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

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.


  1. Typewriter pressure of keys, re shadow imprints?
    Ink used by fountain pens (blue or black-black dries faster less used)?
    Pressure of fountain pen thicks and thins, re shadow imprints?
    Ka of Kansas a is raised after K, whereas this doesn't occur elsewhere?
    Negroid instead of African?

  2. Granting long form BC is geniune, still he shouldn't be POTUS because father was non U.S. citizen.

  3. Your chart of what makes on Natural Born is nice. However I don't believe all those conditions are written in law anywhere. It's an undefined term. Your definition, which may have been arrived at by careful study of historical information, doesn't have the power of law.

    The truth is the SC will never unseat the President for something that takes a diagram like that to explain. Or, probably even for the obvious fact that his dad was English, not American -- which is what that all boils down to.

  4. Vlad,

    Thanks for the comment. You are correct. The legal definition of Natural-born citizen has never been established.

    However, please consider that a law is not required to make people vote for someone else! If there was a law obligating people to vote only for those shown conclusively to be legally legitimate rather than politically favorable (popular), Obama would have never been allowed to be elected in the first place because of his lack of disclosure about his foreign associations and allegiances (Odinga, al-Shabia, Rezco, Ayers, etc.).

    Certainly, Obama's eligibility has always been in doubt because of three primary issues. His birthplace, his parentage (father) and his continuity of natural born status after relocating to Indonesia. Even if we accept this new certificate herring, two questions remain unanswered, one by Obama, another by some legal authority with a spine.

  5. A well written piece. I understand that the hospital name on the long form is also wrong because in 1961 it was not Kialani. I am going to research it. Unseating this imposter is only the first step to justice.

  6. I see that the attending physician signed the document with a black filament pen. According to the Paper Mate corporate website, the filament, or "felt-tip", pen was not introduced in the U.S. until 1966. It was the "Flair". I wonder how the good doctor was able to get his hands on one that many years in advance?

  7. My Take on Obama's BC Release, TRUMP and some good information on our Founders interpretation of NBC for those posters who are still having a hard time grappling that term.

  8. Penbrook One, first . thanks for the article. Great piece.
    But I do have to correct you on one issue that comes to mind in the comments you say

    "The legal definition of Natural-born citizen has never been established. "

    that is not entirley true actually.

    It can be found here

    Warmest regards

  9. All:

    There is a great misunderstanding brought on by the MSM misinformation spreading that the term "natural born Citizen" has never been definitively determined.

    Not only is it in the early Naturalization Act of 1790 etc. indicated by The Munz above but it is also clearly defined by the SCOTUS desicion in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision which has never been overturned but has been confirmed by several other decisions since.

    WE ALREADY HAVE THE DWEFINITION WRITTEN INTO OUR LAWS AND SUPREME COURT RULINGS!! Claiming otherwise is merely part of the "overturn the Constitution" makeup of most of the looney liberal left. Don't buy into it!!

  10. Jayjay,

    The comment to Vlad was meant to convey that no court has yet taken up a case questioning the Natural born status of Barack Obama. I completely agree that there is, without question, historical and legal precedence to have Obama removed from office on the grounds of ineligibility. My point is that the weakened state of our politically corrupted legal system will never muster the will and legal guidance needed to come to that decision because they are poisoned by another set of laws, not the laws of America. OUR SUPREME COURT CONTAINS TWO ILLEGIMATE JUDGES appointed by the very liar they would be asked to remove, FOR GOD'S SAKE. If that is not a conflict of interest, I can't imagine what is.


  11. Hello Pen,

    Above you stated

    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.

    I found that BS, signed for HI, but the Art.II had been removed.

  12. Pen:

    Indeed there ARE two illegitimate judges and there was a serious attempt to see them recused in Kerchner et al v. Obama et al. They not only did not recuse themselves but neither did the Chief Justice exert any arm-twisting to get them to do so.

    Even further, I believe that the case was not heard since if could not get the required four votes which would no doubt have been the remaining justiciit after the three female liberal justices plus a couple of the well known male liberals lined up against hearing which left us with four justices.

    Obviously one of these four jumped ship and I think it was no one other than CJ Roberts since he has said he likes his court to be "collegial" (whatever that means) and that he hopes to see it known by history as one the truly great Courts along the lines of the Marshall court.

    Got news for CJ Roberts ... it won't be known to history in that way but as the SCOTUS that trashed the Constitution doing (in the words of CJ Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 1821) "... treason to the Constitution ..." by not taking up a case such as Kerchner which was a clear Constitutional matter and NOT a "political one".

    Would you and Dan please email me at jsheldon@soca; as we need to confer.

  13. information which is very nice, and hopefully we can be grateful for what the Lord in love, greetings from me Jual Obat Bius