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."

That article is speculative with no claimed evidence and includes one big error which is that SADO needn't have been “very pregnant” at the times she could have flown to Kenya. The writer admits that the last evidence of SADO in HI is the claimed marriage on Feb 2, 1961 (supported elsewhere by the marriage index and divorce attestation of a marriage).

On that date SADO wouldn't even have been “showing” a pregnancy and could have easily traveled...as she could have until at least the sixth month which was about May 1961 or even beyond.

Also the writer's attempt to dispute SADO being in Kenya depends solely on his attempt to show that BHO Sr. himself didn't go to Kenya. My speculation does not depend on Sr. going to Kenya, but only SADO being packed off to Kenya to get “the problem” out of sight to avoid damage to Seniors career prospects of an elite future that he shared with all of the Mboya-sponsored Kenyans in the airlift or not.

In contrast to the pure speculation in this article, Jerome Corsi has obtained photocopies of a claimed Kenyan government report including interview details with Mama Sara in which she says she was present in Mombasa for the birth of Barry. This pregnancy might well have been hidden from Mboya or alternatively, Mboya might have been complicit in helping to hide it to avoid a stain on his precious Kenyan student body in US colleges.

Corsi also claims to have an official Kenyan Gov't report of a search for and report of missing records for Barry's CPGH BC that was so suspicious that a criminal investigation was suggested to prosecute the thieves. According to the Kenyan Gov't docs in Corsi's possession, the search for Barry's BC in Kenya was requested by Bush's US ambassador to Kenya! Where there is smoke??? The Kenyan docs that Corsi claims to have provide more evidence of a birth location for Barry in Kenya than any other location, IMO. I also believe (speculatively) that the recent defector from Odinga's staff who has thrown in with Corsi could well vouch for Barry's Kenyan birth and have had access to the missing BC docs, if Odinga was complicit in removing them. begin quote from your article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/why_obama_was_not_born_in_keny.html In the same letter, Obama Sr. says to Mboya: “...this is the time when I feel I should thank you for the help which you gave me when I was coming here.” Had Obama Sr. returned to Kenya for the birth of his baby he undoubtedly would have contacted his sponsor. Yet the letter seems to indicate that this is the first time he has thanked or been in touch with Mboya since his arrival in Hawaii in 1959.

Then there are the difficulties of a trip to Kenya in 1961: the costs and the logistics. In an article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, September 19, 1959, Shurei Hirozawa wrote of Barack Obama Sr.’s arrival in Hawaii: “The money he saved will only stretch out for two semesters or less because of the high cost of living in Hawaii, he found out. He'll work, he says, and probably apply for a scholarship.” Obama Sr. had no money. He certainly wouldn't have had the money for two airplane tickets to Kenya. If that trip took place, Ann's parents would have to have paid the fare.

Since we know Obama Sr. was continually enrolled year round at the University of Hawaii, and he finished in three years’ time what would normally take 5 years, any break in his studies would have necessarily been short. Any trip to Kenya would have to have been by air, as going by sea would have taken weeks, if not months.

For the birth to have taken place in Kenya, Ann would have been very pregnant and very near her delivery date when the trip was made. The distance between Honolulu and Nairobi, Kenya is approximately 10,700 miles. In 1961 there would not have been any direct flights, necessitating several stops and perhaps several overnight layovers.

end quote

That’s the point. There’s no proof. Only allegations, assumptions.

No the point is that it would be easy to prove that he was born in Hawaii, but hard to prove that he wasn't.

There's a bit more than allegations, but still not proof. For example the sequence number on his BC is out of order with those of twin girls born a little before he allegedly was, but in the same hospital. Their paperwork was no signed until somewhat later yet, as compared to his, yet they have lower numbers.. how can that have occurred? The irregular nature of his draft registration form, and the fact that unlike previous Presidents and candidates, including both Bush II and Gore, no one has seen his college transcripts. What's the point in not releasing those? Especially not even arfter the elections.

He'd have a hard time getting a regular job, hiding his transcripts and birth certificate from his would be employers. With all those foreign relatives, he probably could even get a job cleaning the latrines on Air Force One.

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.