Why Barack Obama listed his birthplace as Kenya

Sometimes records exist that have no LEGAL value.

Sometimes that’s because of the quality of the documentation/evidence on which the record is based which makes it not credible enough to be considered as legal proof on its face (prima facie evidence). For instance, Hawaii statute says that BC’s filed a year or more after the birth and BC’s that were altered (other than a name change) are legally suspect. By themselves they are not to be considered proof of anything. Instead, the state marks them distinctly on their face so that when they are used as evidence it is known that the quality of the supporting documentation/evidence is unknown and has to be checked. Basically, the state is saying that this is a claim only - basically a rumor that the state cannot vouch for as accurate.

Other records may be incomplete. The section of the BC request form that is for internal use has a place for the worker to check-off various kinds of records, such as pending, incomplete, COHB, etc. Pending and incomplete records have no legal weight because they don’t have all the required information.

Some records are legally non-valid because the legal reality they document no longer exists. For instance, when a person is adopted they are issued a new birth certificate which shows the adoptive parents as their parents. The original birth certificate still exists and can be used as EVIDENCE if it is made available by judicial decree, but what is on that birth certificate is no longer LEGALLY accurate so it is legally void.

As I explained in my blog post about this (IIRC anyway), the mechanism by which the EVVE system flags suspect records is through a data field called the “void flag”. When a record is not legally valid that record is flagged within that field as being “void”. Hawaii’s vital records department participates in EVVE so they have a “void flag” field for their vital records, to note when the record is not legally valid.

To print out an index, the criteria for the records to be printed would be used to sort out the records to be printed (such as the date range, etc. The date range is normally included as a header on every page of that index, but in only the 1960-64 birth index, that date-range heading doesn’t appear). If the index is to show legally-valid records, it would be specified to print only records not flagged as void. If even void records are printed, then the list tells you nothing except that the name is in the system for some reason or another. Names listed on it could be for legally valid records or they could mean there was a crayon-on-napkin declaration that was once submitted.

And the 1960-64 birth index includes names that are associated with void records - the birth names of 2 adopted children whose birth records under those names are not only legally non-valid but are required by law to be sealed from public knowledge.

The reason this is significant is because although there can be more than one birth record having the same BC#, only one of those records can be legally valid at a time. The BC# is supposed to represent a physical person, whose birth is attested to by somebody’s oath. That person could have records under different legal names - such as the birth name and the adoptive name, but only one of those names can be legally valid at a time. Otherwise you could have 2 physical persons both claiming to be that baby whose birth was attested to on the original paper record.

There was one child whose birth was attested to on the BC numbered 641. Virginia Sunahara. Another record could be created for #641, where the name associated with it is Barack Hussein Obama II. But only one of those names could be legally valid at a time. If that number was shared between 2 physical people, only one of them could show up in the database of legally valid records at a time. And the only way to get both names to appear in a print-out is by allowing legally non-valid records to be printed as well as valid ones.

And we’ve got evidence of both those phenomena. The database did not have Virginia Sunahara’s name in it when queried for me but DID have her name when her brother requested her COLB. So her record, under her name, had a void flag switched on and off for it. The void flag was on when they wanted her “other name” (Barack Hussein Obama) to appear to be legally valid, and the void flag was off when they needed to print out her COLB for Duncan. Somebody at the HDOH office is changing that void flag at will. An audit of the computer transaction logs would show us who was doing that and when.

And the 1960-64 birth index shows names for records that are marked as void (the birth names for 2 adopted boys) so we know that the birth index which includes both Virginia and Obama has the ability to show void records.

And incidentally, the same thing would allow a BC# to be altered momentarily and then switched back to normal. When Virginia’s COLB was printed out they needed a different BC#. So they probably created another record with Virginia Sunahara’s name and birth info, but the BC# from another baby who died - probably later in August - and then temporarily voided the record for the baby who really belonged to that BC# until they had printed the COLB for Virginia showing the fake BC#, at which time they voided the fake Sunahara record so the real record would be the one that showed up in a query as if nothing had ever been done.

I believe they did the same thing with Stig Waidelich, in an attempt to make Obama’s out-of-sequence BC# and “date filed” seem less suspicious.

That’s why both Sunahara’s and Waidelich’s BC#’s are so out of sequence. The HDOH didn’t want to use a BC# for somebody who has a copy of their BC with that BC# and could thus prove the tampering at the HDOH. They had to use a BC# from an infant who died - and preferably an infant who died without a name. They had to use the BC#’s that were available, and the end result is BC#’s that are so far out of sequence that the only way they could have landed like that is if the HDOH assigned BC#’s randomly. Which is the opposite of how Janice Okubo has said they did things.

I hope this doesn’t just make things too complicated.

According to Bettina Viviano, top dem sources said that Clintons were planning to out Obama’s ineligibility at the Convention, but was scared/threatened away when first Bill Clinton’s good friend (and chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party) Bill Gwatney and then Stephanie Tubbs were each killed within a couple weeks of the Convention, after having agreed to present the petition at the Convention for Clintons.

We’re not talking some tee-hee little embarrassing distraction here, as some would have us believe the eligibility issue is. We’re talking about people being assassinated and media companies scared to the point that they told their on-air personalities their careers and possibly lives would be over if they reported on the eligibility issue.

As Breitbart could have told us if he was still alive - and as his survivors are too scared to tell us now - this is DEADLY serious.

But do I believe a 17 year old girl flew halfway around the world in 1961 (it was a MUCH bigger world back then) to give birth to the Messiah in a Kenyan manger because there was no room at any Inns in Hawaii? No.

What about her previous travel to Cuba right after the revolution?

I can see your points and I have considered them. It all looks so suspicious and I have come to the conclusion that it’s no accident they all look suspicious. It’s purposeful sleight of hand.

Remember the FBI files - how that was pinned on some exuberant low level staffer? Remember the Rose Law firm billing records that were unexpectedly found in the WH map room after - how that was pinned on some low level clerical person? Then the Lewinsky matter - how many crimes were committed in that whole mess, yet the Clintons emerged stronger than ever. We all thought those were actions that would bring the Clintons down, but they didn’t.

There would be layers and layers of people/papers/e-files to sift through before the person or persons responsible for the tampering would be identified. These people are pros at obfuscation and misdirection. Obama and his closest advisors would have six, if not more, degrees of separation from the perpetrators.

I would love if someone found a smoking gun and I would be proved totally wrong in my conclusions. But how many times during the Clinton era was the phrase, “smoking gun” uttered or written and it ended up being a toy water pistol, if that.

CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH=AN ABSTRACT. CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH=A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

For the life of me I can’t find an email for this guy. Even on his own Journal!

So whats your point? Obama provided a (real or fradulent) Certificate of Live Birth. Which is the same as a Birth Certificate. Which is what I said all along, and which you argued against.

Kenya enthusiastically claims obama as one of their own.

Michelle claims that kenya is obama’s homeland.

baraq’s granny swears that she was present at this birth in Kenya. Why would any granny lie about one of their grandkids?

You’re claiming that the CLINTONS made all this look suspicious (by having the HDOH change BC#’s, their database, the 1960-64 birth index, etc, having Selective Service forge a draft registration, putting all the Kenya claims out there including in Obama’s own biography in 1991, having Obama’s passport file breached 3 times, having Kenyan officials claim in a radio interview that they are going to memorialize his birthplace in Kenya, having Obama himself use on his tax return a SSN that fails e-verify and was issued from Connecticut, having Abercrombie tell Mike Evans that he went to the hospitals with a search warrant and couldn’t find any birth records and that he had never even seen Obama in Hawaii until T-ball age, etc ad nauseum)...and yet wouldn’t ever come out and seal the deal by using all these suspicious things they created?

That doesn’t make sense. Even if they had had the ability to effect all this suspicious stuff, some of it long before they know Obama would be a threat to them - why would they not have used any of this in the 2008 primary? Why did Hillary move at the DNC Convention that they unanimously nominate Obama?

If Clintons were able to get the HDOH to do all this suspicious activity in order to make Obama look illegitimate, then why didn’t the HDOH just come right out and say Obama wasn’t born there? Everything the HDOH has done has consistently covered Obama’s behind. You think the Clintons are behind that? For what purpose?

That just doesn’t make sense.

Bill Gwatney is dead. His killer had no dealings with him, no reason to target him. He can’t be questioned because the cops shot him. His wife supported Obama rather than Clinton at the DNC Convention just a couple weeks after her husband died. Those are easily-verified facts.

Now we’ve got the Hillary supporters saying - and apparently to a law enforcement body, even - that shortly before he was killed Gwatney had agreed to present a petition challenging Obama at the DNC Convention. We know from public reports to “Recreate ‘68” that the community organization wing of the dems were prepared to do violence if they thought it necessary in Denver; who is the darling of the community organization wing, and why were they thinking that might be necessary?

All that stuff makes sense if the Clintons intended to out Obama’s ineligibility but didn’t because they were threatened by the murders of Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs. Murders which wouldn’t be necessary if the Clintons didn’t actually have the goods on Obama - something they couldn’t have if Obama had a genuine HI BC, passport, SSN, and draft registration.

This explanation makes sense - what we saw in front of our faces then and now makes sense - if Obama lacked all those records and the Soros/Obama machinery threatened multiple government agencies into covering for Obama, and Clintons were threatened out of using Obama’s ineligibility for their own personal gain.

What explanation do you have, that makes sense out of all this stuff?

bookmark

No, my suspicion is that Mr. Obama manipulated his birthplace intentionally (and cynically) to take advantage of certain benefits unavailable to those born in the United States.

I agree. Americans are suckers for giving freebies to the downtrodden, so why not pose as one? Obama's a complete fraud in every other way, so why not lie about this to get another free pass?

Why would Hillary serve as SOS for someone who had threatened them into silence?

Your post reminds me of the ole saying ... Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Would the clintoons do that for a chance at a later shot? Sometimes holding ones' firepower is an option in politics. Not certain how all of what is taking place will shake out but there is a whole lot of shaking (vetting) going on by on-line media, not so much in the main lame media. Something may shake loose. Will pray America will be a better place if the shaking produces an earthquake.

Personally, I don’t believe that he is black at all. Not by the definition we use, but perhaps by the definition the Brits used for “coloreds”.

Even if you have the seven+ layered b.c. that suddenly showed up after Trump and Dr. Corsi’s book (a #1 before hittting the shelves) and four (4) years in the making that Abercommie and Tim Adams could not find either, the claimed place of hospital hatching, they refuse to confirm he was foaled there!!!

Inspector Smith evidently has the goods. That’s strange isn’t it???

I thought Omar came to the USA to attend high school in 1963. If he came in 1961, where was he and what was he doing in the meantime?

Also at the same period SAD’s Passport application is missing. Just ask Strung, hmmm!!!

I wonder how he got away stealing the primary 2008 from Hitlery and HOW they castrated/silenced Bill to get into lockstep?

Could part of the answer be what happened in Marcy Park with no blood stains on the revolver and the hand holding it, hmmm??

Bil Gwatney was murdered during that time of primary and later a slew of being Breitbarted as well???

Being a good Conservative or NOT, when you are trying to misleading people by posting something that doesn’t exist, HE posting “place of birth,” you certainly, I mean HE is an IDIOT. Period!!!

I also believe that Obama was added to the picture later for this reason: If Obama is in the picture, who took the picture?

1. Did Obama's mother take the picture?

2. Did one of Obama's friends take the picture?

3. Did Obama ask a passing stranger to take the picture?

4. Here we have the grandparents visiting famous New York City with all its interesting landmarks, but we only have one picture of them with Obama in it and no pictures of them standing with Obama, say, near the Statue of Liberty. Why is that?

5. My point is this: I would think that there would be a lot of pictures of the grandparents visiting famous New York landmarks, but as I understand it, this picture is the only one on the internet of the grandparents sitting or standing by themselves or with Obama. Why is that?

6. Again, if Obama is in the picture, who took the picture, and why is there only that one picture on the internet of Obama sitting or standing with his grandparents?

7. My conclusion is this: Obama was added later. For what reason I don't know.

This is illogical. Why would Hillary serve as SOS for someone who had threatened them into silence? All the Clintons would have to do is call a press conference and spill everything. Before they did that, they could call the key power brokers in the party and inform them of the situation and what they were going to do so they would have supporters with them. They would come out winners and the Obama wing of the party would be discredited and destroyed. Not only that, there might be more than a few of them indicted and convicted of crimes. The Clintons are going to get their revenge for the 2008 primary (SC was especially painful for them). When Obama loses in Nov. and the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate, the Obama wing will be toast. Party leaders will go crawling back to the Clintons and plead with them to rebuild the party from the ashes. That's what the Clintons go to bed every night dreaming about.

Do you live under a rock of fairy tales and yet you been here since 1997, hmmm???

I heard an interview with Bill asked if he thought that Barry was ready to be p-Resident. Bill said: "yes, if he's qualified"!

Then later on he said he was presented with the RACE card and that on you heard nothing more "birther" speaking from both the Clintons. Their fans went ballistic sceamed and hollowed about the NBC issue!!

No, what they are dreaming about is when they woke up with a dead horse head (Chelsey???) in their bed. They were/are very fimiliar with how to effectively silence people, e.i. Vince Foster, McDougal, etc. There was a long-long victim list posted here on F.R. during that time, IIRC the name was MiaT(???) posting. You are extreme naive if you think Clinton's policies are much different, you just have to go to Hitlery's Thesis, hmmm!!!