of the environment, while the rampaging, "evil, white earth killer" theory takes hysterical hold on the helpless minds of deranged, stupid liberals. For all who promote doctrine claiming climate extremes are caused by humanity, there is an equally compelling argument supporting the fact that deep sea oil disasters are the fault of liberal enviro-nazism which hinders energy exploration in safer regions of America, and for every argument against the use of fossil fuels to power the advanced citizenship of humanity, there is an equally valid argument against allowing people to build entire neighborhoods in precariously levied, water-front regions 30 feet below sea level...within the unanimously understood path of hurricanes. Or, worse, radical, state-sponsored environmentalism truly seeks to make the world's poor so destitute that they will riot in favor of Obama's genocidal environmental policies.

However, the gulf oil spill is about the "redistribution" of environmental karma, not the racial bias of a hurricane, right, Mr. Gore? Of course, the same God who populated the earth with dinosaurs, then killed them with a mass extinction, turning them into petroleum based substances now utilized to fuel the progress of another more intelligent species, is now "punishing" the white, rich sector of that species for unintentionally mixing the remnants of those dead dinosaurs with the sea that environmentalists have declared the new "god"? Let's take the commandments one at a time, starting with the first one. Liberals desiring to call fire and brimstone upon the free market economy of the United States for making money off their moral indigence should take a moment and heed the rules they seek enforcement of, lest they be judged as well.

How many extinct dinosaurs and dead oil riggers fuel your private jet, Al?

The gulf oil spoil is a lesson in karmic equality with a verdict “levied” against rabid, Bush-hating liberals whose self-righteous arrogance is now exposed to the same political and ideological humiliation they sought for Bush. The verdict is this: Barack Obama’s response to the gulf oil spill crisis has been an abysmal failure of epic proportions. Punditry attempting to paint this disaster as Obama’s Katrina is actually inaccurate. It’s worse...much worse.

The dirty little secret about both disasters, however, is that they may be more connected to one another than liberals care to admit.

As the gulf region’s agrarian industry began transformation from a plantation-based economy at the end of the civil war to an industrially diverse corporate manifest, the discovery of oil, and its energy-based applications, prompted new entrepreneurial interests. Families who were previously invested solely in plantation farming at the end of the slavery era, found resurrection in investing in the burgeoning oil industry. As the families of freed slaves established new communities in the south, their lack of endowed economic power forced settlement in less desired regions of the American south, regions like the 9th Ward of New Orleans.

Therefore, vulnerability to industrial disaster has its roots in as much of the same causality of diminished migratory conditions and socialism as any exposure to benign environmental disasters, and they affect all people equally. However, in order to understand this, one must first abandon the liberal psychosis claiming that the earth is an unwitting victim at the hands of the genealogical remnants of cavemen and that presidents only act promptly when those affected by tragedy share their skin color. It requires that one actually embrace a higher opinion of creation, first, and be willing to accept the fact that the true tragedies of disasters such as Katrina and the oil spill are their destructive effects beginning at the top of the bio-creation hierarchy, not the earthly bottom.

However, this truth is inconvenient for the frothing liberal masses seeking to destroy human beings under the guise of implementing their God-free religion rooted in a psychotic, pro-environment, anti-humanity culture of death.

Therefore, as oil gushes into the once pristine, biodiverse waters of the gulf, we now have balance in the account of stored ideological wrath against liberalism. For every liberal excretion lamenting the death of a sea creature and blaming it all on those they hate, there are a million worthier inhabitants of earth willing to give credit for that creature's existence to a loving Creator, to begin with!

However, let us give benefit of the doubt without focusing on the possibility that Obama's delay in implementing the full power of the world's economic, industrial and military superpower to stop a mere 16-inch wide oil leak was in no way related to his racially-based hatred for an affluent industry rooted in anglo-American ingenuity and dominated by white entrepreneurship.

Then, of course, there is the nearly $500,000 in contributions Obama accepted from the petroleum industry, as a whole, during his 2008 ensconcement campaign.

Let us be optimists and pay no attention to these "canards".

Instead, perhaps we should come to the consensus supported by the evidence at hand, that God does indeed hate pelicans, sea turtles...and black people, right, Obama?

As vintage America recovers from these tragic events, let us document for history that the greatest defilements against the gulf region in the last 10 years has nothing to do with environmental disaster or the response to them. The most hideous effects are from liberals seeking to reep the wages of "Big Oil" sin then pay them to the vile manservants of "Big Environmental" hypocrisy. When all is said and done, both deserve each other's company while burning, side by side, in gulf crisis hell.

Besador Culo Denounces American Sovereignty As Obama Happily Watches Gulf Become Abyss

by Dan Crosby

Two crises. Two opportunities for Obama to undermine America even more.

One of the universal truths governing the struggle between good and evil is that villains are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. So, as oil continues to spill into the gulf and criminally employed, illegal aliens continue to spill into America, America can rest assured the Obama administration will not allow either crisis to go to waste. Recent responses to both reveal that this administration, regardless of legitimacy, is going to milk them of their political value.

Then again, what other response to a marine bio-crisis on the southern border would you expect from an extreme liberal administration whose lead advisor is a guy nicknamed “Dead Fish”?

Given the diametric psychology driving liberal degeneracy about America's energy industry and illegal immigration, its not hard to undersand why Obama's bowing liberal concensus avails itself to such self-destructive stupidity. Poisoned by an irrational stance against oil production and an astonishing ignorance about Arizona’s legal sovereignty in protecting its citizens, liberals and democrats alike are psychotic to keep such tragedies as ever-spewing gifts supporting their extreme environmental and social justice policies, regardless of who or what dies in the process.

This week, Obama launched a new campaign in response to Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law. Did he offer his support of Arizona's struggle to find some resolution to the pervasive threat to its population and economy?

No.

Did Obama provide some insight from his prestigious legal expertise in support of Arizona's need to secure its borders as a prime directive against the threat of terrorism?

Nope.

Okay...well then, did Obama at least take the opportunity to bring calm to the controversy and draw on the situation to promote racial unity, social rest and pro-American change.

Not a chance.

Instead, Obama "acted stupidly" and stuck his other racially biased foot in his mouth and then invited the Mexican President to come and support him.

Infected by Obama’s liberal propaganda and outright lies about the illegal alien invasion of America through Arizona's southern border, Mexican President Felipe Calderón on Wednesday puckered up and audaciously criticized Arizona's softer rendition of the already existing, federal anti-illegal immigration law. Calderon was conveniently absent of any sentiment about Mexico's harsh anti-illegal law which imposes felony-grade penalties, automatic deportation without due process and prison terms which can exceed 10 years.

Calderon's deranged hypocrisy was so insulting, it could only come from one place...the Obama administration.

In his blind, liberal rant, Calderon disregard the fact that Arizona’s law provides a comprehensive option for police to question suspected violators of non-immigration laws about their immigration status if, while in the course of executing lawful enforcement, the police are presented with reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be in the country illegally. "Reasonable suspicion" is specifically defined by Basic Police Standards and Training as physical, behavioral or verbal evidence which leads the officer to believe the suspect is engaged in illegal activity.

Obama and Calderon are apparently not intelligent enough to understand that being in either of their respective countries without accepted forms of identification is "illegal activity". Yet, while Obama, like Bush before him, refuses to enforce federal immigration law, most anti-Americans of the liberal establishment are ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court already set precedence in 2005 for exclusive enforcement of federal anti-illegal immigration law by upholding cases in which police claimed justification in requesting immigration status of the plaintiff whose only crime was being in the United States illegally. Yes, the Supreme Court said the police were justified in racially profiling suspects.

Sorry, Democrats. Your desire to increase your voting base with the illegitimate offspring of illegal aliens is exposed. In fact, a side-by-side factual comparison of Arizona's law with both the federal version and Mexico's immigration law exposes some embarrassing facts against Obama and his ridiculous liberal horde.

The federal version of the U.S. law actually allows law enforcement to question, detain and arrest suspected illegal aliens and submit them to deportation process simply based on the suspicion that they are in the country illegally. Arizona's law does not. Arizona's law stipulates that any investigation into the illegality of a suspect's immigration status must first be justified by a violation of other ordinances or laws before questioning the suspect about their immigration status is allowed, and, any investigation must not be the result of racial profiling. Obama's ignorant comment that hispanic families are at risk of being snatched from "ice cream shops" and deported from Arizona is only accurate if the families are also actually attempting to rob the ice cream shop. Without the violation of some other law, Jose' and his nine anchor babies are free to have all the welfare funded Rocky Road they can stomach, courtesy of the American tax payer.

However, the coup de gras is that Mexico's immigration law actually makes it a felony to be in that country illegally and deportation is immediately implemented without due process. Illegal immigration in the U.S. is only a misdemeanor and they are afforded due process before deportation. Attempts to reenter Mexico by an illegal alien after deportation is punishable by a 10 year prison term. America only levies a fine around $300 which is rarely paid because, after release, the suspect simply disappears, returns to Mexico on their own or takes a different identity. There are currently thousands of illegal Mexican aliens still residing in America who have been arrested multiple times in different locations with different identities.

Mexican medical professionals are forbidden by law to provide care for illegal aliens and the federale' Law de immigration de Mexico actually states that in order for a foreigner to be in that country they must be "physically and mentally healthy."

Is Calderon' serious?

In 2005, the Supreme Court found that the police did have the right to ask for immigration status based on specific characteristics of the suspect's physical, behavioral and verbal evidence. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that if the suspect did not speak english, did not possess valid U.S. identification and behaved in an evasive way, that the police were justified in asking for immigration status of the suspect.

However, liars in the liberal establishment, like Obama, would like Americans to believe that Arizona has given permission to its cops to shoot dead anyone they believe is an illegal alien.

Its time to end the stupidity.

Like Arizona, the Supreme Court did not say the police could shoot the suspect dead if they believed the suspect was in the U.S. illegally. Agreed?

Unlike Arizona, the Court said the police could arrest the suspect if they believed the suspect was in the U.S. illegally.

Like Arizona, the Court said the police could not harass the suspect if they believed the suspect was in the U.S. illegally.

Unlike Arizona...the Supreme Court said the police could ask for immigration status if they believed the suspect was in the U.S. illegally. The Supreme Court ruled the police could actually ask a question about the suspect's legal activity in the U.S. without evidence that a law had actually been violated beyond lack of identification. Contrarily, Arizona's soft law actually requires the commission of a crime before inquiring about immigration status. Intellectual critics should be more inclined to ask Arizona about the lack of benefit of such a law which allows the commission of crime before enforcement could even begin. Essentially, the Arizona law actually dismisses the rights of legal citizens to be safe from illegality while upholding a right, which does not even exist, of illegal aliens to not be offended.

Someone should tell anti-Americans of the liberal establishment that if they go to Mexico without a passport, they will be arrested and sent back to America.

When did asking for proper identification from anyone by police become a violation of civil rights?

The Supreme Court wrote in 2005:

The Supreme Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress's lack of 'effective leadership' in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders. The failure of enforcement of the immigration laws over more than a decade and the inherent difficulty and expense of sealing our vast borders have combined to create a grave socioeconomic dilemma. It is a dilemma that has not yet even been fully assessed, let alone addressed.

The irony of the Obama administration's reaction to Arizona's law is that the federal law is more stringent and less discriminatory. Lo and behold, the Supreme Court of the U.S. had the presence of mind, against the liberal current of ideological lies, to actually declare that being an illegal alien is indeed not a new form of human race. The Supreme Court actually said that upholding the laws of the U.S. is important.

Eureka!

Despite the fact that Obama has been an abysmal failure in his Constitutional obligation to secure the border between Mexico and America, Calderon actually did Obama’s covert political bidding by denouncing Arizona’s Constitutional jurisdiction as "discriminatory" and its justified law as a “criminalization” of migration.

Let’s be clear. Calderon was parroting Obama’s lies. He was not in Ciudad de Mexico criticizing some international legislation derived at Mexico from America’s foreign policy. This guy took the podium on the floor of the U.S. Congress and actually lied about the domestic policy of the sovereign nation hosting him... then he was applauded by the congressional hypocrites failing to uphold the sovereignty that empowers them.

Perhaps, if Obama, and Calderon desire to uphold the actual rights of those for whom it matters, they should both mind their own respective national business and get to work serving first the citizens of the country they were elected by.

Being treated like law-obeying first-class citizens is contingent upon not acting like law-breaking, second-class criminals.

Its time that Obama, and Calderon, spent more time fulfilling the Constitutional mandates of their own countries, protecting their people and securing the sovereign borders of their respective territories and less time acting like oil spills and illegal immigrants are just reasons to pursue their stupid political lusts.

Last heard, British Petroleum does not hire illegal aliens. Dead fish are a terrible consequence of an unfortunate accident which should be compensated by those who caused it. But, dead Mexicans languishing in desert heat is an executive crime which should be held to the account of the those who were empowered to stop it.

Mr. Presidents...do your damn jobs!

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

by Penbrook Johannson

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

That's crazy. Right?

Well, actually...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

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

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

LIARS AND ABETTORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How might this have benefitted Obama?

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

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

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

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.
The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MYTH OF THE NEWSPAPERS' BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS AS PROOF OF ACTUAL BIRTH PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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