Take A Stand Volume I, issue 3 17 March, 2012

hollandmarigoldOil and Offshore

Nov 8, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

204 views


Take A Stand

Volume I, issue 3

17 March, 2012

Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself

from
The Washington Times

http://times247.com/articles/forgerygate
-
ignoring
-
arpaio
-
s
-
report
-
is
-
a
-
scandal
-
in
-
itself

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Is President Obama’s birth
certificate

a forgery? Sheriff Joe Arpaio

of Maricopa County, Ariz.,
believes it is. He recently held a press conference in Phoenix to discuss the findings of a new 10
-
page report. Mr. Arpaio’s investigators have come to a stunning conclusion: The long
-
form birth
certificate Mr. Obama released la
st year is a “computer
-
generated forgery.”


With the exception of The Washington Times, however, no major U.S. media outlet reported this
bombshell story. The liberal press corps is desperately trying to suppress any discussion of
Forgerygate


potentially

one of the biggest scandals in American history. The media class is
betraying its fundamental mission to pursue the truth.



“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that
these documents are authentic,
” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long
-
form
birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as
claimed by the White House.”


The Washington Times story, written by Stephen Dinan, point
s out that Mr. Arpaio has called for
Congress to investigate the matter. Think about this: A high
-
profile sheriff orders a team of
former law enforcement officials to examine whether the president is truly a natural born citizen
and that he has the constit
utional and legal right to occupy the White House. Their official report
is that Mr. Obama’s documents are shoddy and he likely engaged in deliberate fraud. And yet,
most of the American press corps doesn’t believe this is an important news story? The libe
ral
media has become rotten to the core.


Ironically, the foreign press reported widely on the story. For example,
Pravda



that’s right, the
fo
rmer official organ of the Soviet Communist Party


did an extensive analysis of Mr.
Arpaio’s findings. The article by Dianna Cotter asks the obvious question: What are U.S.
journalists afraid of?


The answer is that the issue strikes at the heart of Mr. O
bama’s administration: If his presidency
is illegal, then all of his accomplishments


the stimulus, Obamacare, the contraceptive
mandate, the government takeover of the
auto

sector and appointments to the Supreme Court


are illegitimate as well. The scan
dal would trigger a constitutional crisis.


Following Mr. Obama’s surprise news conference last year, when he unveiled the long
-
form
certificate, the media insisted that the controversy was settled once and for all. The "birthers"
supposedly had been silen
ced. Mr. Arpaio’s report, however, changes that. The issue has been
resuscitated


except in the eyes of the mainstream media.


A prominent sheriff says he has damning evidence that Mr. Obama probably lied to the public.
The international media believes it
’s a big deal; many Americans
agree
. They want to get to the
bottom of it. Yet, the liberal hacks at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and
MSNBC can do nothing more than yawn.


Contrast this with their treatment of President George W. Bush. Thro
ughout the Bush years it
was open season: routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, charges of being a war criminal, calls for
impeachment, trumped
-
up scandals like the Valerie Plame affair, investigations into the partying
habits of his teenage daughters, stor
ies about Mr. Bush’s drinking as a younger man, his National
Guard service and mediocre college grades


journalists left no stone unturned, no questions
unanswered, no topic was beyond the pale.


Not with Mr. Obama. In fact, the opposite is true: Almost e
verything pertinent is not to be
touched. He is the least
-
vetted president in modern memory. During the 2008 campaign, the
liberal media deliberately propped up Mr. Obama. They suppressed vital information about his
radical past and deep ties to virulent r
evolutionary leftists


the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill
Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Derrick Bell, Saul Alinsky and Edward Said. For all of their
differences, they share one value in common: hatred for traditional America.


To this day, Mr. Obama’s college tran
scripts, undergraduate thesis and health records remain
sealed. We know little about his years in Indonesia as a young boy; his overseas trips to countries
like Pakistan in the 1980s; his relationship with his mother and Muslim stepfather; and his time
spe
nt as a “community organizer” in Chicago. In short, the president’s past is clouded in
mystery. This is not conspiracy
-
mongering, but objective fact. Americans have a right to know
who their commander
-
in
-
chief really is. Instead, the media wants to bury an
y debate or inquiry
into Mr. Obama’s background.


Whether you believe Mr. Obama’s long
-
form birth certificate is a forgery or not, Mr. Arpaio
should be applauded. He has done our nation a huge service. He is asking the press corps to look
into an issue of
the highest importance: Has the president committed a monstrous hoax and fraud
upon the American people? In particular, the sheriff’s team has identified a supposed “person of
interest” who they believe played a pivotal role in Forgerygate. The media must
follow up on the
story. If it is false, then Mr. Arpaio will be rightly humiliated and publicly discredited. But if


and I stress
if



it is true, then the press will have unearthed a scandal that will shake this
country to its very foundations. Either wa
y, it’s time the media did their job and stop acting like
Mr. Obama’s poodles.


RUSH: Media Ignoring Sheriff Joe Death Threat

from
WND.com

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/rush
-
media
-
ignoring
-
sheriff
-
joe
-
death
-
threat/

By Joe Kovacs

PALM BEACH, Fla.


The U.S. national media are intentionally ignoring the case of a
Tennessee man convicted of making death threats against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio because
the man is described as an Obama “fanatic.”

That’s the claim of radio giant Rush
Limbaugh who says mainstream news media would be
giving the case high prominence if a conservative person were making threats against a liberal.

On Wednesday,
WND repor
ted

on the conviction of Adam Eugene Cox, 33, of Knoxville, Tenn.,
who pleaded guilty to graphically threatening Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, possibly in
connection with the lawman’s investigation into the president’s eligibility for office.

Among C
ox’s Internet postings: “I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand
bullet holes before the year is out. I promise you this. He won’t f**k with Obama. He will be
buried 10 feet under and his whole family will be murdered along with him.


Besides WND, only the Daily Caller and a few local television and radio stations in Arizona and
Tennessee have apparently covered the story, according to a
Google News search
.

“You notice how little coverage this has gotten from the mainstream media?” Limbaugh asked
on his top
-
rated program this afternoon.

“Can you imagine if s
omebody had threatened to kill


take your pick


and it was learned that
they were avid supporters of Sarah Palin? Do you think you’d hear about it? Do you think it
would be all over the news and do you think the media would try to go find evidence on Sar
ah
Palin’s Facebook page on what could have inspired this insane lunatic to go try to kill
somebody? Here you have an avid Obama supporter [committing the crime].”

He reminded his audience that Arizona was scene of the tragic shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabriell
e
Giffords, D
-
Ariz., and others in January of last year.

“Now the media, when Gabrielle Giffords was shot, blamed Palin, and then they next tried to
blame me. And neither of us, of course, had anything to do with it. The lunatic was not even
political. And

now we have an absolute political lunatic, a big supporter of Obama’s threatening
to kill Joe Arpaio and his family and the media’s asleep. They’re not interested. The perp is an
Obama supporter.

“Now, just imagine if it were a conservative threatening a
prominent Arizona liberal with death,
and they could track it back and [implicate] Sarah Palin or some other prominent conservative.
And something else we should add. Obama went out to Arizona and made this big pitch for
civility, and ‘We must stop talking

about each other this way and we must all now be nice and
we must find ways to bridge the partisan divide.’”

Authorities say Cox’s postings indicate


and his own mother confirms


that Cox is a “fanatical
supporter” of Obama, and Arpaio’s ongoing investi
gation into the legitimacy of the president’s
purported birth certificate may have been the reason behind the threat to kill the sheriff.

As
WND reporte
d March 1
, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause
indicating the document released by the White House last April that is claimed to be Obama’s
original, long
-
form birth certificate is actually a forgery.

NOTE: In case you missed t
he news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,”
you can view it here
.

According to Knox County Sheriff’s deputies in Tennessee, Cox has a history of assault.

“I will not be intimated against pursuing this investigation into Obama’s eligibility to serve as
the president of the United States,” Arpaio said upon Cox’s arrest in January.

Several different Mexican drug cartels have threatened Arpaio’s life, placing a

contract nearing
$4 million for his execution.

“Every threat will be taken seriously, and the sheriff knows that his position often attracts threats
but he draws the line when his family is threatened,” said Deputy Chief David Trombi, whose
detectives hav
e overseen the threat investigations.

The Cox investigation first took Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies from Arizona to California
where search warrants were served on Google headquarters.

Cox pleaded guilty to harassment of Arpaio, and was immediately s
entenced to serve nearly a
year in a “bootcamp”
-
style program similar to probation, as well as ordered to pay court costs.

Congress Refuses to Investigate Obama’s Illegal Presidency Because They Fear “Black
People Behaving Like Animals”

from
The Daily Pen

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/06/congress
-
refuses
-
to
-
investigate
-
obamas.html


By
Dan Crosby

NEW YORK


There’s a scene in the movie “Payback” when th
e movie’s protagonist is holding
a gun to the head of a scared street hustler from whom he is attempting to extract the real identity
of a lying, cheating, thief who stole from him. At one point, after the hero forcibly rips a piercing
from his nose, the l
ittle weasel cries, “If I tell you his name, he will kill me.”


He then pulls back the hammer and presses the muzzle into the hustler’s sweating forehead and
says, “What do you think I’m gonna do? I’m here now, holding the gun to your head. Worry
about me.



Now that Congress has made the choice to aid and abet Barack Obama in his theft and corruption
of the U.S. Presidency, the legislative branch of American government, like the Judicial Branch
before it, has become the proverbial, pathetic hustler trying
to deny and suppress the truth about
Obama’s identity.


What is congress afraid of? The loss of American sovereignty? No. They could care less about
the blood ransom paid to even have a constitution or the sacrifices made for 300 years to call
ourselves an

independent, sovereign nation. Maybe Congress is afraid of the legislative failure of
our Constitutional protections? Nope. They think rights are given by government, not God.


Maybe they wish to avoid hurting Obama’s little feelings at the expense of our

Constitutional?


Actually, the reality is far more offensive than anyone can imagine. Congress refuses to obey it’s
Constitutional oath to protect the American people from Obama’s criminal usurpation of power
because it is afraid of…that’s right Rosa Park
s and Dr. King…angry black people.


First of all, all of you black Americans should feel insulted by Obama and this Congress. They
consider you no more than rabid, angry animals unable to control yourselves. Essentially, in
refusing to investigate Obama’s
ineligibility as President, Congress is saying to your face that
they are more afraid to uphold what is morally right and Constitutionally lawful within the very
nation you helped build with your blood, sweat and tears, because they think you are too
anima
listic to control your behavior in the face of the truth that America’s first bi
-
racial president
isn’t actually the president at all, and, moreover, he isn’t even an American citizen.


Let that soak in my black brothers and sisters. In 300 years, nothing
has changed in how this
government treats you. You are to be feared, loathed, patronized in your ignorance and pacified
in your anger by a cowardly ruling class. You are to be considered unable to understand the
difference between racialism and morality. Y
ou are not civilized human beings to this
government…you are merely a potential riot that can happen at any time. You are seen by the
color of your skin…not the content of your character.


Congress knows the truth about Obama. They already know he is a fra
ud and a criminal usurper.
That weight is crushing their ability to govern effectively because it is insanguiating the
confidence of their constituencies. Congressional integrity is bleeding out. However, they also
are aware, repressively if not consciousl
y, that they are now accountable for the fall of this nation
because of their choice to ignore the moment of truth. They failed to uphold the rule of law
prescribed in the doctrinal foundations of the Constitution, and now they are left with the teeth
-
gnas
hing reality that there are no more available precedents upon which to justify their rank and
repulsive derelictions, or their weak attempts at mitigating what they fear.


Let’s recap the reasons why Congress must investigate the identity of Barack Obama.


1. The Unenforced Definition of “Natural
-
Born Citizenship”.

The U.S. Constitution requires
that a presidential candidate be a Natural
-
Born Citizen in order to be eligible for the office of
President.


In seeking to define the meaning of "natural born citi
zenship", those who blindly support Obama
desperately seek a minimalist’s definition of the term. They desire that a natural
-
born citizen is
one to whom may be ascribed as few requirements as possible in order that a candidate, with
whom they share ideolog
ical fetishes, can be president regardless of his actual fitness for the
office. They seek to assume jurisdiction over the declaration of being “natural born” in the minds
of as many as possible while contending that "natural born citizenship" means the fe
west, most
remedial natal circumstances possible, which will allow their politigod, Barack Obama, just
enough legitimacy to squeak by and be eligible. Their definition allows Obama to merely meet
what they consider the most easily argued, though obviously
unverifiable characteristics of
Obama's obscure citizenry, in this case, his birth place.


However, unfortunately for Obama supporters, the purposed intent of our founders was not so
slight in this matter. They sought to make the meaning of being a Natural

born citizen the
highest, most laudable position of all forms of citizenry. After witnessing the corruption and
inbreeding and treasons of monarchal rule, America’s founders desired that becoming President
of the United States to be as difficult as possib
le…politically, socially and biologically. All
arguments seeking to diminish this truth are reprobate and defamatory, made in the interest of
serving one's own political lust, not defending the sovereignty of our Constitution or upholding
the value of the
blood ransom paid by our people. Hence, logically, our founders induced that the
highest form of eligibility for the highest office would be a lawful mandate.


Consider the following:


Taking survey of all possible circumstances

which, therefore, lend cred
ibility to one's claim to legitimacy, and thereby,

eligibility to lead, there is much more to consider than simply one's location

of birth. In order to meet the highest standard intended by our founders, we

must also consider that biology must also meet th
is standard.

Not only is it essential that a presidential candidate be born under the

sovereign geographic protection of our Constitution, he must also be conceived

by two parents of native citizenry, possessing U.S. citizenship.


Moreover, let's consider
further extension of this ideal

by commanding that a presidential candidate also be conceived

legitimately within the bounds of legal marriage of their parentage. Having been

measured and found wanton, those subservient to bias for persons over their

respe
ct for the office would not embrace this noble ideal. For them,

uplifting the standard of the presidency remains an inferior cause to

diminishing the requirements in order to provide access for their inferior candidate. Therefore,
they seek to minimize the

standard, not maximize the person. Of course, this would disqualify
many from being the President...as so it should!


However, let's not even stop there. We should also

assume that our founders sought to ensure that a presidential candidate had also prese
rved their
Natural
-
born citizenship from "conception to

election", never having allowed it to be revoked, or never having it revoked

even against their will. For, even those who lose their eligibility to no fault

of their own should bear up in faith that t
his is the intention of higher power,

sacrificing for the sake of sovereignty of the office rather than opportunity

for the man!


Let all of these metrics define the standards of

Natural
-
born citizenship in America. Bannish minimalism and seek the highest

mark in the spirit of exceptionalism forged by our forefathers! Hold this mantle

lest that crown be stolen by any upon the earth without seeking the interests of

God and country first! Daringly and boldly, let these marks serve as the highest

definition of

humanity's advanced citizenship and the prescribed metrics for

eligibility to be President of the U.S.!


We should set a higher bar, not lower it. It is impossible to choose one's own Natural
-
born
citizenship because it is preeminent and incumbent to one'
s birth. Historical writings, along with
related legal precedents strongly suggest this form of citizenship is achieved when natural
circumstances make it impossible for that individual to have any citizenship or allegiances other
than with the United Stat
es at the time they are elected as President. Research of America's
founding culture reveals that a very heavy emphasis was placed on legitimacy at birth. Therefore,
it is probable that one's most authentic degree of Natural born identity does not occur at

birth, but
at conception. With this in mind, we must consider that the framers of the Constitution assumed
it was commonly understood that the definition of "Natural
-
born citizenship" for a presidential
candidate to mean a citizenship status that was not
just acheived by the event of birth but that it
was a maintained status from "conception to election" in order to qualify a sovereign candidate.
This is the most complete definition of Natural born citizenship possible. There is no other
degree of more com
plete natural circumstances which can establish the status of one's existence.


Therefore, theoretically, Natural
-
born citizenship, in its purest, ineradicable form, could be
measured by three metrics: 1.) Biological conception by two U.S. citizen parents,

2.) birth in a
geographic region under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and 3.) maintenance of that
citizenship status without any unnatural interruption of parentage, legal process or administrative
procedure.


This means that their citizenship ha
s never been achieved by any legal or administration process
at or after birth. Dual citizens and expatriates are not Natural
-
Born Citizens. Those who lose
their Natural
-
born status by taking the citizenship of another country or denouncing their Natural
B
orn U.S. citizenship cannot regain it. A Natural
-
born citizen is one who was born within a
geographic region under the protections of the U.S. Constitution AND to two U.S. citizen
parents, they being either natural
-
born or legally naturalized through immig
ration or repatriation.
Despite ongoing, unanswered questions about his geographic origins, Obama does not meet the
requirements to be a Natural
-
Born citizen for two possible other reasons: 1.) because his alleged
biological father, Barack Obama Sr., was n
ot a U.S. Citizen and 2.) he was adopted by his
muslim, Indonesian step
-
father, Lolo Soetoro, in the mid 1960s thereby taking Indonesian
citizenship, thus forfeiting Natural
-
born status.


"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biologic
al, 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..."


2. The Suddenness of Obama.

T
he American public was essentially made nationally aware of
Barack Obama following his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Obama’s
emergence into national politics was not a gradual inception. It was a sudden, covert ascendance
to power seem
ingly assisted by foreign
-
like forces as an assault on vintage American conscience.


Obama was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Democratic senator from Illinois in November,
2004, after his candidacy was promoted in the state by a vastly corrupt, liberal,

Chicago
-
based
political cartel and a conglomeration of burned
-
out, 1960's, radicals like Bill Ayers and Madeline
Talbott. Then despite his lack of executive experience, in February, 2007, after only two years of
serving at the federal level, Obama announc
ed his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election
defeating Hillary Clinton, a 17
-
year veteran of federal politics and former First Lady, for the
Democratic Party Nomination. Obama went on to then defeat John McCain, a decorated war
veteran and a 34
-
year

seasoned expert in federal politics as a longstanding Arizona senator,
having been elected by a bowing consensus of ashamed white liberals, Bush
-
hating radicals and
angry, racist minorities seeking reparative justice.


By all observable metrics, Obama sho
uld have been considered nothing but a long shot to
contend for the DNC nomination. Instead, he defied these odds and even his own advice when,
in 2005, he said, “In order to run for president, a person needs to know what they are getting
into…I am not con
fident I have that experience yet.”


3. The Foundations of Natural Born Citizenry.

When the founders of America wrote the
Constitution, they included the “Natural
-
born” mandate in order to ensure that no President
would be subject to, or exercise, a plural
ity of political interests in their international
relationships. Having experienced the corruption of a monarchy in Great Britain for generations,
the founders of America, after declaring and defending their right to freedom from that
corruption during the

Revolutionary War, wrote the constitution within the legal framework of
empowering inalienable rights and protection of the American people, not empowering the
government. Upon declaring independence from the crown, after seeing the destructive
consequenc
es of an intermingling of international loyalty through forced Royal intermarriage, in
-
breeding, monarchal polytheism, power sharing, birthright subversion and support of covert
insurrections of inferior nations, the founders made it a law that any Preside
nt had to be a
Natural
-
born citizen.


4. Logan Act Violated By Obama.

With this mind, we learned, in October, 2008, that American
author and columnist, Jerome Corsi was arrested while visiting Kenya during an investigation
which revealed that Barack Obama
had actively campaigned for and contributed money to
Kenya’s Democratic Socialist Orange Party candidate, Raila Odinga, from 2006 to 2008. Corsi
had traveled to Kenya and acquired correspondence and documented evidence showing that
Odinga, a fellow Luo tri
be descendant and alleged paternal cousin of Obama, had entered into a
written agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a highly influential and
radical Kenyan Islamic foundation, seeking Odinga’s support for, among other things, Sharia
L
aw, in exchange for the Islamic group’s support of Odinga’s candidacy. The evidence acquired
by Corsi also shows that Obama was aware of this agreement even while he was raising more
than a million dollars of American money to support Odinga’s campaign. Th
e Orange Party
Movement is the communist opposition party to President, Mwai Kibaki’s Party of National
Unity (PNU).


Obama’s involvement in the Kenyan election, while an elected official of the U.S., was clearly a
violation the Logan Act which prohibits A
merican politicians from influencing or participating
in foreign elections. The Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has
refused to pursue any investigation of Obama’s activities with Odinga in Kenya in 2006 until
2008. In 2008, video

of Obama’s speeches on behalf of Odinga surfaced on YouTube and
several other websites which clearly show Obama stumping for Odinga. In the aftermath of the
December, 2007 election, which Odinga lost, the Orange party leadership and members of
Kenya’s Luo

tribe incited violence among his radical constituents. Kenyan Muslims engaged in a
week long violent demonstration in which they burned nearly 1000 Christian churches and
murdered almost 1000 of Odinga’s political opposition which are members of the predo
minantly
Christian, Kikuyu tribe. Under the threat of this violence, with the support of Obama and the
Bush administration, the Kenyan majority PNU Party was forced to take an unprecedented action
in the history of its government by artificially amending i
ts constitution in order to create a
leadership position for Odinga who was ensconced as the country’s first Prime Minister in April,
2008. The tragic events and violence of the 2007 Kenyan election were the exact consequences
the founders of America were
trying to prohibit U.S. government officials from instigating or
being influenced by.


Obama’s geopolitical connections, along with his probable biological relationship with the
Kenyan Communist party, now an active part of the Kenyan government, creates a

relationship
vulnerable to illicit influence. Obama has now brought that illicit relationship, and all of its
consequences, with him into the office of the U.S. Presidency. The founders wisely understood
that the mandate of Natural born citizenry for a Pr
esident is the best possible protection against
such vulnerability.


5. Suspicious Nomination Certifications.

In July, 2009, documents were revealed showing that
Obama was never officially certified to run for president under the provisions of the U.S.
Con
stitution, by the Hawaiian Democratic Party. On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic
Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the
following words:


"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President

and Vice President of the
United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic
Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in
the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at

the National Democratic Convention held August 27,
2008 in Denver, Colorado."


In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential
election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state
's Democratic
candidate with the following words:


"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the
United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States
Constitution..."


Notice that

the wording of HDP's 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words
"...under the provision of the United States Constitution..."


Upon receiving Hawaii's State Nomination Certification for Obama, which omits the reference to
the Constitutional

legality of Obama's nomination, the National Democratic Party Office created
two separate documents with the same header title, "Official Certification of Nomination", both
versions were signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the Democratic National Convention,

and Alicia
Travis Germond, Secretary of the Democratic National Convention and notarized by a Denver
notary. One of these versions was sent from the National Democratic Party headquarters to each
of the 49 states' Democratic Party headquarters. However, o
nly the State of Hawaii received an
Official Certification of Nomination from the DNC containing the words:


"...the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States

are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the Unite
d States Constitution..."


The document then lists Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the candidates. However, the rest of the
49 states received a different Official Certification of Nomination containing the words:


"...the following were duly nominated as ca
ndidates of said party for President and Vice

President of the United States, respectively..."


Why was the state of Hawaii's local Democratic Party headquarters sent a different OCON
document from the National Party headquarters than the other 49 states?


There is strong evidence suggesting that Hawaii's local Democratic Party officials refused to
certify Obama's nomination as being Constitutionally eligible. As a result, Hawaii’s Election
Commission, headed by Kevin Cronin, jockeying behind closed doors,
refused to place Obama
on the Hawaiian ballot under Hawaiian Election laws mandating that every candidate seeking
placement on the Hawaiian presidential election ballot must be certified as “Constitutionally
eligible to hold the office of President of the
United States”.


Since the DPH refused to place this language in its Official Certification of Nomination, Obama,
therefore, required that the National Party Committee, headed by none other than Nancy Pelosi,
take responsibility for declaring the constitut
ional eligibility of his nomination under the
provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though his eligibility had never been vetted or verified
as legal. This has never happened in the history of America’s vetting endorsement process and
indicates that th
e Democratic National Party leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, was made
aware that there was a legal problem with Obama's candidacy. However, the DNC certified it
anyway and, in doing so, committed federal election fraud.


6. State Ballot
-
Fail!

It is the
responsibility of each states' party head office to certify that their
candidate is Constitutionally eligible to serve in coordination with their state’s laws. Since
Obama was not Constitutionally certified to run in the state of Hawaii in 2008, no other
S
ecretary of State, in any state, ever confirmed that Obama was vetted by federal or party
authorities in their state prior to being placed on the 2008 Presidential ballot there. In fact, nearly
a dozen Secretaries of State, including Hawaii’s, have officia
lly refused to reveal any
information about the vetting of Barack Obama in their state because they simply cannot even
show that he was actually proven to be eligible there.


7. PUMA: The First Birthers.

In early summer, 2007, the so called “Birther” consp
iracy theory
was first created
by renegade members of an ultra
-
leftist group known as the PUMAs. (That’s
right! They were leftists). They were a splinter group of hard
-
core Hillary Clinton supporters
who did not want to surrender the Democrat party nomination to Obama after a hard fought
campaign leading to the 2008 Democratic nomination. In June, 2008, PUMAParty.com began
promoting the idea that their party’s nomination of Barack Obama could be overtu
rned on
constitutional grounds that he was not eligible to be president based on the fact that he may not
be a natural born citizen. Thus, the Birther movement actually began in the minds of liberals, not
“right
-
wing nuts” as Obama zealots love to claim.


8. Hawaiian Certi
-
Fiction.

Shortly after PUMAparty.com began clamoring for a more thorough
review of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, the image of a document containing sparse
information about Obama’s alleged birth was posted on the internet by undiscl
osed sources, from
an unknown origin. The image appeared on extreme leftwing websites like the Daily Kos, The
Huffington Post and later on two websites claiming to be non
-
partisan reviewers, Factcheck.org
and politifact.com. One of the fact checking sites
is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation
from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant. Obama served as
the chair on the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Project in 2002.


9. CertificaTION Of Identity, not Natural
Birth.

The 2008 document image was determined
to be created by an unknown source from a digital template form of a Hawaiian “Certification of
Live Birth” which is a surrogate, independently published, municipal cover document issued to
those applying for c
opies of birth certificates in the state of Hawaii since 2000. In response to
Y2K system updates the State of Hawaii began migrating from paper copies of original birth
records to digitally created printed documents. The state of Hawaii openly admits to ch
anging its
document format under the guise of preventing identity theft.


10. Cartoon Fun.

In 2009, it was demonstrated by three separate document specialists that an
image of the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” was easily constructed and falsely
au
thenticated using two different medical imaging software programs. This demonstration
discredited the State of Hawaii’s claims that its “Certification of Live Birth” provided better
protection against identity theft than old paper copies of the Certificate

of Live Birth.


11. Department of Hawaiian Native Homelands.

The Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”
was found to be so unreliable in clarifying the bearer’s legal and demographic identity that the
State of Hawaii’s own Department of Native Homelands r
efused to accept it as a primary source
of identification for its applicants seeking to purchase Hawaiian land reserved for genealogically
native Hawaiians. Before 2010, the agency’s website stated:


"In order to process your application for identification

as a native Hawaiian, the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault
Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either
black or green. This

is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a
computer
-
generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you
time and money since the computer
-
generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requ
ires additional
verification…"


Only after it was determined that the Department of Hawaiian Homeland’s policy against the
Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” conflicted with another Hawaiian state agency, the
Department of Health’s, political endorseme
nt of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, was
the policy changed and the wording against the credibility of the document scrubbed from its
website. This led many to accuse the State of Hawaii government of selling out to protect against
exposing th
e ineligibility of Obama rather than upholding the eligibility of thousands of potential
native land owners in Hawaii. Some actually accused Hawaii’s land management of selling out
to a liar while native Hawaiians were at risk of being deprived of their ri
ght to purchase native
lands because non
-
natives could now use a less credible version of identification when applying
for a land purchase.


12. Hawaii Denies COLB Image.
After all was said and done, the State of Hawaii has refused
to ever confirm that it
issued the 2008 document image. In light of sophisticated, digitally based
document imaging technology, the authenticity of the image remains highly questionable,
especially without the official endorsement of the Hawaiian Health Department. Some
independe
nt reviewers have, unequivocally, determined the image to be a forgery.


13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate.

On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney,
Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show
authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S.
Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in
Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed sim
ilar suits including Alan
Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges
refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases. Some judges have even gone on record as
saying the reason they dismissed their ca
se was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility
had already been answered on Twitter.” Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million
dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth
certificate, which cos
ts about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.


14. Executive Order No. 13489.

Obama was ensconced as President on January 20, 2009. Just
one day after his inauguration, he signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially violates
the Freedom of
Information Act and prohibits the release of Obama’s personal and presidential
records, during and after his presidency, by the National Archives without first being consulted
by the National Archives Director and the Attorney General. Seven days later, Ob
ama gave his
famous “Transparency Will Be the Touchstone of This Administration" speech in which he
hypocritically admonished previous administrations for what he feels are "too many secrets kept
by government in Washington". Obama vowed to change how gove
rnment deals with secret
information by making his administration more open. Since this dishonest, landmark speech, the
Administration has fought to keep Obama’s past secret more than any other President in
American history.


15. LTC Terry Lakin.

In April,

2008, after the fraudulent dismissal of more than two dozen
civilian court cases which had been filed against Obama attempting to force him to produce
original documented evidence of his natal identity, a highly decorated officer with more than 17
years o
f unblemished service in the U.S. Army brought the Obama eligibility into the active
military ranks. Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Terrence Lakin, an active duty flight surgeon serving the
President's Chief of Staff and working as a commanding ranked physician o
f a critical care
facility, refused to deploy for duty in Afghanistan under his legal right to refuse orders that he, as
an officer, believes are illegal. According to Lakin, Barack Obama has not demonstrated
provable, documented evidence that he is eligib
le to hold the office of President and is, therefore,
not legally qualified to issue orders to the United States military as Commander In Chief. Lakin’s
oath upon becoming an officer is to defend the constitution, not the president. His duty, as an
officer

to refuse deployment orders he believes are illegal, are legitimate based on clear and
concise legal grounds. Despite this fact, however, Lakin pleaded guilty to a circus court under
the command of the Obama administration’s military staff, and was senten
ce to six months in
prison and dismissal from the service. He has since been lauded and exalted for his sacrifice and
commitment to his duty to defend the Constitution. Supporters may contribute to his fund at
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/


16. The
History Of Standard U.S. Certificates of Live Birth.

As census and vital statistics
documentation methods evolved, the U.S. Department of Health has utilized a document
template with the header title, “Certificate of Live Birth” since the early 1900’s. The

U.S.
National Vital Statistics Division, since its first published data report in 1915, refers to the U.S.
“Certificate of Live Birth” as “The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National
Vital Statistics Division, has served for many year
s as the principal means of attaining
uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event.” This
document has evolved throughout a 110 year process with input from the National Conference
on Vital Records and Statisti
cs, the National Vital Statistics Division, The Census Bureau and
the municipal state agencies assigned with the responsibility of gathering, storing and reporting
natal statistics to the U.S. Department of Health. Although it has undergone state specific
revisions to support municipal laws and identity protection, it is important to note that it has
never undergone a reduction in vital data content.


17. Hawaii’s Rogue Document.

The standard, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document
template has been slig
htly revised by various states for the purpose of meeting identification and
formatting needs, such as concealing the social security numbers of the parents. However, no
state, except one, has ever reduced the overall quantity of information contained abou
t the
bearer’s natal identity, such that it is now impossible to determine their natural
-
born status, and
then used that reduction of vital information in an endorsed document form. Only the State of
Hawaii has created this form of independently published,

digital documentation.


18. Hawaii Violates Federal Guidelines.

In the entire 110 year history of the standard, official,
federal, U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” document’s existence, only the state of Hawaii has gone
astray from the standard version to

such a degree that it actually conceals one’s full natal identity
rather than reveals it. When comparing document forms, the use of the Hawaiian “Certification
of Live Birth” is an unauthorized reduction of content otherwise prescribed to confirm the
bear
er’s natal identity and, essential to verifying one’s eligibility to be a candidate for president,
the bearer’s natural born status.


19. Exploitation of Hawaii’s Lost Culture.

Because of its remote, water
-
locked, geographic
characteristics; its tumultuous

indigenous history; and a vulnerable culture altered by a
transference of sovereignty in the late 1800’s, the Hawaiian islands gained a reputation for
maintaining a vague process for documenting immigration, vital events and indigenous
population. Histori
cal archives dating between 1890 and 1941 reveal that the Hawaiian Islands
served as an unofficial, but widely pursued, sanctuary for thousands of foreign expatriates
seeking protection from political persecution in China, Japan, Southeast Asiatic nations,

the
Middle East and, later, the United States. This multicultural instability resulted in the
implementation of less than thorough procedures for recording and differentiating native born,
immigrant and indigenous populations.


One example of this surroga
te nativity was granted to a Mr. Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese expatriate
who received an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 stating that his birth had taken
place in Hawaii in November, 1870. However, later evidence revealed that Mr. Sun’s birth had
actually occurred in China in 1866. Archives reveal that the state of Hawaii has provided similar
documentation to thousands of immigrants over the years without ever confirming their age, the
birth place or their actual identity.This murky process was fur
ther complicated when Hawaii
became a state of the U.S. which demanded that it begin implementing the federal documentation
standards for U.S. citizens as well, in 1959. Vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s documentation process
created passive conditions which all
owed unidentified inhabitants to later proclaim any identity,
or multiple identities, they desired to serve their individual interests.


20. Hawaii’s Communist Past.

Based on investigations in the 1950’s and 1960’s, a
disproportionate concentration of pro
-
communist activity was found to have become a part of
Hawaiian culture. This is substantiated by an increase in the population and activity of
communist sympathizers identified by the House Committee on Un
-
American Activities
hearings conducted after WWII,

during the beginning of the cold war between the U.S. and
communist Russia. Evidence of pro
-
communist presence in Hawaii can be found in publications
like the Honolulu Record in which one of Obama’s communist mentors, Frank Marshal Davis
was a columnist.
Obama Sr. would later return to Kenya sometime in the mid 1960’s to promote
his communist economic theories and work in government with his friend and leader of Kenya’s
communist KANU party, Tom Mboya.


21. Hawaiian Document Proven Deficient.

In August, 20
08, a former U.S. Department of
Health, Office of Vital Statistics Registrar stated that the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”
cannot be considered an original birth certificate created at the time of occurrence of the birth
because “…it does not cont
ain the signature of the licensed medical professional qualified to
determine the characteristics of a live birth in accordance with administrative requirements
established by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division, and it does n
ot
contain the name and location of the hospital which issued the original record, which would be a
U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth” if the child was born in the United States.” Further investigation
of Hawaii’s revised statutes reveal that the Hawaiian De
partment of Health not only contends
with federal law, it also contradicts its own self
-
declared authority to issue falsified birth nativity
under HRS 338
-
17.


22. Hawaii’s Self
-
endowed Permission To Violate Federal Law.

Hawaii Revised Statute HRS
338
-
17.8

states:


“Certificates for children born out of State.(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents
of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor,
provided that proof has been submitted to the dir
ector of health that the legal parents of such
individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or
State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or
adoption of such

child.(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in
any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any
rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to p
revent fraudulent
applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events
necessary for completion of a birth certificate.(c) The fee for each application for registration
shall be established by rule adopted pursuant
to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”


The law permits anyone born to parents who claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year
of their birth, at any time before or after the enactment of the law, regardless of the actual
location of the birth, to recei
ve an original birth record which states that the location of birth is
Hawaii, and, therefore, occurred in the U.S. Hawaiian lawmakers have confirmed that the law is
not constrained to the date of birth. It is applicable to the date of application for the
certificate.
This means this law would enable Obama, anytime after the age of 21 to apply for and receive a
newly created original Hawaiian birth certificate after providing evidence that his mother or
father merely resided in Hawaii for one year prior to
his birth. He could have applied for this
certificate any time since is parents are known to have resided in Hawaii since 1960. He could
have been born outside of the U.S., however, the State of Hawaii is obligated by law to grant him
an original birth cer
tificate stating that Hawaii is his birth place simply because he was able to
show that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence. Moreover, the evidence provided with
Obama’s application may not be reviewed by any third party under this law. Only the
Director of
the Department of Health is granted with the authority to determine the validity and deadlines
required in providing such evidence. In essence, under Administrative Rule 91, the state of
Hawaii has empowered a state
-
level, municipal employee to

determine the federal, natural
-
born
status and therefore, the Constitutional eligibility, of any individual, even a sworn enemy of the
United States, seeking the most powerful office in the world.


23. Obama’s Own Words.

On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiograp
hy,
Dreams From My Father
,
Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s.
This document was an official copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the
office of Vital Statistics in the ci
ty where Obama was born, wherever that is. Why does Obama
not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it? Where is the official,
original birth record used to produce the document which Obama himself admits to having more
than thi
rty years before being issued a fake document from Hawaii? Why is Obama lying about
this document? What information does this document contain?


24. Obama Loses Natural
-
Born U.S. Citizenship By Adoption.

Barack Obama claims to have
lived in Indonesia with
his mother from approximately 1967 to 1971 where he assumed the
surname of his step father, Lolo Soetoro and became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Obama
became a citizen of Indonesia, he forfeited any claim he may have had to Natural
-
born
citizenship in the

U.S. Recall, a Natural
-
born citizen is one whose citizenship is achieved by
natural circumstances which, if unrevoked, make it impossible for them to have citizenship
loyalties to any other governing power. If a Natural
-
born citizen becomes a citizen of a
nother
country at any time prior to running for the office of the president, he or she is no longer eligible.
Because of this forfeiture, Obama is not eligible to be president because his Natural
-
born status
cannot be reclaimed once legal or administrative

procedures are employed to repatriate him in
the U.S. Also, despite Obama’s claims that he remained in Indonesia during this time, there is
photographic evidence placing him in Hawaii in 1969. Questions remain how and why Obama
may have traveled to Hawaii

at this time, including any documentation he used, which raises
doubts about the validity of his origins narrative, and therefore, doubts about his identity.


25. What’s In a Name?

Barry or Barack, Soetoro or Obama, or Subarkah? Records from his
time in I
ndonesia reveal that Barack Obama has used at least one other alias and possibly two.
He was registered for school under the name Barry Soetoro as a muslim student. When Obama
applied for state bar license in 1992 to practice law in Illinois, the applicati
on asked if he had
ever used an alias. He stated that he had not at that time. There is evidence that suggests Obama
was not honest about his use of other names throughout his life. Recent passport application
information submitted by his mother in the 196
0’s reveals that Obama may have had a third
surname of “Subarkah” which his mother had written on the application.


26. Dunham’s Secret Absence.

Many records exist confirming Ann Dunham’s presence in
Hawaii from late summer of 1960 until February of 1961.
However, from February until
September, 1961, there are no records or eyewitness accounts of her presence in Hawaii. In fact,
the void is quite stark. Obama was allegedly born during this void of time in Dunham’s
documented life. The next record indicating

her possible location is a class registration record
showing that she had enrolled in classes for fall term of 1961 at the University of Washington,
just two weeks after allegedly giving birth to Obama in Hawaii.


27. Dunham Too Young To Confer Citizenshi
p.

Ann Dunham turned 19 years old in
November, 1961, almost four months after Obama was allegedly born in August, 1961.
Citizenship laws in effect in the U.S. in 1961 required the mother of a child born outside the
U.S., to a foreign father, to have lived
in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years, five of which had to
be after the age of 14. Since Dunham had not yet turned 19, she was not legally able to confer
citizenship to Obama if the birth occurred outside the U.S. Therefore, Obama is, at a minimum, a
citiz
en of Great Britain. The founding fathers, in writing the eligibility mandate, having fought a
Revolutionary War against Great Britain, would have rejected Obama as a presidential candidate
for this reason.


28. Hospital Mystery.

No official records have e
ver been provided from any authoritative
source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women &
Children. Not one administrative authority from Kapi’olani has ever verified or provided original
patient records showing that Ann
Dunham was ever a maternity patient there. As a testament to
the longstanding controversy over Obama’s birth hospital, in the original ‘Early Life’ section of
Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was
born in

Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. In 2006, it was omitted
and remained blank until June, 2008 when editors stated that Obama was born in Kapi’olani
Medical Center. On January 24, 2009, Kapi’olani Medical Center, on the occa
sion of the
hospital’s centennial celebration, allegedly received a letter in which Obama wrote, “As a
beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center


the place of my birth


I am pleased
to add my voice to your voice of supporters.” It was la
ter admitted by administrators at
Kapi'olani that the letter was a facsimile created in a digital format. To date, no administrator, or
official of the Obama administration has ever confirmed that Obama was born in Kapi’olani
Medical Center.


To date, Obam
a's operatives have failed to identify the identity of Obama's actual birthing
doctor.


29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers.

In 2010, Ohio licensed private
investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed
that
President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while
there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the
number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at t
he time of Obama’s birth. Moreover,
Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was around 1975 at a Baskin
-
Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii.
The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for
applicants with Connecticut addresses a
nd start with 040 through 049.


“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,”

the Social
Security website explains,
“The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are
determined by the ZIP code of the maili
ng address shown on the application for a social security
number.”


In April, 2011, further investigation by ex
-
CIA personnel confirmed that Obama’s social security
number was fraudulently issued after the original owner of the number, who had once resided

in
Connecticut, died in Hawaii in 1977. As a result, it is now supported by evidence that Barack
Obama is committing social security fraud and that his number was issued through channels
possibly provided by his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked in
the financial and
banking industry and who had ties to communist support organizations and international
interests. It is highly likely that Obama, when issued his current social security number, was not
a legal citizen of the U.S. and, having access to re
cords through his grandmother, was allowed to
use the number after its original owner had died. It has been shown that the original owner of
Obama’s social security number had opened at least one account at the bank where Madelyn
Dunham was employed in Haw
aii in 1965.


30. Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen.

Obama’s alleged father was a Kenyan national with
citizenship in Great Britain. His birth registration is recorded in the British National Archives,
General Register Office "Registers and Returns of Birt
hs, Marriages and Deaths in the
Protectorates of Africa and Asia, 1895
-
1965". Obama's children are also contained in these
registers. He attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1961 before abandoning Obama Jr.
and Dunham to attend graduate school at

Harvard in 1962. Since Obama’s father was not a U.S.
citizen, it is impossible for Obama to be a natural
-
born citizen.


The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" which has been misrepresented as the federally
accepted, official document issued by the sta
te of Hawaii for Barack Obama's birth shows
Obama's father's race as "African". Unfortunately, this term violates the U.S. Department of
Health's acceptable classifications of race for official birth certificates. According to NVSD
protocols, Obama Sr. is
classified as a "Negro" in 1961, not "African". The term "African" is not
even an option in the NVSD manual. Africa is a continent not a race. For example, there are
white people from Africa, but they would not be categorized as "African". Using this premi
se,
we could argue that Obama's Certification of Live Birth should also list his mother's race as
"North American"? If using geographic association in describing Obama's mother's race is so
ridiculous, why is it acceptable to explain his father's?


The use

of the term "African" to describe the race of Obama's father is yet another diminishment
to the credibility and authenticity of Obama's natal records. The inclusion of such a non
-
specific,
vague, unclassifiable, misrepresentative term to describe an indiv
idual's demography only raises
yet more doubts about the ability of the Hawaiian Health Department to convey accurate vital
statisics documentation.


31. Obama Marriage Mystery.

To date, no documented evidence exists proving that a legal
marriage between B
arack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham ever occurred in the U.S. The two were
allegedly married in Hawaii in early 1961, after Obama Jr. was allegedly conceived sometime in
November, 1960. However, no public announcement, or eyewitness of the marriage or marriage
license has ever been found.


In Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father”, he states, “In fact, how and when the
marriage occurred remains a bit murky. A bill of particulars I have never quite had the courage to
explore. There is no record of a real
wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No
family members were in attendance. It is not even clear that people back in Kansas were even
informed."


Obama's admission that
'There is no record of a real wedding',

raises yet another doubt about h
is
long disseminated, life biography with regard to the status of the relationship between his
parents. The unanswered questions about his parent

s marriage contradicts the accuracy of
testimony and records declaring Obama's identity, such as his birth ann
ouncements in two
Honolulu newspapers which undeniably state that his parents were married, and divorce
documents which do not contain any reference to a legal marriage license. There are fundamental
questions about the relationship between Obama's parents

which no one has been able to answer.
If they were married in Hawaii, what is the name of the officiate presiding at the wedding?
Where did it take place? Does the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office possess a copy of the Obama's
marriage license which they
used to determined their marital status for the birth announcements?
If so, why was the Obama marriage never announced in those same papers? Why was the
wedding kept secret? Was the marriage even legal given the evidence that Obama Sr. was
already married
to a woman in Kenya?



32. Divorce Decree and Custody Documents.

In 2009, a set of what appears to be authentic
document images of a Divorce Decree shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was awarded an
uncontested divorce from Obama Sr. in March, 1964. The Divorce
was granted in a Hawaiian
civil Court on March 5, 1964 after a hearing to determine custody rights of the parents of Barack
Obama Jr. According to the document images, Dunham had filed for divorce in January, 1964.
The set of documents posted on the intern
et in 2009 are suspiciously missing the official birth
certificate of Barack Obama Jr. which was requested by the court in order to confirm parentage.


33. Obama Sr. Already Married.

Obama’s father was apparently a bigamist. He was allegedly
already married to a woman in Kenya when he allegedly married Barack Obama’s mother,
Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama’s other wife’s name was Kezia Aoko (also found as other
spellings). This would nullif
y any marriage to Dunham because it is illegal in the U.S. to be
married to more than one person.


34. Suspicious Death.

Obama Sr. died in 1982 after an alleged car accident. Recent
investigations into his death reveal unanswered questions about his declin
ing professional status
and his strained relationship with Tom Mboya after he published a scathing report called, “The
Problem with Our Socialism”, criticizing Mboya’s economic development plan for Kenya.


35. Birth Announcements.

In early 2009, researcher
s discovered announcements of Obama’s
birth in two separate Honolulu
-
based newspapers. An investigation of the procedures used to
publish birth announcements reveals that the information used by the newspapers came directly
from the Hawaiian Department of
Health’s bi
-
weekly birth registration lists. These birth
announcements are typically published for registrations over a two week period and do not
contain the location of the birth. The announcements always assume, without exception, that the
parents are m
arried, despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1


Natality” reveals that of the 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, there were 1044 illegitimate births
in which the father was not identifiable. An average of three per day!


In every case, without exception, both papers publish all announcements with the surname of the
father as if they are always married and with the assumption that two parents always exist at the
time of birth, even when the father is dead. The announcement
s do not publish the first names of
the parents or child, nor do they identify the name of the registrant. They publish the sex of the
child, the address of the registrant and the day and month of the birth. The announcements do not
print the location of t
he birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the
time of birth or the given name of the child.


36. The Paper Chase.

An analysis of all of the birth announcements published along with
Obama’s announcements in both newspapers rev
eals that both papers published the exact same
announcements, including quantity of birth announcements, in the same exact order and in the
same exact contextual format in both papers. The announcements are not published in
alphabetical or chronological or
der which begs the question: What system was used to determine
their order? They are obviously not randomly ordered since they appear in the same order in both
papers. The possible answer: Geographic birth registration numbering. An investigation of the
U.
S. Department of Health’s archived natal data reports reveals that birth registration numbers
are assigned based on the location of the registration office they are received in.


37. Obama’s Other Address.

The birth announcements were published containing
the
registrant’s address at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., Honolulu, HI. This address has been proven by
investigators to be the residence of Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madeline Dunham, as
well as Obama’s mother. Directory records available in 1961 show th
at Obama’s father, Obama
Sr., resided in an apartment at 625 11th Avenue, near the University of Hawaii. Why would a
married man list an address for the birth of his son that was not his address?


38. Birth Registration Protocols.

An investigation reveals
that birth registration numbers are
assigned based on their associated location to the regional vital statistics registration office in
which the vital event is recorded. There were four such offices available in Hawaii in 1961, two
of which served immigra
tion processing and vital events originating outside the Hawaiian
Islands. Obama’s alleged birth registration number, 151
-
1961
-
010641, indicates that his birth
was registered in one of these regional offices.


39. Non
-
Sequential Birth Registration.

Obama’s

birth registration number appears to be non
-
sequential with other births recorded at the time of his birth. One example cites the standard
“Certificate of Live Birth” records of twins born to Eleanor Nordyke, whose births occurred 19
hrs after Obama’s all
eged birth in Kapi’olani Medical Center. The twins were assigned birth
registration numbers ending in 037 and 038, respectively. Obama’s birth was assigned number
041 despite the fact that his birth allegedly occurred before the twins in the very same hosp
ital. If
no other births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke’s, one would expect that Obama’s
birth registration number would end in 036, not 041. If other births did occur in the 19 hours
between Obama’s and the Nordykes’, Obama’s registration number

would be expected to be
even lower.


40. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii's Reluctant Accomplice.

On October 31st, 2008, and, again on
July 27th, 2009, the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health released the only two
official statements by the government of
the State of Hawaii about Obama’s natal records. In her
October, 2008 statement she release the following:


“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate.
State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338
-
18) prohibits

the release of a certified birth certificate
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of
Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory
authority to overse
e and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified
that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on
record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Go
vernor
Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any
other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”


The statement does not specify the type of original birth certificate on record and dir
ectly
contradicts statements made by an official of the Hawaiian elections Office that the State of
Hawaii does not possess an original birth certificate for Obama. Fukino further clarified her
statement eight months later with the following:


“I, Dr. Chiy
ome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the
original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural
-
born American citizen. I h
ave
nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over
eight months ago.”


The problem with this second statement is, first, she, again, does not identify the title of the
“original vital records” documents she ha
s seen. Notice she uses the word “records”, plural.
Whether they are a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth, a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth or a
Certificate of Foreign Birth accompanied with testimonial documents, medical records or other
evidence is not di
sclosed by Fukino.


Second, she violated Hawaii’s identity protection law, the very same HRS 338
-
18 she cited in
her first statement, by disclosing information from the vital records about Obama’s unverified
birth place. If she is so willing to provide thi
s private information, why not disclose the rest of it?
Answer: Because this information serves the bias of the State of Hawaii's endorsement of
Obama's legitimacy. Otherwise, Fukino would also disclose the other information that perhaps is
NOT so favorabl
e to Obama, as well, such as the title of the 'original vital records' or whether the
certificate had been amended.


Third, and most grievous, as a state
-
level, municipal employee way out in the State of Hawaii,
Fukino neither has the federal authority, no
r the qualifications to determine the Natural
-
born
status of a candidate for federal office. In fact, Fukino's audacious, bizarre proclamation is
laughable and only exposes the State of Hawaii's fragile confidence in their documentation
procedures, let alo
ne its ability to declare the historical meaning of Natural
-
born citizenship.
That job falls under the federal authority of the Secret Service, the State Department in
coordination with the state Elections Offices.


41. Hawaii’s Amazing Legitimate Birth Ra
te.

Both papers also published the nearly two dozen
announcements assuming that every child was born to married parents living at the same address,
despite the fact that the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Vol. 1


Natality” shows that
there wer
e 1044 illegitimate births in Hawaii in 1961 in which the father was not identifiable.
This is an average of three illegitimate births per day! Over the nine day period of births covered
by the announcements in these two issues, one would expect to see at
least one single mother, or
unmarried couple, giving birth among the more than two dozen announcements surrounding
Obama’s birth from late July to early August, 1961. In fact, a review of every issue of the
newspapers in the entire year of 1961 shows that
all birth announcements were published by
“married parents”. If the newspapers indeed printed accurate announcements based on testimony
from the actual parents or family members there should be some information which does not
conform to this cookie
-
cutter
identical format when comparing each announcement between
newspapers. However, the rigidity of the format, and the possibility of inaccuracies, led
investigators to conclude that the originating information used to publish birth announcements in
1961 was n
ot conveyed from the parents or family directly to the newspapers, but instead was
first processed by a single municipal source, before being provided to the newspapers.


Therefore, since we know Hawaii registers foreign births as being native births, the
announcements would be published without the location of the birth, or marital status of the
parents, as a consideration. This then would suggest that if there is any inaccuracy originating
with the source information, which occurs in the transference betw
een the registrant and the
municipal authority, the newspapers would never see the necessity to confirm the accuracy of the
information. Why would a newspaper take official information certified from a government
agency in the form of a list and then expen
d resources to get a second opinion about its accuracy
from the original registrant? They wouldn’t. The newspapers print announcements without ever
knowing if they are accurate or not when the information comes from the local municipal
authority. Therefore
, since the municipal authority does not create its birth list discerning
between native birth and foreign birth registrations it employs the policy of only publishing the
address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Since the municipal author
ity treats all
births as legitimate, by default, it would construct the birth registration list as though the parents
are married in every announcement and submit the list to the newspapers who would publish
what appears to be all local, native births to m
arried couples. The problem with this flawed
procedure is that the announcements are not an accurate account of the actual facts of the natal
event. Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that a birth announcement in a newspaper
must match the metric
s of an official birth certificate.


42. The Welfare of Baby Obama.

Upon analyzing the procedures used to publish birth
announcements, we discover vulnerabilities in the assumptions about the accuracy and content of
the birth announcements. With a simple e
xplanation, it becomes much more reasonable to
assume that Obama’s birth announcements were never a part of some crazy
-
minded conspiracy
but, instead, were simply the result of being included in the Hawaiian Health Departments birth
registration lists afte
r Obama’s birth was registered by Obama’s grandparents, more than likely,
for the simple reason of making sure their daughter and grandson could receive state benefits as
resident citizens of the U.S. Obama’s grandparents were indeed residing at the publis
hed address
found in the announcements. However, ignorant, hostile Obama supporters enjoy the opportunity
to claim that so
-
called “birthers” believe a conspiracy of such magnitude that Obama’s birth
announcements were planted in the Hawaiian papers in 1961

just in case Oba
ma might run for
president some
day. This is a ridiculous canard. Only a blind ideologue would fail to realize that
birth announcements do not verify Constitutional eligibility in the first place.


Therefore, both sides of the argument, eit
her lauding birth announcements or ridiculing them, as
a viable part of any conspiracy to promote the legitimacy of Obama is idiotic. If Obama's birth
announcements were not automatically conveyed by the registrar, they were more than likely
submitted in c
ollaboration with his mother or grandparents as a practical matter in order to
simply share the news of Obama's birth with the community and to, possibly, act to secure
Obama’s eligibility for welfare and baby formula, not a nomination to the presidency. H
owever,
without publishing the identity of the registrant, the editors of the newspapers printed all of the
week’s announcements based on typically practiced protocols after receiving the official birth
lists from the Hawaiian Department of Health. There w
as nothing premeditated or fraudulent
about this. Municipal laws were followed and journalistic standards were correctly assumed
considering the official source in the newspapers’ view. The possible breakdown in accuracy
occurred as a result of the Departm
ent of Health’s legal ability to include foreign births in the
Hawaiian birth registration lists and the registrant omitting birth location information, while the
papers did not print it any way.


43. Obama’s Secret Natal Data.

According to the “1961 Vital

Statistics Report of theU.S.
Volume 1


Natality”, natal statistics were harvested using a “50% sampling method” and,
furthermore, statistics were taken only from “even
-
numbered birth records” in 1961. Since
Obama’s birth registration was allegedly an odd

number, his unique natal statistics would remain
ureported by the State of Hawaii, and unpublished as part of the U.S. Department of Health's
annual natal data report. This is relative in the fact that, since Obama was a bi
-
racial,
(categorized as non
-
whi
te) baby allegedly born to an 18
-
year old, white mother and a non
-
white,
non
-
citizen father, in an urban hospital in Hawaii in August of 1961, his natal statistics would be
extremely notable and rare for this time and place. In fact, statistics show that l
ess than 1 in
20000 births occurred under these circumstances within the demographic classifications used by
the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961. The unconventional circumstances surrounding
Obama's birth are very conspicuous.


44. No Witnesses
of Obama’s Birth Still Alive.

To date, no living eyewitness of Obama birth
exists. It is assumed that his birth was witnessed by at least three people including his doctor and
his mother. However, no documentation of the birth has been provided containing
the name of
the doctor or eyewitnesses.


45. Obama’s Radicalism.

Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams
From My Father”, Obama writes, “…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active
black students, the foreign stu
dents, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists
and punk
-
rock performance poets.”


In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both
living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist P
arty and one of the era’s poetic
pioneers of fierce anti
-
American radicalism, developed a paternal
-
like relationship with Obama,
which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. The 1951 report of the
Commission on Subversive Activities to th
e Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him
as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member. Obama has maintained lasting
relationships with radicals throughout his entire life. He worked with ACORN activist and
chapter leader, Madelin
e Talbott in 1992. He had a close personal relationship with domestic
terrorist, Bill Ayers and served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Foundation, a radical
Chicago
-
based education activism organization. Obama attended a church for 20 years where
radi
cal pastor, Jeremiah Wright, still maintains an anti
-
American ministry under the guise of
Black Liberation Theology. As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, Senior
Environmental Advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst
a firestorm of
controversy over his criminal and communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her
position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as
being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dicta
tor and mass murderer, Mao Tse
Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students.


46. The Deaths of Lt. Quarles Harris and Donald Young.

Quarles Harris was a key witness in
a federal probe into charges that Obam
a’s passport information was stolen from the State
Department, when he was fatally shot in front of a Washington D.C. church. Harris had been
working as a contractor at the State Department and was cooperating with federal investigators
when he was murdere
d. In December, 2007, Donald Young was a choir leader at Obama’s
church, First Trinity Baptist, and school teacher, who many believe had carnal knowledge of
Obama’s past. Young was found shot to death in his Southside Chicago apartment.


47. Larry Sinclair
’s Bizarre, But Probable Story.

Of all the sordid stories circulating about
Obama’s past, the one told by Larry Sinclair is the darkest. Sinclair posted a YouTube video
alleging that he and President Barack Obama engaged in sexual acts and drug use togethe
r in
1999, when Obama was an Illinois State Senator. He claims that then
-
State Senator Obama
procured powdered cocaine for Sinclair, and crack cocaine for himself, which Obama allegedly
smoked. Sinclair also alleges that their drug use was followed by sex
acts that included Sinclair
performing fellatio on Obama. These acts were alleged to take place in a limousine from which
Sinclair provided cell phone records to prove his location on the dates in question. Testimony
from the limosine driver has never been

publicly published. Sinclair was asked to provide
"intimate details" about Obama's physical features which would prove Sinclair's claims. His
testimony has never been published or made public. Sinclair confesses openly that he is a
convicted felon having
served time for check fraud and drug possession. Sinclair repeated his
claims about his relationship with Obama in a highly publicized press conference at the National
Press Club on June 18, 2008.


48. Passport Documents Released.

Documents released in Jul
y, 2010, and posted on the
Scribd.com website, show that Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, applied for a passport in
1981, the same year Obama traveled to Pakistan. Dunham’s applications show that she had
applied for and received three separate passports
and a renewal between 1965 and 1981.
However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to obscure Obama’s
actual past, the Hillary Clinton
-
led State Department claims that a General Services
Administration directive in the 1980s resulted
in the destruction of passport applications and
other "non
-
vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other
passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document
that on Aug. 13, 1
968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965
-
issued passport renewed for two
years, until July 18, 1970. The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify
Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 pas
sport
she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname
commonly found among Indonesian citizenry. The existence of records of a passport or travel
documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s circums
tances at the time of
Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s original passport to the litany of
records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.


49. Tim Adams.

In July, 2010, Tim Adams, a senior elections clerk for the c
ity and county of
Honolulu Elections Office in 2008, made the stunning claim Barack Obama definitely was not
born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, based on information he was told by the Vital
Statistics office in Hawaii that there is no original bi
rth record on file for Barack Obama. In a
televised interview, Adams reported that a long
-
form, hospital
-
generated birth certificate for
Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State. Adams' statements conflicted directly with
repeated affirmations by publi
c officials in Hawaii that they had seen or had inspected Obama's
birth records that would document his representations that he was born in the state.

"There is no
birth certificate," said Adams after leaving his position with the Elections Office and now

teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. "It's like an open secret.
There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this. I managed the absentee
-
ballot
office. It was my job to verify the voters' identity.


50. Hawaiian Gov
ernor Offended.