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 Of
THE DAILY PEN
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.
Following a six month investigation by an Arizona-based law enforcement agency proving that the image of Barack Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally fabricated forgery, it has now been confirmed that the information contained in the document, which claims he was born in the state of Hawaii, is nothing more than the result of a widely misunderstood statistical reporting trick.
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.
Though commonly practiced by vital records data collection agencies of federal and state governments as a means of defining “residency” in birth data reporting, the policy completely disqualifies birth records as the only source of information about a candidate to determine Natural-born eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
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.
The truth about this information is so damning to Obama’s fraudulent assertions of presidential eligibility, counterfeiters and leftist propagandists operating on behalf the liberal establishment chose to digitally fabricate, conceal and misrepresent these critical facts prior to submitting public information about Obama’s natal history.
CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MISALLOCATION OF BIRTHPLACE
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.
Entries to Obama’s alleged 1961 birth certificate show his mother’s place of residence 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.”
This scientifically induced indemnity is a logical, but arbitrary, manifestation of statistical standardization meant to preserve the referential integrity between data taken from natal records and their relationship with decadal census population data.
Whereas a population exists continuously and is attributable to a specific geographic location, a birth must, therefore, also be attributable to that same specific location if it is to be considered a valid impact on that population. However, the incongruence between the two data sources is that a birth is a momentary event which has the potential to occur anywhere. This fact affects the constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, whereas a birth’s impact on resident population is a continuously occurring entity defined under the Census Bureau’s treatment of residency, not citizenship.
This statistical methodology disqualifies birth certificates from serving as a source of personal information for determining eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency because it fails to accurately define the citizenship status of the subjects therein. Therefore, Obama’s birth certificate, regardless of its authenticity cannot be used as the primary source of information to qualify his candidacy. The reasons for this are circumspect and inescapable. To violate them brings devastating consequences to those who remain ignorant of their altruistic purpose and enduring implications.
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.
THE END OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY…BEFORE IT EVEN BEGAN
According to Barack Obama, a natural-born citizen is an individual who is naturally born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.
Stunningly, Obama, himself, confirmed this definition of a Natural-born citizen in 2008 when he sponsored and voted for passage of Senate Resolution 511 which explicitly states that a candidate for U.S. President is a Natural-born citizen definitively and exclusively because he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. The resolution was debated and passed unanimously without inquiry approving the eligibility of Republican candidate, John McCain, during the 2008 election campaign.
McCain was born in Panama in 1936, while regionally under the jurisdiction of the United States following the construction of the Panama Canal, to two U.S. citizen parents who were living there while his father was serving in the U.S. military.
While media abettors like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to report on Obama’s blatant hypocrisy in this matter, Congress ignorantly refused to apply Senate Resolution 511 in equal and likewise measure to the candidacy of Barack Obama whose alleged father, as unequivocally displayed on his alleged birth certificate and confirmed by millions of sources for decades, was never a citizen of the United States.
This fact, alone, bolstered by Obama’s fraudulent natal record and his acceptance of Senate Resolution 511, serves as the only necessary fact needed to convict Obama as an illegitimate president under the U.S. Constitution. By his own validation of a definition of Natural born citizenship under which he fails to qualify himself, without the provision of an amended constitutional law in his favor, Barack Obama is declared illegitimate by his own hand.
Also, in July of 2009, the Director of the State Health Department in Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino, made an assertion, violating her authority and jurisdiction, that Barack Obama was a “natural born citizen.”
In light of the evidence discovered for this report, Fukino violated her jurisdiction because she had only the authority to determine Hawaiian “residency” status, not American “citizenship” status in the reporting of vital records.
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.
Directives published in federal guidelines provided to Fukino by the National Center for Health Statistics now confirm that she was not only factually incorrect while infringing upon the federal jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service by attempting to declare Obama’s citizenship status, she intentionally lied about it to avert inquiry about the methods used by the State of Hawaii to explicitly issue and process birth records to children born to U.S. residents while outside of the United States.
Having full knowledge of the policy which directed the registrar in 1961 to allocate Obama’s birthplace to his mother’s place of residence, having seen Obama’s “original vital records”, knowing Obama’s actual place of birth was outside of the United States, Fukino intentionally misled the American people in a formal press release by stating that Obama was a Natural-born citizen when she knew he was not.
We now know the information on Obama alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is fraudulent. However, even if it was not counterfeited, it is still not reliable in providing conclusive indication of the actual place of occurrence of birth because of Hawaii’s birthplace by residence allocation policy.
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”. Foreign Birth Transcript Exchange
Beginning in 1937, four years after the establishment of the standard U.S. vital statistics registration area, the Vital Statistics of the United States Report published the first natal statistics which were provided from thousands of transcripts exchanged between foreign-based vital records offices and domestic Vital Records offices in the U.S.
One such table of this data can be seen in the Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in 1945 which shows there were 52,269 “Resident Transcripts” added to the natal statistics data in the U.S. while the balance of the same number of non-resident transcripts were subtracted. These transcripts were those natal statistics from births which occurred outside of the United States, but which were reported (on the U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”), filed and allocated to a place of residence in the U.S. The table explicitly cites under footnote 1 that these transcripts include “allocations of births which occurred outside of the United States.”
In the earliest available Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, the National Vital Statistics Office provides the most damning historical indictments against the use of vital records for anything other than providing statistical indicators for determining public health service implementation. Throughout the entire history of vital records collection and reporting, there is absolutely no historical documentation in any NCHS or Vital Statistics office publication since 1900 which promotes the use of vital records for determining the eligibility of politicians to serve in American government, especially for the Presidency. The reasons are unequivocally defined.
Recall, the primary purpose of vital records is not to provide an accurate location of the occurrence of a vital event as much as it is supposed to allow an interpretation of data which reflects the vital event’s impact on the municipal and public health services of the attributed geographic population. Therefore, the federal government created data exchanges between foreign and domestic vital records offices which were intended to balance the impact of foreign vital event data on domestic Census population data. The answer to this need for statistical balance was to allocate foreign birth occurrence to the mother’s place of U.S. residence.
Obama’s Natal Data Tape File
Therefore, in the alleged year of Obama’s birth, as in years prior and since, Hawaii’s 1961 natality data was compiled on the same basis as population data from the 1960 census, with regard to geographic consistency. This required that foreign births be allocated in such a way that they would be accounted accurately based on their impact on Hawaii’s population rates. Logically, otherwise, if foreign births to Hawaiian residents were not accounted, they would not be included in the natality data and therefore, would cause a skewed result when compared with Census population data.
In order to align the two data sets in the state, the Hawaiian Health Department was queued by the federal government, along with the other states, to implement rules which allowed a reallocation of foreign births as occurring in the same location as the mother’s place of residence. That way, when natality data, mortality data and census data were compared, the result was an accurate representation of the impact of vital events on Hawaii’s population, and the population of the U.S. as a whole.
The Vital Statistics Instruction Manual provides a concise description of methodology used to transcribe data from birth certificates. The data was entered manually on to punch cards which were fed into a computer. The resulting data was stored on data tape files in the form of data strings containing the codes which refer to the characteristics, demography, time, date, location and metrics of the birth. The State of Hawaii and the NCHS maintains these data tape file records in their respective archive facilities. These records, as so mentioned in the Instruction manual, have always been available to the public for research purposes. Since Obama’s birth certificate was coded for tabulation processing, his data tape file would appear in the following format containing the data which we already know as follows:
1151196110641231202208002195120295119111801111110125XXXX108XXXXXX1315XXXXX77770000000000000000000065XX8XXXXXXXXXXXX The “X”s represent data codes which have never been disclosed to the public and are related to medical information and data input by the State of Hawaii for internal uses only. However, the first 40 digits of this string are those required to determine if Obama’s birth records are legitimate. They contain the year, the certificate number, his gender, the actual location of the birth, the age of his mother, the age of his father and biographical and professional information of all those bearing witness to the birth. If any part of the data string does not match the data shown on the certificate, it can be concluded that his certificate fails to support his claim to natural born citizenship thereby forfeiting his eligibility as president.
CONCLUSION: OBAMA’S BIRTHPLACE BY PROXY
The standard of eligibility for any candidate aspiring for the U.S. president was declared in the Constitution 250 years before Obama was fraudulently elected. In 1961, Hawaii’s birth reporting methods and residency definitions fell short of that standard because they do not clarify natural-born citizenship status, they merely allocated native birth status based on residency.
As stated by the National Center for Health Statistics, the purpose of a vital record is to establish the referential integrity between decadal Census population data and the occurrence of vital events for the effective implementation of public health resources. It is not meant to establish evidentiary consistency in determining eligibility for political office.
The “Current Population Report” Series 98, 223 and 229 published by the Bureau of Census, which were available in 1961, indicate that the population data of the state of Hawaii was enumerated on April 1st of 1961 following the 1960 Census. This means that, based on commonly accepted accounts, Ann Dunham was counted in this census data having moved to the islands with her parents after graduation from high school, in the summer of 1960.
The United States conducts a Census once every ten years. However, vital statistics (births, deaths, abortions, marriages and divorces) are collected annually. Over the course of ten years between Census data collection, many factors impact the consistency of data because of variability in the circumstances related to vital events.
The ability for people to travel outside of their areas of residence must be considered when calculating the impact of the vital events on the population where those people live. Not everyone is born in the same place where the parents claim residence and not everyone dies in the same place where they claim residence. However, those events impact the population of the community where they reside if they did not permanently move prior to those vital events. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) explicitly states that “vital statistics take on their full value only when they are related to population figures by the computation of birth and death rates.”
This means that birth statistics are only valuable if they are relatable to the decadal Census data recorded before them and population estimates occurring simultaneously.
With regard to the birth of Barack Obama, this means that his natal statistics are valuable only when they are related to the population of Hawaii because that geographic population is impacted by the computation of his birth, as a part of the rates affecting those who are considered the constituency of Hawaiian population.
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.