From Conception...To Election
"Preventing an
individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic
origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances
thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry,
which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from
assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or
vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of
presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..."
Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British
Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent
returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of
British National Archives.
(Editors note: The records alluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner site, using the search term "Obama". Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)
(Editors note: The records alluded to in this story were discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner site, using the search term "Obama". Corroborating evidence through public sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.)
By Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen
KEW,
SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to look for a birth record of
someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II
eligibility mandate in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the
founding fathers of America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from
attaining the office of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the
sovereignty of the newly formed nation.
In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the
part of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law
enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth”
posted to a government website in April, 2011 and found it to be the product of
criminal fraud and document forgery.
The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now
taken investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been
discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British
Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held
in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being
archived in the BNA.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S.
Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of
the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama
have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public
records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at
least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in
the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including
the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for
Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by
Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior
to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also
stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative
assembly. Since then information on
Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama
administration has coincidently paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital
projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence
of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the
alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of
Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the
University of Washington. Theories about her whereabouts have included that she
participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled
to Nairobi as one of many recent highschool graduates (see AASF Report
1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan
independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s
family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s
birth.
The books containing hand written line records of
vital events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family
Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA.
The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several
events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and
spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded
in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in
1961. Barack Obama is said to have died
in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but
no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’
desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from
British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged
son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became
official in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the
specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs
indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health
offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the
National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to
20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or
names of the children, only gender.
However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual
microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed
in the archives. According to
researchers, Obama’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference
books. Not surprisingly, when
researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the
Obama birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held
under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied
access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of
1958.
However, evidence shows these records were
available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of
arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
Several sources show that Secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial
protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August
of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clintons arrival since she
did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on
her two week trip to Africa.
OBAMA’S
FATHER FAILED TO INCLUDE BIRTH OF “SON” ON INS APPLICATION
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s
difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the
elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend
his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama,
unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same
month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the
memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after
Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian
Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name is newborn son on an
application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and
illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have
fortified Obama’s application for an extension.
The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent
of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American
citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film
“Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is
not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the
digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was
posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been
forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a
digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.
THE UGLY
TRUTH
However, the sad and pathetic truth about Obama’s
covert natal history and his illegitimacy lies at the bottom of a sordid pit of
lies surrounding the paternity of his birth.
Doubts about his identity, his eligibility, his intentions, his honesty
and his honorability as a man stem from what appears to be an ugly truth about
his mother’s probable sexual involvement with multiple men associated with the
radical socialist movement in 1960’s Hawaii.
Obama and his horde of abettors defend an
improbable narrative about his identity.
The veracity of this narrative has been damaged under the weight of a
steady stream of crushing evidence demonstrating more than 180 disparities and
contradictions to Obama’s claims of natal legitimacy as president.
If Obama’s cause as a usurper of power is to avenge
his father’s culture, he made the worst possible error in lying about who he
is. Vintage America is on to him. Their instincts are slowly turning Obama’s
fantasy of a socialist utopia for those he believes are humanity’s offended into
a laughingstock. By building his vision
for America on clay feet of lies about his who he is, he has undermined any
intention of doing something good and right.
He is not to be trusted.
Moreover, Obama is learning the painful lesson that
a message of “Hope and Change” means something vastly different to vintage
America, the most powerful and affluent culture in human history, when that
message has been proven to come from someone as audaciously dishonest and
deceptively calculating as this son of otherness.
Recall, in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen
after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection
protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended
after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict
confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after
birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted
or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may
not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it,
or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential
under HRS 571. In some cases, the
biological father may not even know he is the father if the mother has had more
than one sexual partner prior to the pregnancy.
There was no DNA test in 1961, however the 1961 Vital Statistics of the
U.S. Report shows there were more than 1000 such “illegitimate” births reported
in the state of Hawaii during that year, about 1 in 17.
Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual
time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld
as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive
father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from
stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible
to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record
is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
However, notations indicating that a certificate
contains updated paternal information would be typed or printed in the lower
margin of the new certificate, below the signature section. This lower margin of the image of Obama’s
certificate has been shown by computer experts to be concealed by forgers using
a “clipping mask”. A clipping mask is a
feature available in Adobe software which limits the viewable area on a document
image through which only selected information can be seen. In the case of Obama’s forged certificate,
the information we have been allowed to see within the frame of the clipping
mask may merely reflect an amended birth record while concealing notations of
the amendments which exists in the lower margin outside the frame of the
clipping mask.
Regardless of any level of truth about any
individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the
product of criminals and liars.
If Obama is not the biological father, or if
paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the
state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents
to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to
uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in
American history. Judges are simply
washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence
against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a
redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the
legal crisis such a revelation would cause.
Cowardly judges refuse to allow any exposure
Obama’s actual natural born identity and, in their dereliction, have conjured a
legal fantasy filled with pressurizing wrath in which a candidate’s eligibility
for president is not only declared legally uncontestable but is also
automatically preeminent. In allowing
this, judges have allowed a dangerous precedent in which any foreign invader can
covertly usurp the power of the U.S. government simply by lying about their
citizenship status and hiding documentation with the help of the American media
and a complicit legal system.
THE
MARRIAGE SHAM
On his application, when asked the name and address
of his spouse, it appears Obama may have first written the name of his actual
wife in Kenya before blacking it out and writing “Ann S. Dunham”.
Despite evidence indicating that Obama was
simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to
be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the
U.S. There is no evidence or testimony
that Obama ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after
being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most
importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the
marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in
1964. However, images posted of the
court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a
marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s
child. A review of the court documents
shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby
Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.
THE INS’
PERSPECTIVE
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would
be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or
public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were
ever married or that Obama had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged
wedding with Dunham. This fact supports
the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about
the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive
of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa
expiration just days after the birth of her child.
From the perspective of an INS agent, the
circumstances surrounding Obama’s relationship with Dunham would have raised
suspicions. Immigration fraud was
rampant during Hawaii’s foreign birth accommodation era in the 1960’s.
Since Obama was a foreigner wanting to extend his
temporary visa, the INS certainly understood that by claiming a marriage to
Dunham, it would promote INS approval of an extension, but in Dunham’s case
there was an added risk to the relationship for Obama…she was pregnant.
It appears, from the contents of documents in
Obama’s INS file, when pressed by INS agents and school officials on the actual
validity of his relationship to Dunham and baby Obama, having certainly been
advised of legal ramifications for lying, he refused to name Obama as his child
but maintained that he was married to Dunham.
This indicates that Obama was either not certain if he was the biological
father, or that he knew he wasn’t.
Under child protection laws in many states,
including Hawaii, when the biological father is deceased or unidentified by the
mother, the man who is married to the mother at the time she gives birth
automatically becomes the father named on the official birth certificate until
it is proven in court that he is not the biological father. “Mandatory Legitimacy” applies even if the
birth is the result of adultery, when the mother is married at the time of
birth, until paternity is successfully contested. Today, DNA testing allows for conclusive
determinations about paternity, but in 1961, it was more difficult to determine
paternity. Hawaii’s child welfare
statutes indicate the “statutory” father’s name on the certificate may be
removed by court order, if paternity is successfully contested, after a judge
has decided the case in the interest of the child’s welfare. This law is intended to protect the child if
the mother dies.
DELUSIONS OF LEGITIMACY
Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor
Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections
official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record
of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties
to verify his eligibility. The absence
of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the
chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama
was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president when he
submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy
Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin
Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after
controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the
commission.
Ignorance, lies and lack of understanding about the
difference between a medically
verified birth and a legal
registration of birth has confused the public about Obama’s natal history
and eligibility.
Liars and abettors in media and government,
drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their
Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion
that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian
newspapers.
The elder Obama’s name appears as the father of a
newborn son in images of two birth announcements appearing in two Honolulu
newspapers on August 13th and 14th, 1961. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 were
published automatically from a birth registration list provided directly to
the papers by the Hawaiian Department of Health. The notifications of births provided to the
Health Department, however, were not only the product of information provided by
hospitals and doctors, alone.
The distinction between the information used by the
hospital to create a “Certificate of Live Birth” and the information used by the
Department of Health to create a birth registration is that information used to
create birth registrations were allowed to be submitted from anyone possessing
credible information about the birth, including family members, witnesses or
attendants, regardless of the actual location of the birth. Contrarily, the information on a “Live Birth”
record must be verified and attested by a licensed medical doctor qualified to
determine the characteristics of a live birth event. This is important in cases when a distinction
was needed between a “still birth” and a baby that may have been born alive but
then died upon delivery. In the latter
case, both a birth certificate and a death certificate are required while a
still birth requires only a death certificate because of the definition of a
live birth under HRS 338-1.
Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign
births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual
location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by
the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data
from births with decadal Census figures.
Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting guidelines are not
conducive with determining the natural born status of the child.
For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted
all residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the
Census when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county through
the information provided by others. This
applies even today.
Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was
determined that births must be accounted the same way for all usual residents
regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event when that resident
mother intended to return to that county.
In Hawaii, if a child did not have an official certificate prior to the
mother’s return, the local Health Department was obligated to provide one under
the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public
Health Regulations and HRS 338.
The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s
economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census takes precedence
over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. Vital statistics are reported annually, but
the Census only occurs every ten years which means there is large volume of
population which goes untracked between Census years. If births and deaths were not allocated to
the residents of each county, regardless of the location of the vital event, the
results would cause large disparities when compared with the Census data.