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, March 23, 2012


IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

By Dan Crosby

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr. The table below shows there were a total of 13 children of U.S. citizens who entered the U.S. from Africa's Kenyan region. It also shows there were 11 from the United Kingdom in the same time in comparison, to demonstrate the consistency of this class of arrivals, regardless of the country of embarkation.

These children were classified by the INS upon arrival based on a passport which already named them when they departed from the U.S. prior, or they received requisite documentation, pre-approved by the U.S. before embarkation, which identified them specifically as children of U.S. citizens who were up to 18 years old.

However, a child who enters the U.S. who was not named on a passport prior to the use of that passport to depart the U.S. must undergo another form of identification process upon returning. A child who did not exist when the parent departed the U.S., in the absence of a passport, must be classified as one of three definitions, a non-resident alien, a derived citizen by parentage or marriage, or a child with acquired citizenship by birth or legal adoption by a U.S. citizen. The following table shows the quantity of children who were granted acquired citizenship from Africa.

Also supporting this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s, but which was said by State Department officials to have been conveniently discarded as a part of an administrative order to make more file storage space in the 1980s.

We know Dunham used a passport at that time on at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.

Successive yearly reports add COC recipients to their roster for births in previous years as applicants receive those certificates for the year they were born. Table 48 shows the total COCs issued in that year (larger number on the left for each region under "Total") for those born under past years' columns. The quantity of recipients with births in each year tend to peak in the fourth year after the birth, according to the report.

COCs are more rarely issued in the same year unless the U.S. citizen parent returns to the U.S. more immediately after the birth. Obviously, the sooner U.S. citizen parent(s) return with their children born abroad, the sooner they would receive the COC after the birth. However, very few COCs (about one in 80) are issued to children the same year the report is published because most children born abroad to U.S. parent(s) don't return to the U.S. for three to five years, according to the report data.

COC delivery is also often delayed while the circumstances of the birth abroad are confirmed for older births who might apply for retroactive COC. However, when a newborn or very young child enters the U.S. bearing a foreign birth registration from an official medical facility or institution identifying the citizen parent, a COC is able to be expedited based on the registration form, the parent(s) testimony and inspection of the child by the INS. In those cases, a COC may be delivered in days, not months or years.

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.

A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:

- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody).

There is yet other historical documented evidence supporting the plausibility that Ann Dunham possessed a birth registration for Obama Jr. from Kenya. In 2009, divorce decree documents for Dunham and Obama Sr. revealed that a conspicuously missing page from the section of the court proceedings declaring the custody of Obama Jr. is the same page which corresponds to other divorce records where a birth certificate would be required by a judge in order to determine original parentage at birth for a custody ruling based on HRS 571.

As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. It was documented that Obama Sr's father, living in Kenya at the time, denounced the marriage leaving the couple with a reconciliatory reason to travel there.

Following the completion of her classes at the University of Hawaii in winter 1961, the only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence was months after the alleged marriage, in late August 1961. A transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961 was discovered in 2009.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of African students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and Kenyan politician, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.

However, the INS report appears to fail to account for 13 other passengers which were reported as members of the AASF transport from Kenya. The AASF Report states there were 295 passengers aboard the flights, not 282.

Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

It should noted that the AASF sent more than 800 students to the United States via the Airlift Project from East Africa in the early 1960s. Some of the student are not accounted by the 1961-1962 Immigration report as having departed from Kenya in the third airlift transport in fall of 1961. However, several of these students attended the University of Chicago where it has been widely speculated they had expenses paid for by six separate U.S. families including the family of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of domestic terrorist and long-time Obama affiliate, Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on the Annenberg Education Project Fund board for almost 10 years.

Recent testimony from a retired postal worker who delivered mail to the Ayers' Glen Ellyn, Chicago residence collaborates with AASF report accounts and indicates the Ayers may have a longer history of supporting foreign exchange students than initially suspected. Barack Obama II, was likely one of these foreign students supported by the Ayers in the late 1980s which would explain his engagement to serve with Ayers on the Annenberg Fund board, perhaps as appreciation for the Ayers' help.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.

Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

Monday, March 12, 2012


DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: Historical evidence provided by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Reference Library System now confirms the information appearing within the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” disregards his actual foreign birthplace while, instead, providing a statistically based “geographic allocation” which is a result of a widely misunderstood natality data reporting policy which began in 1950. Stalling for four years since Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007, under mounting political pressures and legal challenges, the White House unveiled a lone scrap of counterfeit information in the form of a desolate internet image which, after a six month criminal investigation, now confirms that Obama’s presidency is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

By Penbrook Johannson and Daniel Crosby

NEW YORK, NY – Barack Obama has misled millions into believing he is eligible to hold the office of the U.S. presidency by exploiting a little known secret about his Hawaiian-based natal records.

Obama's birth certificate was issued in conjunction with a commonly used, but publicly misunderstood, vital statistics reporting anomaly used to allocate birthplace according to residency, not citizenship, by the State of Hawaii in 1961.

Following a six month investigation by an Arizona-based law enforcement agency proving that the image of Barack Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally fabricated forgery, it has now been confirmed that the information contained in the document, which claims he was born in the state of Hawaii, is nothing more than the result of a widely misunderstood statistical reporting trick.

As early as 1934, this arbitrary, but necessary method was enacted by the U.S. Census Bureau and later written into law with the passage of the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942. It was then fully adopted by all state-level vital records agencies, including those within the then territory of Hawaii, in 1950 in order to improve the collaborative accuracy of data harvested by America’s decadal census and statistics reported annually by state vital records agencies.

Though commonly practiced by vital records data collection agencies of federal and state governments as a means of defining “residency” in birth data reporting, the policy completely disqualifies birth records as the only source of information about a candidate to determine Natural-born eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.

The birthplace shown on a birth certificate is entered as the result of the mother’s place of residence, not the location of the occurrence of the birth.

The truth about this information is so damning to Obama’s fraudulent assertions of presidential eligibility, counterfeiters and leftist propagandists operating on behalf the liberal establishment chose to digitally fabricate, conceal and misrepresent these critical facts prior to submitting public information about Obama’s natal history.


As discussed previously in parts one and two of this report, the combination of Hawaii’s unique culture, isolated geographic characteristics, unfettered immigration policy and municipal development challenges in the 1960s prompted the use of vital records registration protocols by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health which undermine the reliability of birth certificate information as a means of determining the natural-born citizenship of any individual.

However, it is now clear that Obama exploited the existence of a widely misunderstood natal data reporting method implemented by the federal government, 11 years before his birth certificate was issued, based on an arbitrary statistical application which classifies the actual place of birth by allocating it as occurring in the same location as the mother’s “place of residence”. This allocation is made regardless of the actual location of the birth because the data provided about the birth to the Census Bureau is used for calculating the impact of natality on resident population and, therefore, must be recorded by the registrar using the same criteria used to count those defined as residents by the Census.

The VSUS Report states: "The compilation of natality and mortality data on the same geographic basis as the population census requires a complete reallocation of births and deaths to the place of residence. When this reallocation has been made, it is then possible to compute resident rates."

The allocation of births to “place of residence” protocol was implemented sporadically beginning in 1934 to provide for statistical integrity between decadal Census data collection and more frequently collected natality rates taken from real-time birth registrations. Prior to the implementation of the policy, the accumulative affect of non-resident and foreign birth statistics on U.S. birth volumes caused a skewing of natality rates when compared to Census population rate data. These errors had to be corrected in order to use the data for accurately measuring resources in developing public health services, municipal infrastructure and women’s reproductive health research.

After implementing the birthplace allocation rule, between 1937 and 1949, the NCHS published the annual version of its statistical reporting manuals containing a section called “Vital Statistics of the U.S., Part II Geographic Classification By Place of Residence” which explains, among many other arbitrary rules, the reasoning and methods used to show natal statistics for foreign-born children of U.S. resident mothers.

The manuals repetitively explain that the tabulation of vital statistics taken from birth certificates, on a “place-of-residence” basis, requires that the information given on the certificate must be allowed “to be interpreted in such a way” as to afford statistical classifications of birth geography used to calculate natality rates which are comparable with statistical classifications of population geography used to account census data.This means the Hawaiian registrar was/is directed to record the place of birth as being the same as the mother's place of residence, regardless of where it actually occurred. This explains why Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” states that his birthplace was in Hawaii even though he was not likely born there. His birth affected the population of the community where his mother lived, not where she gave birth to him.

Entries to Obama's alleged 1961 birth certificate show his mother's place of residence

Since the Bureau of Census held authority over both the implementation of the census and the standards for collecting and reporting vital records until the 1960s, this policy was implemented using the census’ population enumeration protocols as the standard by which all vital statistics data was to be collected and processed. This is logical since the collection of census data on a decadal frequency is what drives long-term public health services and municipal funding in the U.S. Of course, therefore, population is directly affected by statistics taken from vital records documenting birth data, as well as mortality data.

The NCHS assumed authority over vital statistics management under the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education when the National Vital Statistics Division and the Office of Public Health Survey were combined in 1960.

The Origins of Birthplace Allocation By “Place of Residence”

The Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM) and Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report state:

Historical information referencing “resort states” provides a weighty indictment against Obama’s claim to Hawaiian birth origins. The resort states in the U.S. in 1961 were Florida, Nevada (Las Vegas) and Hawaii. An analysis of the changes in population outside of urban areas of these states confirms this report’s accurate assessment. Hawaii’s population outside of Honolulu increased by 97% between 1950 and 1960. This rate is the highest behind Florida’s, during this same time, whose population rate outside of Miami increased by 161% due to a flood of Cuban aliens fleeing Castro’s communist regime, and Las Vegas’ population which exploded between 1950 and 1960 as a result of that state’s legalization of gambling, prostitution and the development of Las Vegas’ Sunset Strip casinos.

Beginning in 1950, all natality data was exclusively reported based on “place of residence” of the mother. The manual for that year states:

“…births and deaths were assigned to the actual place of residence, no matter where they occurred.”

This scientifically induced indemnity is a logical, but arbitrary, manifestation of statistical standardization meant to preserve the referential integrity between data taken from natal records and their relationship with decadal census population data.

Whereas a population exists continuously and is attributable to a specific geographic location, a birth must, therefore, also be attributable to that same specific location if it is to be considered a valid impact on that population. However, the incongruence between the two data sources is that a birth is a momentary event which has the potential to occur anywhere. This fact affects the constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, whereas a birth’s impact on resident population is a continuously occurring entity defined under the Census Bureau's treatment of residency, not citizenship.

This statistical methodology disqualifies birth certificates from serving as a source of personal information for determining eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency because it fails to accurately define the citizenship status of the subjects therein. Therefore, Obama’s birth certificate, regardless of its authenticity cannot be used as the primary source of information to qualify his candidacy. The reasons for this are circumspect and inescapable. To violate them brings devastating consequences to those who remain ignorant of their altruistic purpose and enduring implications.

Birth Certi-Fiction

Based on the continued development of criteria between 1935 and 1961, the alleged year of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, the definition of residency in relation to birth statistics collection was refined to provide more accuracy in natality rates so as to demonstrate the impact of births on resident population, therefore, providing better Census and Vital Record data collaboration, without regard for the actual location of the occurrence of the birth.

These revisions included the standardization of the template form of the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”, in coordination with the Public Health Conference on Vital Records and Statistics in 1956, which would clearly provide referential uniformity for NCHS coding efforts when classifying geography of vital records origination. The revisions allowed coding and data collection from the “Location of Birth” and “Usual Residence of Mother” entry boxes from all certificates in the same manner, not just for those recording births occurring in the U.S., but also for births occurring to U.S. residents, anywhere.

The standard certificate used for births occurring in the U.S. must also be used for births occurring outside of the U.S. to resident mothers, but both circumstances had to provide the same formatting of information for data classification. Therefore, the location of the birth must state that the birth occurred in the U.S. in order for data from the certificate to be reported as a birth which impacts U.S. and state population figures. Simply stated, there is not a separate certificate for births occurring in the U.S. and births occurring outside of the U.S. to residents of the U.S., but both circumstances are recorded as births which, obviously, impact the population and municipal services of the U.S.

The problem with this misrepresentation of information is that the NCHS only defines a “resident” of the U.S., not a “citizen” of the U.S. The difference is obvious. Essentially, Obama has exploited this NCHS statistical protocols used to report natal statistics in order to declare himself a natural-born citizen by proxy of his mother’s U.S. residency, without being forced to be accountable for his own Constitutionally disqualified “citizenship” status as president.
Since births are recorded in real time while populations are measured every ten years, the VSIM manual actually acknowledges that the necessity for such interpretation “introduces arbitrary and controversial factors into the procedure of allocation” by each state.
As we now know, the factors applied by the State of Hawaii in granting Obama’s native birth registration has been nothing but arbitrary and controversial.


According to Barack Obama, a natural-born citizen is an individual who is naturally born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

Stunningly, Obama, himself, confirmed this definition of a Natural-born citizen in 2008 when he sponsored and voted for passage of Senate Resolution 511 which explicitly states that a candidate for U.S. President is a Natural-born citizen definitively and exclusively because he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. The resolution was debated and passed unanimously without inquiry approving the eligibility of Republican candidate, John McCain, during the 2008 election campaign.

McCain was born in Panama in 1936, while regionally under the jurisdiction of the United States following the construction of the Panama Canal, to two U.S. citizen parents who were living there while his father was serving in the U.S. military.

While media abettors like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to report on Obama’s blatant hypocrisy in this matter, Congress ignorantly refused to apply Senate Resolution 511 in equal and likewise measure to the candidacy of Barack Obama whose alleged father, as unequivocally displayed on his alleged birth certificate and confirmed by millions of sources for decades, was never a citizen of the United States.

This fact, alone, bolstered by Obama’s fraudulent natal record and his acceptance of Senate Resolution 511, serves as the only necessary fact needed to convict Obama as an illegitimate president under the U.S. Constitution. By his own validation of a definition of Natural born citizenship under which he fails to qualify himself, without the provision of an amended constitutional law in his favor, Barack Obama is declared illegitimate by his own hand.

Also, in July of 2009, the Director of the State Health Department in Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino, made an assertion, violating her authority and jurisdiction, that Barack Obama was a “natural born citizen.”

In light of the evidence discovered for this report, Fukino violated her jurisdiction because she had only the authority to determine Hawaiian "residency" status, not American "citizenship" status in the reporting of vital records.

With regard to Obama’s birthplace, the only documented reference appears on a digitally fabricated image, proven to be a forgery, posted to the internet and ignorantly endorsed and accepted without inquiry by many. However, we now know that Obama’s actual birthplace information was recorded in four separate sources, not just a birth certificate, by four different agencies in 1961.

His birthplace was recorded by the foreign health agency with jurisdiction over the facility where he emerged from his mother’s womb. It was then recorded by the local registrar’s office upon registration in Hawaii before being reallocated to his mother’s place of residence. It was then recorded by the State of Hawaii’s main office prior to being tabulated and coded for reporting to the NCHS. And, it was transcribed for record exchange with the foreign health agency and recorded by the National Center for Health Statistics for storage to data file tape currently residing at the National Archives and Records Administration, from which Obama restricted its release with Executive Order 13489.

Directives published in federal guidelines provided to Fukino by the National Center for Health Statistics now confirm that she was not only factually incorrect while infringing upon the federal jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service by attempting to declare Obama’s citizenship status, she intentionally lied about it to avert inquiry about the methods used by the State of Hawaii to explicitly issue and process birth records to children born to U.S. residents while outside of the United States.

Having full knowledge of the policy which directed the registrar in 1961 to allocate Obama’s birthplace to his mother’s place of residence, having seen Obama’s “original vital records”, knowing Obama’s actual place of birth was outside of the United States, Fukino intentionally misled the American people in a formal press release by stating that Obama was a Natural-born citizen when she knew he was not.

We now know the information on Obama alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is fraudulent. However, even if it was not counterfeited, it is still not reliable in providing conclusive indication of the actual place of occurrence of birth because of Hawaii’s birthplace by residence allocation policy.


The instructions for allocating births to “place of residence” were published in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part 1: “Coding and Punching Geographic and Personal Particulars of Births, Deaths and Stillbirths Occurring During 1961.” An internal office copy of this document resides in the NCHS main office in Hyattsville, Maryland, and was made available for in-house review for this report, but was not provided for public disbursement. However, it was provided to all state Health agencies by the vital records coding regulatory office of the National Center for Health Statistics Office of Vital Statistics in 1961.

The report states:

“Allocation of births to place of residence. The allocation of live births to “place of residence” is made according to the same general principles as the allocation of other vital events in the U.S. In the case of births, the usual residence of the mother is considered to be the place of residence of the child, and the allocation of the birth to the mother’s place of residence is not affected by the mother’s length of stay in the location in which the birth occurs. For the purpose of coding natality transcripts, these rules have been expanded in definite coding instructions which state the procedure followed in each case.”

According to the procedures for birth allocation to “place of residence” the NCHS stipulates criteria which aligns with allocation for deaths. They include:

1. Natality data should be compiled so as to correspond with enumerated populations (Census data) on which rates are based. Each birth should be assigned to the area which was the “usual place of residence” of the mother.

2. Mothers who, at the time of the birth, had been living more than one year in a community are considered residents of that community even though some other place may be stated on the certificate.

3. Mothers of births which occurred in nonresident institutions such as hospitals, T.B. sanatoriums, convalescent homes, jails, etc., are reallocated to the usual place of residence if they were confined in the institution for less than one year.

4. Mothers in resident institutions, where length of stay is usually extended, such as mental institutions, orphanages, retirement homes, homes for the blind, disabled and deaf, etc. are reallocated to their prior place of residence.

5. Births to mothers whose usual place of residence is a foreign country or a United States possession outside of the United States are not reallocated to the usual place of residence.

6. Infants born at locations other than the place of residence of the mother are reallocated to the place of residence of the mother.

Essentially, this protocol instructed the Hawaiian Registrars Office to oversee the content of Obama’s birth certificate in such a way that his natal statistics would be tabulated as a result of an allocation of his birth to Ann Dunham’s “place of residence” in the U.S., regardless of the actual location of the occurrence of the birth. Simply, in the interest of data uniformity between the census bureau and the NCHS, Obama’s birth certificate was required to show his birth place as being the same as the mother’s residence because his birth impacted the population and municipal services of Hawaii, not those of the foreign government and population where his birth actually occurred.

The allocation of Obama’s birth to “place of residence” in 1961 was deeply subjected to the Hawaiian municipal agency’s need for conveying natal statistics and census data which would demonstrate the most need for funding and resources needed to expand its public health services, meet infrastructure demands of the population and provide natal-health care for future birth rates. The only way provided by the federal government to do this was by allocation to place of residence using the standard birth report form known as a U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”.

Foreign Birth Transcript Exchange

Beginning in 1937, four years after the establishment of the standard U.S. vital statistics registration area, the Vital Statistics of the United States Report published the first natal statistics which included transcripts exchanged between foreign-based vital records offices and domestic Vital Records offices in the U.S.

One such table of this data can be seen in the Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in 1946 which shows there were 50,276 “Resident Transcripts” added to the natal statistics data in the U.S. while 50,659 non-resident transcripts were subtracted. These transcripts were those natal statistics from births which occurred outside of the United States, but which were reported (on the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”), filed and allocated to a place of residence in the U.S. The table explicitly cites under footnote 1 that these transcripts include “allocations of births which occurred outside of the continental United States.”

The 1977 version of the Model State Vital Statistics Act states, "If it is to be respected, the appropriate procedures for recording birth and death information for United States citizens born or dying in foreign countries and certification of birth information for aliens adopted by United States citizens must continue to be the responsibility of those Federal Agencies which retain jurisdiction over recording these events."

In the earliest available Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, the National Vital Statistics Office provides the most damning historical indictments against the use of vital records for anything other than providing statistical indicators for determining public health service implementation. Throughout the entire history of vital records collection and reporting, there is absolutely no historical documentation in any NCHS or Vital Statistics office publication since 1900 which promotes the use of vital records for determining the eligibility of politicians to serve in American government, especially for the Presidency. The reasons are unequivocally defined.

Recall, the primary purpose of vital records is not to provide an accurate location of the occurrence of a vital event as much as it is supposed to allow an interpretation of data which reflects the vital event’s impact on the municipal and public health services of the attributed geographic population. Therefore, the federal government created data exchanges between foreign and domestic vital records offices which were intended to balance the impact of foreign vital event data on domestic Census population data. The answer to this need for statistical balance was to allocate foreign birth occurrence to the mother’s place of U.S. residence.

Obama’s Natal Data Tape File

Therefore, in the alleged year of Obama’s birth, as in years prior and since, Hawaii’s 1961 natality data was compiled on the same basis as population data from the 1960 census, with regard to geographic consistency. This required that foreign births be allocated in such a way that they would be accounted accurately based on their impact on Hawaii’s population rates. Logically, otherwise, if foreign births to Hawaiian residents were not accounted, they would not be included in the natality data and therefore, would cause a skewed result when compared with Census population data.

In order to align the two data sets in the state, the Hawaiian Health Department was queued by the federal government, along with the other states, to implement rules which allowed a reallocation of foreign births as occurring in the same location as the mother’s place of residence. That way, when natality data, mortality data and census data were compared, the result was an accurate representation of the impact of vital events on Hawaii’s population, and the population of the U.S. as a whole.

The Vital Statistics Instruction Manual provides a concise description of methodology used to transcribe data from birth certificates. The data was entered manually on to punch cards which were fed into a computer. The resulting data was stored on data tape files in the form of data strings containing the codes which refer to the characteristics, demography, time, date, location and metrics of the birth. The State of Hawaii and the NCHS maintains these data tape file records in their respective archive facilities. These records, as so mentioned in the Instruction manual, have always been available to the public for research purposes. Since Obama’s birth certificate was coded for tabulation processing, his data tape file would appear in the following format containing the data which we already know as follows:


The “X”s represent data codes which have never been disclosed to the public and are related to medical information and data input by the State of Hawaii for internal uses only. However, the first 40 digits of this string are those required to determine if Obama’s birth records are legitimate. They contain the year, the certificate number, his gender, the actual location of the birth, the age of his mother, the age of his father and biographical and professional information of all those bearing witness to the birth. If any part of the data string does not match the data shown on the certificate, it can be concluded that his certificate fails to support his claim to natural born citizenship thereby forfeiting his eligibility as president.


The standard of eligibility for any candidate aspiring for the U.S. president was declared in the Constitution 250 years before Obama was fraudulently elected. In 1961, Hawaii’s birth reporting methods and residency definitions fell short of that standard because they do not clarify natural-born citizenship status, they merely allocated native birth status based on residency.

As stated by the National Center for Health Statistics, the purpose of a vital record is to establish the referential integrity between decadal Census population data and the occurrence of vital events for the effective implementation of public health resources. It is not meant to establish evidentiary consistency in determining eligibility for political office.

The “Current Population Report” Series 98, 223 and 229 published by the Bureau of Census, which were available in 1961, indicate that the population data of the state of Hawaii was enumerated on April 1st of 1961 following the 1960 Census. This means that, based on commonly accepted accounts, Ann Dunham was counted in this census data having moved to the islands with her parents after graduation from high school, in the summer of 1960.

The United States conducts a Census once every ten years. However, vital statistics (births, deaths, abortions, marriages and divorces) are collected annually. Over the course of ten years between Census data collection, many factors impact the consistency of data because of variability in the circumstances related to vital events.

The ability for people to travel outside of their areas of residence must be considered when calculating the impact of the vital events on the population where those people live. Not everyone is born in the same place where the parents claim residence and not everyone dies in the same place where they claim residence. However, those events impact the population of the community where they reside if they did not permanently move prior to those vital events.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) explicitly states that “vital statistics take on their full value only when they are related to population figures by the computation of birth and death rates.”

This means that birth statistics are only valuable if they are relatable to the decadal Census data recorded before them and population estimates occurring simultaneously.

With regard to the birth of Barack Obama, this means that his natal statistics are valuable only when they are related to the population of Hawaii because that geographic population is impacted by the computation of his birth, as a part of the rates affecting those who are considered the constituency of Hawaiian population.

The 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Volume 1: Natality states, “The principal value of vital statistics data is obtained through the presentation of such data, which are computed by relating the vital events of a class (Hawaiian geography) to population of a similarly defined class (Hawaiian residents). Vital statistics and population statistics must, therefore, be classified according to similarly defined systems and tabulated in comparable groups.”

Logically, births and deaths effect population. Therefore, the NCHS employs methods for accounting natal statistics in the U.S. which serve the interests of public health services and municipal agencies which operate on resources provided directly as result of census and vital statistics data. This situation was especially attributable to the new state of Hawaii’s government, just after the 1960 Census in which it was included for the first time.

The 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction manual states: "For State totals, only those persons who cross State lines need be considered in a reallocation by “place of residence”, since any movement within the State is irrelevant."

In conclusion, with regard to the birth of Barack Obama, the principal value of his individual natal data is obtained by presenting that data in relationship to the community and geography of which he becomes a member as a result of his birth, not migration. It is meaningless for a community to present foreign births on a birth certificate in a manner which prevents the impact of that birth data from being considered in the resident population of the community which is affects.

The allocation of birth place to “place of residence” is a highly significant declaration in determining the manner in which Obama’s foreign birth was recorded, collected, tabulated and reported by the State of Hawaii and how that birth information led him to falsely claim that he is a natural born citizen. Combining the allocation of “place of residence” for birthplace with Hawaii’s unique geographic characteristics, along with its unique indigenous cultural history, we now understand how the State of Hawaii Department of Health issued a birth certificate for Obama’s foreign birth which shows Hawaii as the place of birth by proxy.

Saturday, March 3, 2012


IN A POLITICAL PICKLE: Desperate and perishing, despite a pending criminal investigation following Arpaio's conclusions of forgery and fraud, the Obama White House continues to endorse a farcical side show by allowing Obama's fake birth certificate to remain posted online.

Commentary by Dan Crosby

NEW YORK, NY - In the wake of Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio’s apocalyptic investigation exposing fraud and forgery committed by counterfeiters working on behalf of the Obama Administration, it is important for all Americans to remember the foremost, most important issue at hand.

No matter what forgeries and fraud have been perpetrated, which will be brought to justice, we still have an ineligible president sitting in the White House.

“A crime has been committed in the fraudulent election of an illegitimate candidate for the office of the president,” says TDP’s editor, Pen Johannson.

“As officials from the government of the State of Hawaii will claim they issued a document containing different information than the one suddenly appearing on the White House’s government website in April, 2011, Obama, himself, will be protected from criminal indictments by plausible deniability from having any knowledge of forgery or fraud by “others” working on behalf of his administration.”

Of course, the state of Hawaii government will claim innocence by saying sometime in the approximately 48 hours between April 25th and April 27th, 2011, between the issuing of their certified copy to agents from Perkins Coie attorneys representing Obama and the moment the forged copy shown to America was posted on a government website, someone changed the information within it. Obama will say he has no knowledge of the document being changed because he was never allowed to see it before it was posted. Plausible deniability.

They altered the contents of the document in the interim using pidgeons in order to protect both Obama's and Hawaii's administrations. That way, when the forgery is exposed, Hawaii still has possession of the protected original showing Obama is not a natural born citizen, and Obama can deny he even knew that the document was altered because he was never allowed to see it before it was posted.

“They could have posted a fishing license and claimed it was an authenticate birth certificate. Regardless, we must never forget that Obama’s eligibility remains unverified and invalid, regardless of this lesser, but serious crime,” concludes Johannson.

It now appears, in a criminal effort to protect both the State of Hawaii and Barack Obama, counterfeiters working on the behalf of the Obama administration digitally recreated an image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” from multiple sources already present on the internet and from scans of other documents which the State of Hawaii provided to other applicants, but which were not issued directly to Obama. Obama’s alleged document was piecemealed from several sources as a mere illusion to deceive Americans into accepting his eligibility and make doubters stop asking about it.

As a criminal investigation is prepared, this now means the document the State of Hawaii gave to Barack Obama was digitally reproduced to make it appear as though Barack Obama’s natal information is different than what actually is shown on the authenticate paper copy provided by the State of Hawaii. This was done with the intention of deceiving the people of America.

“Plausible deniability” is the credible ability to deny a fact or allegation, or to deny previous knowledge of a criminal act committed by someone working under you. The term most often refers to the denial of blame in a chain of command where the executive level quarantines the blame to the lower level personnel who are inaccessible or often silenced making confirmation of responsibility for the action difficult.

In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions which helped Obama avoid responsibility for any future criminal actions or knowledge of them.

For several years, it has become all too clear that the debate over Obama’s eligibility was quarantined around the birth certificate issue. No one ever bothered to realize that, according the National Archives and Records Administration, vital records make up only about 7% of the entire records about our population.

In the case of Obama’s fraudulent presidency, the entire weight of this matter was channeled onto the validity of an obscure internet image, not only by those seeking its validation, but by those who committed the crime in altering the original. The fact that Arpaio boldly and courageously took the investigation a step further into the issue of Obama's selective service registration gives crushing weight to the precedent for future investigations.

"Eventually, it is going to become impossible for congress and the attorney general to ignore this. They will deny the facts at the peril of their reputations and their careers and their character," says Johannson.

Recall, in July of 2009, then Director of the Department of Health in Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino said that she had, “seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health…”

At no time did Fukino ever identify the record by its official header title, instead identifying it only as “original vital records”.

Friday, March 2, 2012


OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FORGED: Investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and did not originate in a paper format as claimed by the White House”

By Dan Crosby

PHOENIX, AZ - Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office investigators ended the debate over Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” today by submitting evidence of document forgery and postal fraud discovered over a six month investigation into the documents' authenticity.

“A six-month long investigation has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer-generated forgery,” said Arpaio in a Phoenix press conference Thursday.

A digital file image, not a scan of a paper document, of Obama’s alleged birth certificate was posted to the White website in April of 2011. The computer file presenting the document image contains artifacts and contextual contradictions which have never been explained or corroborated.

"At the very least I can tell you this," Arpaio said in an opening statement, "Based on all the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot, in good faith, report to you that these documents are authentic."

Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo also stated the investigators know the identity of the computer on which the document resided just minutes before it was downloaded to the government website and that they have identified an individual as a “person of interest” in the crime.

The Arizona cold case posse, a volunteer group of investigators legally empowered by the state’s constitution under the authority of the Sheriff's office, is made up of experts and retired law enforcement personnel with expertise in criminal investigation, document forensics, postal fraud, computer graphics and digital forgery analysis. The investigate group was tapped by Arpaio in August of 2011 at the behest of 300 concerned voters seeking answers to questions about Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 Arizona ballot.

Recall, Barack Obama endorsed the authenticity of the document image himself in separate appearances during a White House press room briefing and on an episode of Oprah the week of the document’s disclosure. He also ridiculed former GOP presidential candidate and real estate magnate, Donald Trump, during the 2011 Media Correspondents gala after Trump took credit for forcing Obama to present the alleged forgery of the image.

Leftist websites like also endorsed the authenticity of the document without any forensic investigation or legal authority to do so.

The presser also presented shocking evidence that Obama’s selective service registration card is a forgery after investigators acquired exclusive rights under the power of the Sheriff’s Office to analyze stamping equipment provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Investigators concluded the stamp used to authenticate the document was fabricated by a forger, which makes the crime a federal offense because selective service registrations are received and authenticated by the U.S. postal service.

Zullo stated the investigation led to evidence and sworn affidavits from witnesses that the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health has engaged a policy of providing birth certificates to foreign-born children as well as provided original birth records to children who had been born up to three years prior. Though legal under vital records administration protocols, such a practice presents a serious problem when attempting to vet presidential candidates using Hawaii’s birth certificates because the U.S. Constitution says that presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen. Whereas birth certificates are utilized by the U.S. Department of Health to account natality in the U.S., they are not intended to serve as a source of information for vetting presidential candidates.

Zullo also presented evidence which shows that historical and archival records which most likely contain information about Obama immigration and travel in the 1960s have been mysteriously removed from a roster of microfilmed records presented by two commercial airline companies operating out of Hawaii in the 1950 and 1960s. The revelation of this information drew a gasp from the crowd of around 100 Arizona citizens and reporters.

Over the past four years, the debate over Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the president has swirled over questions about the authenticity of the alleged “Certificate of Live Birth”. A document image of an alleged birth certificate purported to have originated in the State of Hawaii was suddenly provided by Obama despite hundreds of accounts that the document did not exist, or that it could not be found.