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 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.”

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.

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."

C'mon. You have the supposed social security application where the signature doesn't touch the lines either.

And so far as I can tell the birth certificate signature does touch the line in at least one place -- or even in two places, if not more.

Most people have to sign their names hundreds or thousands of times in their lifetimes.

It's not hard to find a signature where you may not have used the line among the many signatures where you did.

That's especially the case with official forms, where you aren't given a line so much as a box.

Trying to fit in (Stanley) along with Ann Dunham Obama meant that she was already altering her usual mode of signing in order to fit extra information into the box.

Once you try to write smaller you commit yourself to taking up less space.

Much ado about nothing.

Well, much of this is well beyond the scope of what the U.S. court system could demand in terms of witness testimony. However, that doesn’t mean Obama himself would not bring her in.. at any rate, It is a moot point.

As for Marguet-Pillado, the 9th Circus does not, and cannot overturn SCOTUS. Unless M-P is is on track to SCOTUS, then it isn’t binding upon National Law. It applies only in M-P until it IS brought to SCOTUS. So again, it is a moot point.

Minor V. Happersett is still the law of the land.

“Do you know for a fact that HI wouldn't have considered the marriage in Kenya to be a sort of “common law” marriage?”

I know for a fact that the INS deported BHO Sr. due to probable bigamy and that the INS FOIA evidence is in the GA court file headed to SCOTUS.

Obama attorney Jablonski cited Marguet-Pillado to the GA Superior Court as making Barry NBC so that is ALSO on the way to SCOTUS. IMO, the ONLY on-point parallel that Jablonski can claim between Barry and Marguet-Pillado is birth on foreign soil to a SINGLE mom and a biological relationship to a US citizen with the US citizen meeting the residence requirement. SADO only meets the residence requirement if she is single.

If Jablonski were to cite Marguet-Pillado and a claim that the BHO Sr.-SADO marriage was legitimate, SADO would NOT meet the residence requirement and Jablonski would be guilty of legal malpractice in exposing Barry to not even being a citizen, if born in Kenya!

“How did Sr. get out of serving time?”

The INS said that bigamy was not technically a deportable offense, even if proved. Only a DA in HI could bring a charge and evidence or witnesses would have to have been obtained in Kenya.

To get rid of BHO Sr. the INS colluded with Harvard to eject him by indirect means. Harvard also found BHO’s rampant predations offensive and the way they did it was to cut off his funding for his Ph.D. Without funding his education visa could not be extended by INS.

I remember reading on FR that (apparently) Zero went to Kenya in ‘82 but this visit was not part of the official myth; is my memory wrong?

There is a long feature article of which I have a screencap that states the son of the kenyan attended his funeral. There was a second article on a Kenyan website that described his presence at the funeral as 'he came, he mourned at the gravesite and left quietly' (that second article has been removed and I do not have a copy.) The person who made that comment to the interviewer wasn't named. I assume it was someone from the village - who wouldn't have recognized zero even if he had been there, which he wasn't, his first visit was AFTER the funeral.

Also, it seems (to me) unlikely that since Malik “grew up” with and remembers the original BHO, that the clan doesn’t really think Zero is the son of the Kenyan. But it sure brings them a bit of fame, no doubt monies, and perhaps they’ve had pressure put on them in other ways as well. So, “yes, he’s our village boy, yessirree!”

I think they had to know...and they were rewarded. Life improved for them all, granny' Sarah made the hajj. The Prime Minister of Kenya, Raila Oginga, visited her and she has received numerous awards...

If the dark boy, the original BHO, had never lived in Kenya, then their belief that Zero was actually the son of the Kenyan might be plausible, despite to complete lack of any resemblance. But....

...BUT there he is, standing with his father and Ruth in the family group. I suppose a lot depends on whether he ever spent time in the village, but if you remember, 'granny' Sarah did say 'even the President of the United States passed through my hands' - poor old thing, she was just doing her best - someone passed through her hands alright, his name was BHO2, and passing through their hands is simply a tribal custom where all the members of the clan touch the new arrival.

Which is what the dark boy was, when you think about it...he arrived in 1964, born early 1961 made him almost four. It's really no wonder she said that she was at the birth in Mombasa of BHO2, is it now? What do you think she's going to say? 'I first saw him when he came to the village when his father brought him to introduce him to his relatives when he was FOUR' !?

Recent photographs of 'granny' show her always with Said, (or SAYD) her youngest son in attendance. She's not allowed to speak on her own anymore...

HERE'S GRANNY! video

“If this is what you mean, it's still there...but it's a chicken and egg question isn't it? Which came first?”

I remember seeing the original of this LFBC with all of the information filled in including the signatures the features of which are still peeking out from under the white-out tape. The forger of the Blaine BC filled in the BHO related info and also forged security paper to fill in the whited-out areas.

The person who allowed their BC to be put up may have changed their mind, as it invited identity theft.

I don’t know that it was a ruse per say, 1) he was out of money, 2) he was sleeping around and didn’t the university get a complaint from the parents of a girl he pursued? 3) Harvard didn’t want a penniless foreign student mauling girls under the auspices of the University. Not only was the liability in such a case high, it made the University LOOK bad. Heaven knows Harvard isn’t twitchy about their image...

It wasn’t a pretext, the man was a liability and out of money. Why extend a visa? There is no way for Harvard to win in that scenario.

I am glad that the INS info is going to get included. It SHOULD be!

« Editorial: Oct. 19, 2009 »The Blaine Document
October 19, 2009 by John Charlton

WILLIAM BLAINE RELEASES PURPORTED OBAMA CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH
by John Charlton

(Oct. 20, 2009) — At 10:22 PM Last evening someone purporting to be William Blaine issued the following email:

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:15:27 -0400
Subject: Obama Birth Proof
+ Cert.pdf

My client has asked me to share this with you and asks that you share it with as many patriots as possible so that it cannot be scrubbed from existance.

I trust you will know what to do with this.

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/the-blaine-document/

I have been referring to what you call the BLAINE DOCUMENT as ‘the application’ - now which came first, the item with the names removed (of which artifacts remain) OR THE ABOVE?

Disclaimer: I have no further information than anyone else has - if this item is genuine or fake, I have no idea. It’s just another piece of the puzzle. But this much I can say, the date coincides with the birth/death announcement of Virginia, and Madelyn did not create this forgery, unless she didn’t know how to spell her own name, or the name of the street.

But it sure does LOOK LIKE ‘per grandmother’ attempted to obtain a CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH sometime in 1982 on the strength of this document being FILED.

"I know for a fact that the INS deported BHO Sr. due to probable bigamy"

As has already been stated, "probably bigamy" wasn't the reason Sr's Visa was not renewed.

As far as we know, and probably the state of HI in 1961 was concerned, Sr. had no documentation (like a state license or marriage cert) proving he was married in Kenya already. Such a marriage, anyway, would likely have been viewed in terms of a Common Law marriage (one without state documentation). Hawaii does not recognize common law marriages. As far as they were concerned, prior to the divorce in 1964...they *were* considered legally married in HI.

Regarding Marguet-Pillado goes, as Danae has pointed out, it's not a SCOTUS decision like Minor is.

And now we are getting somewhere...the date on the article you quoted was June 10, 2009.

The Post and E-Mail article was on October 19, 2009.

The earlier item without names, just artifacts, had a background of security paper.

The ‘Blaine document’ was on a plain background...and I think I can see why...when the names were removed on the original, much of the security background detail would have been damaged.

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.