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

Saturday, October 13, 2012


by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - For many of you, the facts surrounding Obama's eligibility and birth certificate fraud have been intentionally obscured and hidden by the overbending liberal pro-Obama media and government to keep you from knowing any truth in the matter. 

After five years investigating this matter and assisting many others in their cause to do the same, I have come to see the tragic consequences for the future of this nation because of this deception at the highest levels of our government. 

As a result, I have been consulted and insulted by many.  But, I have chosen to publish a recent discussion I've had with an Obot apologist for Obama.  In the exchange below, the responses to my blog posts by the Obot are in quotes.  My response to them is bold.  I hope it entertains as much as it informs. 

Your enthusiasm to engage this subject from the inferior side of this argument is admirable, but foolish.  Your position is becoming clearer with each response.  

“I DID NOT say that Hawaii said that Obama showed the physical copies to the press. In fact, the press did.”
Invoking the “media said so” defense is truly the lowest and most debased form of advocacy in this matter.  Aside from the fact that the overbending pro-Obama media has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to determine the authenticity of any politically motivated document they possess (i.e. the Killian Document forgery by CBS in 2004) they have proven themselves reprobates and liars worthy of destruction for their complicity and willing participation in this epic deception by this criminal usurper.  This includes rightward Fox News.  
“Both FactCheck and Politifact for the short form and Savannah Gutherie for the long form.”
I won’t interrupt the laughter among our staff in this office with a response after reading this response, except to say, God has a special place in hell waiting for the degenerates at the Annenberg Foundation and leftist websh*t pretending to be authoritative and benign.  They are damnable liars also worthy of a particularly painful destruction.  
As a side note, I sincerely hope the sign over the door into hell says “Welcome to Huwaii” as they arrive.  Thanks for the joke.  Seriously. 
In your vigor to cite these excremental propaganda mills you contradict yourself with your following responses.  Below, you admit the pdf image posted to White is not
More websites posting pdf images wanting to sell them as a legitimate.  Nice to see you actually have a sense of humor.

“HOWEVER, the state of Hawaii stated in two confirmations that the facts on the long form birth certificate are EXACTLY the same as on the one in the files.”
I assume you are using the term “long form birth certificate” here to describe the paper documents allegedly sealed in two envelopes and issued hand-to-hand from the State of Hawaii to Obama’s attorneys as being “EXACTLY the same” as Obama’s original birth Certificate claimed by the Hawaiian Health Department to be held within their vault facility in Honolulu. 
Of course the State of Hawaii would respond this way for any vital record they issued.  Why would the state of Hawaii say that certified paper copies are different than the original they hold on file?  Your response is not relevant to the alpha question, which you failed to answer once again via this tripe.  Again, the .pdf image is NOT a paper copy of the alleged documents allegedly issued by Hawaii. 
The State of Hawaii has NEVER confirmed or stated that the vital information shown within the digital .pdf image of what the Obama administration claims is an accurate representation of Obama’s original birth records posted to the internet, including the government’s official website, is “EXACTLY the same” as the records in the State of Hawaii’s original files. 
In fact, the State of Hawaii explicitly refused to comment to us and our investigative team, under the authority of an official law enforcement agency, on the validity of the information shown within the .pdf image as it compares to their paper documents, let alone provide official, legally certified statements.  They informed us that they are only able to legally confirm that “…the paper copies they provide to an applicant in sealed, privacy protected envelopes are exact and certified representations of the originals used to produce them.” 
Let me put this in “baby’s milk” form so it’s easier to digest.   
Obama’s credibility and eligibility as president are void and the threat of horrific consequences remains irreconcilable until the following questions are answered by a fully endorsed congressional investigation utilizing the resources of the FBI, State Department and every agency within federal law enforcement jurisdiction in this matter:
1.   Who?

This crime against humanity demands the name and identity of every single person involved in the chain of custody of Obama’s birth information from the moment of retrieval of the original record from the vault file in Hawaii beginning with the first alleged official short-form reproduction prior to his fraudulent election, until the download of the digitally fabricated .pdf image of the alleged long form to the website in Washington D.C. in April, 2011. 

That’s a cast of characters covering nearly four years, so you better get started, Obama’s credibility suffers in the meantime, in perpetuity.  They include but are not limited to the following: 

a.   The name of the person who wrote the request for Obama’s records to be released from the State of Hawaii.
b.   The name of the person at the State of Hawaii who received the request and the name of the person who opened the request, if different. 
c.   The name of the person who pulled the original document from the DOH vault at the State of Hawaii whether it was a clerk, Onaka, Fukino, Fuddy, Santa Clause or the devil himself. 
d.   Who made two copies of alleged original in paper form.
e.   Who stamped it with Onaka’s “official smiley face” stamp.
f.    Who reviewed the paper copies for reproduction accuracy prior to sealing them in envelops.
g.   Who folded and placed the certified paper copies in the envelopes?
h.   Who sealed the envelopes?
i.    Who signed the document release registry and filed Obama’s request for the records? 
j.    Who handed the envelopes to the recipients on behalf of Obama, if not Obama himself? 
k.   If the recipients were attorney’s, what are their names?
l.    The name of the individuals within the Obama administration who received the envelopes from the recipients? 
m. The name of the individual who removed the alleged certified paper documents from the envelopes?
n.   The name of the individual(s) who transferred, reproduced, copied, scanned, drew, pasted and rendered every pixel, layer, letter and speckle of the digital .pdf image.
o.   The name of the individual at the State of Hawaii who gave legal permission for the individual to legally reproduce the .pdf image, and finally;
p.   The name and identity of the individual who clicked the mouse to post that counterfeit .pdf image to an official government website.

2.   What? 

This deception demands the clarification of all technology and materials used to produce the evidence in this matter, including the following:
a.   The building, room and file index containing Obama’s alleged original birth documentation. 
b.   The machines/copiers used to produce the paper copies from it at the State of Hawaii Health Department. 
c.   The paper type and stock number used to produce the paper copies. 
d.   The computers/scanners and copiers used to produce the digital .pdf images.
e.   The image file produced and stored by a computer controlled by Obama’s staff. 
f.    The computer from which the .pdf was downloaded to the internet.
g.   The camera and cell phones used to photograph the alleged paper documents by the press. 
h.   Finally, ALL records including ALL original paper birth documentation for Obama.

3.   When?  

This felonious act demands a full and thorough documented accounting of the chronological succession of every event, conversation, action and production of evidence from the moment Barack Obama was conceived in his mother’s womb until the digital .pdf counterfeit image of his alleged 1961 birth certificate was posted to the internet including:
a.   When (date and time) did the State of Hawaii receive the first request for Obama’s official birth certificate by anyone?
b.   When (date and time) did the State of Hawaii first respond to such a request?
c.   When did any successive requests and responses occur? 
d.   When (date and time) did the state of Hawaii first produce a certified copy of Obama alleged original Hawaiian birth documentation?
e.   When (date and time) did those copies leave the physical jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii and into the custody of the recipient(s).
f.    When did each event of the chain of custody occur including, time of all taking of possession of records, time of reproduction into pdf format, time of download to, time of notifications and communications among Obama staff. 

4.   Where?

This criminal offense against the people of the United States and against our blood-ransomed Constitution demands an accounting of the location of every event, object and person involved in the conveyance of this lie from the moment the records were retrieved from the vault until the illegal reproduction and placement of the .pdf counterfeit on the website including but not limited to: 
a.   The location of the vault file containing the original record.
b.   The location of the meeting between Obama’s lawyers in reception of the paper documents and officials at the State of Hawaii. 
c.   Where (building, room and workspace) the paper copies were made.
d.   Where (building, room and workspace) the certification stamps were applied.
e.   Where (building, room and workspace) the envelopes were sealed.
f.    Where (building, room and workspace) the attorneys took possession of the records.
g.   Where (building, room and workspace) the .pdf was created.
h.   Where (building, room and workspace) the .pdf was downloaded.

5.   How did the information in the alleged certified paper copies which were claimed to have been given to Obama’s attorney’s, become a .pdf image?  What methods were used in the procurement of the original, the making of copies of the paper original, the production of the .pdf, the download to the website, etc.  
Let me ask the question again so you are clear.  Who, what, when, where and how did the alleged vital information about Obama’s birth become the contents of a digital .pdf image after it was allegedly provided in two certified paper documents by the State of Hawaii?
We do not know the answers to these questions because no one outside of Obama’s operatives and God know this.  The media does not know, I do not know and you, most certainly, do not know.   
Once and for all, the municipal government of the State of Hawaii is legally forbidden from providing official verifications, confirmations, summaries of vital information or certifications of information displayed in a .pdf image of any vital record.  The State of Hawaii, as the municipal authority over the original information in Obama’s record, did not create, endorse, certify or verify as valid any part or whole the digital .pdf reproduction of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live birth image.        
Therefore, I want to be respectful, but, if you are spreading the blasphemy that Hawaiian officials have validated the information shown in the .pdf image saying that it is “EXACTLY the same” as their original paper version, then you are a reprobate liar and a coward of the worst order and I can only hope you face very painful and fateful consequences for such dishonesty.  You seem like a reasonable individual, so I hope this is not the case. 
Again, Hawaii has never confirmed that the information presented in the digital pdf image of the alleged birth certificate is an authentic and exact replica of the original 1961 paper record they possess in their vault file.  You assume this because you lack the moral fortitude to address with honesty the specific missing steps in the chain of custody of Obama’s vital information which is the change of custody between the time of reception by Obama’s lawyers of the alleged official sealed paper documents directly from the State of Hawaii, and the moment of creation of the pdf image by an unknown individual who, by all evidence presented, likely altered, reconstructed, reassembled, built, fabricated and forged an “improved” version of the information more suitable to the fraudulent image Obama desires. 
Fact: You are willing to concede the benefit to an opinion that some innocent person in the White House simply scanned a certified paper copy of Obama’s birth information, as though it lends credibility to Obama’s legitimacy as a president.  It does not.  It makes you look like a fool because if a candidate which you do not politically favor did the same thing, you most certainly would not stand idly by and let the evidence go unchallenged.  Claims to the contrary are hypocrisy and disdainful.           
Fact: We have no way of knowing, forensically or by document corroboration, that the pdf image is an accurate representation of any paper documents provided by the State of Hawaii, except by the testimony we are told we should believe from Obama, you, his apologists and his media horde.  
You stated yourself, “this is not a court of law”.  Therefore, if we are not able to prove the pdf images illegitimate because of a lack of statutory authority, you shall not then be allowed to claim they are legitimate without any statutory authority to back your claim, also.  Therefore, you are arguing based on the one sided support of Obama’s political popularity that, because a majority of electorates votes for him four years ago…then he must be a legitimate candidate.  Transient popularity is a dangerous mooring.  Hitler was a majority favorite in 1933, too. 
I will repeat your words back to you.  This is not a court of law.  Therefore, you are left with the remote and flimsy attribution of political popularity as the only “validation” for the claim that the pdf represents Obama’s original paper doc.   
I reject your shallow assertions and call you to show material evidence proving that Obama is an eligible candidate for president.  Failure to do so leaves Obama’s legacy in destruction and his character as a man utterly discredited.   
Moreover, we have no way to prove the State of Hawaii even provided paper documents to Obama’s attorneys accept by what we were told by Obama spox, a corrupt Hawaiian municipality prove to have violated federal immigration statutes by provided native birth records to foreigners, and Obama’s propagandist overbending media.  The problem with any testimony about “who”, “when”, “where” and “how”  paper documents unseen by the public were produced, transported, prepared and copied is nothing more than lies told by degenerates with a proven vested interest to see Obama’s fraudulent identity protected and his uncorroborated claims to presidential legitimacy validated at all costs.  They are all therefore parroting second hand information told to them by corrupt letches working under Obama who are motivated to make sure any detracting information which might compromise perceptions about his legal eligibility is never revealed in the domain of public consciousness. 
Re: “Moreover, the fact that there is a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files that says on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 (which it must say since the facts are EXACTLY the same) is itself proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”
That is a blatant lie disproven by our law enforcement investigation in Hawaii.  It is abundantly apparent that you have not taken time to carefully read the wording of the so-called “verifications” from the State of Hawaii.  They, in no way, verify the accuracy of Obama’s .pdf image.  They are worded in very contrived and legally maneuvered way so as to avoid directly addressing the veracity of the information in the .pdf image as it relates to the original version allegedly held, but never seen, by the State of Hawaii. 
In fact, during our investigation beginning in 2009, archived census schedules taken in Hawaii in 1950, 1940, 1930 and 1910 have been cross-referenced with Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements which reveal thousands of foreign births which were registered in Hawaii where the foreign child was issued a “native” birth certificate by Hawaiian SOS office.  One of the 4300 examples we obtained from Hamilton library’s archive records includes the birth of a son to Eikichi Iwamura in 1933.  According to 1950 census schedule volume 14, sheet 39, line 35, Mr. Iwamura resided in Hawaii’s 66th Electoral district with his wife, daughter and his seventeen year old son, Einoshi who, according to the census enumeration, was born in Japan as so stated on the original schedule card.  However, a birth announcement for Einoshi was published and registered in the Hawaiian Secretary of State office archives showing the birth occurred in Honolulu and Einoshi was issued a Hawaiian birth certificate stating he was born in Hawaii when, in fact, he was not.  This is just one example of thousands our investigative team found.
Therefore, your absurd contention that a birth certificate from Hawaii “says on it that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 (which it must say since the facts are EXACTLY the same) is itself proof that Obama was born in Hawaii” is a blatant lie propagated by the most ignorant apologists of Obama.  This contention makes you appear foolish and amateurish.  Have you been outside the limits of your town to investigate this matter?
The final verdict against your shallow conclusion is that we have thousands of pieces of evidence which clearly shows beyond any doubt that the State of Hawaii issued birth certificates to foreign born children which state that they were born in Hawaii when they were not. 
Consider your fatally flawed view on this dead and buried before it destroys your reputation.     

Re: “No, they (the press) cannot say that the documents they were handed are authentic because they are not document experts. But they stated that they had examined the short form and long form birth certificates, and Hawaii said that it had SENT them, and Hawaii said that the facts on the long form was EXACTLY the same.”
We have no interest in anything the media says about this.  At this point, we have no confidence the State of Hawaii is willing to provide a full disclosure of the truth.     

“BTW, no member of the press has been given a physical copy of Mitt Romney’s Michigan “birth certificate”. He has only posted an image of a photocopy of it online.”
I have no way of knowing Mitt Romney’s eligibility to serve as president.  If he is not eligible by way of his natal history, failing to be a natural born citizen born in the U.S. to two citizen parents, then he should be immediately disqualified from running for President.  End of discussion. Do you honestly believe we have any preference based on political party affiliation?  Your vigor to invoke Romney’s birth certificate causes me to question your level of personal investment in Obama’s fraudulent presidency.  Your colors are showing and I think they are blue. 

“Answer: Agreed. They are not document experts. Nevertheless, there is a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files (unless the officials of BOTH parties are lying) and it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii.”
This is a repeat of your previous irrelevant and unproven claim.  You have never seen Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii’s files.  If you had, you would be the first person in the universe outside the State of Hawaii and Obama Admin to do so.  And, I highly doubt you possess such carnal knowledge because you are not dead.
NO, we do not have to believe that at all. The software could very well have enhanced the document. The scanner could have made mistakes (and it did, notice the word “TXE”---—well that should be THE), and the color of the paper could be all wrong.”
This is an astonishing concession on your part.  You are admitting the .pdf image has no statutory authority to validate Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be president.  Did you know that Paul Ryan sent copies of this .pdf image in response to questions about Obama’s eligibility stating that it was proof positive of Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the office of president?  You need to write Paul Ryan immediately.  According to you, he sent an artificially enhanced document which could have mistakes made by a scanner with misspellings and wrong colorization.
If the .pdf image is not your holy grail of Obama’s eligibility, you have no other statutory authority to support Obama’s eligibility.  And, don’t even try to cite the paper copies given to Obama’s attorneys by the state of Hawaii.  Because you admit the .pdf is artificially altered after the issuance, you now have no proof those paper documents actually exist.  Have you seen them?  I’ve been to Hawaii three times since 2009 and I have never seen an official paper document certifying Obama’s eligibility, and I have made direct requests to every official in the Hawaiian government. 
Yet, you still want to ride that donkey into hell with a sign that says Obama’s pdf is the wholly grail of his natal qualifications to hold the office.  I’m not sure if you are insolent, or mentally ill. 
You are merely content with the idea that any presidential candidate can present a digital image of an alleged official paper document issued under the legal authority of a municipal agency, regardless of flaws and anomalies or evidence of alterations and counterfeiting, and that candidate should never be questioned as to his legal qualifications to hold the most powerful office on planet earth.  I’m not sure if you are affable or ignorant, but either way, people like you are very dangerous to the sovereignty of the United States. 

“Security paper is SUPPOSED to mess up images.”
Correct.  And when those images are created, the document is more easily determined to be a fraudulent counterfeit because security paper is designed to show hidden words in watermarks in the digital image when an image is made.  However, there are no watermarks in Obama’s .pdf image which means the counterfeiter digitally reproduced the the security paper background to REMOVE the watermarks, which say “VOID” and “NOT AUTHENTIC” and “UNNOFFICIAL COPY” because the liars did not want to post an image which could be interpreted as a fraud.  Unfortunately, white hallowing indicates the counterfeiter failed to hide the fact that the pdf image is, in fact, NOT an exact duplication of the paper copies.   
“So the fact that the image of the birth certificate does not look exactly like the one in the files is not surprising. The idea that it is or should be “an accurate exact digitally created representation” is your notion---and a bad one.”
The belief that a presidential candidate whose eligibility is in doubt should be required under penalty federal law to present authentic paper documents which prove he is who he says he is is a fundamental requirement of all Americans in any endeavor.  For example, my employer demanded to see proof of my citizenship to work for them.  If I had said, “Please see the images of my drivers license and passport posted to my Daily Pen website, they would have said, ‘uh, we’ll hire someone else, thanks anyway’. 
Extrapolate the value of that to the position of President of the U.S. and I think you would agree it is not a bad notion. In fact, it is a highly laudable and honorable notion worthy of the blood ransomed paid for my freedom. 
“It is the facts on it that have to be EXACTLY the same, and that is what Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed.”
Again, for the fifth time, the state of Hawaii has never confirmed that the .pdf image contains facts or appearance which is EXACTLY the same as their official records for Obama.  They are attesting to the facts in the paper documents they gave to Perkins Coie which WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.  Please stop parroting this lie, you are truly beginning to sound desperate.    
“Want to see the two confirmations in which Hawaii says that the facts MATCH those that are in the files????”
I held the “Verification of Vital Record” sent to the Arizona Sec. of State in my own hands.  The content of it resolved none of the questions we have about the creation and presentation of the .pdf image.  Sorry.

“Hawaii did not say that Obama could not make a copy and show it on the web…”
However, HRS 338 and Section 3 of the Model State Vital Statistics Act explicitly says that “any unauthorized reproduction of a vital record renders the information within it invalid.”  Therefore the pdf is rendered invalid as legal document supporting Obama’s eligibility. 
“…and neither did Michigan say that Romney could not make a copy and show it on the Web.”
Again, Romney is not exempt.  But Romney is not president…yet.  If evidence emerges which causes me to question his eligibility, I will address it.  I wrote about Romney’s Mexican born father last year in questioning the natural born parentage part of the NBC.  I’m satisfied Romney’s father was a naturalized citizen of the U.S. when Romney was born. 
And, I tell you this truth.  The image of Mitt Romney’s birth certificate has no legal authority to validate his natural born citizenship or his eligibility to be president.  It means nothing.  If he posted a blank sheet of paper and called it a birth certificate, it has the same effect on his eligibility as an image with pixels assembled into images of letters and numbers which, when read by God himself, reveal a claim to natural born citizenship.  Nothing.
Moreover, since we’re on the subject of Romney’s records, tax records in any form, authentic, original, etch-n-sketch, have no relevance in candidates’ ability to meet Article II presidential eligibility requirements.  However, the Constitution does require a candidate to be a natural born citizen, which may be verified with an authentic, certified, original birth certificate, not a digitally fabricated pdf image posted to on the internet.  The Constitution says nothing about tax records with regard to presidential eligibility. 
In both cases the image that is on the Web is not a legal copy. What is a legal copy is the official physical copy, the one (actually two, the short form and the long form) with the seal on it----which oddly no birther organization has even asked to see. Delete

“But this is not a court of law.”
Correct.  Therefore, until a statutory authority confirms the accuracy of the information in the pdf image through an investigation of the contents of the original paper record in comparison with the image, the image fails to endow Obama with statutorily backed eligibility to be president.  You can believe whatever you want based on your ignorance and lack of understanding on the subject.  You have the right to reside on the perishing side of this bad thing. 
“We do not have to see the original or even the official physical copy.”
The demand grows and grows to see that which would satisfy the justice of the evidence, and, thereby the army of Constitutionalists grows and wages the endeavor among society until reconciliations are made by those responsible.  Critical mass will be reached, eventually. 
We have yet to legally compel Obama to submit to our demands, not because we are wrong, but because the judicial authorities are corrupt cowards.  But if there is any illusion among Obama’s apologists that we will ever stop grinding on this issue, for the rest of our lives, even into the coming generations, you are sadly mistaken.  I, personally, will never stop throwing fuel onto this fire.  I will write, speak, fight and pray to God until Justice in the name of Christ is achieved, until my dying breath.  We are currently engaged in a process to bring consequences upon all complicity in this matter and we will not stop until we are satisfied the evidence has been met with justice, favorable or unfavorable.  The blood which has been shed for my freedom warrants this reasonable service. 
“The fact that there IS a birth certificate in Hawaii’s files and that it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that this is confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers”
Where are we at now, your ninth iteration of this droning point? There is no evidence that a birth certificate exists in the files of the State of Hawaii.  You have never seen it.  You only capitulate to claims made by your political agreements that one exists. 
There is no index data for Obama’s birth certificate.  It is an odd-numbered certificate (VSUS 1961, pg. 232).  
“…and by there being no evidence that Obama’s mother traveled outside of the USA in 1961, and Kenya saying that she certainly did not give birth there----is sufficient.”
I disagree.  It is not sufficient.  Obama’s father was Kenyan and no one has ever produced evidence documenting the presence of Ann Dunham from February 1961 to September 1961.  There is nothing in the U.S..  No school records, no marriage license application, no public records, no directory information, no testimony, nothing.  There is no evidence that she didn’t travel outside the U.S. from 1959 to 1963.  
“The pdf is not a legal document. The official physical copies of the birth certificates—short form and long form---are the legal copies, but we know that Obama has both of them.”

Correct. The .pdf has no statutory authority to prove that Obama is a natural born citizen.  The official physical copies of the birth certificates, short form and long form, are only assumed to exist by those who have never seen them first hand, which is everyone.  We DO NOT know that Obama has any legal documentation of his birth in the U.S.  I know nothing of the sort.  I have never seen the paper originals. 
“How do we know? Because Hawaii says it sent them to him.”
Wrong.  The state of Hawaii has never said that their vital records agency sent official copies of a birth record directly to Obama.  That is an assumption.  We have been told the State of Hawaii provided documents in sealed envelopes to his Perkins Coie attorneys.  As far as I am concerned, those paper versions have been received by Obama.  In fact, I would wager he has never even seen them in order to protect him from legal liability n the event the forgers are caught and put on trial. 
“Moreover, it remains nutty to think that if there is a birth certificate in Hawaii files and that it says on it that Obama was born in Hawaii (which it must if the facts MATCH, as Hawaii says) that Obama could possibly have been born somewhere other than Hawaii. The fact that there were copies made to put on the Web does not affect the physical copy at all.”

Beginning in 1933, the U.S. Census Bureau began utilizing “residential allocation” of birthplace to foreign children whose mothers resided in the U.S. but gave birth abroad.  The reason for this statistical methodology was to coordinate vital statistics with the decadal Census in order to make more accurate predictions of population between the enumerations of the decadal census.  Since vital statistics were collected annually and the census was every ten years, population results would become skewed or underaccounted if birthplace was not allocated to the residence of the mother when the child was born abroad. 
For example, if 100 pregnant women living in the same county gave birth in 1950 with fifty of them giving birth abroad then returning to the U.S. after the census, the rate of birth would be recorded as 50% but the population would increase by 100% for 1951, after the mothers moved back with their babies, but the census would record only 100 women and 50 babies, not 100 babies.   
Therefore, it became federal policy that all children born abroad to U.S. resident mothers were allowed, within a year of the birth, to register the birth in the U.S. and receive a U.S. birth certificate stating the place of birth as the same as the residence of the mother.   
You can read these facts in the archives of the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville MD.  You will find several volumes of statistical methodology which, when taken in relationship to Obama’s eligibility raise serious doubts about his birth narrative in Hawaii. 
“Probably a White House intern who does not know the difference between pdf and jpg (too bad). But, to repeat, there is nothing in the law that says you cannot make copies of the birth certificate, only that the image of one is not a legal document. (Who ever thought that a Web image WOULD be a legal document anyway? You?)”

Inferior minded answer to a serious question.  You do not know the answer to this question because you were not present in the White House the day the paper documents arrived there.  Foul minded assumption like this will lead to terrible consequences in later years. 
Unauthorized digital reproductions of official vital documents posted to an official government website and represented as a authentic record is a crime.
I wrote”a .pdf exists utterly destroys the validity and credibility of the information within it because there is no possible way to verify its veracity with the original records…” 
You answered, “Absurd. There is the paper copy that was copied and now there is the image. Both exist.”
You have no credibility to make the claim that a paper copy exists.  You sound like a fool.  You have never seen or touched any certified copy of a paper birth certificate for Obama.  You have only been told by Obama apologists that they have seen it and that you SHOULD BELIEVE them when they say that it exists.  You simply choose to believe them.  I say, ‘No, I don’t believe them.  I will never believe them because they have proven themselves untrustworthy and reprobate liars from the beginning.  The paper copied do not exists and I defy you to prove me otherwise by showing them to me.  You cannot win because the truth is in my favor, not yours.  
“The image may not look very much like the paper copy because security paper is DESIGNED to make them look different, and pdf has its own problems (notice again the representation of the word THE as TXE), but the fact that a copy was made to show on the Web is not illegal, and it does not invalidate anything…D    Answer. As noted it isn’t. Security paper is DESIGNED to make the copy look DIFFERENT…Once again, because security paper is designed to make the copy look DIFFERENT, they cannot compare the two documents to see if they look the same. They are not supposed to look the same…Moreover, software may ENHANCE a document. An enhanced document does not look like the original, but it is not supposed to---and in any case, it is not illegal to enhance a document. Once again, the officials in Hawaii have confirmed that the facts MATCH (that was their word) and that is all that they can do because the images will of course look different (what ever gave you the idea that they would look exactly the same?)…And, the bottom line is that it is the FACTS that count.”
All you accomplished in the past five paragraphs was to further convince our readers to discount the legitimacy of Barack Obama by further doubting the authenticity of the .pdf image. 
Here are the facts.  The American people were shown a .pdf image of a vital record which has been alleged by a malignant liberal consensus and fawning media to be just enough minimal evidence to seat Obama in the White House.  By your own admission, this image has no statutory authority to uphold such credentials, yet you have failed to present any reasons for posting the image at all.  If it is void of credibility, why post it?  Doing so only diminished Obama’s credibility and made millions who previous didn’t question his legal qualifications to be president suddenly demand his head on platter.  What a stupid move when considered in that context.  What political, legal, monetary or social benefit is there in posting this image except to insult the intelligence of the American people and incite vengeance for YEARS to come?
Congratulations Obama, you played dress up for four years!  You occupied the White House as an illegitimate track dog with no pedigree.  Yip yip yahoo! ***  You came, you ran, you barked a lot of words which came to mean nothing, you divided the nation, you lied to everyone, you hurt many…then you went away with nothing to honor you because of your lies, crimes and willful deceptions. 
Sadly, even your supporters call you an undocumented illegitimate occupier.  They said, ‘oh, just let the inferior black man live in the white house for a while.  Just forget the fact that he is not legally qualified to run for the office but, we’ll just call him president and make him think he’s really making a difference so his constituency can feel good about themselves.’ 
Spectacular derangement.   So, what is it like pretending to be someone you are not and not being able to prove doubts about you wrong?  God, that must be a horrific burden.  
Have you even thought of the unintended consequences wrought by such a dishonest and calculated action?  This is the great American transformation? To present such a depraved lie just to achieve a position of power? 
If what you say is true, that the .pdf image has no real meaningful authority to fortify the confidence of the American people in the identity of Barack Obama, then what is to stop anyone from harming his identity by counterfeiting MORE records and convincing millions of their validity after he is gone.  Say, a record showing that Obama was a homosexual prostitute, or court records showing he was a drug dealer who killed children, or official government records showing that he has never paid taxes. 
The ramifications of this damnable cursed record façade will eventually bring harm to this nation and horrible consequences upon those who have perpetrated it.  I feel sorry for you.  You have a lot to live down.   
“If all the letters in the image that Obama showed were transformed from roman to italics and the FACTS were the same, and they say that Obama was born in Hawaii, then he was born in Hawaii.”
And still nothing to honor Obama’s true identity. 
“Are you intentionally trying to seem crazy? Take a deep breath. Think again, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have showed Web images of their birth certificates. Obviously it is not and cannot be illegal to make copies of birth certificates and put them on the Web.”
I am being deadly serious.  This act of deception has the potential to ignite a violent and unnecessary revolution.  My breath is baited for a reason, so the last thing you should want to happen is the patriot heritage of millions of Americans to exhale upon this issue.  I receive emails upon the dozens per day from readers who tell me they are preparing for violence.  All because one guy couldn’t be honest about who he really was and what he intended as a leader of our nation. 
You want to hear the saddest part.  I actually would have supported Obama in his struggle to reconcile the truth about his past and identity with the political ramifications.  I would have actually respected him more for coming out in the beginning and saying, “I want to run for president because I think I might have a few answers to some difficult problems, but there are questions about whether I am able to be president under the current laws of eligibility outlined in our Constitution.  If you support me, help me to find a way to make a difference.  If we can amend the Constitution without compromising the integrity of our government and sovereignty, then so be it.  If not, then let’s come together knowing we can agree on the importance of integrity and honesty in government.  I can’t just run for president and violate the constitution.  I must try to bring change with honor, not deception.”
But, Obama is not that man.  He is a deceiver and a liar.  A rotten soul corrupt to the core full of hatred and power lust to avenge those he claims have offended his kind.  He is a divider, not a uniter.  He has not brought hope.  He has only brought unwanted and destructive change. 
The time has come for God’s people to fight back.     
“What is the evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii?”
That’s not the right question to ask about a man desiring to be President.  That is a question you ask about the janitor who cleans his toilet.  That is not a question you ask about man who has the ability to use his power to harm or help millions.  That is a question you ask about a celebrity who endorses him.  That is not a question you ask about a member of our blood ransomed government.  That is a question you ask about a little league baseball player.  That is not a question you should want to ask about a man of such high profile and renown.  It is a question you should want to ask about those he is assigned to lead.  Sad…very, very sad.   
“What is the likelihood of it happening since it was rare for women to travel late in pregnancy in those days?”
She was gone before she was pregnant.  Months before.
“What are the chances that the DOH of Hawaii sent birth notices to the Hawaii newspapers (and only the DOH could send those notices to that section of the paper in 1961) if Obama were not born in Hawaii?”
The DOH registered foreign births and reported them to the newspapers as native births via HRS 338. 
“What are the chances that a clerk in 2007, when Obama’s name was hardly known, would lie that there was a document in the files from which she or he copied the fact “born in Honolulu.”
A clerk didn’t do it, a ranking official did.  
“What are the chances that three Republican officials in Hawaii including the former governor would lie about there being a birth certificate for Obama in the files that says that he was born in Hawaii?”
The same chances that three democrat officials in Hawaii including a Senior elections official, Tim Adams, the Chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii, Brian Schatz, and the current Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie would say there is no birth certificate for Obama in the files that say he is born in Hawaii.  


  1. Do real people actually read your drivel? Or just birthers? Here's bett'n ya all are giving yourselves' high fives. You certainly showed this "Obot" some Matzo Balls!

  2. Real people and, at least one...uh, make that TWO Obots. But, we don't consider them real. Thanks for reading! No high fives yet, the Kenyan Emperor is still squatting in the WH. This blog sponsored by Manischewitz.

  3. Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate, and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii (including the former Republican governor), and the Index Data file, and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section) all show.

    Every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]


  4. Re: "I am being deadly serious. This act of deception has the potential to ignite a violent and unnecessary revolution. "

    YOU are being nutty. What makes a person is a FACT, her or his place of birth. IF the facts show that the person was born in the USA even if her or his birth certificate does not use the right letters, she or he was born in the USA.

    Re: "This act of deception has the potential to ignite a violent and unnecessary revolution. "

    First, the fact that software ENHANCES is not a deception. Second, the fact that an image of a document on security paper looks different from the original is not a deception. That's the way that security paper works; it makes the copies of the document appear different from the original.

    Third, when Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and the National Review all laugh at birthers, and Rush Limbaugh refuses even to discuss it, and John McCain says that Sheriff Joe is nutty-----then your chances of a violent revolution are pretty low.

  5. That should read: "What makes a person a Natural Born Citizen is a FACT, her or his place of birth."

  6. Re: "She was gone before she was pregnant. Months before. "

    The officials in Kenya still say that there is no record of her ever arriving in Kenya, and there is no US INS record of her leaving the country or returning to it, and only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties say that he was born in Hawaii, and this is confirmed by the Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the newspapers in 1961.

    As for Obama's mother not traveling late in pregnancy, the fact that she was attending college and classes were in session through May makes it highly unlikely that she could have traveled before the end of May.

  7. Re: "The DOH registered foreign births and reported them to the newspapers as native births via HRS 338. "

    The section of that act that you are referring to was not passed until 1982. In 1961 the Hawaii DOH was NOT allowed to register births that were born outside of Hawaii.

    1. You are incorrect. "Natal statistics from 1961 exposes Hawaii's isolationism and propensity for misallocation of native residency to foreign parents...The Aloha state allocated native residency status to foreign births at a higher rate than any other state and at a rate 41 times higher than the average U.S. rate of 16.51%" Annual Report of Immigration and Naturalization Service 1961.

      There were 31,589 certificates of U.S. citizenship issued foreign born children in the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30, 1962. In 1961, the State of Hawaii had the highest percentage of non-resident birth classification of any state at 0.40, but the highest registration of foreign births as proven by transcript exchange/certificate of Citizenship births at 12.7%

      This means that if a mother gave birth abroad, the State of Hawaii was the most likely place in the U.S. to allow her to classify herself as a resident of Hawaii, regardless if she was a legal citizen of the U.S. Moreover, the birth of children abroad were registered as native born children in the state of Hawaii at the highest rate in the nation. The only state to rival such "foriegn birth as U.S. citizens" was the state of Florida when Cuban nationals were fleeing Cuba in the 1950's and early 60's.

      Not only are you wrong on the facts, the state of Hawaii actually registered foreign births at the highest rate in the nation.

      You are simply ignorant of the facts. The statute was revised in 1982 to include a fee for the service of providing a copy, not passage of the law. The law existed for 22 years prior to this in Hawaii. In the U.S., the law was in place with the first passage of the first version of the 1942 MSVA. Please take to research these facts.

    2. The law that allowed Hawaii to register a birth that took place outside of Hawaii was not passed until 1982. NO one has showed an actual example of any person (barring Sun Yat Sen, whose registration took place sixty years earlier and for political reasons) born outside of Hawaii who received a Hawaii birth certificate with a Hawaii place of birth on it--such as Honolulu, which is the place of birth on Obama's birth certificate.

      And certainly no child born outside of Hawaii would be allowed to receive a birth certificate that said that he or she was born in Kapiolani Hospital, which is on Obama's birth certificate and on the copy in the files, as confirmed by the officials and by the teacher who wrote home.

  8. Re: "A clerk didn’t do it, a ranking official did. "

    No, a clerk did it. The procedure for issuing short form birth certificates is for CLERKS to look into the files and enter the facts on the documents that they see on the forms that generate the short form birth certificate. If there were no document in the files, the clerk could not enter anything. If the document did not say that Obama was born in HONOLULU, the clerk could not have entered HONOLULU on the short-form birth certificate. Yet the short form birth certificate was issued, and it does say on it HONOLULU.

    Subsequently, an official physical copy of the long form birth certificate was given to Obama's lawyer, and it said that Obama was born in KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL, Honolulu. And subsequent to that the officials in Hawaii responded to the request of the Secretary of State of Arizona to verify the facts on Obama's long form birth certificate. They responded that ALL, repeat, ALL, the facts matched the facts in the files. That means that the fact that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital is on the document in the files.

    And we know that that document was issued in 1961. How do we know that? Because of the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers' Health Bureau Statistics sections by the DOH.

    1. The process for issuing short form birth certificates first requires approval of the release of the record from the Registrar! As per my correct assessment, the information in the short form was take from the native surrogate documentation issued through a consular or transcript exchange with the foreign health office. The documents in the file in Hawaii can also be placed and certified at any time AFTER the birth, even if the child is no longer living (HRS 571). The so-called anonymous clerk you refer to has no jurisdiction or initiative power. They simply transcribe the content of a record which was placed in the original file by a ranking official. In this case, that ranking official is the Director of the Department of Health who, in Hawaii, has autonomous authority to determine the authenticity of original birth documentation and supporting evidence. In 1961, this meant that a relative or other witness could simply provide testimony as to the birth to a U.S. citizen abroad or a doctor who examined the child in Hawaii after birth abroad, or a witness who first saw the child alive after birth. Kapi'olani is the listed hospital of Obama's birth because that is where he was first examined by a physician. He was not actually born there. Kapi'lani has no records of Ann Dunham having ever been a patient there, per testimony of the Hawaiian Governor, the Lt. Governor and former Senior Elections clerk.

      You must understand the financial benefit to Hawaii for registering as many births as possible. Population growth rate, as well as volume, determines municipal funding for State government. Hawaii is a dependent society isolated out in the pacific ocean and completely reliant on federal funding for its operations, health department, infrastructure etc. Therefore, in 1960s Hawaii, there are thousands of children given native birth records who were not examined by an American doctor until they were 3 or 4 years old and those children were registered as "new-borns" (see native birth registry archive, Sinclair Library, Honolulu Hi.)

    2. Re: "They simply transcribe the content of a record which was placed in the original file by a ranking official."

      Precisely, and the original file was created in 1961 as proved by the fact that the Hawaii DOH sent a birth notice to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, and the Hawaii DOH only could do that for births in Hawaii. That document in the files shows that Obama was born in Honolulu, or the clerk could not have entered Honolulu on the short form.

      Re: "Kapi'lani has no records of Ann Dunham having ever been a patient there...

      Answer: The former elections clerk is a LIAR, who claimed to have access to birth records and did not have access to birth records. The officials were NOT stating that the records do not exist. They were stating that they cannot be given out because of patient confidentiality laws.

      BTW, have you seen this?

  9. Credible sources have stated that Obama is Kenyan-born.
    Obama’s wife, Michelle, in fact, called her husband as “a Kenyan” at a fundraiser on June 23, 2007 and referred to “his home country in Kenya.” in April 2008.

    Media as reported in two dozen African newspapers and publications have also referred to Obama as “a fellow Kenyan” and a “son of the soil of this country.”

    Before Obama was elected, it was fairly common to find references in the media that even referred to the former Illinois senator as born in Kenya, including NPR’s “Trial and Triumph: Stories out of Africa” in which the correspondent comments on the presidential candidacy of “Kenyan-born Barack Obama”. At the 9:45 minute mark of the audio report, interviewer Michelle Martin even affirms Obama Kenyan born roots by saying “a son of Africa. Barack Obama is poised to at least have the opportunity to become the next president of the United States.”

    An archived article from the 2004 Sunday Standard on Barack Obama's run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois describes the relative political newcomer as “Kenyan-born. Two other examples occurred in both the Chicago Tribune in August, 2006 when Obama traveled to Kenya and the Baltimore Sun in February 2007 reporting on his announcement to run for President.

    The Kenyan government, in 2009, commissioned a cultural museum in Kenya to “honour the birthplace of President Obama.”

    Obama’s own literary agency called him “born in Kenya” as late as 2007 to promote the sale of his book, “Dreams from My Father.” The agency printed the bio of Obama’s Kenyan birth for 16 years since 1991.

    And while the White House released a digital .pdf image of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate April 27, 2011, the president’s refusal to release his childhood and college records, coupled with charges that the birth certificate is a forgery, as well as Barack Obama Sr.’s status as a foreign national, have led many to continue to question Obama’s birthplace and eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to serve as president.

  10. Re: "Credible sources have stated that Obama is Kenyan-born.
    Obama’s wife, Michelle, in fact, called her husband as “a Kenyan” at a fundraiser on June 23, 2007 and referred to “his home country in Kenya.” in April 2008.

    Media as reported in two dozen African newspapers and publications have also referred to Obama as “a fellow Kenyan” and a “son of the soil of this country.”

    Answer. All of that refers to the fact that Obama's father was a Kenyan and that he is partially Kenyan by blood. "A fellow Kenyan" = a Kenyan by blood. "Home Country" = place where ancestors came from.

    Even "Kenyan-born" inserted into the AP article by the Kenyan newspaper referred to the fact that Obama was born of a Kenyan, not to his place of birth.

    Yes Obama's father was a Kenyan. But the idea that Obama's mother went ten thousand miles at huge expense (in those days flights were enormously expensive in today's terms) and tremendous risk (stillbirth and Yellow Fever) to give birth in Kenya, is nutty. Moreover, WND has proved with a FOI request that Obama senior was in Hawaii throughout 1961, so if Obama's mother went to Kenya, she would have had to have traveled alone---and how likely is that to happen to a woman late in pregnancy?

    Moreover, only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and of them only seven were US citizens.

    So, the probability of the Kenya trip is gigantically low.

    And, the Kenyan government says that it never happened. It says that it investigated the claim that Obama was born there, and found that it did not happen.

    “Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

    “It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.”” …

    1. Continuing:

      So, the probability of it happening is like one in a ten billion, and the Kenyan government says that it DID NOT HAPPEN.

      What else?

      Well I'm sure you remember that children cannot be carried into the USA without some kind of a travel document. (Sure they can be carried across the Mexican border, but Kenya does not have a land border with the USA). So IF Obama were really born in Kenya, his parents would have had to have applied for such a document in the US Consulate in Nairobi. And, if they did, the record of their application would remain in multiple places---the document itself, the application for it, the communication between Nairobi and Washington about it---and yet no such document has been found. The Bush Administration was in charge of the US State Department for eight years until January 2009, and yet no such document was found. Are you saying that they were part of the plot????

      So, gigantically low change of it happening, Kenyan government says it did not happen, and US documents that would prove that the trip took place do not exist (and they certainly would exist if it did take place).

      And finally there is the Hawaii birth certificate, which only birther "experts"---whose credibility and fairness are certainly in question---have said is forged. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that there is a Hawaii birth certificate for Obama. That includes the officials of both parties including the former Republican governor. And their confirmation is backed up by the birth notices that were sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii. We know that only the DOH of Hawaii could send those notices because, duh, the section of the paper was called "Health Bureau Statistics" and also because the DOH AND the newspapers say it.

      And we know that the law in Hawaii in 1961 did not allow the DOH to issue a birth certificate to someone who was not born in Hawaii, and we know that the DOH only sent those notices to the newspapers for children that it had issued birth certificates to.

      Re Obama's "refusal to release his childhood and college records..."

      Answer. Are you intentionally trying to seem like a nut? The fact is that no president has showed his college records (Bush's were leaked by Yale, but BUSH did not show them) and no president or presidential candidate has showed childhood records. So, the fact that Obama acts like all the others and does not show them does not indicate anything other than his good sense in not doing something that is not necessary.

  11. "Obama’s own literary agency called him “born in Kenya” as late as 2007 to promote the sale of his book, “Dreams from My Father.” The agency printed the bio of Obama’s Kenyan birth for 16 years since 1991. "

    Answer. Sure, but it was a mistake. The publicist who wrote the blurb admitted to it. She, like birthers, made the same mistake. Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama I, was born in Kenya. Obama himself was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations of the officials and the birth notices in the newspapers show. And the Kenya government says that Obama was NOT born there, and only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961.

    The fact that a publicist made a mistake and that Kenyans think of Obama as Kenya-born because he was born of a Kenyan, does not change these FACTS.

    1. The fact that multiple and completely unnassociated sources all say that Obama is foreign-born certainly defeats your presumptions. Moreover, just because some Obot thinks of Obama as American-born because he was born of a U.S. citizen mother, does not change these facts. You are the one who is mistaken. You have no credible evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen. None. You look foolish and desperate for spending so much time rebutting blog posts. Why don't you give yourself some credibility and tell me your name and location. My name is Daniel Crosby. I reside in Richmond, New York. You?

    2. He was both born of a US citizen mother AND born in the USA as his birth certificate from Hawaii, confirmed repeatedly by the officials of both parties, confirmed by the Index Data, confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show. Obama was US-born.

      HOWEVER, to Kenyans he is "Kenyan-born" due to his father being Kenyan. That is a different meaning of country-born than we use in the USA.

      It remains nutty to think that Obama was born in Kenya when the Kenyan government says that he was NOT born in Kenya and the Hawaii government says that he was born in Hawaii, and there is additional confirming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers crazy. And that is why the Conservative Republican secretary of state of Arizona accepted Hawaii's confirmation that Obama was born in Hawaii and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November.

  12. Re: "The process for issuing short form birth certificates first requires approval of the release of the record from the Registrar! As per my correct assessment, the information in the short form was take from the native surrogate documentation issued through a consular or transcript exchange with the foreign health office."

    Dream on. Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. It says that on his long form birth certificate. Officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the facts on the published copy of Obama's long form birth certificate ARE EXACTLY THE SAME as on the copy in the files. What does this mean? It means that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital.

    That is more than sufficient. However, there is also the recollection of the teacher who recalled being told of Obama's birth and writing home about the unusual event of a child being born to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley.

    1. You have failed to address 99% of the key points I have presented to you. You must either be a coward or a pretender. Address the Hawaiian government issues I presented to you. At this point, God himself is telling you that Hawaii registered foriegn births as U.S. births to U.S. citizen...and you refuse to accept this fact when the records are overwhelming against you. That confirms you are a fool.

    2. In 1961 Hawaii was under a REPUBLICAN governor, and he did not allow foreign births to be registered. That was not allowed until 1982. Neither God nor you has shown any proof of your claim that Hawaii allowed a birth certificate to be issued in 1961 that listed a Hawaii place of birth---such as Honolulu and Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu---to a child born outside of Hawaii.

      There is absolutely NO evidence that Obama's mother traveled outside of the USA in 1961. There is certainly no evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA, and there would have to be if he were.

      It should be obvious that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. This is not only the case now, it was the case in the 1960s as well.

      Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found. Nor has any record from the US Immigration Service been found showing that Obama passed through any INS check point on the way from Kenya (or any other country) to Hawaii.

      What is your explanation of this? Please show some facts that could explain Obama getting from a foreign country to Hawaii without either a US visa or his being entered on the passport of his mother, or why no such document or application for such a document has been found.

      There is NO proof that Obama was born outside of the USA. Mistakes by publicists and Kenyan use of "Kenyan-born" are not proof. Not when only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya and the Kenyan government says that he was NOT born there and there is no travel document for Obama issued at the US consulate in Nairobi.

      A US birth certificate is legal proof of birth in the USA. You can claim that Hawaii also issued birth certificates to foreigners, but you have not showed any proof. And, guess what, if you did show that Hawaii did do it, then Michigan did it too.

      There is no proof that Mitt Romney was born outside of the USA and there is a Michigan birth certificate showing that he was born in the USA. That is sufficient for Romney, and it is sufficient for Obama too.

  13. Again, per our on-site investigation in Hawaii, the process for issuing short form birth certificates first requires approval of the release of the record from the Registrar as so stated to us, and entered into evidence via a sworn affidavit, by the State of Hawaii. As per my correct assessment, the information in the short form was taken from the native surrogate documentation issued through a consular or transcript exchange with the foreign health office...once again, as told to us directly by the State of Hawaii. The more you write, the more your ignorance and lack of intelligence on this matter is revealed to our readers.

    1. Dream on.

      There is no proof that Obama was born outside of the USA, and there is legal proof that he was born in the USA, the Hawaii birth certificate. There is no proof that Mitt Romney was born outside the USA, and there is legal proof that he was born in the USA, the Michigan birth certificate. Both are sufficient.

      The officials in Hawaii have confirmed ALL the facts on Obama's long form birth certificate, and one of the facts that it confirmed was that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

      And when the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona asks Hawaii to confirm that it has Obama's birth certificate on file and to confirm various facts on the birth certificate, and it does, and in fact confirms ALL of the facts, and the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona rules that that is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, then you have to realize that your cause is lost.

  14. Re: "As far as I am concerned, those paper versions have been received by Obama."

    I believe you left out the "not." You can dream that when a birth certificate is given to Obama's lawyer it was not received by Obama. But the fact remains that Hawaii sent it to him, and they stated in their confirmation letter to the Secretary of State of Arizona that all the FACTS on the birth certificate that the White House put online are exactly the same as on the birth certificate in the files. So the birth certificate that they gave to Obama's lawyer has all the facts on it that the one in the files does.

    It is nutty to think that when Hawaii gave Obama's lawyer a birth certificate, and the one that the White House published has all the facts on it of the one that was sent, that they are two different things. The bottom line remains that there is a birth certificate for Obama in the files and that it says that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Perhaps you are going to respond that Hawaii forged the birth certificate that is in the Hawaii files. But we know from the birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii (and only the DOH could send those announcements) that there was a Hawaii birth certificate issued in 1961. And we know that during the Republican governor's administration at least two Republican-appointed officials saw the birth certificate in the files. If it did not say on it "Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu"--which the published Obama birth certificate says---they would have pointed out the difference.

    It is hard to believe that Hawaii forged Obama's birth certificate in 1961, and it is also hard to believe that it was forged when Republican governors were in office. Republican governors were in office both in 1961 and in 2007 when the officials of Governor Linda Lingle looked into the files. It is possible that Governor Lingle looked into the files herself, but if not she was told by those officials that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital. That is how she was able to say "born in Kapiolani" even before the long-form birth certificate was published.

    This is additional confirmation that the birth certificate in the files says that Obama was born in Kapiolani.

    And there is the teacher who wrote home about a child being born to a woman named Stanley to her father, also named Stanley. She said that the doctor worked at Kapiolani (no, the birther allegation that he had retired before that date is not accurate). (

    The possibility that Obama's mother traveled while late in pregnancy remains tiny, and there is no evidence from any other country that he was born there, and no one has found a travel document issued for Obama in Kenya, or any other country. The government of Kenya says that it checked out the allegation that Obama was born there, and it is not true.