From Conception...To Election

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

Sunday, May 30, 2010

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.

Friday, May 21, 2010

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?


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?


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.


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. your damn jobs!

Monday, May 10, 2010

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

by Penbrook Johannson

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

That's crazy. Right?

Well, actually...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How might this have benefitted Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Anderson Cooper Dishonestly Afoul in Lakin Interview

by Dan Crosby

On May 7, Lt. Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin and his attorney, Paul Jensen appeared in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. Dr. Lakin has recently been formally charged by the military with failure to follow orders to deploy because, as Dr. Lakin has stated, he is unable to follow orders from a chain of command in which the Constitutional eligibility of the Commander-in-Chief is in question. Prior to the charges against him, Lakin exhausted the standard, legal options of inquiry into the matter of Obama's ambiguous eligibility, through appropriate military channels, and now, abandoned by his superiors, has resigned himself to a formal court martial in order to present his case thereby forcing discovery of evidence in his favor.

Staff of the The Daily Pen reviewed the eight minute interview and found vast misrepresentations on the part of CNN’s Cooper. Throughout the interview, Cooper, refusing to discuss any evidence supporting the questionable legitimacy of Obama, instead, harangued and insulted Lakin and Jensen with irrelevencies while disregarding the clear and present facts of Lakin's case and Barack Obama's failure to demonstrate his eligibility to be President of the United States.

Many of the facts misrepresented by Cooper are as follows:

A. HAWAIIAN CERTIFICATION VS. FEDERAL CERTIFICATE. Barack Obama has failed to present standard documentation in the form of a federal, National Vital Statistics & Records Division, "Certificate of Live Birth" which is the only valid form available in the United States qualified to convey "natural born" status for births of civilians in the United States, as stated in the 1961 United States Report on Vital Statistics - Volume 1: Natality, Section 5, Technical Appendix. The standard "Certificate of Live Birth" remained virtually unaltered by the PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE ON VITAL RECORDS & STATISTICS with minor revisions introduced in 1955 to include more detailed information about the location of birth and residence of the parents. The report states:

"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

The report states that various municipalities have altered the document to conform to local laws. In doing so, however, the title of the document and quantity of content remains unchanged. However, the report emphasizes that the document comforms closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate in its intended purpose to provide the most detail possible about live births in the United States, not conceal information as the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" does.

An example of the the federal version of this document appears on page 5-4 of the report and shows 55+ entry spaces for information conveying demographics, statistics, natal metrics, signatures and identities of witnesses and attendants about the natal event and is required by law to be attested by a licensed medical professional qualified to witness and medically confirm a "live birth". If the "Certificate of Live Birth" does not contain the signature of a licensed medical professional, it is invalid.

Anderson Cooper attempted to equate the validity of a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" with a federal "Certificate of Live Birth" by intentionally referring to Obama's Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" as a "Certificate of Live Birth." He did this six times during the interview.

B. LACK OF NATURAL BORN DOCUMENTATION. Barack Obama has promoted his administration as one which declares "transparency as a touchstone". However, a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", which is an independently published, surrogate document designed and published in secret by the municipality of the Hawaiian Health Department, is intended to clone, but innaccurately represent, the federal version of a standard U.S. birth record without actually providing detailed information about the full identity or natural born status of the bearer. The Hawaiian version, often called a short-form, contains less than 20 entries of information and provides no collaborative information or data to support "natural born" status. The only information provided on the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" indicating the alleged location of a birth is the city and state of the parent's residence as it is registered with the state of Hawaii.

Anderson Cooper incorrectly asserts that Obama's birth records contain his actual location of birth. Under Hawaiian law, the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" only conveys the city and state of the parent's residence as the place of birth, not the actual place of birth, when the original document is issued under and administrative process governed by Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 and Administrative Rule 91. In fact, the 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S. 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 of
Columbia, 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 Vitals Statistics Report of the U.S. - Volume 1, Natality.

In Obama's case, the actual location of birth was ommitted and replaced with the location of his mother's claimed residence when the birth is registered which is a synthetically legalized method of birth registration found only in the state of Hawaii under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 (See Below). This policy was enacted as early as 1902 under the "Certification of Hawaiian Birth Program" which enabled expatriated foreigners to receive native sanctuary from political persecution during China's communist revolution as well as other international conflicts. This policy was readily accommodating for immigrants because the U.S. did not account birth data from 1900 to 1914.

C. HAWAIIAN LAW PERMITS FOREIGN BORN NATALITY. Hawaiian law (HRS 338-17.8) allows the state's Health Department, under the authority of the current director of the Health Department, Chiyome Fukino M.D., to issue official native birth records to children born out of state, and allows the registration of out-of-state births as occuring in the state of Hawaii if the parents claimed Hawaii as their place of residence within one year of the birth. HRS 338-17.8 states:

State of Hawaii Revised Statute [§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.

When Obama's parents declared Hawaii as their place of residence within one year of his birth, the Hawaiian Department of Health then assigned, by default, the place of residence as the location of the birth based on rules of birth data reporting set forth by the National Vital Statisics Division. Therefore, it is possible in the state of Hawaii to register the birth of a child as "natural born", even though the birth occurs outside the United States and is actually NOT a "natural born" event.

D. MISSING MEDICAL VERIFICATION OF OBAMA'S "LIVE" BIRTH. The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" does not contain the identity or signature of any medical professional qualified to witness a "live birth". The Vital Statistics Report states:

"The term "attended by physician," as used in this publication, includes births attended by physicians out of hospitals and all births in hospitals or institutions. Births are classified as occurring "in hospital or institution" on the basis of entries on the birth certificate..."

E. HAWAIIAN MUNICIPALITY IS COMPLICIT BY PROTECTING OBAMA. Ironically, the state of Hawaii is the only state in the nation which exclusively and autonomously issues this independently published form of birth record without providing accompanying copies of the original MEDICAL VERIFICATION birth records issued through the hospital. This policy was conveniently enacted within the State of Hawaii's Health Department around the time that Obama's natal controversy began in order to provide administrative shelter of Obama's records.

F. BARACK OBAMA'S FATHER A FOREIGNER. Historical definitions of Natural Born Citizenship declare it as the highest form of citizenship where one is born in a location under the jurisdiction of the United States to TWO parents who are, at least, U.S. Citizens. Barack Obama's father, B.H. Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States.

G. BARACK OBAMA'S MOTHER A PRE-CITIZEN. Naturalization & Immigration law in effect at the alleged time of Obama's birth mandated that natural born citizenship may only be passed by birth if at least one of the parents of such child had resided in the United States for at least FIVE years after the age of 14. This means that since we know Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, his mother would have had to be 19 years old at the time of Obama's birth in order for her to be qualified to pass natural born status to her child. She was only 18 years old which disqualified her from passing natural born status to Obama.

H. OBAMA REMAINS AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN. It is common knowledge that Barack Obama lived in Jakarta, Indonesia from approximately fall of 1967 until some time in 1971-1972. During that time, his mother was married to a native Indonesian, Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Barack Obama, assigning the child to Indonesian citizenship and the Muslim religion. Upon returning to the United States, Barack Obama was not re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen and therefore remains, at least, a dual naturalized citizen of both Indonesia and the United States. This plural nativity, in itself, disqualifies Obama from serving as the President of the United States. Without proof of re-naturalization, the worst possibility today is that Barack Obama is actually living in the United States as an illegal alien with citizenship loyalty to only Indonesia, which not only disqualifies him from any position in the American government, also makes him a criminal subject to deportation.

I. MEDICAL FACILITY NEVER CONFIRMS OBAMA BIRTH. There are seven different documented sources presenting conflicting accounts of the location of Obama's birth. They are:

1. His paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, living in Kenya, says she was present at Obama's Kenyan birth. Mrs. Obama submitted a sworn affidavit supporting her testimony and is recorded on tape as confirming her presence at Obama's Kenyan birth.
2. His sister, Maya Soetoro, accounts that Obama was born in Kapi'lani Medical Center, in Honolulu, during a campaign support rally in summer, 2008.
3. In a July 27, 2009 Press Release from the Hawaiian Department of Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, she not only violates state law against disclosing the contents of vital records to the general public, she also exceeds her authority as a municipal state-level employee by declaring that Obama meets federal election requirements by saying that he is "indeed a natural born citizen of the United States" and that "his records show he was born in Hawaii." Fukino, however, never actually submits the original record for public analysis and has no expertise in federal election laws, candidate vetting or the Powers clause of the U.S. Constitution.
4. A Rev. Kweli Shuhubia also testified in a sworn affidavit that he traveled to Mombasa, Kenya, where he interviewed personnel at Coast Provincial Hospital where, he “...then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar,” he swore, “and learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III, in Mombasa, Kenya, on Aug. 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official who was the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Barack H. Obama Jr. and his mother were present, however the file on Barack H. Obama Jr.’s birth in Kenya is top secret,” he stated.
5. During a radio interview with the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., Dr. Peter Ogego on November 6, 2008, the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a “well-known” attraction. Just days after the election, radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark and Marc Fellhauer on Detroit’s WRIF called the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego regarding the election of Obama. During the nearly 20-minute conversation, the specific exchange of interest was as follows:

Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”

Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a

national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”

6. In a UPI story dated November 4, 2008, it states that Obama, himself, "..described his birth at Queen's Medical Center..." further contradicting previous accounts of his Kenyan and Hawaiian birth. The story was later mysteriously altered and reposted with more "consistent" propaganda.
7. Writing for "The Rainbow Edition - Volume 2, Issue 3" in a November, 2004 article titled, "A New Face In Politics", Bennett Guira identifies Obama's birthplace as Queen's Medical Center.
8. Most recently, in a 2009 speech, Obama's own wife, Michelle Obama recalls their visit to "Obama's home country of Kenya."

J. HAWAII LEGISLATURE GOING ROGUE. Hawaii recently changed the title of the "Certification of Live Birth" to a "Certificate of Live Birth", after it was determined by legislators that the alteration would further obscure the identity of their inadequate document while it would make the public think their municipal document was the same as the federal document. The lack of detailed natal information and ambiguous source content of the document has not been changed however. It remains deviant of the federal NVSD version and is inadequate for determining the natural born status of the bearer.


The following letter was provided to us by a former employee at the state of Hawaii in response to the Lakin interview segment on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”:

“Dear Anderson Cooper,

I had the privilege of watching your interview with Lt. Col. Lakin and attorney, Paul Jensen, on Friday, and must correct your mistakes with regard to your false account of the vital records documentation process at the Hawaii Department of Health. I worked in the Office of Vital Records in the state of Hawaii from 1977 to 1989.

In your interview, you stated, “If you call the state of Hawaii and request a birth certificate, you are sent a “Certificate of Live Birth”, that is the official document...”

This was not true at the time Obama allegedly requested a copy of his Hawaiian birth record.

As Mr. Jensen attempted to reply, despite your interruption of him, your claim is incorrect as it applies to anyone requesting a copy of Hawaiian-held birth documentation before September of 2009, which was the period of time during which Obama was allegedly issued a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”, not a federal version called a “Certificate of Live Birth”. The recent passage of the newest, and conveniently timed, revision to the Hawaiian birth document title in 2009, outlined in the Hawaiian Revised Statues, was conducted under the direction of the Hawaiian Department of Health’s Director, Chyiome Fukino, by the authority of HRS 338, Administrative Rule 91. Therefore, the document you are attempting to misidentify contained the header title “Certification of Live Birth”, which is the document widely upheld as the version issued to Barack Obama and which is the version you displayed during your show. The header title on Obama’s version clearly reads “Certification of Live Birth”, not “Certificate of Live Birth”. The word “Certification” is not the same as the word “Certificate”, obviously, and it is difficult to believe that with your years of work in journalism that you do not have the ability to see the difference.

You then state, “The President has released that ‘Certificate of Live Birth’…”

This is also not true. Even as the document image you presented clearly shows itself as titled “Certification of Live Birth” you falsely identified it as a “Certificate of Live Birth”.

Barack Obama has never released any record called a “Certificate of Live Birth.” The record you are referring to is called a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” which is not a federally recognized, national version of a valid NVSD standard birth document which contains 55 entry boxes available for the input of natal information and data and which is attested to by the attending medical professional qualified as a direct witness to determine a live birth event. In fact, Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands has refused to accept the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as a primary form of identification precisely because of the fact that it is a surrogate document which can be issued to non-natural born individuals living in Hawaii.

Your next contortion was to imply that the republican governor of Hawaii verified that the “birth certificate”, as you called it, was an official, federal "Certificate of Live Birth". In fact, the governor has never said that Obama’s original birth records are a “Certificate of Live Birth”, ever. Nor, has anyone else working within the municipal office of the state of Hawaii. It is difficult to imagine that you are as ignorant as this interview presents you, Mr. Cooper. Unfortunately, it is equally appalling to then conclude that you are simply dishonest and willfully void of journalistic integrity. Your repeated attempt to condescend Colonel Lakin with references to his service and qualifications was also shameful and worthy of violent repulsion. If you had genuine respect for his honorable sacrifice, you would have shut your mouth and allowed him and his attorney to logically and rationally address your questions. You looked afraid to hear the answers.

You also quote the state of Hawaii as saying that the “Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form acceptable by federal agencies…”

Unfortunately, the document in question with regard to Obama is not a “Certificate of Live Birth”, as you attempt to contort it, it is a “Certification of Live Birth”, which is not the standard form acceptable by federal agencies! It’s not even accepted by all state agencies in the state of Hawaii. The Hawaiian Native Lands only recently reorganized under
"The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009" allowing it to recognize the "Certification of Live Birth" as a primary from of identification. Feel free to review the statute available on the State of Hawaii's government website.

Do you understand the difference between a federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth and the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", Mr. Cooper?

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-11 states:

§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics….

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” violates this law. In August, 2009, the state of Hawaii, under the direction of Fukino, changed the header title of the “Certification of Live Birth” to match the federal “Certificate of Live Birth”. Why? Has the state of Hawaii become unable to continue to justify their covert behavior given the massive mistakes Fukino and her staff have made in their collaboration with the Obama administration in attempting to conceal the truth about Obama’s information? Have they come to the point where the only option available to is to venture deeper into the abyss of dishonesty and change themselves to fit the lie rather than present the truth and accept the consequences of the possibility that Obama is, indeed, not eligible to be president under the mandates of the U.S. Constitution?

The recent revision to the document header title was undertaken after a direct request by the Hawaiian Department of Health’s director, Chiyome Fukino, in order to more closely clone the federal version of the “Certificate of Live Birth” with a Hawaiian version. This was done after it was determined by Fukino and the State of Hawaii’s legislature that issuing a document with a different header title than the federal version was justifiably inviting scrutiny from the public against the authority of the state of Hawaii’s “Certification of Live Birth” in its relationship to the federal NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” version in Obama’s case. Interestingly, this Obama-friendly change was requested at the behest of those who supported the political campaign of Barack Obama.

This is an interesting development in the saga of Obama’s eligibility controversy. If you read the multiple quotes from officials of the state of Hawaii, including Janice Okubu, you are forced to admit that they have never positively identified Barack Obama’s original birth document, which they have said exists on file within the Hawaiian Department of Health, as a “Certificate of Live Birth”.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-15 and 16 state:

§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth.

§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.

The Hawaiian Department of Health endows itself with a tremendous amount of autonomy in its authority over the content and form of vital records and, thus, declarations of U.S. citizenship, regardless of Constitutional mandates. This fact only fuels a greater level of criticism against Obama while it makes the state of Hawaii look as though they are covertly protecting the natal identity of Barack Obama for some reason. Frantically passing laws and back-tracking with new rules allowing the state of Hawaii to mimic and imitate historical, federal documentation with long-standing authority in vital records processing, in order to synthetically endow their municipal birth documentation with legitimacy, only makes them, and now you by your ignorant support, look guilty and foolish.

Throughout your interview with Mr. Lakin, it was obvious you were very aggressive in your desire to endow the state of Hawaii’s “Certification of Live Birth” as a document with federal authority and national recognition. In fact, you subconsciously misidentified the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as a “Certificate of Live Birth” four times and even stated that Obama possessed the latter, which you cannot prove. The intriguing question which must be posed to you, CNN and any other media network is, how are you even able to correctly convey the facts of this story when you cannot even correctly interpret the terms to accurately account the present evidence?

Since the controversy over Barack Obama’s began in late 2007, Obama’s handlers, the media and the personnel working for the Hawaiian Department of Health have taken vast and intensive measures to “prove” that Obama’s natal documentation affirmatively demonstrates his eligibility to be president. The irony in this effort is that it has been utterly unnecessary if he is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. The contriving by CNN to “make” Obama eligible after the fact is nonsensical because, as you and Obama have claimed, the document which proves Obama’s Constitutional eligibility has already been issued and exists in the form of a “Certificate of Live Birth” which would have been created and recorded in 1961 through the Kapi’olani Medical Center, where Obama claims to have been born, and the document will have been affixed with the signatures of the attending physician, the current registrar at the time and the attending informant.

No birth document is valid unless it contains the signature of a witness and the signature and license number of an attending physician qualified to determine a live birth event. State of Hawaii revised statute 338 states this, plainly. Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” does not contain these signatures.

Therefore, the undeniable fact of the matter at hand, Mr. Cooper, is that Mr. Obama has failed to provide any, and the only, document available which proves he is a natural born citizen. Why? The federal standard, “Certificate of Live Birth” is the ONLY document available which demonstrates Natural Born status because it is the only document which contains the roster of information declaring natal information which is attributable to officials qualified to attest to such a vital event under the jurisdiction of the United States. It is also the only document issued to non-military, non-governmental natural-born citizens who are actually born in the United States.

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is now, conveniently, called a “Certificate of Live Birth”, just like the federal version. However, this was not the case at the time images and photographs of copies of Barack Obama’s alleged Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” suddenly appeared on ambiguous websites. Unfortunately, for those attempting to promote the “Certification of Live Birth” as a federal version of a National Vital Statistics Division document by changing its header title, the U.S. Report on Vital Statistics-Volume 1, clearly states that the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health created the federal “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” as “…the standard document used to record births in the U.S and was developed over 110 years in cooperation with the National Conference of Vital Records and Statistics…” The report includes that states have implemented modifications to the document to suit their individual Health agencies but that validation of the document is supported in conformity to its purpose which is to document the most complete roster of information available of each birth in the U.S. and that it is witnessed and attested to by an individual qualified to determine the characteristics of a “Live Birth” of a human child at the moment of that birth.

Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", if it even exists, has never been revealed. Ever. So, as a contrived substitute, the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”, now synthetically and conveniently labeled by the state of Hawaii as a “Certificate of Live Birth”, was created and autonomously published by Chiyome Fukino and the sympathizers of the Obama administration working for her at the Hawaiian Department of Health. Never in the history of vital records documentation has a municipal document and the process by which it was created, been so malevolently contrived, so dishonestly rendered, so inescapably falsified, so grossly disqualified, so invalid as the state of Hawaii’s natal birth record for Barack Obama.

The problem causing you to fail in your journalistic duty is that you have omitted the fact that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an independently published surrogate document created only by the state of Hawaii, and that it is not derived from the original NVSD template created and issued to hospitals via local state agencies originating from the U.S. Department of Health since 1915. In doing so, you are only discrediting Obama and the State of Hawaii.

As to your claim that the birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers prove that Obama was born there and that the Certificate of Live Birth would indicate a foreign place of birth in such cases, this is a widely accepted falsehood by those lacking information and facts about the specific process of birth documentation in the state of Hawaii.

By way of declaring their residence in Hawaii within one year of Obama’s birth, under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, the Hawaiian Department of Health was obligated to issue an original birth record to Obama which endowed him with a Hawaiian birth place based on the parents claim to residency there, not the actual location of the birth.

I was born in Oslo, Norway and I possess a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” which states that I was born in Kalai’ani, Hawaii in 1971. My “Certification of Live Birth” issued in January, 2009 states my birth place as Hawaii because my father claimed residency there from 1968 to 1970, during the Vietnam war. When I requested a birth record from the Vital Records Office in Hawaii I presented two pieces of evidence of my father’s residency, a military registration document and a DMV record from 1968. This was all that was required by the registrar. Therefore, under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, Hawaii is able to provide native birth documentation to foreign-born children, stating Hawaii as the place of birth, when the parents claim Hawaii as their place of residence within a year of the birth.

Therefore, upon creation of an "official" native-birth record by the Hawaiian Department of Health, this information is then passed along to the newspapers in the form of a “birth list” which provides basic information about the parent’s residency and the date and sex of the birth. The actual location of the birth is not investigated by the newspapers, nor is it published from secondary information used to support the Department of Health’s “birth list”.

The Hawaiian Department of Health is also able to provide this information as an official source under HRS 338-17.8 which does not require the newspapers to investigate the actual location of births beyond the claims of residency provided by the parents to the department of health upon registration. Simply put, a child may be born in Africa to parents who claimed residency in Hawaii, and who possess a Hawaiian address where they resided within one year of the birth, and that individual is allowed to request and receive an original birth record anytime thereafter, even 47 years later, which FALSELY states the place of birth as being in Hawaii.

§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate.
Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.”

Therein is the problem for Mr. Obama. Hawaiian law cannot circumvent the constitution as Mr. Jensen and Dr. Lakin repeatedly attempted to convey to you. Dr. Lakin even stated, “This is a constitutional matter.”

It is not a state matter. The Presidency is a federal office subject to the requirements of the federal legal structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. But, you would have none of those pesky facts, would you, Mr. Cooper? Your denial of these plain and simple and verifiable truths are only making you look like a fool.

You then pose the question, “If soldiers who present a Certificate of Live Birth be suspect?”

There are two answers to this question which work together to end your nonsense once and for all, Mr. Cooper. First, soldiers in the American military are not required to be “natural born citizens” like the President is. Their citizenship is merely subject to verification through common documentation and processes. The verification of Natural Born citizenry requires the submission of an NVSD Federal "Certificate of Live Birth, not a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth"

Second, if a soldier presents a “Certificate of Live Birth”, they are thusly proven to be a natural born citizen, UNLIKE Obama who has failed to present this document.

Dr. Lakin answered your question correctly. He said, “This is not a matter for soldiers in our military, this is about the specific requirements of eligibility for the President of the United States.”

You then attempt to claim that in order to serve in our military…”citizenship documents must be presented”.

Again, the Constitution not only requires a President to be a U.S. Citizen, like Arnold Schwarzenegger who became a citizen of the U.S. after being born in Austria, it also requires him to be a Natural Born Citizen which means that he must be born on U.S. soil to parents who are U.S. citizens. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand, Mr. Cooper?

The eligibility requirements for a presidential candidate are more stringent than they are for any other forms of service in America…from military, to congress to state governor to dog catcher.

You obviously are unwilling to uphold the legal prescriptions of the United States Constitution when you fail in your journalistic duty to hold these truths against Obama’s lack of demonstrable eligibility. This was certainly evident in your interview the Dr. Lakin.Your blatant attempts to discredit the facts of this matter only injure your credibility as a journalist while exposing you as a blind Obama apologist working in contradiction of the blood ransomed freedom you now enjoy. The forgers of this nation gave their lives for your undeserved right to be an American, Mr. Cooper, and it is such a disgraceful display of treasonous dishonor that you are allowed to oppose such an honorable serviceman like Dr. Lakin. Shame on you. Your disqualification from the membership of the advanced citizenry of America cannot come too soon.


Honolulu, HI

We want to thank J....... Y......... for providing insight and knowledge about this subject. It has become apparent that liberal media networks, including CNN, NBC and Fox have failed to present the facts about Obama's lack of evidence for his claims to Constitutional eligibility. Anderson Cooper and CNN are only the latest examples of this failure by the American media to fulfill their journalistic duty with a full and complete investigation of this matter. Rather than fulfill his responsibilities as a professional journalist, Mr. Cooper has become an Obama apologist with vigor only for haranguing, insulting and harrassing the honorable members of our military, like Dr. Lakin, for their courage to confront what may some day be exposed as the greatest political deception in human history. Apologists like Cooper are merely enablers and propogandists consumed by their blind liberal lust to see Obama exalted at any cost.

Therefore, Anderson Cooper is a disgrace to his profession and, possibly, a detriment to the security of this nation because he is willing to defend circumstances which have created vulnerability in the structures of United States Constitutional sovereignty.