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
“Are you suggesting that Barack is a bastard?”
BHO, Sr. was still legally married to a woman in Kenya when he “married” Stanley Ann Dunham, so his marriage to SAD was, according to U.S. law, invalid. Thus, according to U.S. laws BHO, Sr. and SAD were not not legally (validly) married at the time of BHO “The Obastard’s” birth.
my head's spinning...if that's true, then it stands to reason the names of the 'parents' are also meaningless, he could have obtained the same document if Minnie Mouse was the name used for his mother and Karl Marx his father, right?
Many of us (including the suspecions of the INS) assume Sr. was still married to Kezia in 1960/1961.
However, has any proof of that actually ever surfaced?
Even IF we assume he was still married to Kezia...how do we know that the marriage to SAD would have been considered bigamous? Knowing what kind of person she was, are we certain that she had no knowledge of another (unproven) marriage? If she knew about it...that would make it a polygamou marriage. Does that change the legality?
From what little I've looked into it, or could find regarding polygamy and 1961 HI, it appears that it (polygamy) may not have been outlawed: http://law.jrank.org/pages/11834/Annulment-Prohibited-Marriage-Prohibited-Marriage.html
See post #23.
The United States did not recognize polygamy in 1961.
Also, do you have proof that Sr's first marriage was still active in 1960/61? Or, are you assuming like most of us are?
Would be nice to have links / proof instead of hearsay.
Thanks.
Very astute question. We are shown here how easy it is for a foreign born child to obtain a certification of live birth in Hawaii. Even the name of the parents need not be right, and where the mother gave birth need not be shown apparently...neither is any confirmation from a delivering doctor or midwife required...all she had to do was make a statement she had resided in one place in Hawaii for a certain period of time.
A father? Just fill in the appropriate line, and there you have it. 'Proof' of birth in Hawaii on any date you wish to name.
So why the need for a fake? I have an idea...it's got to have something to do with the 'application' lodged on the same date as the birth/death announcement for Virginia Sunahara appeared in the Hawaii papers, it's got to have something to do with a birth certificate for Virginia that would show the same number as zero is using...and the fact that who-ever lodged that application showed his birthplace as Kenya.
Why Kenya? Kenya was a ruse. Because if we could now see the overseas airline arrivals between August 1, 1961 and August 9, 1961, we would see the real names of his parents (or discover who brought him into the US) and discover what country he really came from. His name wasn't BHO2 until after he landed at that airport.
From Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source, but I’m trying to locate the definitive common law and case law on the issue, as it’s been years since I read it in school):
Polygamy, in particular polygyny where one man takes several wives, is a common marriage pattern in some parts of the world. However, in the United States polygamy has never been a culturally normative or legally recognized institution. In Canada, polygamy laws are written in a slightly different way than in the USA. However, all provinces adhere to the federal Criminal Code of Canada which makes polygamy an offense and punishable by up to five years in prison.
Polygamy became a significant social and political issue in the United States in 1852, when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) made it known that a form of the practice, called plural marriage, was part of its doctrine. Opposition to the practice by the United States government resulted in an intense legal conflict, and culminated in LDS Church president Wilford Woodruff announcing the church’s official abandonment of the practice on September 25, 1890.[1] However, breakaway Mormon fundamentalist groups living mostly in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico still practice plural marriage. A very small minority of American Muslims also practice polygamy.[2]
Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person and it is illegal in the United States. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[4]
According to the Model Penal Code (section 230.1) bigamy is a misdemeanor, but having more than one spouse at the same time is a felony if it is done “in purported exercise of a plural marriage...” According to Joel Feinberg in Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, “Righteously flaunting one’s illicit relationships, according to the Code, is apparently a morally aggravating circumstance, more punishable than its clandestine and deceptive counterpart.”[5]
The Model Penal Code allows people to use an honest belief that they are only married to one person as a defense against a charge of bigamy. However, many US courts (e.g., Turner v. S., 212 Miss. 590, 55 So.2d 228) treat bigamy as a strict liability crime: in some jurisdictions a person can be convicted of a felony even if reasonably certain there was only one legal spouse. For example, if a person has the mistaken belief that their previous spouse is dead or that their divorce is final, they can still be convicted of bigamy if they marry a new person.[6]
NOT lodged by Madelyn Dunham, she would have known how to spell her own name and the name of the street.
This is probably the application lodged on the very same day the Virginia Sunahara birth/death announcement appeared.
A Kenya birth would not have presented a problem at the time, but the combination of the certification number and the place of birth - required a forgery imo.
NOT lodged by Madelyn Dunham, she would have known how to spell her own name and the name of the street.
This could be the 'half-typed, half-written' document.
" §572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract.
...
(3) The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living and that the woman does not at the time have any lawful husband living;"
But I've not found the HI law as of 1961.
Also, I've not found proof that would refute the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit State of Hawaii, which considered them legally married.
Do you have proof that Sr. was still married to Kezia in 1961?
sorry about the double post...
-PJ
Me no FB .. ;)
Rxsid .. this should go to Sheriff Joe ..
Fred, more rocks overturned .. more sunlight ..
pray it’s ALL exposed in our lifetimes .. ;)
Speculating .. was the Kezia marriage accepted as a legal and official marriage in Kenya that was so accepted as a legal marriage to the US ? Yes, Harvard tossed him due to concern about his morals .. of which he possessed NONE. The smoke, mirrors, plots, subplots, fictional/real characters, diversions and distractions are unending... and intentional me thinks. My head still hurts ...
But if the DailyPen’s and Mombosan’s writings are true .. whew! Again .. we’re at the same juncture: WHO will have the spine of steel, the fortitude, patience and resources to see it through?
Aside from ‘Dreams’ all there is about the marriage to Kezia is a bunch of conflicting stories from the Kenya clan, some say they married when he was 18, some say they married in 1957, Kezia at one time says Malaik was six years old when the kenyan left in 1959, and others say he was two years of age. His teacher at the Maseono school pulled out the records for the kenyan and his older brother, who left the school before the second-eldest son of a kenyan goat herder (and imprisoned Mau Mau member) did...and that older brother hasn’t surfaced since. His name was Joseph.
The teacher said that Barack Hussein Obama Onyango left Kenya to go to the US as soon as he finished school...his brother was two years older. The age of the kenyan student who applied for scholarships varies between 25 and 27 when he completes his applications and when he’s interviewed by the newspapers in Hawaii.
And you want to know if he was married to Kezia? Ask ‘granny’ Sarah...when it came time to make claims against the estate of the foreign student who was then married to Ruth, it was ‘granny’ Sarah who told the children of Kezia...NONE OF YOU ARE HIS CHILDREN.
And Joseph, whose arabic name would have been YUSUF is now shown as being born ‘circa 1950’s’ when, if you do the math, it was Joseph/Yusuf who was the older brother born in 1934...so why on earth would the kenyan student use his half-brother’s birthyear?
There’s nothing hangs together in this myth.
We are like little children in comparison to the cabal that set up this deception. That there are so many who still believe the myth of ‘Dreams’ tends to prove it. It’s been what ? four years of back and forth, and there are STILL people who believe a black native kenyan met a little white girl from Kansas, they fell in love in Hawaii and married - and she gave birth to zero...
Guess it’s more comforting than having to deal with the fact that no one knows who his parents are, or where he came from.
If you look back at Fukino's actual statement she said he was a "natural born American Citizen" NOT a "natural born U.S. Citizen". (If he were born in Canada he would be an American citizen, but not a U.S. Citizen) Legal weasel words.
No. There is reference to a marriage in the divorce papers, but I've never seen documentation from any of the official records that have been posted.
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.