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."

You can spin it all you like, you were suggesting that the kenyan took SAD to Kenya to celebrate Kenyatta - but Kenyatta was still in jail on that ‘birthdate’. There’s something wrong with your head, mate.
What you write reads like Barbara Cartland meets 007. Calling the son-of-a-kenyan-goat-herder a ‘princeling’ FINISHED it for me.

My speculation: she couldn't be party to any adoption unless she had custody, she didn't have a birth certificate with her name on it as mother, so all she had to show was the divorce document. It's called adoption fraud through divorce, I believe.And I do not recall you even suggesting that.

Okay, when you put it that way, I was NOT suggesting that. I keep forgetting that you and I are coming at this thing from two different angles. My thinking was that Stanley Ann got Lolo Soetoro to Adopt Barry, certainly by Indonesian law, but quite possibly through Hawaiian law as well.

In any case, it looks like we can both agree that the probability of him having been adopted is pretty good.

And that of course leads TO the question : was there a bc with the divorce documents? Probably, but it's been removed, page 11 might have been the request for it, just as page 7 was a request for items to do with the mailing and return of the documents. (IIRC)

I think this is a good possibility as well. I have no criticism (or alternative suggestion) of this notion.

...In any case, it looks like we can both agree that the probability of him having been adopted is pretty good.

so we can carry on from there, and go with what our own eyes tell us, not with what we have been programmed to see...she had an application for a passport in July 1965, and in August 1968 made an application for a renewal, with the request that the name Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah be removed from the July 1965 passport.

As Soetoro wasn't Soebarkah, (whether you write the names SUTORO OR SUBARKAH) and all of the the names Lolo used are shown and known, isn't the next step indicative of an adoption by SOEBARKAH? (And just btw, if the answer is there are no Soebarkah, or the name is a combination of Soe and Barkah for Barack, forget it) A SOEBARKAH/SUBARKAH was pallbearer at the funeral of SUHARTO.

You'll find it near the bottom:

KOPASSUS

Kenyatta’s release from prison to a half-way house in April 1961 was greatly celebrated. At the half-way house he could meet the press and public and walk to the village with his Somali bodyguard. It was clear that the British would be leaving when they released the man who would be the leader of post-colonial Keyna.

http://www.enzimuseum.org/museums-of-kenya/site-museums/kenyatta-house-maralal

begin quote

Kenyatta House Maralal

Maralal is a small hillside market town in northern Kenya, lying east of the Loroghi Plateau within the Samburu District. The town is home to Kenyatta House, the location where Jomo Kenyatta was detained prior to his release.

Upon conviction and sentencing at Kapenguria on April 8, 1953, Kenyatta remained in prison in Lokitaung until 1959. He was then detained in Lodwar under house arrest for two years. On April 11, 1961, he was moved to Maralal with his daughter Margaret where he met world press for the first time in eight years. On August 14, 1961, he was released and brought to his Gatundu home.

The house was built with the specific intention of housing Mzee Jomo Kenyatta after his stay in Lodwar. It was a halfway house between freedom and imprisonment (he was allowed visitors). Unlike in Lodwar, where access to him was controlled, at Maralal he was free to walk around with his Somali bodyguard to the town downhill, interact with locals and shop from his government allowance.

end quote

ok. have it your way, the kenyan student in Hawaii who was working in a pine-apple cannery for a dollar 53 cents an hour as an ordinary seasonal worker, took his pregnant bride to Kenya to visit with Kenyatta while he was under house arrest...and on the 31st of August, when he completed an INS document he couldn’t remember who he was married to, so he crossed out the first name he wrote, (of whom? the woman he claimed was a US citizen from whom he was separated, living in the Philippines?)then wrote in Ann S Dunham, but forgot he had a child born on the 4th of that same month.

What a piece of work you are. Are there no lengths you will not go to, to keep SAD as the mother sacrosant and the Kenya birth myth alive?

I’ll say it again; we do not know who his parents are, we do not know where he was born, we do not know when he was born.

It frightens you? It frightens me too. But clinging to the myth won’t solve anything, it simply obstructs any further discussion/discovery.

In order to know the truth, a person has to be willing to give up fondly held beliefs and cease clinging to things he thinks he knows, when evidence shows them to be false.

IOW, forget anything written in “Dreams”. Erase it from the memory. Start from scratch, and the picture looks very, very different.

‘Dreams’ is useful only for what Ayres left out (LIKE SEATTLE)and the obvious cover-up, like ‘granny’ Sarah saying to Kezia’s brood, NONE OF YOU ARE HIS CHILDREN! They had to include that, because most of the people in the village KNEW and Mark was the only one to inherit the kenyan’s personal possessions. The clan is STILL fighting over the land...and ‘granny’ refuses to give Malik permission to build a mosque...now why might that be? Could it be because HER son, Joseph/Yusuf with whom the kenyan went to school at Maseno...has the right of inheritance as the eldest son of ONYANGO!

One day we may see Malik wearing that cap and carrying the whisk, but it won’t be until YUSUF is dead.

When I think of the vast numbers of people involved in the criminal coverup, the numbers of people paid off, threatened and heavily implicated - it’s mind boggling. So many know stuff, are guilty, and know stuff about other guilty parties!

It’s bound to come unglued.

I think they are known as ‘supporters’ - they will lie, cheat, steal and kill, for what else have they got but their ideology...which seems to me to be some sort of perverted religion. Remember, Karl Marx never held a job, didn’t support his wife and children, he let the State feed his kids...and it won’t come unglued until they destroy everything that sustains them, and then we will pick them up again, help them rise, and they will repeat - because there are always at least 50% of the population who are cowards and follow the leader, rather than THINK or be responsible for their actions. (rant off)

Mama ain’t mama, Papa ain’t papa, and HI ain’t the birthplace.

Which all boils down to WHY? WHY all the lies way back when? WHY even start the lies? WHY were so many willing to go along with the them 50 years ago and WHY were they keeping them up into the 90s. I can see the Kenyan tribe going along with it when he became a Senator but WHY would they buy it lock, stock and barrel back during his childhood and through middle age? WHY, other that it might have been stylish, for the Dunhams to be party to it? WHY would Lolo take on unknown kid? WHY would Sr. bother with some fatherless brat even if he got a free month's trip out of it?

They lied about who Zero was back then because MX was very famous - infamous - then assassinated. So MX’s son had to have another ID. So a fake ID had to be procured; and the Kenyan’s son was born around the same time, was a person “Of color” (not the same color, though, Zero is remarkably pale for supposedly being half Kenyan, his so-called father is dark like night); the Kenyan was willing to go along with it no doubt for $. All the other players were commies. The Kenyan tribe probably didn’t even know of the charade until the early 80s and then money talks, doesn’t it. And if money doesn’t talk loud enough, threats work even better.

Commies have a Mission. They’re driven. And many people will do or say anything for money. There was obviously a lot of money being tossed around. All that traveling - Stanley back and forth to Indo, Pakistan; Zero back and forth from US to Indo, going to Punahou - a very expensive school, etc.

Money didn’t appear to be a problem at all. Someone or something was funding the entire charade.

http://www.niu.edu/cseas/lecture/Spring2011LectureSeries/Spring2011Abstracts.shtml

Laura Iandola, Ph.D. candidate, History and Graduate Assistant, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University
Lecture title: Malcolm X, Sukarno’s Indonesia, and the Politics of Bandung
Sukarno, Indonesia’s first president, and Malcolm X shared the platform at Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1956, introduced there by mutual friend Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. The relationship launched there endured until Malcolm X’s untimely death in 1965, two weeks before he was slated to speak at the Asian-African Islamic Conference in Jakarta. He had also planned to attend the tenth anniversary celebration of the 1955 Bandung Conference, the first large-scale Asian-African conference. Iandola explores this little-known relationship to illuminate their ideological affinities as well as the Cold War politics of the Third World.

You educated me on that last time. I still remember. :)

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.