Posted on 03/13/2012 3:39:58 PM PDT by rxsid
"VITAL RECORDS INDICATE OBAMA NOT BORN IN HAWAII HOSPITAL (PART 3)
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 which were issued in conjunction with a commonly used, but publicly misunderstood, vital statistics reporting anomaly used to allocate birthplace according to residency by the State of Hawaii in 1961.
...
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.
...
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.
...
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 allocation of births to “place of residence” protocol was implemented sporadically beginning in 1935 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.
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.
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.”
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.
...
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.
THE END OF THE ROAD: FOREIGN BIRTH TRANSCRIPT EXCHANGE AND DATA TAPE FILE RECORD
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 outlines those used for this statistical reporting method as follows:
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”.
...
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."
Complete article: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/03/vital-records-indicate-obama-not-born.html
I totally got it now. I hadn’t read that the missing arrival info was specifically arriving to HI.
Exactamundo.
So the Roman fellow is actually a US citizen, dual citizen probably. That is, if Anna is or was a US citizen, rather than a citizen of the PI.
One other question (with parts) rattling around in my head like a lonely marble.
I wonder how old Zero was when he arrived in HI. Were he and the boy now known as Roman companions for long? Was Roman whisked away quite soon after Zero arrived? And in the photo of the two boys, Zero looks quite a bit younger than the first extant photos of him and Stanley. I wonder who was taking care of him from Aug. 1961 until 1964 and the “divorce” that gave Stanley custody?
He's the genuine article, the original one and only BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA 11, he's the boy Zeituni says she remembers the kenyan writing home about, to tell the clan that he was married in the US and had a SON!
He's the boy shown in the family group of four, when he's about four years old and Mark is much younger, in a family photograph taken in Kenya. He's the boy Malik remembers growing up with in the village. He's the son of the kenyan whom the locals saw AT THE FUNERAL OF HIS FATHER.
Ooh, another rattling question.
I wonder why “they” didn’t just give Zero the original BHO’s birth certificate. And make something up for the original BHO. Could they possibly have had “plans” for Zero at that time; they must have had some kind of plans, for all that subterfuge already.
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Sheriffreleasesobamafindings.pdf
the details of the missing records are at the above link, I just checked, that report does NOT refer specifically to Hawaii, although I am hesitant to say I am in error. I did see a report that supposedly came from another source (maybe WND) that related the missing records to HAWAII.
As for the rest of your question, I cannot be specific. The dark boy was older, they were in the same place together and that is all that image can tell us.
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t distinguish between what the State Health Departments did and what the CDC did. TABULATIONS were done by the CDC, and the requirements he talks about were in regards to TABULATIONS, not reporting on actual birth certificates. The standard 1961 birth certificate has a place to list the location of the birth and several questions to determine how to classify the mother’s residence. The residence questions were for the sake of the CDC’s TABULATIONS. Nowhere is it said that the Island/County of Birth field on the BC doesn’t mean the actual birth place. Both the birth place and the mother’s residence were supposed to be listed accurately - but the CDC based most of their tables on the mother’s place of residence rather than place of birth (as indicated by the headings for each table). The CDC COULD HAVE bases their tables on either one because both were supposed to be accurately reported in the appropriate place on the standard BC.
So when the CDC stuff talks about the location of birth being gradually used less, it’s talking about how the CDC TABULATED and reported the statistics, not what was actually reported on the BC’s they got the raw data from.
The same mistake was made in the first report in this series. It was assumed that the HDOH sorted out the BC’s by geographic code, but the 1961 Natality Report says that the CDC (not the state health departments) did all the CDC coding themselves, based on actual copies of the BC’s that they received from the health departments. The HDOH didn’t do any coding for the CDC in 1961. They just collected BC’s that had the information that the CDC wanted to be able to analyze.
It was Blazing Saddles. It might have been in History of the World Part 1 but, Cleavon Little did utter the words, “And gone!” after someone said ,”The jig is up.” I am too tired to find the video but here are a couple of links:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/55/messages/720.html
http://www.fiddlehangout.com/archive/15030
Tracking flights, searching for genuine and original cocuments has gotten nowhere.
This is credible
Football Proves Obama’s Birth Certificate Is A Fake
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/football-proves-obamas-long-form-birth.html
But when it came to custody, that birth certificate didn't work, it had the name of the mother on it and a birthdate that placed Stanley Ann Dunham still in high school when that birthday would have shown conception took place.
Adjustments were required...and made. I suppose technically, she got custody of the boy who grew up to go to the Lumumba University, but his birthdate might raise eyebrows...it's there, on the Search Document the PI supplied, JANUARY 8, 1961.
He came from Equatorial Guinea, just like the Lumumba law student, who was 31 years of age in 1992 when he was interviewed. Why Equatorial Guinea? Well, he could hardly hang around the village in Kogelo Kenya, after the clan accepted zero as the long lost son of you know who...could he?
And as a bonus, he's the spitting image of the kenyan-son of-a-goat-herder...
He added EKUA to his name - in swahili that means PUSHED OR SHOVED ASIDE. But he is shown as ROMAN OBAMA in his position with the World Bank.
Yes indeed. The part I had wondered about was if the dock photo showed Anna Obama (?) and the Kenyan arriving with a baby from another country, but it sounds as though the original BHO was indeed born in the US...
What do you think of this? Fruitcake?
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/person-in-hawaii-claims-he-obtained-pan.html
See WND story on BHO Sr’s 1962 letter in the Hoover (Stanford) archive to Tom Mboya:
http://www.wnd.com/2010/11/226349/
“You know my wife is in Nairobi there and I would really appreciate any help you may give her.”
I have wondered about the clan accepting Zero, since they must have know he was NOT the son of the Kenyan, since the real son of the Kenyan had lived around at least some of them, looked like the Kenyan, and Zero looks nothing like him. Do they really think Zero is the real BHO or was it money talking?
Ah, I didn’t know the real birthdate for the real BHO had been discovered; fits perfectly in with Mary’s memory.
World Bank, they had to give him stuff to shut him up, I suppose.
1. The more I look/study Obama's mother's signature on the long form birth certificate---especially when I look at an enlarged or zoomed in signature---the more I believe that the way it sits in that narrow space is just not normal.
2. For instance, the signature does not sit or touch the line.
3. Not only does it not sit on the line, but the very tiny space between the letters and the bottom line is unnaturally the same all along the line except for the "A" in "Ann."
4. NOTE: Look at the first “n” in “Ann” and then look at the “m” in “Obama”.
5. To me, the two letters are the same distance from the line even though the two letters are several letters apart: One is at the beginning of the signature, while the other one is at the end of the signature.
6. In my opinion, it would be humanly impossible for Obama’s mother---or anyone else for that matter----to write her name “Ann Dunham Obama” in that space and magically keep the pen from touching the line and also keep the space between the bottom of the letters and the line uniform throughout the length of the signature “Ann Dunham Obama.”
7. To accomplish the above---not touching the line and keeping the same distance between the letters and the line throughout the length of the signature---she would have had to possess one of the steadiest hands known to man in order for her to keep her pen steady as she wrote “Ann Dunham Obama” in that narrow space and, at the same time, avoid touching the line.
8. Other Documents: Compare Stanley's signature to her signatures on other documents, and you will see that she does what many of us do: She writes on the line and uses the line as a guide to write her name.
9. In fact, in a few instances in the other signatures, Stanley's signature goes below the line, which, in my opinion, is a natural thing to do when one writes his/her name in a narrow space on an application form of any kind.
10. Social Security application signature: In this signature, Stanley writes her name well in the center of the space, and she does not touch the bottom or top line in the space where an applicant writes his/her name; however, there is a lot of visible space between the bottom of the letters and the bottom line, a lot more space than the very tiny space between the bottom of the letters and the bottom line on the long form birth certificate that one can barely see with the naked eye until the signature is enlarged.
11. I tried this little experiment: I took writing paper with lines on it and carefully wrote "Stanley Ann Dunham" and my own name.
12. I purposely tried to avoid the bottom line on the space on the paper, and I succeeded, but, again, I was trying to avoid the line on purpose. On the other hand, I don’t think that Obama’s mother would have worried about not touching the line like I did if she truly signed the long form birth certificate.
13. However, in my experiment, the space between the line and the bottom of my letters was much greater than the very tiny space between the bottom of the letters and bottom line that we find on the long form birth certificate.
14. Also, the space between the letters and bottom line in my experiment was not as uniform as the space between the letters and the line of Obama’s mother’s signature.
15. Again, look at Stanley's other signatures that can be found on the internet: As far as I can tell, Stanley wrote on the lines and used the lines as a guide to write her name in the space, something that many of us normally do.
16 . Nordyke twins' mother's signature: Look at the mother's signature on the Nordyke twins birth certificate: You will see how the twins' mother wrote her name on the line, which is something that many of us would do.
17. Also look at the two signatures just below Obama's mother’s signature: I think they are “Dr. Sinclair” and the registrar.
18. Both of these signatures hug or sit on the line, because the persons did what many of us do: They used the line as a guide to help them write their names in the small space.
19. As I said earlier, I don't believe that it would have been humanly possible for Stanley---or anyone else---to write her name so close to the line without touching the line in several places, because in other samples of her signature on the internet, she touched the line when she signed her name, which is something many of us do when we sign documents.
20. Is the signature a fake? I say yes.
...were lawfully married in Wailuku, Maui, State of Hawaii, on February 2, 1961...
****************************
So they got married just about 6 months before BHO the younger was born.
Pong for later.
Starwise, can you give me a cliff notes version? This is what I get for doing Chemistry homework almost all day.
It’s frustrating that the dock image is just about useless for dating anything, some of the people in it have obviously been added, they don’t belong to a group that includes dock workers and the numerous lei on the kenyan are obvious fakes. I’m inclined to just remember it exists, but I don’t see it as telling us anything conclusive...but the girl with her arm around the kenyan looks a lot like the girl at the Nachmannofs.
Probably why the airline arrival records are missing for that week.
That letter to Mboya is unfortunately part of the collection of CORA WEISS - at Stanford, it’s the only one that has been released, two paragraphs of which first appeared on Hoover Archivist Musings in 2010:
http://hooverinstitutionla.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/six-degrees-of-separation.html
If you want to see any more of the Mboya correspondence, you need to make an appointment personally with Cora. She’s the one who insisted that the kenyan was part of the first airlift, which both she and Malcolm X met at Idlewild Airport in September 1959, AFTER THE KENYAN WAS ALREADY INSTALLED IN HAWAII.
When forced to recant, she explained it away by saying that although the kenyan did not arrive on the first airlift, he came on a PARALLEL flight.
I wouldn’t trust that woman as far as I could throw her, therefor I don’t believe the additional paragraphs of that letter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.