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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Friday, April 29, 2011

OUT OF ORDER: Obama’s Certificate Number Is Based On Geography, Not Chronological Birth Order!

REPORT REVEALS SHOCKING PROOF: Contrary to recent implications, new evidence supports that Barack Obama was not actually delivered in Kapi’olani hospital, as records suggest, but, rather, he was merely examined there by a private practitioner in the days following his birth, which triggered the validation of an administratively issued “Certificate of Live Birth” registration, not a hospital generated birth certificate representing an actual delivery which was later numbered due to an 'externally registered' birth.

By Pen Johannson and Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

The one thing we've come to realize about Obama's covert identity is that if there suddenly appears information alleging to confirm it, it is highly probable that the information is unintentionally wrong or intentionally misleading. As Obama recently said, "We don't have time for this silliness."

The evidence herein is somewhat belaboring and intensive, but necessary to understand in order to place Obama’s recently revealed, highly questionable Health Department-issued “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration in its accurate context. Forget for a moment that the document is probably forged or that it confirms or denies anything. Just look at the data and measure it against the facts and what we know.

If you can ignore the fact that the name of the attesting local registrar who signed Obama's Certificate of Live Birth appears to be a possible forger's play on the word for a Hawaiian musical instrument, "UKULELE" (U. K. L. Lee), we will begin this report under the auspices that this alleged "Certificate of Live Birth" document image is an authentic record and that no conspiracy was required in order to create it, even though we know better.

Odd named local registrar signature on Obama's alleged certificate appears to be a forger's play on the Hawaiian word, "UKULELE" (U.K.L. Lee)
Remember the constroversy in August of 2009, when alleged, unnamed hackers affixed the name E.F. Lavender to a document purported to be an Obama Kenyan Birth Registration? It appears what's forged for the goose is also faked for the gander.

It makes one wonder when one of these brilliant document-smiths will create convincing documentation which finally reveals that Obama's father was actually a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth. The only way to make Obama eligible is to convince the world his father was a U.S. citizen. What? No takers? We must come to accept that Obama's eligibility is that far from being valid.

However, regardless of its authenticity, we can also conclude it was not released by Kapi’olani hospital because it remains undocumented by that facility that Obama was actually born there. Rather, this document would have been released by the Hawaiian Department of Health based on that state's long-standing municipal vital records laws which mandate the creation of such an official birth record based, not only upon indigenous birth occurrences, but also residential circumstances of the parents preceding the birth.


Let's assume this "Certificate of Live Birth" document image is an authentic representation of an official record for a moment. It doesn't change the essential questions which remain about Obama's natural born identity. Was he born to parents who were U.S. citizens? Was he actually delivered in a U.S. Hospital at birth, not just examined there post-delivery by an attending physician? Did he lose his natural born status as an adopted resident of Indonesia?

Since the 2008 disclosure of Obama’s previously “only official” Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” just days before being ensconced to the Oval Office, many continue to wonder why Obama’s birth registration number is out of sequence with at least two other registration numbers issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health in the days after Obama’s birth.

The answer to this question may have been answered in the 1961 Vital Statistics of United States Report in which it clarifies the manner in which birth records are assigned registration numbers. The guidelines in the report declare that registration numbers are assigned and stamped in the upper right margin of the certificates by the main office of each state's Health department office in geographic order of their reception in the main office from the multiple local offices around each state. The certificates are not assigned numbers according to chronological birth order or alphabetic order.

Why is this significant in relation to Obama's Certificate of Live Birth? Here's why.

This number ordering process was put in place by federal standards because the birth statistics from each state in 1961 were reported from each state to the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Office, based a 50-percent sampling method, FROM EVEN-NUMBERED RECORDS ONLY! (Section 5-8 Natality).

This means that, since the NVSD counted only those statistics from even-numbered certificates, in order to ensure a level of accuracy representing actual regional natality statistics for the whole geography of the United States, birth registration numbers had to be assigned geographically, not chronologically, because there was no way to ensure that all the EVEN-NUMBERED samples from births occurring in a given yearly time frame would not result from only densely populated regions, like large cities.

The listing of birth registrations below illustrates how regional ordering of registration numbers affects the chronological order. Notice that the first three birth registrations occuring in Regions 1,2 & 3 are assigned lower numbers than the first birth registration in Region 4 for a birth which occurred one day earlier. This is because the birth registration for Region 4 was the first one received by the main office which is 189 miles from the local registration office in Region 4. The main office of this State's Health Department is in Region 1. The registration numbers are assigned in their order of reception by the main office, not the chronological occurrence of the birth.

However, depending on the location of the newspaper in relationship to the local registration office in each region, the birth announcements might be printed in entire batches from just one region or a culmination of several small regions, which ever effectively filled the allocated space in the paper while announcing births as soon as possible without mixing the regions too much.

In Obama's case, his birth was registered in a regional office which was covered by the same newspapers as the main office of the Health Department. Therefore, his announcement would have been published as one of a batch of registrations from one or just a few regional registrations. The larger the batch, the more space required in the paper to cover an entire region. So, smaller batches and smaller regions were published first.

Therefore, because walk-in registrations and non-hospital births were more rare than the thousands of traditional hospital or facility births, they had to be isolated by regional offices in order make sure they were represented in the national vital statistics report. If birth registration numbers were assigned only based on chronological order, these rural births, walk-in registrations or non-hospital births might inadvertently all fall on odd-numbered records among the thousands of other births in the reporting year, state-wide. This would present inaccurate data about rural birth rates, birth health and rural demographics.

For example, let's say there were 10,000 births which were registered within the city of Honolulu in 1961 and there were another 1000 births which occurred in the sparsely populated rural areas outside of Honolulu during that same time for a total of 11,000 births in 1961.

If all 11,000 births were simply collected by the main office of the Health Department and assigned numbers based on their chronological occurence, the 1,000 rural birth might risk being registered with odd-numbers among the other 10,000 conventional hospital births. This would create inaccurate data about the non-hospital birth rate, which tends to be a measurement of births among lower income rural communities, remote indigenous populations, foreign immigrants and home deliveries, when it was reported to the U.S. Department of Health's National Vital Statistics Division for its annual report, which was based on a 50-percent reporting method of even-numbered certificates only. Obama's birth registration was allegedly assigned an odd-number among the other birth registrations for his regional office.


The tables below illustrate the difference in accuracy between reporting natal statistics based on a CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH NUMBERING ORDER and report natal statistics based on REGIONAL BIRTH NUMBERING ORDER.

In Table 1, we have listed the births which took place the same week as Obama's in chronological order and assigned them numbers based their order of occurrence. The birth registrations in grey occurred as a result of unattended, non-hospital or "walk-in" registration births which may not have occurred in Hawaii but which were registered as native births under Hawaiian laws or administrative procedures which do not align with the U.S. Constitution's "evidence for eligibility" mandate. These births were assigned numbers in chronological order along with all the other births occuring this week in hospitals around the state.

Given that the state of Hawaii was obligated to report only those natal statistics from even-numbered registrations, it would report only one (Obama's birth) of the six "walk-in" registrations, because only one had an even numbered registration. Therefore, only two of these unconventional births would be reported in the NVSD Report for Hawaii for this week, which is completely inaccurate for these rare birth rates.

However, Table 2 reflects the same births occurring the week of Obama's, only this time, the births are shown in their order of announcement in the newspapers based on REGIONAL ORDER and are assigned registration numbers base on their order of regional birth registration in local offices, not chronological order state-wide.
Notice that the same six "non-hospital" births are shown here, regionally, but are assigned different numbers than they would have been assigned if they were ordered chronologically. The same six "walk-in" registration births are now numbered based on their regional occurence and are now accounted for accurately even with the 50% - Even-Number reporting method used by the U.S. Department of Health in 1961, based on their regional order, not their chronological order. Although Obama's birth would not be reported based on his ODD-Numbered registration, the NVSD report would show a total of six "rural" or "non-hospital" total births for the state, which is an accurate accounting.

If the Hawaiian Department of Health assigned registration numbers based only on chronological order, the six rural births risk being underrepresented when the U.S. Department of Health requests Hawaii's EVEN-NUMBERED natal statistics for 1961 because those rural births might happen to occur in chronological order in which they are numbered with too many ODD NUMBERS and, therefore, be lost among the massive quantity of city births and, thus, the rural birth rate would be under-reported to the U.S. Department of Health.

Therefore, in order for the U.S. Department of Health to maximize accuracy and present the U.S. Natal Statistics report for as many geographic birth regions as possible, the numbers assigned by the main office in each state had to maximize sets of EVEN-NUMBERED certificates from as many geographic regions in the state as possible, regardless of the time of birth. Otherwise, if the numbers were only assigned based on chronological birth order, the records of births taking place in a large city might be represented by thousands of even numbers, whereas none or an "undercounted" number of rural births might be innaccurately represented if, by chance, they just happened fall on the remaining odd-numbered records.

The birth announcements shown here were those actually published with Barack Obama's announcement. They have been re-arranged from their original publishing order to demonstrate the results of chronological numbering over regional numbering. If the births in red happended to be walk-in registrations from a remote region of the state, those births would only have one birth assigned with an even-numbered registration qualified to be reported by the state to the U.S. Department of Health's NVSD. Therefore, since only one registration is even-numbered (out of six) the Natal Statistics Report would inaccurately reflect a birth rate 67% lower than it actually was for this region (2 births instead 6 births) based on counting only even-numbers. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Health enacted regional number sequences which would account for all six births in this situation.

Because rural births occur at a lower and slower rate than city births, rural births have a higher probability of being under-reported if they were only included in a chronological reporting order, rather than a geographic "regional batch" reporting order. What is the probability of one rural birth falling on a chronologically ordered ODD NUMBER among hundreds of traditional hospital births which would be more accurately represented by a 50-percent sampling of EVEN NUMBERS? Statistics for non-city or non-hospital births might not be reported at all if they were included in a chronological numbering order.

Therefore, the main offices of the state health departments were instructed to assign the numbering of certificates in the order of reception from each geographic registration location, not chronological sequence, in order to maximize report sampling and to ensure the best possible reporting accuracy from as many regions as possible, not just where populations were dense and where birth quantities were high.

This is a probable explanation for Obama's non-sequential birth registration number which is sequentially higher than registration numbers for births occurring after his. His number was assigned based on a registration which originated in a regional office or location not used to register births occurring at Kapi'olani. Obama's birth registration may have been a "walk-in" registration which relied upon a doctor's signature after examination of a newborn Obama, but not a birthing physician's signature present at the time of birth.

Since the birth announcements were published based on the order in which they were received from the main office of the health department, which assigned registration numbers based on the order they were received from regional local registration offices, it is reasonable to think that Obama's birth registration number was part of a smaller batch of registrations in that particular region. This is why the Nordyke twins birth were reported a week later. Their registration numbers, although lower in the sequence, came from largest region and the largest batch which required they be "carried over" into the following weeks column space in the paper.


Diagram showing "walk-in" and rural non-hospital birth registration process. The accuracy for reporting regional birth registrations is higher than reporting chronological order registrations because because births occurring in low population centers tend to be under-reported by the U.S. Department of Health's 50% method. These unconventional births had to be independently numbered by their reception based on regional or local office origins of the state's Health Department because chronological birth registrations did not accurately account for small numbers of these registrations which might fall on ODD-Numbered registrations. Natal statistics reveal that more 17,000 births occured in Hawaii in 1961. That is an average of 330 births per week from various islands and regions which had to be accounted for and reported to the NVSD. Of these births, nearly 17% were non-hospital births among citizen population and around 40% for non-residential, rural, non-citizen and remote indigenous population. However, Hawaii was unique because of its remote location, indigenous culture and permeable migration. Many births occurred in Hawaii which were never recorded in the NVSD report due to under-registration. Non-conventional birth registrations and walk-in registrations occurred at a much lower rate in other states which increased the need for isolating walk-in registrations and non-hospital registrations.

This evidence reveals that Obama’s non-sequential birth registration number is the result of his registration being isolated because it was not a traditional hospital birth. His number was assigned based on the birth being registered in a regional office not used by the hospital which Obama claims to have been born in, rendering the possibility that his “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration issued by the Hawaiian Vital Records office is merely a record of birth registration legally created by the Health Department under HRS 338-17.8, after baby Obama was examined by a doctor, at Kapi’olani hospital, who could attest to his live birth, post-delivery.
These recently discovered sources show that Obama’s birth registration number was assigned by the state’s main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health after his birth registration originated in a regional office not used by the hospital to register births actually occurring within its facility.

Documentation provided by Volume 1 of the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States” further supports the factual plausibility that Obama’s birth occurred in a geographic location other than Hawaii and was not registered in the traditional manner as other children born in the hospital, locally. This evidence supports the claim that his non-sequential birth registration number is indeed the result of his birth being registered in an alternative local office, not the typical office used by the hospital.


Recall, according to copies of birth records released by the hospital, the Nordyke’s twin girls were delivered just 19 hours after Obama was born, supposedly just down the hall from where Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham was allegedly staying in Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital on Saturday afternoon of August 5th, 1961. The Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, were issued sequential birth registration numbers, 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638, respectively.

The Nordyke's released two photostatic copies of their hospital generated "Certificates of Live Birth" in 2009. Contrarily, Obama released a Health Department generated version of a same titled document last week. The differences are significant and in need of investigation because the Nordyke's document an actual delivery within the hospital while Obama's documents only a birth registration by the HDOH after he was examined by a doctor from the named hospital.

With the revelation of a belated image of an alleged, original 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” registration record, released by the Hawaiian Department of Health, not the hospital, it is now unanimously accepted that Obama’s birth registration number is 151-61-10641, which is also confirmed by its updated version of 151-1961-10641 on the previously exalted “Certification of Live Birth” and, most importantly, which is a number larger than both the twins even though he was born chronologically before them.

Even number assigned for Gretchen Nordyke which would have been reported to the U.S. NVSD Natal Statistics office.

Obama's alleged original 1961 Department of Health issued Certificate of Live Birth shown here to omit the critical "amendment section" containing entry spaces for medical information, change of parentage by adoption, signatures of the Health director and Deputy Registrar, and birth weight and height.

Before we buy in to the strange document signed by Registrar Ukulele, we need to recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states the following:

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
As we all have become familiar, the statute explicitly states that the Director of Health in 1961 was obligated to issue a birth certificate “provided that proof had been submitted to the Director of Health that the parents had declared Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth…or adoption of such child”, regardless of the location of that birth.

We know Obama’s parents lived in Hawaii for at least one year preceding his birth or adoption. Therefore, this law would have applied if he were born elsewhere or adopted and was taken to Hawaii where the birth was registered.

Notice the dates of the signatures on the newly released Certificate of Live Birth registration issued by the Health Department. The alleged signature of Obama’s mother was documented on Monday, August 7, 1961, the earliest day available to sign the registration. Obama was born the evening of Friday, August 4th, which means government offices were closed on Saturday the 5th, and Sunday the 6th, but the hospital was not.

The documents also reveal that they were signed by an attending physician and received by a local registrar, in different offices, three days apart, despite being signed on the same day by the parent.

Therefore, the Nordyke's Kapi'olani generated birth certificates were signed on August 11th by the registrar, three days later than Obama's registration, because the Nordyke's certificates were two of more than 100 which occurred in that registration office during that week. Obama's was signed on August 8th and recorded three days earlier because his Certificate was merely one of four registration records occurring in that local office. The process moved faster for Obama's registration because there were fewer certificates for that local registrar to process than the quantity of registrations processed in the office used by the city's main hospital where the Nordyke's registered. This occurred because of the 50-percent sampling and geographic number order process required by the U.S. Department and its effect on Obama's "externally" registered birth in another registration office not used by the hospital.

This evidence suggests the possibility that baby Obama was examined at Kapi’olani within days after his birth by a physician able to legally attest an original birth record issued, not by the hospital, but by the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDOH).Kapi’olani hospital has never issued or confirmed an original record for the birth of Barack Obama within its facility to date. However, the HDOH is able to legally name the hospital in its original "Certificate of Live Birth" Regisration based on the legal fact that, if it is the location of the first examination of a newborn child by a physician there, the signature of the doctor triggers the birth location in absence of any other birth location information.

Simply put, the evidence suggests that Obama was not born in Kapi'olani, but he may have been examined for the first time there.


This week, as Obama released a long-form version of a Health Department issued “Certificate of Live Birth” document we find it adds merely three more pieces of information about his natal biography than we previously knew before from the fallow “Certification of Live Birth” heavily lauded by his defenders as the 'holy grail' of his eligibility.

Now, with this new and improved ‘Holier Grail”, historical information from the U.S. Department of Health shows that this document only detracts from Obama’s effort to confirm his eligibility and that it would best be described as a state-issued, non-standard ‘Long-form Certificate of Live Birth Registration’ created by administrative procedure as a result of legal confirmation, not a hospital as a result of an actual delivery. We are already accustomed to the fact that the Hawaiian Department of Health revises in document header titles willy-nilly, whenever it seems convenient to Obama.

The information provided in Obama's recently revealed HDOH "Certificate of Live Birth" Registration document, when combined with an understanding of Hawaiian vital statistics records laws, municipal reporting procedures, and federal Natality reporting guidelines, shows that this “Certificate of Live Birth” registration could have been legally produced by the HDOH without Obama necessarily actually being delivered in the hospital named within it, and that the doctor, by affixing his signature, was only required to attest an original record based on his examination of the newborn Obama Jr., not necessarily as an attending (birthing) physician present during the actual delivery, but rather as the first physician to actually examine the child alive and in good health.

This evidence supports the fact that the on-going, original questions of Obama's actual birth location remain decisively unanswered and that this document could actually be an elaborate hoax by brazened forgers.The Nordyke twins were born on Saturday, August 5th, but their “Certificates of Live Birth” were not attested by the attending physician of record, assigned numbers and registered by the Department of Health until Thursday, August 11th. Obama’s birth was registered on Tuesday, August 8th even though it occurred just hours before the Nordyke’s. However, both documents for all three births were signed by the parents on the same day, Monday, August 7th.

Keep in mind, Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the Department of Health, not the alleged hospital of record. Although the Health Department was obligated to provide him with a “Certificate of Live Birth” in 1961, via the administrative process mandated by HRS 338-17.8, his birth would not actually have to occur in the Hospital stated on the record in order for this record to be created. However, as provided by HRS 338-5, after baby Obama had been examined by an “attending” physician sometime between August 5th and August 8th at the hospital, the Department of Health was able to create the official record of birth after the doctor’s signed approval, containing the name of the hospital where the examination took place.

Essentially, the Hawaiian Department of Health does not issue an official birth certificate under the provision of HRS 338-17.8 until a board certified physician has examined the child in an official medical facility of record.

So, how was Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” assigned a larger number than his birth-mates?

As mentioned, Section 5-8 of the ‘Vital Statistics of the United States: Volume 1 – Natality” report states:

Sampling of Birth Records

The manner in which records are numbered greatly reduces the sampling variability of totals for geographic areas. Records are numbered in the primary state offices of vital statistics as they are received from the local offices. The assignment of the last digit in the number is not selective and systematic sampling of even-numbered records may be assumed to be unbiased. Furthermore, because the records are always in geographic order BEFORE numbering, twice the same count of births occurring in the great majority of counties is the same as the corresponding figure based on all records.

The key words are, "records are numbered in the primary state offices as they are received and are always in geographic order before numbering." Essentially, this means that Obama's birth registration, which was received by the main office before the Nordyke twins', was assigned a higher number because it was received by the main office in geographic order, not chronological order. Obama's birth was not registered in the same office as the Nordyke twins' birth.

This confirms that, in 1961, the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health assigned registration numbers based on the order of reception of birth registrations from various local registration offices, not from the hospitals of the births. Therefore, if Obama’s birth registration was included with the Nordyke twins and other births occurring at Kapiolani in same HDOH birth registration office, we should expect the Nordyke's numbers to be assigned in order of reception at the same time as Obama's!!

However, since it is likely that Obama's birth was not registered in the same office as the Nordyke twins, who were actually born in Kapi’olani hospital, Obama’s birth registration was assigned a number based on its "geographic order", not its chronological order, of registration.

If Obama was actually born in Kapi’olani hospital on August 4th, 1961, why was his birth registered in a different geographic location as indicated by the non-sequential number, on August 8th, which would therefore trigger a registration number out of order with the Nordyke twins' birth of August 5th who were registered with all the other births in Kapi’olani?


Aside from the fact that Obama’s 'Certificate of Live Birth' Registration released by the Hawaiian Department of Health appears to be affixed with a signature which appears to play on the Hawaiian word, "UKULELE" (U.K.L. Lee), it is also represented by different local registrar than is shown on the Nordyke’s Hospital version of the Certificate of Live Birth. A different local registrar worked in each of the four branch offices in which births were registered in Hawaii. Obama's birth was registered in an office which is not the office use by Kapi’olani to register births occurring in its facility.

The name of a local registrar is not associated with other birth certificates for births which actually occurred at Kapi’olani and which were attested by physicians who actually delivered those births. This registrar worked in a branch office not used by Kapi’olani to register births. This is why Obama’s birth registration number is out of sequence with other births at the same time as his.


Last month, The Daily Pen’s Dan Crosby, published the results of his investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements in Hawaii. He found historical evidence which supports that fact that Obama’s birth did not occur in Kapi’olani, but which was registered in a different local office after he was examined by a doctor at Kapi’olani on August 7th, 1961.

Crosby went to Hawaii to research and investigate the cavalcade of ambiguous information related to Obama’s covert natal history including the origins and protocols used to publish the birth announcements in 1961. He focused on the manner in which the Hawaiian Department of Health and local hospitals coordinated vital statistics information and how the chain of information from the Hospital to the Hawaiian Department of Health resulted in “Weekly Health Bureau Statistics” announcements published in the local papers.

Crosby found evidence that the order in which the announcements were published was not random or chronological. In fact, he discovered they were published by the order of birth registration numbers assigned by the main Office of Vital Records which, in turn, were based on reception from various local registration branches. He discovered that, regardless of when the birth may have occurred, the registration number, assigned by the geographic order of the registration offices, determined the order of the announcements.

This is why Obama’s birth announcements occur near the bottom of each column in each newspaper even though there are births which occurred before and after his but which are published above his in the papers. This is because the births published above his all occurred in the same place and were registered in the same office and then passed to the central main office. The numbers were, therefore, ordered by the main office of the Health department in reference to their geographic registration order, not their chronological occurrence.

An investigation of the addresses of the birth registrations reveals that they migrate proximally to either a medical facility or to a local registration office. This is logical because most pregnant women would desire a hospital in close proximity once contractions began.

The birth announcements and ordering based on geographic registration location are shown below as they appear in the two versions of the newspapers.

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel K. Haas Sr. 849-A 11th Ave. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Staley 1319 Anapa St. 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Richard R. Kitson Apt. 11, 1635 Clark St. 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. George P. Ayau Sr. 87-143 Lillana St., Malll 7/31/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus J. Raymond 1371 Haloa Drive 7/30/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Robert I. Arakawa 935-B Hausten St., 8/1/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Y. Takahashi 56 Nanea Ave, Wahiawa 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Allington K. Brown Maunawill Road, Kallua 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Cirillo V. Caperto 918 Puuhale Road 8/3/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel L. M. Mokuahi Sr 732 Laukea St. 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Peter C. Kamealoha Jr. 441 McNeill St. 8/3/1961
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Clifford Sr. 2624 Maunawai Place 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Walker 1660 S. King St., 8/7/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace M. Durkin 3813 Radford Drive 8/7/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Mike M. Nagaishi 2687 Gardenia 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Earnest 1258 Wilhelmina Rise 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. H. Chun 45-440 Akimala St., Kaheohe 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Waidelich 937 18th Ave. 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Emmett P. Simpson 2752 Kahiti St. 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Melvin K. F. Liu 45-548 Keaahala Road, Kaheohe 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Wright 91-939 Kalapu St., Ewa Beach, Ewa 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchle 2420 Kaululaau St. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs Harry Y.W. Wong 463 Lawelwe St. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Ernesto Kim

Note that the announcements are in the exact same order in both papers. Also, notice Obama’s birth registration announcement nearer the bottom of the order in the last group while the birth dates appear to be grouped rather than ordered from the top of the column to the bottom. This indicates they are indeed grouped by geographic registration occurrence as they are received in batches from each branch location by the main Health Department office, as prescribed by the guidelines described in the NVSD report. Otherwise, the birth order would be published based on either alphabetical or chronological order, which they are not, as obviously shown here. This is an indication that Obama’s birth registration was received by the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health from a location other than the office used to register births occurring in Kapi’olani.

Obama's announcement was published on August 12th and 13th of the editions of the Star and Sunday Advertiser in 1961. The Nordyke's announcement was publish the following week. Obama's announcement was published earlier than his alleged "birthmates" because his registration was among fewer which were processed as part of a batch of "walk-in" registrations from another local office. His record was processed faster and earlier and was able to be fit within the space provided by the newspaper for that batch of registration records that week. The larger overall quantity of registrations containing the Nordyke's records had to be carried over to the following week because their large batch required three more days to process and be allocated space in the papers.

Obama’s DOH “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration omits the “Amendment section” from its lower margin which is present on the hospital generated version and contains space available for amendments, dates of examinations and medical information. It is also used to show the signatures of the Director of Health and the Deputy Registrar. This is absent from Obama’s HDOH document because it was not generated by the hospital and this doctor was not present at his birth and did not preside over later amendments, such as Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro.


Obama’s birth was not registered in the same Health Department office as the Nordyke twins and hundreds of other births occurring the week of July 30 – August 5th at Kapi’olani hospital. Birth numbering order was established by federal standards according to geography not chronological order of births, in order to maximize accuracy of natal statistics reporting over as wide as possible a registration area throughout the entire U.S. Chronological ordering alone presented a highly disproportionate risk of under-reported rural, non-hospital and non-resident births due to the U.S. Department of Health's 50%-reporting method based only on even-numbered certificates.

If state's reported only even-numbered births from all births in chronological order, and the walk-in registrations from a particular region all happened to fall on "odd-numbered" birth schedules, they would not be reported accurately for that region. This is why regional reporting was enacted over chronological reporting. However, regional reporting also created non-sequential numbering with respect to birth date and time.

The publication of Obama’s birth announcement near the bottom of the columns of the two newspapers, printed lower than announcements for births which occurred after his, indicates that his birth registration document was received and ordered in accordance with geographic location, not chronological order or alphabetic order. This, therefore, indicates that Obama's birth actually occurred in a location other than Kapi'olani hospital.

Dr. David Sinclair was not present during the delivery of Barack Obama. However, since he was the first physician to examine baby Obama and his mother at Kapi’olani on August 7th or 8th, he is legally bound to record his signature as the attending physician of record at that time. Per HRS 338, the naming of the hospital is subsequent to the naming of the doctor where the examination, not the birth, took place.

Since Dr. Sinclair was not the birthing physician, he could not officially attest to Obama’s birth weight, which is absent from the HDOH Certificate of Live Birth Registration.

The name of local registrar is different on Obama’s HDOH Certificate of Live Birth Registration because Obama’s birth was not registered in the same branch office of the Vital Statistics office as births occurring at Kapi’olani.

As testified by the 1961 Vital Statistics of the United States Report, Obama’s birth registration number is non-sequential with other births at the same time because it was assigned by the main office of the HDOH after it was received from one of multiple registration offices in Hawaii. The HDOH assigned Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth a registration number based on its geographic registration location, not chronological occurrence in a hospital.

Obama’s recently revealed Certificate of Live Birth was created and issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health through administrative procedures based on HRS 338 and Administrative Rules. It was not generated by any hospital and was only attested by an attending physician after an examination of the newborn Obama qualified the HDOH to issue an original birth certificate provided by HRS 338-17.8.

Therefore, the geographic location of Obama’s actual emergence from his mother’s womb remains a mystery.

Regardless, the identity of Obama’s foreign father is confirmed in this suspicious but newly released Certificate of Live Birth Registration, which disqualifies Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency even if he was shown by a hospital generated birth certificate to have been born in Hawaii.

Apparently, even a document forger can agree on that.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Certificate of Live Birth Reveals Strange Morphology Of Obama's Adaptive Identity

Strange days continue as Obama suddenly decides, with the 2012 election looming, that Donald Trump and so-called 'birthers' are legitimately damaging his re-election bid with valid questions about his elibility, and permits the much maligned Department of Health in the State of Hawaii to release another digitized image of another alleged 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth", adding an attending, now conveniently deceased, doctor's name, a previously unidentified local registrar, and the name of the hospital he declared as his birthplace to the hollow saga of thin information about his identity.

by Pen Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

So, Donald Trump and the so called 'birthers' were right. There was another document hiding in Hawaii. Imagine that.

However, the biggest question everyone is asking about Obama's sudden and shocking capitulation in releasing a copy of an alleged 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" is, "Why now?"

If the American people are victorious in reclaiming and maintaining their Constitutional sovereignty in the face of Obama's epic deception, it will be because they have come to understand the undeniable truth about our founder's definition of a natural-born citizen, not only as it applies to the eligibiity of a Presidential candidate, but how it applies to them!

Unfortunately, it appears, as American society declines into tragic plurality and pathetic political correctness, it has abandoned the very foundations established by ancient wisdom which made America the last bastion of hope for humanity among a world on the road to Perdition.

Natural-born citizenry is immutable. It does not change naturally and it becomes law at the moment of its endowment upon the individual. It is established outside of the ability of the individual to choose it at their birth. It is established by natural circumstance which never change unless the citiizenship status of the individual is artificially altered through man's legal process. Expatriation, foreign adoption, criminal extradition, foreign birth and emigration are the most common means by which an individual's natural born status ends.

Fleeing from the monarchal corruption of interallegiances, it was upon the ideal of Natural-born citizenry which our founders sought to establish the eligibility for being President of the most powerful, blessed, prosperous civilization in human history.

Obama's eligibility appears to be strangely adaptive, not immutable. His qualifications seem to evolve after his birth, not be comfirmatively requisite at the time it occurred. His identity seems to mutate with the ever changing demands of the politics-du-jour. Obama only reveals the answers required by the Constitutional eligibility mandate when "carnival barkers" threaten his hold on power or damage his electable image.

How do we know Obama is a fraud? Because a truly natural-born American citizen would never have to prove his eligibility after the fact. The evidence would be mete at the time it was demanded. If Obama were truly eligible to be President, no one would have ever doubted it.

Instead, Barack Obama did not reveal any evidence leading to a resolution about his covert identity for more than three years. And, he only did it at this particular time because not doing it was hurting his ability to get votes, not preserve the welfare of America. Obama cares nothing about America. He only cares what it can offer him and his brand of liberalism.

Let's understand this. Barack Obama has been sitting on original documented evidence supporting his long-doubted eligibility to hold the office of the President even as Terry Lakin, a decorated, honored military veteran and physician of 18 years, who asked for this information more than a year ago, is now sitting in prison for honorably attempting to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, we are supposed to embrace the revelation of a long-form birth certificate, which has supposedly existed for 50 years and which Barack Obama knew about while Lakin was pleading for it during his dutiful obligation to disobey illegal orders from an illegitimate command structure, risking the consequences thereof? Barack Obama had this information available to him before Lakin was charged, yet he allowed Lakin to be imprisoned anyway?

For more than four years, 35 lawsuits, millions of blogs, thousands of YouTube videos, thousands of hours of cable news pontification, denial after denial, disparagement, violence, hatred, anger, the imprisonment of an American hero, and, most injurious, a global degradation of confidence in Barack Obama, he suddenly injects another piece of evidence into the eligibility circumference.

Why now? The 2012 election comes to mind. A powerful billionaire comes to mind, but the idea of Barack Obama actually doing this for the purpose of upholding the blood-ransomed sovereignty and honor of the U.S. Constitution somehow is just hard to believe. Ideologically driven political animals like Obama can't even see the price paid by worthier others for his current gig.

Keep in mind, the reason for requesting the information on this document was to have access to the facts about Obama's natal biography which could be investigated for the ultimate purpose of ensuring that Obama's presidency upholds the blood-ransomed sovereignty of the United States Constitution...not trying to make a brash billionaire presidential candidate stop threating Obama's fraudulent usurpation of power and stop asking questions about his real eligibility.

Maybe Obama finally decided it was time to validate the claims of so-called birthers by responding with what they requested, just to shut them up. Right? After all, everyone thought the birthers were on to something. Right?

The important document here is the Constitution, right? Unfortunately, media shills for Obama desperately want this transient presentation of another "official" birth certificate to finally close the door.

Here are a few well placed questions. Certainly Obama will answer them with same straightforwardness as he has demonstrated with this newly presented, transparent piece of evidence.

1. The official NVSD template of a blank federal 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" issued by the U.S. Department of Health has an Amendment Section provided below the signature section near the bottom, in which information about medical or identity alterations are placed when a record is updated after birth. For example, a baby who is adopted by a different father will have an amendment in this section with the date of the change. Why is this section omitted from the image of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth"?

2. Why did Obama pay legal defense costs, whatever the amount, to his lawyers at Perkins Coie to keep people from seeing this? A band of Obama's lawyers swarmed into court rooms to licentiously demand this document not be revealed? This is what they didn't want people to know about? Really?

3. Recall, the election laws of the state of Hawaii explicitly require that state's party authorities to submit an Official Certification of Nomination which specifically indicates that a candidate for placement on Hawaii's presidential ballot must be "constitutionally eligible for the office of the president". The 2008 Democrat Party of Hawaii's (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, refused to certify Obama's constitutional eligibility for placement on the Hawaiian ballot because he, apparently, could not find this "Certificate of Live Birth" document, even though it was allegedly available in a building adjacent to the election commission's office. Instead, the national Democratic National Convention, headed by Nancy Pelosi, circumvented the jurisdiction of the DPH and declared Obama constitutionally eligible, apparently without this document! Therefore, if this document has existed for 50 years, why was the DPH denied access to it in August of 2008 prior to the filing of that state's Official Certification of Nomination? If this document was present in Hawaii, why was it not provided to that state's Democrat Party authority as evidence in support of Obama's constitutional eligibility? If this document has existed since 1961, why did Brian Schatz and the DPH refuse to use it as evidence to certify Obama's Constitutional eligibility for placement on the Hawaiian ballot? Why could Mr. Schatz not find this document?

4. The liberal media and Obama's press corp have been telling the world that the only official birth certificate issued by Hawaii was the 2007 "CertificaTION of Live Birth" they sold us in 2008. What purpose, then, does this "Certificate of Live Birth" document serve if the "Certification of Live Birth" satisfies proof of Natural-born eligibility? Weren't we all told that the initial cover document was sufficient? Now, it appears Obama disagrees with his defenders.

5. Why is the "Certificate of Live Birth" document image presented with the same hatched, green-colored and patterned background image as the other "only official birth certificate in Hawaii", the 2007 Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", posted on Obama-friendly web sites in October, 2008? Is this another digital image or an image of a direct copy? Has the original paper document been released for examination?

6. Why is this document not photostatic black like an actual copy would have been from the hospital in 1961? Is this an image of the document filed by that hospital?

7. How did Governor Abercrombie miss this document during his search for it weeks ago? Is this the entirety of the complete documentation of Obama's natal records held in the state of Hawaii by all agencies, medical facilities and their personnel?

8. If this document is a copied original from the Hawaiian Department of Health, will Kapiolani release their "exact copy" version for comparison and verification? The two documents should be an exact match.

9. If Obama was born in the same hospital as the Nordyke twins only a few hours earlier, why is the local registrar's name different on Obama's alleged "Certificate of Live Birth"? Wouldn't the same registrar attest to both of these birth registrations if they occurred within the same Hawaiian Vital Statistics Office? Was Obama's birth registered in a different location than the Nordyke twins?

10. As an "original" 1961 document, why does the registrar at that time allow the term "African" to be transcribed onto the document knowing that no such term prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health is allowed for official natal data reporting to the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health? The appearance of the term "African" on the 2007 Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth' was excused as a benign inclusion without explanation by the registrant, but that doesn't explain how an originating official allowed this ambiguous reference to the identity of Obama's alleged father. What is the officially defined identity of Obama's parents?

11. Why is there a strange blended, hatch-green border matching the document body, encasing and around the limits of the "Certificate of Live Birth" image, as if the document image was imposed on a digital template background, like the bogus, counterfeit 'Certification of Live Birth' was shown to have? Why not just copy the original document and release it? Why "process" the image with digital "treatments" first?

12. Why does the image appear to 'break away' at the left margin as if to roll away from the scanning device, revealing other documented information adjacent to the contents of the "Certificate of Live Birth"? What is this other information to the left?

13. If we assume the same individuals were in their respective positions in 1961, Leo Bernstein was the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health and Charles Bennett was the Deputy Registrar. Where is the embossed stamp of the State of Hawaii along with the required signatures of this Director of the Dept. of Health and this Deputy Registrar? Notably, their signatures would exist inside the aforementioned, omitted 'Amendment Section'.

14. The attending physician identified in the document as David Sinclair, who allegedly signed this document with a black filament pen, is dead, adding yet another of more than 20 people who might have witnessed Obama's birth but whom are now conveniently dead. Are there any other individuals alive today who saw this guy's birth?

15. If this document always existed, why did Obama not provide it to prevent the imprisonment of Terry Lakin, the passage of state elibility bills and the publication of multiple blogs, books and articles?

16. Why did Obama allow these doubts to exist so long in the consciousness of the people he is supposed to instill confidence in? Was it a game of "political gotcha", and if so, is that the kind of man we want to be the leader of a nation? Who votes for a lying, dishonest, game-playing conspirator with an agenda to string along his country in order to merely attempt to make his political opposition look like fools and ridicule them? Who wins that game? How does this "unify" a nation? This does not gain peace. This is how wars begin. This does not preserve the relationship of trust between a people and their chosen leaders. This is how politicians are eradicated and disposed of.

17. One document down. 21 to go. Let's move on to the Columbia transcripts, shall we?

If this settles the question of the birth location, Obama's alleged father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born and Obama's citizenship status while residing in Indonesia remains a we continue to wait for a verdict on his legitimacy as a natural-born president.

Let's just allow this cook for awhile before making conclusions. If it accurately and authentically confirms the entire roster of Obama's bizarre natal biography, excellent. It's about time.

However, history has proven that Obama does nothing without a calculated political benefit in mind. The man is incapable of imagining himself unqualified for anything. He is a notorious, radical power monger who desires Perdition for anyone who questions his qualifications. He is not gracious. He is not merciful. He is not honorable. He is not kind. He is intelligent, vengeful, proud, divisive and corrupt. Therefore, there is no reason to think this new seed of information is provided for any other reason that to advance his fraudulent image for political reasons in the coming election cycle. Tragically, now, he's added two more unwitting strangers to his covert saga who, by the way, are not available to answer questions about their role in this strange man's natal history. Suprise, suprise.

We've waited for four years for Obama to come clean...we can wait as long as it takes to confirm this new evidence.

When the truth is on your side, there is no fear of eternity. Obama appears to be afraid of 2012.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Governor Brewer Is Right…Eligibility Law Should Avoid Appearing Like Obama’s Autonomous Crimes

The Arizona Governor isn’t rejecting the importance of eligibility enforcement with her veto, she just wants it to have real, devastating “consensus” teeth when its implemented against the current usurper as well as future despots.

by Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

Everyone needs to calm down. The Arizona Eligibility Bill vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer had a big weakness. It relied too heavily on the autonomy of a single municipal employee to determine the eligibility of a presidential candidate. Or, should we all forget the "Chiyome Fukino" factor exploited by Obama when he invaded the presidency?

Remember when your mother used to ask you, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?"

Yes, we want a law passed before the 2012 primaries, but two wrongs will not make a right. Arizona doesn't need to "go ghetto" like Obama in order to expose his lies and malfeasance. America doesn't need to become like an Obama in order to make an Obama problem go away.

Don't forget the reasons why we have rejected Obama over his eligibility for the past three years. Remember his brazened autonomy and its undermining of our blood-ransomed Constitution. Don't forget how a corrupt few, ideologically-driven, pro-Obama, rabidly liberal civil servants inhabiting a little island way out in the ocean audaciously and illegally seized what was not their's to take.

Most importantly, never ever forget the words of Obama shill, and former Hawaiian Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino, in 2009, as she violated the measly jurisdiction of her meaningless position as a municipal employee and covertly declared that Obama was a natural-born citizen because, ignorantly blabbing that he was born in Hawaii while completely disregarding the fact that Obama's father as listed on the "original birth records" was never a citizen of the U.S., she endowed herself with the authority over those "types of records". When seeking a truly effective solution to the Obama disease, remember the lies of such degenerates and the cover up which they have supported and abetted for more than four years.

Do we really want a law, which is meant to oppose such criminality, to utilize the same autonomous tactics and secrecy? Or, would we rather have a law with devastating, inescapable metrics wielding rock solid legal foundations, and absolute power over such despotism? What is the shed blood of your fathers worth?

For all of you with disappointment over Gov. Brewer’s veto, please just wait a moment. Relax. Listen to the course of rational thought.

We all know Obama is a liar and a usurper of America's sanctified presidency, but it does no good to empower his political rivals with a legal weapon against his fraudulent power grab if that weapon uses the very same tactics he used to be ensconced to begin with, right? The law which finally drives a death knell into the heart of Obama's fraudulence must bring accountability by exercising accountability. The result must render justice for all.

Remember the reason we seek to expose Obama’s lies. Don’t forget the blood ransom paid by our fathers and brothers throughout the generations to have a Constitution which establishes the rules by which we live in freedom and peace. Don't forget the history of the actual document which represents sacrifice and honor, not just the transient document we know represents a criminal in this little moment. Don't let a scum bag like Obama become that important.

Don’t forget which document matters most here. It’s not some forged, randomly published municipal cover document representing some illegitimate, overrated community activists with elitist presidential aspirations. Remember the founding fathers, their courage, their character, and the price they paid which afforded themselves with the right and justification to produce and attest the greatest mortal document in the history of mankind.

Try to remember which one has been offended. Defend the 250-year-old document written by righteous revolutionaries for the future of an entire nation with greater vision than to merely expose some three-year-old fake record created by liberals on some little island. See beyond your righteous anger toward the single man this document represents and have compassion for the millions it offends. Stay on point, soldier.

Now, to the Arizona legislature we say…get back to work. Remember your duty to the Constitution. Gov. Brewer has stated her reason for vetoing the Eligibility Bill was because she was afraid it placed too much power in the hands of a single person. She is right, it did. Isn’t that the very reason we reject Obama? So, now they need to rework it and resubmit with a better design which takes back everything Obama has stolen.

Arizona needs to restructure the bill so that it places the responsibility of determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate in each state with as much consensus representation as possible, within the established jurisdictions of power for upholding the legitimacy of elections, ballot content and legal qualifications, while hanging those who would violate that legitimacy under the gallows of accountability for their crimes.

Our priority should be for upholding the spirit of our founder’s intentions when they included the Constitutional eligibility mandate for all presidential candidates, not just the one in this moment. Yes, Obama is a reprobate and a despot of the worst order, but if we fail to take the right actions now, with diligence and forethought, future miscreants will make Obama look like a saint in comparison. We must defend the value of vintage American heritage against the likes of Obama for the future as well as the present.

The bill should be based on congruity with exclusive allegiance, loyalty to one people and one nation, defense of America and its people. These are the only reasons to enforce eligibility and expose Obama’s failure.

The orientation and direction of Arizona’s Eligibility Bill is right and should be executed with the most potent, most genuinely unified power of the state available. The Secretary of State should lead the effort but with a consensus judgment from executive, legislative and legal input as well.

However, we should never allow our laws against the crimes like Obama has committed to permit the commission of equally criminal behavior to stop it.

Pass a bill that brings justice, not justification.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Bill O’Reilly Has Lost His Professional Objectivity Over Obama’s Eligibility

The long-time media stanchion is showing signs of confusion and susceptibility to propaganda from Obama's deceptive regime.

by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

During the ‘Viewer Mail’ segment of Fox News’ “The Factor”, host Bill O’Reilly committed a cardinal sin against journalistic integrity. He made a declaration of truth without investigating the “who, what, when, where and how” of the facts.

On the Wednesday, April 13, 2011 episode of ‘The Factor’, O'Reilly was asked why Barack Obama, while living in Hawaii until the fall of 1979, was issued and has used a social security number from an applicant’s address located in the state of Connecticut as early as 1977.

"What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security number? He never lived there," asked the emailer.

O’Reilly flippantly answered, "His father lived In Connecticut for several years…babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."

The number, which was first associated with Obama sometime between 1977 and 1979, has been shown by the social security administration to be originally issued to an individual born in 1890 in Connecticut, not 1961. It is a felony for someone to use a social security number previously issued or used by another individual.

At the time it was used by Obama, a social security number was assigned by geographic indexing using the first three digits to associate the state of the applicant’s address with the number. Obama’s social security number begins with ‘049’ indicating, unequivocally, the number was issued to an applicant declaring a Connecticut address.

O’Reilly claimed Obama’s father lived in Connecticut. This is not true. No evidence or statements have ever been found to support such a claim.

Reporter, Shurei Hirozawa, wrote a story for the the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on Sept. 19, 1959, indicating that Barack Obama Sr. had arrived from Kenya and registered for classes at the University of Hawaii. The term began two days later on September 21.

The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin both reported in June 1962 that Obama Sr. was leaving that month for Cambridge, Mass., to begin graduate studies. In September 1962, Obama Sr. began graduate courses at Harvard in economics. He returned to Africa before completing the degree, however.

Documented evidence shows that Obama Sr. was working as an economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Economic Planning in 1965.

O’Reilly would have his viewers believe that Obama Sr. maintained a Connecticut address, at which he never lived, 100 miles from Cambridge, where he attended school, while living in Kenya for more than 12 years by the time Obama Jr. was assigned his Connecticut social security number.

Moreover, it is more unlikely that Obama Jr. would have traveled to the east coast between 1977 and 1979 and used his father’s address from 12 years previous to obtain a social security number for the purposes of either taking a job in Hawaii or attending college in California. By his own admission, Obama Jr. stated in his book “Dreams From My Father” that he resided in Hawaii until 1979 when he left for Occidental College in California. There are no records or evidence showing that Obama ever traveled to or lived on the east coast as a teenager.

O’Reilly stated that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.”

The problem with this claim is that Obama’s social security number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961, more than 12 years after Obama’s father had moved back to Kenya. Obama was not a baby when the number was issued.

Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been assigned by one central office with the first three digits of an applicant’s Social Security number being determined by the zip code of the mailing address on the application.

O’Reilly seems to be struggling with an inability to be objective regarding the Obama eligibility issue. In his desperate desire to discredit any possibility that Obama may actually not be who he claims to be, O’Reilly is going out of factual bounds to protect against having to explain the simple truth. On many occasions throughout the past year, O’Reilly has either made light of any claims against Obama, or he has indulged outright mockery of the idea that Obama is not a vetted president.

One of the most outrageous claims made by O’Reilly is that his investigative team discovered the two birth announcements allegedly showing Obama’s birth registration in Hawaiian newspapers. In his claim, he completely disregards the fact that birth announcements were published based on registration statistics provided by the “Health Bureau”, which is so stated at the top of each column in the announcement section of the paper.

O’Reilly also ignores the fact that the state of Hawaii has registered births of foreign-born children since before the islands became a state and that this birth registration process automatically triggers the birth announcement publication, regardless of the location of the birth, without the newspapers having ever confirmed the information with any originating hospital or physician.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Obama’s Parentage Disqualifies His Presidency…Regardless of His Birthplace

Donald Trump is right...but he is not as right as he could be with a few more facts.

Commentary by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

Yes, I know. Donald Trump keeps using the term “Certificate of Live Birth” to describe the fraudulent Hawaiian document which has been ambiguously attributed to Obama’s covert natal history by abettors at that state's public health agency. My email was full with comments this week asking that I call Donald and have a talk with him.

I left a message with his delightful executive assistant and told him to continue the investigation and not give up on exposing Obama's lies. I told him never to lose sight of the most important thing of all. That Barry Soetoro-Obama is hiding the truth about his past and he is lying about his real identity.

We all know Trump's righteous intention to draw a correct distinction between the failure of Obama’s fraudulent Hawaiian “CertificaTION of Live Birth”, wielded by municipal dregs and Obots since 2008 to obscure his actual natural-born citizenship status, and a medically authenticated, original, 1961, federal NVSD document template, which is actually titled per guidelines issued by the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, called a “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” since 1915. This document is signed by a medical doctor, an informant and an administrator, and exists for all natural-born citizens of the U.S.

To confuse the matter even more, the ever-opaque Hawaiian municipality weaseled in a "cover-Obama's-ass" revision to the 2008 version of “Certification of Live Birth” template sometime in August, 2009 which changed its header title guessed it, “Certificate of Live Birth”, like the federal version. This was intentionally done by Hawaiian administrators, after Obama’s alleged record was forged, in order to quell the flood of inquiry about Obama's birth records.

Those of us who requested Obama's original 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" as early as May of 2008 were told simply that Hawaii was not legally able to release that document. Now, however, the significance of such a title change has the affect of confusing a waking public by causing rookie truth seekers to incorrectly associate the appropriate document with it's historical authority. Now, when anyone uses the term "Certificate of Live Birth", the little weasels at the State of Hawaii can say that document title is what they issue as an official birth certificate, like the federal government's document template is titled. They now just refer to the image of the Certification of Live Birth and tell the requester that it is now titled like the original one. Cute, huh? That's why it's important to tell powerful people like Donald Trump how important it is to investigate the details and cut deeper into Obama's epic deception. Even the title of documents have been corrupted with the intention of deceiving. Evil, pure evil.

Few people know, however, two very damning facts against the State of Hawaii's vital records irregularities. First, it is the only state in America which, throughout its history at successive times, has issued and revised a "Certification of Live Birth", a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" and, now, a municipal document with no historical federal authority entitled "Certificate of Live Birth" to foreign-born children.

Second, the state of Hawaii has been notified by the U.S. Department of Health that their document format and content does not meet the federal provisions for an official, standard birth certificate in that it must be attested by a medical professional qualified to determine the mortal characteristics of a “live birth” as opposed to a “still birth”, each of which require separate administrative procedures and documentation to record data for the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. If a baby is born with even the faintest signs of life then dies, that child must be recorded and reported as a "Live Birth" then, obviously, reported as a natal fatality with an attested Death Certificate. However, if a child is still-born, live birth statistics are not reported.

“The Donald’s” intentions are good, but just slightly confused. We can't blame him though. Obama's regime and covert teams have had almost six years to corrupt the information, con the public, create a virtual reality and disseminate b.s. propaganda. Let’s give Trump a little time to get up to speed with the correct association of terms and related entities. He’s only been in the fight for a month, unlike the rest of us who have been in it for more than three years.

If you are reading this, Mr. Trump, may God bless you. You are headed in the right direction. The fraudulent document you are correctly associating with Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Obama a.k.a Barry Obama a.k.a. Barry Subarkah, is called a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. An official, original, federally approved, medically verified birth record is titled as “CertifiCATE of Live Birth”. You are correct, however…Obama’s document is not an official birth certificate, no matter what you call it.


All this talk about Obama’s birthplace and birth certificates has caused everyone to lose sight of the single, undeniable fact that renders Obama an illegitimate president. One of his parents was not a U.S. citizen when he was born and he very likely lost his natural-born citizenship status in 1967 or 1968 when he moved to Indonesia and was adopted by his mother's Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro.

On many occasions, since Obama was ensconced, he and his defenders have tried to promote a lie, without original, eye-witnessed, medically attested documented evidence, which would exist if he were a natural born citizen, that he was born in the U.S. However, they ignorantly fail to realize that Obama’s geographic birth only matters with regard to his legitimacy as President if the other metrics of natural born citizenship are met. Those being his biological origins and his continuity of natural-born status from birth to election.

It’s not the fault of Republicans, Tea Partiers or so-called ‘birthers’ that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time Obama was born. It's not their fault that Obama's mother married an Indonesian and allowed him to adopt Barry as an Indonesian citizen son. Nor is it their fault that the founding fathers of America wrote, 230 years ago, that only a candidate born of U.S. citizen parents and born in a geographic location under the legal protection of the U.S. Constitution could be President.

Many of Obama’s overbenders desperately deny that the “natural-born” citizen requirement of the Constitution requires a President to be born of two U.S. citizen (naturalized or natural-born) parents, despite historical records affirming this definition, because, well, that means they have to admit that their overlord is actually an illegitimate pretender. Which he is. They are pathetic minimalists seeking to embrace the minimal standard for the benefit of one man rather than uphold the maximum standard for an entire nation. That makes them traitorous. They argue that such a demanding stipulation would limit the candidate pool to only a select few and therefore create unfairness in American politics. They actually think that anyone in the world has a right the American Presidency.

Imagine that! To think that we, the defenders of world freedom, would actually uphold standards which are highly selective and challenging of those seeking the vast power of elected American leadership.

Liberals are wrong in just about everything they think, do and say. This multiculturalist, globalist derangement is no exception. However, the World Census Report of the CIA estimates that less than 4.9% of the world's population is Constitutinally qualified to be president of the U.S. Think about it for a moment. Given Obama's ambiguously defined, multi-culturalistic identity and detached migratory background, this puts an even more remote quantification on his foul legitimacy.

I have to laugh at Obama supporters. They are so psychotic, they can only parrot delusional accusations of racism against anyone who questions Obama's past. It is hilarious to realize such a large section of a society, claiming to be the bastion of intelligence and tolerance to the world, fail so miserably to understand that by promoting an illegitimate candidate simply because of his demography only tarnishes humanity's view of their character and moral standard. The world is laughing at Obama's minions because they were so blind in their ideology and obsessive hate for vintage American culture, they actually went slumming in Chicago of all places, to pick an illegitimate pretender with African ancestory, simply on the basis that he had darker skin than his predecessor. And, they call us racists?

The punch-line of the "President Obama" joke is, now that he has been enthroned by his racist liberal subjects, he is now faced with the diametric horror of being a usurper of the most hated position in human history. He must actually present himself as a legitimate executive leader of an entire nation of people who hate him for being an illegitimate liar. So, you wanna be President, do ya? Liberals need to learn there are just some things you shouldn't fight for. You just might get them.

Many American citizens were not born here. They can never legitimately be president. Many citizens in America were born here but also have at least one foreign, non-U.S. citizen parent. They cannot be president either. Natural born citizens, on the other hand, fulfill a prerequisite intended by our founders to provide the best possible chances by birth-right allowing for a candidate to the sovereign position of President of the United States.

Our response to this pathetic, liberal minimization of the standard is, "..Well, yes, exactly!"

If the candidate fails to provide original documented proof of his or her birth in U.S. to two citizen parents, then they can’t be president.

The burden is upon the individual, not the standard. This means that Obama must be held solely accountable for his failure to gain the confidence of the American people, not that the Constitution must be held in contempt to make opportunity for Obama. Diminishing the standard is exactly what the bowing liberal consensus in America has done for Obama. In essence they have lowered the bar for him only to see him fall on it. The law remains valid. Obama does not. The standard still applies. Obama has failed to meet it. Isn’t it more important to require the most of our leadership rather than minimal qualifications? Isn’t that the basis by which we should be able to honor our president.

We should uphold the ideal that the individual who becomes President became so because they are exceptional in many ways, none more importantly than in their foundational establishments of national sovereignty through adherence to highest spirit and aspirations of Constitutional intent.

Rather than willfully discounting the Constitution, which Obama has done throughout his entire existence, as some old doctrine of negative restrictions written by racist old white men, perhaps we should lift higher the idea that the Constitution is a generous provision of preemptive protections against the enemies of God’s love for vintage American heritage. Instead, the liberal media in America today actually seek to portray the founding fathers, whose descendents are now leading members of advanced human citizenry, conspired centuries ago to prevent Obama’s dad from becoming a U.S. citizen before Obama was born so that, in the off chance the guy happened to impregnate a wayward teenage white girl from middle America with offspring that might become president someday, the kid would be Constitutionally disqualified.

The natural circumstances of Obama’s birth which define his lack of constitutional qualifications to hold the office of the president are what they are. It’s no one’s fault that Obama is not eligible to be president. It’s just the facts of the present circumstance in which Obama resides. However, it becomes criminal behavior when anyone that knowingly allowed him to usurp power did so while hiding the documented facts of his illegitimacy.

Obama likes to promote the undocumented lie that he was born in Hawaii. Unfortunately for him, that is not the only circumstance which disqualifies him. Ironically, the very circumstance of his documented biography, which everyone in America agrees has been widely accepted and affirmatively reported, which disqualifies Obama from being president. His foreign parentage.

The Constitution mandates that a presidential candidate be a natural born citizen. This means that the candidate must be born under “natural” circumstances which make it impossible for he or she to possess plural loyalties, biologically, geographically or politically, to any foreign government or foreign influence.

On its face, Obama has failed at this since he was born. He has never been able to understand his own identity. So, he made one up. The fact that Obama’s birthplace has never been confirmed with official, original, attested documentation is well established and undeniable. Let’s not forget that his birth to a foreigner is also as equally damning to his legal legitimacy to be president.

Donald Trump understands that Obama is a liar and fraud and that is all that matters. Regardless of the actual words on any document.

Monday, April 4, 2011

MSNBC Suggests Obama Not Born in a Hawaiian Hospital

MSNBC’s Savannah Guthrie joins Chris "leg-tingle" Matthews in becoming the network's second confirmed ‘birther’ as the leftist media conglomerate continues its spiral into obliviousness about Obama’s biography.

A Daily Pen editorial
by Daniel Crosby

When the truth is against you, impending judgment ultimately forces you to surrender and repent, or else, perish with your crumbling lies. The longer Obama’s defenders try to fill the vast, empty chasms of his covert biography with sermons of fawning, dishonest propaganda, the more they unravel into an incoherent psychosis under the crushing weight of the impending, cataclysmic reality.

Some at MSNBC are repenting.

MSNBC commentators, Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd, co-host "The Daily Rundown", a typically left-leaning program which attempts to focus on the top political stories of the day and is presented in a liberal-friendly format with reports and analysis from the Washington D.C. bureau of NBC News. The show airs at 9:00 a.m, Monday thru Friday.

During the April 4, 2011 broadcast of the show, the two pundits conducted an interview with founder, Bill Adair, as another post-mortem twitch of the network's dead coverage of Obama's eligibility story.

Regarding Obama’s covert Hawaiian birth records, Guthrie asked Adair, “…so what they (Hawaiian Department of Health) release is the ‘short-form’, but presumably, is there a long-form somewhere in the bowels of some bureaucratic building in Hawaii, and if so, why don’t they pull it out?”

Invoking the Chris Matthews ‘Devil’s Advocate to Birtherism’ technique, Savannah Guthrie became a birther!

In asking the question, Guthrie touched the essence of Obama's horrific problem. On the day this man was born, someone witnessed the birth and at least one of those witnesses attested official documentation recording the metrics and information about that birth. Those individuals are assumed to be at least an attending physician, and other hospital personnel or family members. That document was filed with the municipal authority and the medical facility bearing responsibility for such vital records in the location of the birth. As of today, this documentation has never been seen by anyone outside of a covertly protected group of government agents and pro-Obama municipal employees.

Moreover, Obama has paid in excess of a million dollars to his lawyers at Perkins Coie to defend against more than 30 lawsuits seeking his orignal documented eligibility to be President.

For Guthrie, the next step in the deductive process typically used by intelligent people is to consider the actual possible reasons why 'they don’t pull it out'. The foremost reason to consider is that it would expose Barack Obama as the most prolific liar and criminal in American political history while, possibly, sending America into social, legal and international chaos.

However, to date, NBC's pathetic overbending for Obama proves they and their viewers are viscerally terrified of what Obama has hidden from them. They invested too much in him. The rest of us in real America are not afraid of it because we only care if there is a criminal in the White House...regardless of his skin color or political party.

The 2012 pre-campaign media blast included a previous interview on ‘Rundown’ with Donald Trump last week during which Trump said that he wants Obama to produce a real birth certificate and that the reason Obama refuses to disclose his original natal documentation is because it might show that he is ineligible to be president.

Trump, unlike many in government today, appears to understand the importance of upholding Constitutional sovereignty through our President without respect for the political welfare of the individual holding the office.

Adair was brought on the show to rebut “The Donald”. Unfortunately, as we have become accustomed to seeing when this network attempts “journalism”, the conversation between these three devolved into a confusing back-and-forth replete with utter disinformation, outright dishonesty and laughable ignorance as they fumbled through Obama’s undocumented Hawaiian natal history.

Upon introducing Adair's with a reference to the Pulitzer prize, Chuck Todd asked, "We have heard from the Trump organization quite a bit about this segment, so, Bill, let's start with Trumps claim, he says the 'certificate of birth', but its actually a 'certificate of live birth', which is what Hawaii had versus a birth certificate. Please help clear this up."

Todd's incoherence is astonishing. First, his references to the document titles in association with Obama are wrong. Obama's inauspiciously posted, digitally imaged, altered documentation has a header title of 'Certification of Live Birth', not 'Certificate of Birth', as stated by Trump and which is a legitimate title of original birth documentation in some states, but not in Hawaii, and it is not a 'Certificate of Live Birth', as Todd claims, which is the NVSD template form of the standard federal document prescribed as the official medical verification of birth used by the hospital and is available through the U.S. Department of Health in 1961. The state of Hawaii did utilize this document in 1961 but it has never been shown to have been utilized to record Obama's birth.

“This is something we have done alot of research on at Politifact. We have talked to Hawaiian officials about it and there is, obviously, and I think many people know, the 'birth certificate' was posted on the web by the Obama campaign in the fall of 2008,” replied Adair.

Adair is already wrong and he's only been talking for five seconds. The image of a 'Certification of Live Birth' found suspiciously posted on the internet in October2008 is not a medically verified 'birth certificate' provided by a hospital and attested by a licensed professional. In fact, until 2009, many of Hawaii's very own municipal agencies refused to accept the 'Certification of Live Birth' document as a primary form of identification. The Obama campaign, nor anyone else, has ever posted an official, original birth certificate on the internet for Obama.

Adair continued, "Hawaiian officials have said that is real."

Aside from Adair’s genius in recognizing its existential qualities, he misidentifies the ‘CertificaTION of Live Birth’ as a “birth certificate", which is a generic term used by people who are ignorant about the difference between the available types of birth documentation in Hawaii. There is a big difference as it pertains to Obama, as we all know.

Recap, again. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published cover document created by a remote municipality way out in the Pacific Ocean, 40 years after Obama was born. It is not an original birth record created at the time of the birth. It is not endorsed or otherwise supported as an original medically verified U.S. 'Certificate of Live Birth' produced from template form and issued to municipal health departments who then provide the blank form to hospitals. This form is available and used in all 50 states per requirements outlined by the federal authority of the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S., pp 229-244, Technical Appendix.)

When a birth occurs in a hospital, as we have been told Obama's did, the attending physician or administrator is required to consult with the parents who provide the appropriate information required on the form about them. The doctor then provides the medical information about the birth on the form. The form is then signed by a minimum of three different witnesses including the doctor, a hospital administrator and a witness or informant. The form will be attested and authenticated with he doctor's professional registration number and the date of its expiration. The form is then copied, either by photostatic method, or, currently, by digital scanning and is stored in the records of the medical facility. The original is then tranfered to the local Department of Health where the birth is registered and the original form is filed.

Unfortunately for Obama and his 'Obots', the Office of the President is a federal office, not an office held in the state of Hawaii…thank God...but, we digress.

It is apparent that Mr. Adair may not have researched as extensively as he claims. Most importantly, however, the ‘extensive researcher’, Adair, also fails to include that the “Certification of Live Birth” is deficient in allowing for the determination of natural-born qualifications of a presidential candidate.

In Obama’s case, the unconfirmed Hawaiian document only indicates the location of the registration of a birth by the department of Health, not the actual location of the occurrence of a medically verified “Live” birth in a Hospital or other facility with professional medical personnel or eyewitnesses who are qualified to attest documents certifying a vital event in the United States. Obama may very well have been born in Hawaii, but this document is not the original one created at the time of his birth which shows this. This is just a fact that can never be changed no matter how many want to deny it.

If the Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth' were authentic like the original, 1961 'Certificate of Live Birth', it would contain the identity and signatures of the attending physicians, the identity and signatures of the informant, the identity and signatures of the hospital administrator and the name of the hospital. Obama’s does not. Moreover, Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not indicate the citizenship status or birthplace of his parents, nor does it indicate whether the birth subject was adopted or whether the birth was, in anyway, originally documented through administrative processes which would possibly indicate a plural natal identity which, if shown to be true, would disqualify a presidential candidate.

These vital pieces of information are required to determine the natural-born status of the birth subject. Adair’s response reveals the long-standing flaw in Obama's supporters in that they lust to endow exclusive authority in determining Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status exclusively to the Hawaiian Department of Health. They seem to do this because this is the only entity on the planet willing to construct the information in an ambiguously misleading manner which supports Obama’s desire to conceal the authentic, original documents created in 1961.

Between its nonsensical records laws and its subversively liberal state legislature; Its administrative rules which allow everything from cover documents-in-lieu-of-authentic-originals, it has become clear the state of Hawaii is the foremost suspect in the abetment of Obama’s criminal presidency.

For someone claiming to have ‘researched this extensively’, Adair was shockingly unintelligible about the facts surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian origins, but the contaminated interview continued.

“There is another piece of evidence which is, as I understand, is contemporaneous…a birth announcement in the local paper in 1961?” asked Guthrie.

“Correct,” replied Adair, “and this to me is even more persuasive in many ways, because it’s published in the paper…for it to be put there in two papers…in the two Honolulu newspapers it was placed by the department of health…”

“They do it! Not the families!” Todd interrupted, pointing to a copy of the birth announcements.

“This is county produced! The same way…because right next to it are marriage applications! Which we have up here. Marriage applications which also it’s not as if…people filed with the county…and death notices…the same thing, whenever the county recorded a death certificate, correct?”

Okay, Chuck…since you mention it. Let’s talk about the marriage announcements.

While you are exalting the DOH with authority to initiate newspaper announcements declaring Obama as an eligible, ‘natural-born’ candidate for the most power office in the world, please tell us why Obama parents’ marriage announcements have never been found in the same papers as the birth announcements. They were allegedly married in Hawaii in February, 1961. Maybe the Department of Health or the newspapers were closed that day.

Todd’s implication that Obama was born in some fictional maternity ward at the offices of the Department of Health in Hawaii is a new low for Obama’s blind supporters.

Like so many other shills for Obama, he is so one dimensional in is pro-Obama thought structure that he never considers that the most important fact concerning the birth announcements is not whether members of Obama’s family provided information directly to the newspapers, but rather, that the information for the announcements was most importantly, not provided to the newspapers directly by the alleged medical facility in which Obama claimed he was born! Todd completely ignores this fact because he wants to endow the Hawaiian Department of Health with the authority to validate Obama as an eyewitness to the facts, exclusively.

Essentially, there have evolved four entities in this conversation. The Department of Health, the Obama/Dunham Family, an unconfirmed hospital and the Honolulu newspapers.

Of these four, only the hospital is the preeminent authority qualified to demonstrate that Obama is natural-born. We haven't heard from any hospital about Obama's birth. In determining natural born status, the Department of Health does not have a maternity ward nor does its personnel attend births. The family cannot be held accountable due to their personal interests, and the newspapers print whatever the Department of Health tells them to - regardless of the original sources used to create the information for birth announcements in the first place.

No, Obama was not born at the offices of the Hawaiian Department of Health in 2007! He was not born at the newspapers’ offices on August 11 when the announcements were published. We don't know if he was born at his family's home or at a hospital.

Therefore, the DOH officials whom these pundits so excruciatingly exalt as authorities in determining Obama’s constitutional eligibility are merely municipal tools used in a chain of command to process information provided to them by the initial authority – the medically qualified individual or individuals in the hospital where the birth is first verified.

Adair continued, “And, it says there (in the announcement), ‘a son born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama…so for there to be any sort of conspiracy you had to have a lot of groups working together here.”

“You mean in other words, the department of Health had to be in on the conspiracy fifty years ago…” said Guthrie.

“Exactly,” replied Adair. “And, so, I think this is corroborating evidence that the birth certificate is authentic.” added Adair.

Notice the assumptions made by Adair about the connections between unrelated pieces of evidence. He states that the presence of the birth announcements created by two newspapers from information provided by the DOH in 1961 automatically indicates, without exception, that a Certification of Live Birth provided by the DOH in 2001 is a real document which, therefore, means that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen. A quantum leap which Guthrie's burgeoning instincts cause her to take issue with.

“Well, just to be totally clear,” interrupted Guthrie, "when the Honolulu advertiser and the other paper has a birth announcement like this, the presumption is that this is a birth that has taken place in Hawaii, because it does not say ‘born in Honolulu.”

“Correct,” replied Adair.

Guthrie's use of the word 'presumption' is the problem. She finally hits one of the essential key pieces of information oriented against Obama's eligibility. The fact is that the appearance of a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 did not indicate a Hawaiian birth, as has been proven. Thousands of children born outside of Hawaii from the early 1900's until today have had their births registered and announced in Hawaii as a native birth. The state of Hawaii, and the territory prior, has maintained laws and policies for 100 years which afford its municipal authority with tremendous latitude in registering and 'nativizing' foreign-born children. A review of the history of Hawaii's plural culture and remote location explains the evolution of Hawaii's permeable migrational history.

“But, it (the newspaper) only reports births which happen in Hawaii,” continued Savannah.

“Exactly,” replied Adair, “…and the birth certificate says that the birth was in Honolulu.”

Adair and Guthrie have gone down the rabbit hole at this point, making an incredibly ignorant assumption. The fact is that the Hawaiian Department of Health has registered foreign births in Hawaii as native births and that the newspapers do not care whether the birth occurs in Hawaii or not. The newspapers simply print from a list of birth registrations which only indicate the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Adair becomes less of an expert the more he talks.

Then, appearing to shift accountability from Obama to the Republican party, Todd said, “You know, Bill, the cynical side of what I’ve heard from republicans on this is ‘okay, we don’t dispute that he was born in Hawaii’, but they are trying to smoke out the real birth certificate because they think there will be something else on the birth certificate, perhaps his religious denomination…did Hawaii even have that on their birth certificate in 1961?”

In Adair’s shockingly ignorant reply, he said, “Well, I am not sure about the religious faith but I would doubt it. Hawaiian officials have said that what is in their files, a certificate of Live birth, contains the same information as the one produced online…”

At this time it became apparent that Adair had no idea what he was talking about. Just as was expected. If an individual who claims to have researched the issue of Obama’s undocumented eligibility extensively does not know whether or not the religion of a baby is shown the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, he is not qualified to have this conversation.

“Whatever was on the original one is what they produce now!” interjected Todd, incorrectly.

If the DOH produced a Certification of Live Birth with ‘whatever was on the original’, Todd would know that it would contain, among other things, the identity of the doctor or witness to the birth and the name of the hospital in which the original document was issued. It would also indicate the usual residence of the mother, the birthplace of both parents, the age of the mother, and 30 other pieces of critical information which do not appear on Hawaii’s fallow document.

Then, Guthrie seemed to crack under the weight of the truth as she began to think outside the Obama box.

“Okay,” she added, “…so what they release is the ‘short-form’, but presumably, is there a long-form somewhere in the bowels of some bureaucratic building in Hawaii, and if so, why don’t they pull it out?”

Adair replied, “We asked the health officials about that, and they said for all intents and purposes, they are the same document and what is on that computer generated document are the same things that are on the long-form and that the words ‘long-form’ are really not good terminology.”

Adair did not venture to ask, if the two documents are so much alike, then why doesn’t Obama just produce the original certificate created in 1961 for public review? Since they are exactly the same, then he should just produce both of them and end this controversy, once and for all.

Adair went on to say that, recently, Donald Trump had claimed that no one remembers Obama from school and that Trump was wrong because there is plenty of people who went to school with Barack Obama who remember him at all levels, they have been very public about it.

Adair could not name even one of them however.