The Daily Blogspot
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.)
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.
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.
