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
HI doesn't recognize common law marriages. Therefore, when they married Sr. to SADO (assuming that marriage took place) it was a valid marriage.
Valid-Where-Consummated and Public Policy Limits to Recognizing Customary Marriagehttp://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/10-2/10-2%20Laymon.pdfPublic policy trumps recognition of a custom, even where the validwhere- consummated doctrine applies. For example, in People v. Ezeonu, the court could disregard the valid-where-consummated rule if the marriage was against public policy: the court did find that the Nigerian man’s marriage was valid under Nigerian law, but that it was “absolutely void
even where it was legally consummated in Nigeria.”83 Public policy limits to the recognition of customary law have earned much criticism from scholars of law and anthropology since public policy limits almost never address the fact that the claimant has a bona fide belief in the validity of his marriage.84 Overall, the invocation of public policy will overcome any request that a customary marriage is recognized.
In sum, we see that the rule of valid-where-consummated is limited on several grounds. Evidentiary standards in the United States may render a marriage that is valid in its country of origin invalid in the United States. While formalizing a marriage or divorce in the United States or obtaining a certificate from a customary court of the country of origin may be helpful, this option is not always available to the immigrant. Such certification also greatly undermines the significance and meaning of customary law to those trying to preserve their culture. A taint of fraud, even if there is only a rational basis for suspicion, may overcome any claim that the custom was valid in its country of origin. Naturalization cases also present a special problem to immigrants who must overcome judicial deference in favor of the INS. In sum, despite a first impression that valid-where-consummated is a clear rule, the doctrine is actually very limited, and often puts the immigrant claimant in a no-win situation.
COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE AND VALIDATION OF A CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE
When a court is unable to apply the valid-where-consummated doctrine to enforce a customary marriage, the cultural minority may invoke the doctrine of common-law marriage in those jurisdictions that recognize it. The common-law marriage doctrine is often treated very differently from one state to the next. Most U.S. states simply recognize or refuse recognition of common-law marriage entirely; some allow common-law marriages made within the state, but not elsewhere; and others allow common-law marriages if they are valid where consummated, but do not recognize marriages created through cohabitation in that state.85
That’s a good question. Kenya was a British colony at that time, and Britain did not recognize polygamy; but I don’t know if it allowed some kind of “grandfather clause” in its colonies for such a thing. It may very well be that Kenya, as a British colony, allowed polygamy. But I don’t think that would have changed how the United States applied its laws on the subject. But, you’ve raised a good question.
Do you think it’s possible that Hawaii did not know of the Kenyan marriage? That would explain the Hawaiian divorce rather than an anullment or a decree of invalidity. So many questions. Which is why so many of us are pissed that Obama was never vetted, on so many fronts.
And I think the reason for you being unable to see the forest for the trees is that anything outside of the official story-line makes you feel uncomfortable. You can’t afford to ask yourself, who was the older brother? Who was the father of the children of Kezia? When did the kenyan really leave Kenya...and who the heck was this Anna Obama, that the woman who runs Seattle Mystery Tours found in the Seattle Directory?
And last but not least, ever wonder why the kenyan didn’t get a government job until after Mboya was killed? Or why Cora Weiss had to recant her student airlift story?
I can place all of that information under your nose, but you refuse to acknowledge it, and each time I attempt to tell freepers what the whole thing LOOKS LIKE, you rock up and put a stop to it.
So there you go, keep your precious POTUS. And don’t let me rock the boat. Go back to sleep.
In your case, People v. Ezeonu, Ezeonu’s second tribal marriage was null and void in NY because Ezenou already had a wife by a first tribal marriage living as his married wife in NY! Both tribal marriages were lawful in Nigeria, but the second one was not lawful in NY:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties by stipulation, supra, agree that the defendant was lawfully married to a then-living wife under the laws of New York and Nigeria at the time of his purported second “marriage” to the complainant in Nigeria.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the stipulation submitted for determination in limine, even were defendant's “marriage” to the complainant conducted in accordance with Nigerian law and custom, the marriage is null and void in New York. Therefore, as a matter 346*346 of law, he is not married to her for purposes of the charge of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30) and such purported marriage may not be raised at trial as a defense.
Generally, a marriage is recognized in New York if it is valid where consummated. (Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 N.Y. 18.) However, it is well established that this general rule does not apply where recognition of a marriage is repugnant to public policy. Clearly, recognition of a polygamous marriage is repugnant to public policy as evidenced by section 6 of the Domestic Relations Law which provides that:
“A marriage is absolutely void if contracted by a person whose husband or wife by a former marriage is living, unless either:
“1. Such former marriage has been annulled or has been dissolved for a cause other than the adultery * * *
“2. [Repealed.]
“3. Such former marriage has been dissolved pursuant [to Domestic Relations Law].”
It is significant to note that under said statute a bigamous marriage is not “voidable” but “absolutely void”. Moreover, bigamy is a crime in the State of New York. (Penal Law § 255.15.)
Hence, “[i]t has been held that when this State is called upon to recognize either an incestuous or bigamous marriage, it will assert its strong public policy of condemnation thereof and refuse recognition even if that marriage was valid where consummated.”
.
0bama’s mama was very young and single when she had him according to Michelle 0bama
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1193601.aspx
.
Ruth and baby Mark, just to complete the sequence.
Were I to resort to insults, I would consider it to be a sign of my own weakness and impending capitulation.
Since when is “the official story-line” that Barry's HI BC is a forgery and he was most likely born in Kenya? That is where I have seen the facts leading. I just call them as I see them.
We happen to disagree on the identity and timeline for the little boys. Can we try to stick to the facts and not resort to accusations and insults? We did agree on the so-called Blaine BC after going over the facts.
And so do I. But what I see doesn't include SAD as mother, it doesn't include the kenyan as the father, and raises much doubt as to the paternity of the children of Kezia, and whether or not she was ever married to the kenyan-son-of-a-goat-herder. All I see is that no one can say for certain who the parents of zero were, or when and where he was born. And furthermore, when you look closely at the airlift story, the so called friendship with Mboya, and Cora Weiss, who has exclusive access to the Mboya letters, even that area of the legend falls into extremely doubtful territory. But all of those items and more, you avoid responding to.
*
I am wondering why the Kenyan left Kenya actually. If he left right after school (as the school official stated), he was pretty young. And if he left that young, the entire Kezia marriage/kids thing is probably another fiction.
I find the fixation about whether HI recognized Muslim polygamy ridiculous. It has no relevance to who Zero is whatsoever. Fuggedaboutit!
Sheesh.
How many non-existant angels can dance on the head of a pin. And being fixated on legal minutiae that has nothing WHATsoever to do with where Zero was born, who his parents are, or what kind of citizenship of what country he has, keeps the light from shining on the questions people should actually be asking.
I’m used to gauging ages in the presence of the child... Those long legs may indeed be not indicative; his face is very baby-like.
BUMP!
That is the only conclusion I have been able to reach, no one could be that thick headed, it has to be deliberate. So I'll say goodnight, and quit.
It doesn’t take a PhD or genius intellect to realize that the ENTIRE myth is a myth. Anyone who scrutinizes the “Auntie” thread in particular (but they’d have to have read a lot of previous research threads first) would have to realize that the entire backstory of Zero is fictional.
Mama ain’t mama, Papa ain’t papa, and HI ain’t the birthplace. DOB is very doubtful as well.
bflr
A key element of the argument by Johannson and Crosby is what they describe as a “Foreign Birth Transfer Exchange,” a fictional program whereby the US and foreign countries register births of the other’s residents and then exchange the data. As evidence they provide a statistical table from Vital Statistics of the United States - 1945 - Part II.
The table is a fake. It’s been “Photoshopped” to change “Outside the continental United States” to “Outside the United States.” The Report itself explains that the data come from States, territories and possessions of the United States (hence the “continental” reference), not foreign countries.
Read it for yourself (it’s on Page 8).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1945_2.pdf
I have to think that Obama’s marriage to Kesia was the false one, done to protect her from Muslim justice for having gotten with child out of wedlock.
Its possible.
Such a document would go a long way in SHUTTING UP those snarky little bastards that keep saying that Hawaii's word is all we need. Indeed, it would infuse new life into the issue by calling into question the legitimacy of Hawaii's records as a form of proof regarding "natural born citizen" status.
As I have said in the past, I doubt Barack can even prove 14th amendment citizenship, let alone "natural citizenship."
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.