Saturday, April 2, 2011

FINAL REPORT: Obama’s Birth Announcements Fail To Show "Natural-Born" Status

A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, conclusively, they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified “Live" birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined "vital event" by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols. By Penbrook Johannson Editor of the Daily Pen In August, 1961, two announcements allegedly showing a “native” birth for Barack Obama were published in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers, the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star. For more than three years since Obama engaged his unvetted candidacy for the presidency, many of his supporters have lauded these blurbish announcements as the "holy grail" of proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii. However, a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness medical authority or hospital in the state. Also, in 1961, the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in public announcements were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context, and no investigation was carried out by the editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate. The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization. Now, however, collaborative information from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by pundits to promote a misguided message about Obama. The Daily Pen’s, Dan Crosby, engaged a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of birth announcements in Hawaii’s newspapers to support Obama eligibility to be president. Recall, for more than two years, major media personalities, such as Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and recently fired, Keith Olbermann have enjoyed poking fun with the announcements essentially saying to their viewers that the very presence of these announcements means one of only two exclusive options: 1. They are a legitimate and accurate indication of Obama’s geographic birth in Hawaii, or 2. They are the result of some crazy 50-year-long conspiracy concocted by members of Obama’s family and newspaper editors at the time in order to enable Obama to use the announcements some time later as primary evidence that he was born in Hawaii in the event he might run for president some day. In his investigation, Crosby found confirmed and easily accessible evidence that neither of these choices apply to Obama’s records. In fact, the explanation is far less sensational and simple that it reveals that Mr. Obama (Soetoro) simply benefitted from a commonly used practice in the state of Hawaii for thousands of births which were registered there, but which did not occur there. “The birth announcements were printed from unconfirmed information provided to the Newspapers by the Department of Health without the DOH or newspaper editors confirming the actual location of the birth with any hospital in Hawaii,” says Crosby in a phone call from Oahu, “I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers by cross referencing the announcements with the U.S. Department of Health Vital Records Report for Hawaii.” Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. This law then mandates that the vital records registrar must register the birth with the vital records office in coordination with an official, original Hawaiian birth record. “They (newspaper editors) don’t confirm “native” birth status,” continued Crosby, “The newspaper doesn’t care if the birth occurred in the local hospital. They don’t even print that. They merely published information provided to them directly and exclusively from the Department of Health in 1961, which means that any birth meeting the criteria of this law can be registered, and therefore published in a newspaper announcement.” “The birth location is mistakenly implied by people because it appears in this newspaper. I also found several birth records in Japan for birth's registered in Hawaii.” A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals. First of all, as shown by Crosby, all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address. “This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said. He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1000 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because that is the information registered, not medically verified.” If the DOH doesn’t include accurate information about the parents for birth announcements, in all cases, what makes people conclude a native birth even though the DOH also omits accurate information about the location of the birth, as well? Crosby also discovered that the announcements are in a tale-tell order which exposes a shocking fact about Obama’s birth announcements. “Did anyone notice the announcements are not in any alphabetic order, or in order of birthdate? This is because, in 1961, birth registration numbers were issued based on the location of the local Vital Records office in which the registration was recorded. The hospital does not assign these numbers, the DOH does. It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the birth registrations offices who received birth certification from either Kapi-olani Medical Center, or Queens Medical Center which use two local offices near those facilities,” said Crosby. He continued, “It appears Obama’s birth was registered with the satellite office near his grandparent’s home some distance from the offices nearest to and most used by the hospitals. This particular office was commonly used by indigenous people of Hawaii wanting to record births of children outside of the city. This is why the U.S. Department of Health created the Certificate of Live Birth template in 1959 with a check box indicating whether or not the child was born in the city limits and if the residence of the mother was a farm or not. It appears Obama’s birth at least did not occur in the city of Honolulu and, at most, did not even occur in the state of Hawaii.” In 1956, the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health issued a revised template version of the “Certificate of Live Birth” form to be used by state municipalities to record and medically verify births. Since Hawaii had not yet become a state, these revisions to the template would not be used in Hawaii until 1959. Therefore, birth records created after 1959 were subject to demographic clarifications and metrics prescribed by the federal authority of the U.S. Department of Health, not the state of Hawaii. “This also explains why Obama’s birth announcements appear in the succession of announcements where and when they do. His alleged “Certification of Live Birth” is not approved by any federal authority as an official source of demographic data or medical verification of his birth. It is merely a record of birth registration. Therefore, the order of printing of announcements in the local papers comes directly from the list which is ordered based on the birth registration office location, not the chronological or alphabetical order of the medically verified birth.” Crosby’s says the difference between “medically verified” and “registration” are significant. He interviewed former Vital Records Adminstration, Martin Hesch in order to gain understanding of the different procedures and authorities used to create vital records and public announcements in a medical verification process as opposed to merely registering a vital event with a municipal office. “I think people simply want to believe a simple equation to this issue,” said Hesch, when asked why he thought so many people ignorantly believe what they are told about Obama’s records. “That is why they think that a birth announcement in a local paper is somehow an automatic indication of a local birth. Unfortunately, they wrongly accept a locally appearing birth announcement as an indication of medically confirmed ‘local birth’ and that just simply is not the way it is in most cases in Hawaii in early part of its history. The media also wants Barack Obama’s natal circumstances and documentation to fit the traditional record model because it is too disturbing to them to think that they were so easily deceived… but we also now know they do not fit this model.” Hesch went on to explain that there two primary authorities to consider when understanding vital records administration. First, you have the medical verification of a vital event, like a birth or death, and you have the administrative process which documents, records and files them. “Birth events and deaths are unique because they require medical verification in the form of official original documentation attested by a medical authority, and, most importantly, the possession of that original documentation is maintained by the local authority,” says Hesch. “However, an administrative process such as that used in birth registrations (not medical verifications), marriages, divorces or amendments to vital records are presided over by legislative rule, not medical standards. This means that they are not exclusive to some originating medical authority. That is not to say that a judge in a divorce case would not require a medical record in making legal decisions, it just means that the standards used to document administrative processes are different than those used to document a medically verifiable vital event in the U.S.” Hesch explained this is why it is possible to publish a birth announcement for a non-native birth. The announcements in the newspapers are the result of the registration records held by the administrative authority, not the records created by the medical authority. “The birth announcement is automatically triggered by the creation of the registration through administrative process, when the municipal record is provided to the newspaper, not the creation of a medical verification record by a medical doctor or hospital,” he said. “The birth can actually occur anywhere and if the announcement does not disclose the location, there is no way to know from just the public announcement whether the vital event is a local occurrence or not.” Hesch’s explanation brings clarity to Obama’s birth announcements. Conclusively, Obama’s birth was registered in the state of Hawaii, but the announcements were not an indication that it was medically verified as occurring there. “So, let me get this straight. People who think that Obama's birth announcements mean that he was born in Hawaii actually believe that the newspaper editors of the 1960’s received thousands of different notices from thousands of different doctors from multiple hospitals and villages throughout Hawaii and then they organized them in some highly coordinated manner for publication in non-computerized publishing system?” asked Hesch, incredulously. "That is utterly ridiculous," he continued, “that is why the DOH pools this information and provided it for public announcements and why the newspapers accepted the information from the DOH without verifying the facts. The verification process would have been staggering and so time intensive for the newspaper deadlines.” “If people would turn off the T.V. and just investigate this stuff for five minutes, they would feel stupid when they realize how simple and unimpressive the reality is,” he said. In fact, the evidence shows that the original medical verification, in the form of what would be a U.S. Certificate of Live Birth signed by an attending physician and attested by a hospital administrator, simply does not exist in a form or content which would promote Obama’s “natural born status”. In fact, Hesch agreed that there is probably information in the original medical birth record which undermines Obama’s identity as a politician and that is the reason why Obama is refusing to disclose it. “Oh, sure, he is hiding something,” he said, “that is the only reason NOT to disclose it. Because, if the original medical record supported his current identity, he would be stupid to keep it hidden. It would only support him in that case.” When asked his opinion about Obama’s case, Hesch said that is a certainty in his mind that Obama’s birth documentation was subjected to administrative processes or amendments and that his medically verified natal records show information that the local vital records authority is able to protect under law under the guise of identity protection. “Of course, it’s ridiculous,” said Hesch, “the Secret Service is not required here. This is natal information which occurred 50 years ago, not a public appearance where the president is under any threat. The only reason to hide the original record is to protect something Obama doesn’t want people to know about him and how that information adversely impacts his ability to be president. It’s plain and simple to me.” In the medical verification process, a registered professional of a federal board must document the circumstances and metrics of a birth. However, the administrative process used to the document the event for municipal purposes is not bound by medical requirements to accurately express those same circumstances because the vital records data is applied under different authoritative functions. Census reports, vital records reports and demographic data serve a different purpose than health report data. Hesch explained that the reasons for this level of administrative complexity comes from Hawaii’s historically plural culture where you have indigenous, native Oceanic, Asian and, of course, American peoples mixing in the population. Since Hawaii is unique in this and that it was a remote, detached territory prior to becoming a part of the U.S., it was necessary to “customize” much of their vital records processes in order to include all those who would be eligible for U.S. citizenry after the island nation became a state. This meant that including non-native births was necessary because the islands of Hawaii were so permeable to migration. Therefore, it has now been confirmed by authorities in Hawaii and abroad that Obama’s birth announcements appeared in two local Hawaiian newspapers without the birth having been medically verified as occurring in Hawaii. The announcements are automatically triggered from information provided by the Department of Health, not the hospital. Therefore, since we already know that Hawaii's Health Department registered foreign births, the announcements would include births for these registrations as well, along with local birth registrations. As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks, we would like to say this: Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.

Friday, August 6, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Introduction


“We have to face the probability that the pattern of events we are seeing comes from a purposeful intention to destroy the constitutional sovereignty of the American people.”

Dr. Alan Keyes
Presidential Candidate and
former Ambassador to the U.N. and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs

In the beginning, I struggled to clarify my motives in writing this book. Then, one day in early October, 2008, while connecting my neighbor’s cable box, the answer came in the unexpected form of a network media host. It was “Countdown with Keith Olbermann’s” segment called “World’s Worst”. During this part of MSNBC’s primetime lineup, Keith Olbermann, a failed sportscaster formerly with ESPN, typically denigrates three randomly selected people that he disagrees with, (apparently, hate is now a profession).

In this particular version, Olbermann was particularly venomous, but suspiciously generous in volunteering dishonest answers to unasked questions about the controversy over Barack Obama’s natal identity. I found Olbermann’s solo interesting because he appeared so desperate to preserve some hidden personal interest in this strange discussion. I had not yet been exposed to the full effect of the Obama birth inquiry at the time, and I was not expecting to hear anything like I heard from Olbermann that day.

I’ve always been fascinated how adeptly liars so easily avail information they were never asked for in an effort to divert the questioner from the specific subject matter being inquired about. Obama's White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs has mastered this clumsy skill. He has turned dishonesty and ambiguity into a lumbering, dithering, painful art form. The guy is a train wreck. If Gibbs donned himself in leather and carried a whip, he could narrate S & M films with his answers to press corp questions. The guy is excruciating.

Most politicians have this problem with blatant dishonesty. Either they do not know the answer to the question and use the diversion in attempt to conceal their stupidity, or they do know the answer but refuse to answer the question with a direct answer because they know the information would cause them political damage. You may ask them for an answer to the basic problem like “What is two plus two?” and they will gleefully tell you the answer to three minus three, and then try to convince everyone that their answer is more appropriate to the question they wish you would have asked them. This is the single most significant reason why people hate the liberal establishment.

As the son of a criminal investigator, I was often told by my father how suspects who volunteer unsolicited information usually have a reason to fear an investigation of the crimes they are trying to hide. Olbermann raised all the flags I needed to light this literary fuse. He proceeded for several minutes to cast dispersions at the three politically conservative subjects, all of them absent and without an opportunity to defend themselves, calling them vile names and mocking various quotes they had made completely out of context regarding the Obama eligibility issue.Olbermann revealed himself as nothing more than a pseudo-sophisticated, undiplomatic version of a “Jerry Springer wanna-be” commissioned by NBC Universal to stir controversy wrought by the liberal establishment’s politically driven hate toward anyone who simply has opposing opinions to those held by the liberal bosses now mismanaging the unraveling, increasingly unpopular tabloid network, MSNBC.

I'm actually thankful to Mr. Olbermann for his cowardly, incoherent rant that day. His cheap-shots did more for the actualization of my pure motivation than months of private advice ever could. It was the perfect, cathartic meltdown I so desperately needed to witness. He made me feel much better and he made writing this book much easier. He removed all doubts I had previously, while solidifying all the reasons I needed to engage this project. In Olbermann’s unnecessarily violent attack on other Americans, he put an ugly, futilely groomed face on the enemy I sought for months to identify. In that wonderful moment, I realized my divine motivation was elegantly rooted in little more than a powerful, but profoundly righteous curiosity. And, most importantly, Olbermann confirmed every suspicion I ever had about my American right to have it.

At first I was amused by Barack Obama’s apparent refusal to provide all of the information about his natal identity. A few days before the 2008 election, I remember a conversation with one of my co-workers, a devout Obama supporter. After mulling the subject, he said rhetorically about Obama, “Okay, joke’s over. It’s time to come clean. We get the whole ‘preserve the political image’ thing, but enough is enough.”

I remember laughing then, but I am not laughing now. After a year of intensive research, I became confounded by Obama’s willful lack of response to the most basic questions of political legitimacy which, if answered, would allegedly exonerate his character and put to rest this absurd assault on his effectiveness. Instead, unfortunately, his refusal to disclose his full identity through the historically official, federal documentation and traditional American sources has been devastating to perceptions about his character.

What was once a comical workplace conversation has become the primary detraction from Obama’s ability to be a leader in American politics. Shamefully, Obama's opacity, not transparency, has diminished his legitimacy and effectiveness as a President and, like a clay foundation, has destabilized the structures of covert policy he seeks to construct upon it.

I want you to know that I have less of a concern about the questions regarding the contents of Obama’s natal information than I do about the massive scheme he as implemented to conceal it. If you are a liberal who supported Obama, you will call me a "birther" or a "nut", and that's okay. I have total confidence that I have done due diligence to extract meaningful and truthful information from my research on this subject. I have interviewed officials, talked to legal professionals, reviewed mountains of documents and listened to hours of testimony. My conclusions are rooted in sound evidence which confirms America's suspicions about Obama's actual biography, and his intentions as a politician.

Obama is like a suspected thief professing his innocence. Americans don’t need to prove what is in his possession, they only need to know that the vault is missing money and Obama is the only one caught armed, wearing a mask and running out of a bank full of dead people with large bags over his shoulders, and, now he is refusing to allow the police to search the bags. Even bystanders understand, eventually, you just have to arrest him based on the evidence.

Americans have the proof that Obama is hiding a crime, they just don’t have access to the specific motive and evidence of its commission. This is why I have less concern about his actual place of birth and questions about his natural born citizenship, at this point, than I have about the astonishing measures and resources that have been used to keep this remedial information from being exposed. Not only has he spent $2 million dollars in legal fees defending against exposure of his identity, Obama has weilded the executive power of the U.S. Presidency to prevent and discourage Americans from doing what I have done with this book.

You need to understand the difference between the everyday caterwauler calling Obama a "Kenyan" and the work I have done which explains the reasons behind Obama's violation of the most basic Constitutional mandates. You need to understand the importance of sovereignty and the relationship between the identity of our leaders and the identity of America itself.
It is easy to get sucked into the current liberal nut’s accusations of “birtherism” or conspiracy psychosis. I address the question of natural born citizenship and Obama’s natal history, intensively. However, if you are reading this book, then you already understand your American right to have concern about a politician’s shadow policies and black-ops approach to disclosing his identity.

Today, it is obvious Obama’s lack of transparency has compromised his executive effectiveness. His approval rating as consistently fallen since he was elected fromt he high 60's to the low 40's. His complete disregard for the methods of self authentication, which virtually all Americans are commonly familiar with, has marginalized his agenda and divided America. Sadly, he has allowed this personal deficiency to metastasize into destructive consequences for his legacy and, most importantly, for America’s security. Tragically, confidence in Obama has become so damaged over this absurd political “misdemeanor”, it has given rise to a deeper fear of secret felonious activity. It is now impossible for him explain why he has chosen to “act stupidly” and delegitimize himself as a leader of the most powerful nation in world history with such a primitive form of self destruction.

I’ve often heard the dissonant liberal exclaim that Obama does not have an obligation to satisfy the public with information about his identity. This being the case, then it is equally no obligation for the American public to ever accept his fallow offering of political legitimacy. Liberals believe government power is self endowed. They forget it is the public who empowered Obama as a representative based on what they thought was reliable information about his identity. Current polling reveals, however, that if the election were held today, knowing what America knows, Obama would lose, badly. Pathetically, liberals have forgotten the lessons of America’s political past which mandates; Like other tragic figures of political history, Obama’s failures as a president will be directly attributed to the failure of his honorability as a man. At the roots of his secret identity reside the reasons for any perceived weakness of him as a leader.


Not surprisingly, Barack Obama and I share biographical similarities. We were fostered in paradise, along with a younger sibling, by our white grandparents whose origins once resided in Midwest America before moving west with hope of a better life for our family. Our American grandfathers served the United States as members of the military and we both had a close relationship with a maternal grandmother who passed away in 2008. We both claim a Christian faith, and we are both educated in professional fields attending college where we had occasion to write for the college newspaper.

We were both abandoned by our biological fathers who, at the time of our birth, both resided for some time in Hawaii. Then we were both paternally adopted. We were both born to educated, though wayward mothers during their less than discretionary teen years of the 1960’s. Both of our mothers moved to the Pacific Northwest soon after our birth and, later, became ill with incurable sickness as we entered into the endeavors of our professional lives. I, too, was issued a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth after applying for the document based on Hawaiian law 338-17 which allowed me to gain natural-born American natal status despite my birth in Brisbane, Australia. I am natural-born citizen of the United States because the laws of the state of Hawaii says I am, despite the fact that my natal origins are nowhere near American soil. I could actually run for President, despite being born abroad, under the same circumstances Barack Obama was.

I would like to believe that Obama and I are considered intelligent and generously verbose in a complimentary way, though, I am certain many of our opponents seek to discount these qualities as much as possible in an attempt to reduce any potency in our respective points of view.We both have a history of athletics from our younger years, igniting an appreciation for the value of team dynamics. We were both very active in our childhood and participated in athletics during our adolescence. I can’t vouch for Obama’s experience, but my experience after sports in college, playing pick-up games in the inner city, far from home, left an indelible impression of the actual, raw truth about race in America. There are things said among kids on a public basketball court that would curdle a liberal’s skin. Racial trash talk, however, was a recreational opportunity to break each other down in the spirit of competition, and make people laugh. And, it certainly exposed the farce of moral righteousness claimed by those who use race as a way to leverage social justice. Our interaction was never about hate. It was about pointing out the obvious, and then trying to hold the winner’s court for the next two hours.

Demographically speaking, I was not your typical athlete. So, often, when I called, “next”, it was hard to get four others to run with me simply because I was the only white person there. But once we held the court with a crew of “chumps”, suddenly everybody wanted to be on the team with the short white kid who actually could jump. Like Obama, I found reward in shattering stereotypes. I loved the look on people’s faces when my performance violated their expectations. In many ways, I think Obama relates to this in other parts of life, in general, and I am certain he understands the dynamics of interracial competition.

I pray for Obama and our nation almost everyday. It is important for readers to understand I have sympathy for a person like him, for the similarities listed, and not for reasons you might think. Of course, I have qualified sympathy for his tattered family history, and his failed paternal self-identification. When adults who procreate fail to demonstrate accountability and responsibility for their children, it destroys confidence in the idea of parenting, family and community in that child.Perhaps this strain on Obama’s character came as a result of separation from his father and a struggle to culturally identify with an adequate family. A young man can struggle with this void well into his 30’s.

Or, perhaps it was the content of his education in notoriously liberal, intellectually elite institutions which promoted an inflated sense of ideological importance. A young, brilliant man can get lost in his contentious view of the world, and the ambition to save it.

Obama and I share mutual, but opposing perspectives toward each other’s political ideology. I think Obama is wrong about many things, but I do not wish him harm. I have respect for his humanity. But I have doubts about his character and do not want him, or anyone with his political substance, to serve in our government as a steward of my fathers’ and grandfathers’ nation. I don’t care what race they are.

Most importantly, I am not opposed to Barack Obama because he is a bi-racial man. I am opposed to Barack Obama because he is a radical liberal.I don’t like Obama’s policies not because I’m racist or an ideologue, I don’t like them because his leadership qualities and decisions are causing harm to me, my friends and members of my family. His economic policies have worked to undermine the financial welfare of my family by removing their choices and their ability to maintain their quality of life, feed their children, buy essentials and navigate through the daily demands of living in his remade clone of America. His lack of experience in national security and fighting terrorism leaves me with a grave lack of confidence in his ability to protect America.

Or, God forbid, maybe Obama actually is a honed, devastating tool of the corrupt Chicago political environment he marinated in for 15 years. There is nothing more potentially destructive to the human conscience than to fall into an existence where the reward for radicalism goes unopposed. The human soul is not designed to worship the isolated treasures of self-justification through moral decompensation. Soon, we all become a slave to such fraudulent things.But, mostly, I have sympathy for Obama’s toil against honesty and the self afflicted wounds of his chronic, life-long radicalization.

I was drawn into the liberal world once, but conservative relationships saved me from it, so I am empathetic of the justified excoriation from others for Obama’s willful lack of authenticity and for the absence of peace this has left his soul. Through my research, I often wondered if these impalements are actually his fault as he has seemingly been forced to represent the most desolate, hateful, selfish faction of American society. Then I remember he is but a man, as prone to life’s disorientations as anyone.


Admittedly, I don’t have a lot of good things to say about the Obama liberals in control of our government beginning in 2009. But I want to quell the ignorant attempt to marginalize my politics. I didn’t have a lot of good things to say about their predecessors in 2008, either.I’m not sure where Obama’s honor lies. However, where I come from, if a man is willing to lie about something as fundamental as his past, it is an indication of his propensity to lie about his intentions for the future. I was raised to understand my life is not my own, paid for by the blood of others more worthy than me, and that my well-being is forfeit next to the choices made by those who came before me in their decision to give up their rights to life, liberty and happiness.

The fact that I exist in America is nothing less than a grand privilege, a miracle and an expression of the overwhelming blessings of God given upon the blood which was shed by those far worthier than me.This book focuses on the absence of vital information required to legitimize Obama for the office of the Presidency. It approaches the subject from a perspective on his character rather than his legality or his citizenry. It is very important to me that readers understand that I am motivated not by a preconceived notion about Obama’s natal documents, citizenship, family breeding or racial plurality. Instead, I am motivated to write this book because I am offended by Obama’s hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of transparency while acting in direct contradiction to his own declarations of renewed transparency in our government.

George Bush may have been a liar, but at least he never claimed to uphold transparency. Most of all, I am offended by Obama’s willful dismissal of vintage Americans and their legitimate right to inquire about the ideology of anyone serving in the office of the United States president. I am offended by his discounting of the value of my family’s generational service to America and the sacrifices they made fighting actual hate while facing real, mortal danger.I will not claim credit for the effectiveness of the forensic evidence presented in this book. I have researched what I believe are some interesting connections between seemingly unrelated events which give insight into the possibility that Obama indeed represents something more foreboding than most would like to embrace.

However, there are many in-depth specifics that desperately beg for further clarification about the actual Barack Obama. There are thousands, if not millions, of interesting, credible perspectives about the legitimacy of his identity. One could fill a library with the blogs on the subject. Instead, this work will present some fresh perspective and support for our nation’s desire to find the truth about this ambiguous man. It discusses the reasons why a man’s identity is so closely related to his character and his character to his ability to lead.This book also explores the facts and theories about how Obama’s natal history was instrumental in providing him with the means to become President without being subject to the U.S. Constitutional vetting process and declarations of citizenship.

The evidence I reiterate is an expansion of the information presented by other countrymen and countrywomen who have done the legwork, and taken the risks to show the facts as they have found them. Many of my conclusions have been combined with theory. But, as an analytically technical individual, I understand that all exposed truth begins with a question, and the question demands theoretical, reasonable answers.I want the researchers, theorists, legal professionals and investigators to know how much I admire them for their efforts in assisting my research. Writing a book about anything is not easy. When it’s about a controversial issue, it seems impossible because it often seems that, no matter how much effort you make to appear objective, someone will always think you are a nut. Just for the record, for the benefit of caterwauling liberals, I am not now, nor have I ever been a nut. I’m just an everyday joe. Though, my friends have often called me fiercely independent, I understand my personality is often mischaracterized in this way because brilliant people are more bold and willing to explore the truth outside the mainstream of conformity.

Aside from wanting to convey a fair minded message in a book, it’s difficult gathering information, determining its validity and putting it in context with the thesis you want to convey. It must be assembled in a systematic but entertaining form that makes others want to consume it. What this book adds to the research done is a personal theory about our current government based on understanding of the information available. I hope it brings awareness to previously undiscovered facts and motivates people to follow a commission of stewardship over our blessings and understand why a person’s identity, defined through community, is so important.


I have strong views against the exploitation of race for purposes of political pandering or for using demography for marketing in the media. Reprobates using race to promote a personal agenda are intellectually incapable of convincing society of the value of their ideology. They are unable to promote a message on the merits of the choice between right and wrong, so they resort to the exploitation of involuntary human characteristics, like race and gender, which are not choices. Race mongers prey on ignorance and involuntary characteristics because these allow them to avoid the convictions of being wrong while justifying recidivism (repetitive, destructive behavior).

Exploiters of race are the lowest forms of the political and media professions while the children of melanic cultures are the unwitting victims filling quotas for their liberal establishment. I consider social activists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and various other race peddlers to be the actual racists of our society. Their purpose in life hinges upon a deep seeded racial consciousness through which they justify blaming others for the problems of their own heritage. Its time America took away their race card. If their message were right and true, they shouldn’t have trouble selling it to decent people without pandering to involuntary demography.

Degenerates leading the liberal establishment have discounted the legitimate harm done by racism and have manufactured its evil into an actual industry which relies on character defamation and the outright dishonest demonization of conservatives. Ironically, it lies within the hypocritical accusations of racism where the liberal establishment justifies their own malignant racism toward a conservative, white minority. There is no excuse for drawing disseminations about each other based on the idiocy of demographics. When this happens it is a sign of desperation on the part of the accuser and an indication they are seeking to manipulate circumstances for their own selfish gain.

As some of my words may be impassioned, it is ridiculous to think they are driven by hate. Although, if you are liberal, I'm not going to convince you otherwise and, quite honestly, I don't care what you think anyway, are a liberal.

Intimate knowledge of my personal history, and my current relationships with members of all cultures and races, will contradict any attempt to smear my character with lame accusations that I oppose Obama because he is bi-racial. My words are a direct result of my love for my country; my vintage American natural born heritage; my family, and my own multi-racial genealogical history. These principles circumvent race.I am blessed to have family and lifelong friends who know that my diplomacy with others is based on character and behavior, not the perceived density of melanin in their skin. My friends and contenders alike have been from all races and cultures. I would have never had cause to even recognize their race in the conduct of daily life except for the writing of this book to make the point. Life has given me just as many reasons for indignation and hate because of treatment towards my ethnicity, as it has to anyone of any other heritage for theirs, yet, I refuse to be racist over it.

Every person I meet has the right to be considered on the merits of their character. However, if being called a racist for having the audacity to be white and ask a valid question about the legitimacy of any elected official, who happens to be of black heritage, then I declare it a badge of honor. If writing a book challenging the abysmal effort of a politician to disclose his real identity makes me a racist then I will consider it a compliment. I would rather be a racist, in the eyes of liberals, than a shameful victim in the eyes of everyone else. Only the most ignorant person believes that a vintage American like me would ever cower to threats of being accused of racism when confronted by such a radical threat as the one being implemented by our current purveyors.

This book is also not about focusing only on the absence of anyone’s birth information, exclusively. It’s not about a President as much as it is about the overall, destructive political movement he represents. Admittedly, a large portion of this book is about the ambiguous identity of a man who has taken advantage of a ripe, derisive political climate and a flawed vetting system to gain power over a psychologically imbalanced, bowing consensus. However, Obama’s plight is only a microcosm of the desolate waste of a liberal political landscape.

Although it contains biographical information about people, this book is not intended to be a biographical work. Instead, it is intended to seek, in some small part, the redemption due the blood sacrifice my family has made for this nation for 250 years and to present a contentious view on Obama’s disregard for the importance of integrity in the offices of American leadership. And, it is intended to illustrate how Barack Obama has exploited America’s bureaucratic, geographic, social and moral weaknesses, not strengths, to become president.


I did not have to choose my American citizenship. Mine was biologically predetermined. It was inherent and undeniable at the moment of my birth to two parents who were also born in America. The witnesses of my birth are still alive and the authenticated records of confirmation of my natural born identity are still available.

My family has had more than fifty confirmed military veterans in the past 7 generations, and many more unconfirmed prior to 1790. At the time I wrote this, several of my cousins were serving in the Middle East and abroad in the military. My father, grandfathers, great grandfathers and great-great grandfathers all secured my right to freedom in the course of their decorated military service. They were shot, blown up, beaten, imprisoned and hated by their enemies. I will not dishonor the memory of my heroes by standing by, silently, while the freedom they fought for me to have is squandered away by the insidiousness of liberal hordes.

Defending their blood is my reasonable service. And, it is yours as well. Their weapons, in defending us from evil, were their bodies and the machinery of war. Ours, in defending them, are the implements of the freedom they have given us including the right to free speech, the right for redress of grievances and a right to confidence in our leaders. The blood ransom forfeited by my father and my grandfathers deserve better than someone from such a corrupt hypogeum like Obama.

As illegitimate children of the 1960’s, Obama and I were made keenly aware of the lost, selfish generation of our parents. We see the destructive consequences to our society because of their moral collapse and lack of virtue. Their rebellion against our grandparents removed the protective measures needed by subsequent generations to survive in a hostile world full of radical enemies who do not share their casual attitude about sexuality, substance abuse and public incivility.

Global terrorists and religionist murderers gain tremendous political force behind the baby-boomer’s drug-induced fantasy of world peace. The blood thirsty enemies of America count on the distorted views of these liberal millions to promote cowardice and preach an unwillingness to resist our own destruction.It’s ironic that the Greatest Generation was able to defeat the scourge of Nazi fascism on a global scale, yet they were unable to prevent the deranged radicalization of their own disdainful children. The baby-boom generation took the freedom ransomed by the blood of their parents and mutated it into an abomination of twisted ideology promoting self gratification and intoxicated debauchery…then they were allowed to reproduce.

Today, tragically, many of Obama’s and my generation have also fallen victim to this genetic corruption and destruction of decency.Instead, Obama and I bear the semblance of identification with our maternal grandparents because we both believe they are truly honorable in their demonstration of selflessness toward us. And, we both are commanded by grace to honor them in their love for us. They were our surrogate parents taking hold of our lives in the absence of adequate guidance, filling the gaps and providing for the basic, most essential needs of life.

At a critical time in our lives, Obama and I had to make a difficult choice. Perhaps this choice was made during our travels abroad, or maybe it was made during the years of isolation in college away from home. As a result, Obama and I began to oppose our chains, seeking refuge and prosperity in what many might consider the extremities of intellectuality and social causes. Afterward, we both emerged upon our respective paths toward very different fields of life divided by a very definitive ideological line.

When confronted by liberals about my motives in writing this book, I tell them that I have no more confidence in the reasons Obama has given me for his legitimacy to be president than they had in the reasons George Bush gave them for his legitimacy. I am just as right about my view, as they are about theirs, and there is nothing they can say or do which will change my mind. We can dance around the semantics and dismiss the specifics to our heart’s content, but in the end, the truth is always right.

The odd lack of ability on the part of the liberal left to embrace the reality of Obama’s situation is a phenomenon of hysterical, if not historical, proportions. They just cannot seem to imagine a world without Barack Obama being the president. His disqualification would be their apocalypse and the end of their reasons to live. However, the simplicity of the matter is that Obama can still be everything they want him to be. He can be the multicultural, globally loved, radical liberal, agent of epic change they need. He can serve in our government and be a significant leader in the historical relevance of legislative change. The only thing he cannot do in America is be our President. I am more than willing to accept the consequences for being wrong.

If Obama comes forward with irrefutable, documented information, based on the commonly held American sources and verification, confirmed by a thorough collaboration of facts and testimony, I will write another book retracting what I claim in this book about his identity. If he does this, I will publicly admit to being wrong.

I hope this book is informative for anyone who didn’t know the actual story about Obama’s ambiguous claim to political legitimacy. I also desire that readers are able to appreciate the connective nature between several seemingly benign concepts and events.

I want the author of “Dreams From My Father” to know that my father had dreams too. But, I also want him to know that the price my fathers paid for me was more expensive than the price his father paid for him. The blood and tears of my fathers have been shed across the face of the earth. From the fields of Antietam, to the islands of Haiti, to the beaches of Normandy, to the jungles of Vietnam, to the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Afghanistan…I am an American son.

Remember to ask the essential questions:

If a sitting president is unwilling to disclose documents containing basic biographical information about his natal, migratory, residential, educational and professional history, should he be trusted in his conveyance of crucial information related to national security, the economy and federal law?

Does ambiguity in a president’s identity, coupled with an unwillingness to disclose fundamental information about his history, when it relates to Constitutional eligibility, dishonor the blood-ransomed sacrifice by vintage Americans?

The Mombosan Son: Chapter 1


"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still…To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral…"

William C. Ayers
Domestic Terrorist

Using the words of a terrorist, like Ayers, to exonerate the motives of those questioning Obama's eligibility is an ugly way to justify any righteous cause, but he was right. Indifference and inaction are the opposite of moral in the face of lies and injustice.

However, being a hypocrite requires you to be wrong, first, and then right when it doesn't benefit you. The truth has to hurt, eventually. However, if hijacking the words of a killer and terrorist doesn't work, lets take testimony from a more viable source. How about the words of an eyewitness present at the scene of the crime? In a recent CBS interview with former senior Hawaiian election official, Tim Adams, his words revealed more damning evidence why America is right to doubt the honesty of Barack Obama:

"As of the time I was in Hawaii, working in the elections office, we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record (an original NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” from 1961), which would have been the case if Obama was born in a hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form for him in Hawaii. Barack Obama does not have an original birth certificate because he was not born in the state of Hawaii. Its like an open secret among officials of the Hawaiian Government..." Tim Adams, former Senior Election Clerk Supervisor for the Honolulu Elections Commission of Hawaii. June, 2010.

If, after taking accurate measurement of America’s history, considering the cost and remittance of treasure to overcome the enemies of Peace, upon the honor of our fathers’ fight for exceptionalism in the world, one does not conclude the authority of America’s unique moral qualification to inspire the world and establish the hope for the future of all mankind, then all blood lost since is merely for nigh that greater purpose which redeems it and hate has won.

Long after we have passed, it should be instinctive among every vintage of America’s applauders, and degenerate haters alike, that the cause for our brand of liberty decidedly rests upon the highest monuments of mankind as the perennial, solitary Hope for all creatures, that we shall all, upon the planet earth under Heaven, live in the divinely ordained manifest of the blessedness of God, our King, by Whose command, America was founded. We embrace this with defiant amplitude equal to our passion in defense of it. For, it is by this Love we were afforded the desperate righteousness to seek the deepest meaning of human identity, its salvation and our sovereignty as an epic nation.

As we have all heard in Sunday school, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”

In a March, 2010 radio interview with Stan Solomon, Dr. Alan Keyes, former Republican presidential candidate and former member of the Reagan Administration’s staff in the State Department, gave the most intellectually adept analysis of Obama’s constitutional eligibility problem. In response to the question, “If you have, at the roots of a tree, the illegal usurpation of power by a president, what can we expect from the fruit of this tree?”

Dr. Keyes delivered this bolt of reason and logic:

“Well, this very issue, as the question eludes to the fact that the approach being taken by the Obama administration to the legislative process is one in which a majority vote trumps the Constitution, and that if the majority at any given moment on any given bill wants to do something that violates the Constitution, then, (according to their “majority rules” belief), what they do is the “law”, even though the Constitution is against it. So essentially, the Constitution becomes no longer the supreme law of the land. Well, that was the exact same attitude that these people took with respect to the Constitution on the issue of Obama’s eligibility. Their position is: ‘..the majority of people have voted, therefore it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, it’s over with..’..”

Keyes continued, “And, so, as I, and others warned at the time, this issue of Obama’s eligibility actually represents an effort to destroy the authority of the Constitution. And, now the work of destruction and the ‘hoped for’ result, which is, “…opposition to Obama’s claim to legitimacy does not have standing…” that, in turn, would actually lead people to stand in defense of the Constitution, is now being applied to probably the most important and critical and dangerous proposed legislation that we have had since the New Deal period. So, (the attitude of dismissing the Constitution and declaring the Constitution as meaningless on one issue), suddenly is now coming home to roost in the form of an assault on the legislative sovereignty of the American people, and particularly, within the House of Representatives which has been historically regarded as the grass roots representation of the American people, that is what is going on…"

"The fact that you have, in the first place, put in place a faction in the White House contrary to the Constitution’s authority, and with contempt for the Constitution’s authority, is, in fact, related to the fruit we are now seeing in terms of the same attitudes being taken toward the corruption and destruction of the legislative process. Basically, the aim is to take the Constitution and toss it over board, so that whatever is the will of a given, momentary, transient majority…that’s going to trump everything…"

"Now, consider that the next step in that is clearly to understand that the majority’s will trumps the rights that are provided by the Constitution…This is the end-game of our liberty…We are fighting a battle to maintain the truth and integrity of the Constitutional system which provides for the real sovereignty of our people.”

Keyes’ point is an apocalyptic one. If we have set the precedence of dismissing the Constitution’s prescriptions for the sovereignty of our leader’s identity, then how can we possibly then come to the forefront of the defense of the Constitution and justify our argument against the legislation, the fruit, of that same leader? You have no standing based on your previous precedent of dismissing the first law which says the roots of the tree must be legitimate. Now, since we have already, as a prerequisite to his despotic license, afforded him the legal exemption for taking office, he is now free and able to implement corrupt laws (bad fruit) against us. The roots of Obama are covert and malevolent, so therefore, why would we ever expect his fruit, in the form of policy, to be anything but covertly presented and malevolent.


There are four classifications of vital events defined by the U.S. Department of Health which occur among our population. They are births, deaths, marriages and divorces. They all demand and employ a standard form of legal documentation used to account them, statistically, and to provide for verification of their occurrence by an appropriately qualified and licensed official in the location which the vital event occurs.

Vital statistics were officially collected in the United States for the first time in1850. However, the national birth registration regions were officially created in 1915 as the national data collection structure for census and demographics records was formalized.

In 1961, as stated in the official Vital Statistic Report of the U.S., the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the prescribed form of legal birth documentation issued through the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division. It evolved throughout 110 years of input from federal and state agencies seeking to improve the collection, accuracy and discernment of natal statistics in the United States. It was made in close collaboration with the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics and was recommended to the States for adoption as of January 1, 1956.130

In Hawaii, however, the state’s Department of Health has gone astray from this federal standard. In creating an independently published document called the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, the state of Hawaii has deviated so much from the original form and function of the federally issued record, as it was intended by the U.S. Department of Health, that the credibility of Hawaii’s form of birth documentation is now in question.

When liberals persistently volunteer alternative biographical documentation about Obama, which we did not ask for, in the form of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, and try to convince us that it is the standard of birth documentation in America, they are not only insulting our intelligence, they are contradicting the American standards created long before the Hawaiian islands became a state.

By pushing Obama’s natal identity with such a deficient form of municipal birth documentation, Obama apologists are encouraging the violation of the official standard of birth documentation developed by the federal U.S. Department of Health, which is representative of the entire nation, not just Hawaii, and they are acting in a manner that is counteractive to the function of this vital record in its importance as a primary source of statistical collection and personal identification.

The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was autonomously created through an endemically ignorant Hawaiian municipality and used by Obama’s protectors to deceive a vast consensus by exploiting remote, state-level legalisms and license to customize records based on the need to conceal Obama’s identity. The ultimate objective of this fraudulently created form of vital record, crafted way out in the Pacific ocean, was to convince war-wary mainland Americans to accept Obama’s obscure Hawaiian identity without confronting his blatant dishonesty with America’s federal vetting standards.

If the sparse biographical information Obama has revealed so far is indeed true, then he simply only needs to produce the available standard documentation so we can corroborate his state-level claims with a federally eligible identity. If he was an honest leader, he would do this without hesitation. There should not be any difference between his stated legitimacy and his documented eligibility, if Obama has been telling the truth. On the other hand, in light of blatant attempts by this administration to set rules preventing access to Obama’s records (i.e. Executive Order 13489), we are reminded that being a liar is not just characterized by what you say. Lying also means remaining silent when you know others are being allowed to believe something you know is not true.

The records available about Obama’s natal identity do not support a full vetting of his political legitimacy, his political eligibility or his natural born citizenship, to date. However, Obama apologists within the liberal establishment continue to perpetuate the lie that the state of Hawaii has the authority to establish the eligibility of a candidate for the U.S. presidency by simply saying that secret “birth documents”, which no one outside of this remote municipal agency has ever seen, exist in some form in the secret files of the Department of Health.

The absurdity of Obama’s documented identity is as absurd as his radical political ideology and the deranged policies spawning from it. However, birth records are only one essential part of the entire roster of documents and information we should demand in order to verify the identity of our leaders, if not for the sake of constitutional integrity and national sovereignty, then for our desire to have confidence in the honor of the U.S. Presidency. Birth records are just the basic, most common source of personal data showing the biological beginning of our lives. However, these documents are the metrics by which our character is also measured. Not necessarily by the content of a birth certificate are we judged, but more so, we are held to the essential standards of national unity by our willingness to reveal it honestly. America knows that Obama has failed to do this.

Virtually all Americans are familiar with the most recognizable birth documents because they have to use them so frequently for sources of identification for themselves and members of their families for far less significant reasons than serving as President. It seems absurd that a little league baseball player would be required to show more proof of age, citizenship and birth documentation to play baseball than the President of the United States does to serve his office, but, that is how it is today.The absence of Obama’s personal data, such as education transcripts and medical records, also promotes suspicion in the collective conscience of people who define character through an emphasis on knowing a person’s identity. If they see essential, organic pieces of Obama’s identity missing, it is then reasonable to conclude that there must be fundamental pieces missing from his character, as well. Obama has made a bad choice to remain covert in this matter. It will infect the rest of his presidency if he does not reconcile with it. The absence of the other collaborative pieces of biographical history only seals the validity of the questions about his legitimacy. College records, travel documents, immigration documents, his voting records as a senator all have significant impact in determining Obama’s legitimacy.

Documents about Obama’s education have never been revealed. However, we know that Obama graduated without honors from Columbia University. This means that he entered Harvard Law School with an undergraduate grade-point-average of less than 3.30 but greater than 2.0. Based on this, given Harvard admission requirements by general applicants that they possess a minimum 3.5 GPA, Obama’s performance at Columbia lends weight to the theory that he may have been accepted to Harvard as a result of Affirmative Action. This, in turn leads to the possibility that his $40,000 annual tuition was paid through foreign aid sources. In order to receive foreign aid, Obama would have had to enroll as a foreign student. We know Obama was a citizen of Indonesia and his father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth.

Detracting from Obama’s credibility is the fact that his educational records and transcripts, like his birth records, are held in secret from the American public.

Set aside the birth records for a moment. Based on a July 31, 2009 “Research 2000” poll posted on the Daily Kos, a far-left liberal website, 23% of people surveyed are, at a minimum, not sure that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president.28 At most, nearly half of those (47.8%) said they believe Obama is not a natural born citizen. Almost one out of four people have questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president simply because he has refused to resolve the matter once and for all. Extrapolated, that’s roughly 75 million people in the U.S.!

The ironically humorous result of this poll is that it was conducted by radical liberals intending to make people who ask any question about Obama’s natal history look “fringe”. Instead, it only demonstrated the intensity and validity of questions coming from the most conscientious majority of American society. Leftist websites spent the entire weekend after the completion of this poll conjuring ways to spin the truth and discount the monstrous amount of suspicion against Obama. The editor of the Kos tried to funnel the results into a right-wing conspiracy theory despite the fact that many of those polled voted for Obama.

There are also many unanswered questions about Obama’s demographic profile, which, in the absence of federal vital statistics documentation, remains undisclosed. Obviously, Barack Obama is America’s first ‘bi-racial’ president, but we are not sure which two races he actually is. Void of facts, the political left in America, particularly advocates of reparative economic justice, seek to craft him as the ‘first black’ president because the term ‘black’ promotes a argumentative proximity away from those out of whom they seek to extract the means to achieve their version of economic equality. The use of language to advance this oppressive and hate-felt licensure is driven by little more than ignorance about the historical facts of true generational inheritance in vintage America. Christening Obama as the ‘first black’ President is a technique used by the liberal establishment to protect his racial plurality while denying access, within the realm of lies and accusations, to his actual identity as it appears in the conscious domain of obviousness.


One of the funniest movie scenes occurred in the opening of 2002's "Men In Black II" when the character played by Will Smith, "Agent Jay" is attempting to warn a train full of commuters before a giant alien worm devours their subway car. He attempts to evacuate the train while announcing his authority.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am with the Transit Authority. We need to move the front car due to a 'bug' in the electrical system," he calmly states while displaying a badge.

Despite Agent Jay's efforts, however, he commuters remain indifferent to the warnings and simply ignore his desperate pleas for their cooperation.

Then, suddenly, the giant worm, named "Jeff", consumes half of the train car with one bite. The commuters, screaming in terror, try to run out of the car. Agent Jay chases them along the isle and calmly mocks their panic, saying, "Oh...hey, now you all runnin? Where you going? Just stay seated. It's only a 600 foot worm comin to eat you."

At the end of the ordeal, as the tattered train car shambles to a stop, Agent Jay gathers the commuters for the traditional "neuralization process". But, before erasing their memory he takes another moment to mock their stupidity saying, "The City of New York would like to thank you for participating in our drill. If this had been an actual emergency you all would have been eaten! Cuz you don't listen! You're ignorant! How a man gonna come bashing through the back of a subway...when...see, that's the problem with all you New Yorkers. 'Oh, we seen it all...oh no, a six hundred foot worm, save us Mr. black man..', and I come in and ask you nice, 'move to the next car,' and you all just sit there..."

Realizing its hopeless to continue, he gives up in mid sentence and erases their brains with a flash. Needless to say, Agent Jay's mockery is well understood by those sounding the Obama eligibility alarm. The ignorant masses are hopelessly perishing in their stupidity. Sometimes its just easier to erase their brains and move on.

Consider this. What if the only possible way to reclaim this country from progressive corruption was to expose the fraudulent identity of its ineligible officials in their violation of the sovereignty of Constitutional law, thereby realizing the fraudulence of the rules they create?

What if Barack Obama really has assumed the presidency without the legal qualifications as defined by the eligibility mandates of the Constitution and the only way to defeat his ideological proliferation was to prove he is an illegal office holder? What if the battle cannot be won by arguing against the "ineffectiveness" of policy when that policy is completely "illegal" to begin with?

What if the only way to repeal any socialist law created by the current progressive government, as signed by Obama, was to implement the truth about his natal history and the obligation of Constitutional law against his eligibility to be president, thereby disqualifying his presidency and all that came from it?

Without this course of action, what if there was no other defense against the destruction of our nation?

Odds are, those who were once "soft" around the middle on this issue would suddenly demand undeniable, unarguable, medically verifiable proof of Obama's eligibility.

How is it that media icons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are so willing to lament the ineffectiveness of liberal policies, as though they are actually legitimate, without recognizing the evidence mounting against the legitimacy of the people implementing them. We give ventilation to our opposition of Obama's phony socialist laws as if those laws actually have a authentic place in American history to begin with, without ever challenging the authenticity of his legal qualifications to hold the office of the Presidency.

Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity want to argue against Obama's ideology when they should be investigating and exposing his probable illegality. They want to treat Obama like a legitimately elected radical liberal with whom they disagree when they should be seriously considering the possibility that he is an illegally elected criminal threat who should be arrested and tried for violating Constitutional law.

In his March 22, 2010 Fox News Network broadcast, Glenn Beck said the following:

“In my entire life, I never thought I would ever see the kind of corruption, the backroom deals, the out-and-out scumminess that brought us to this health care reform vote. I mean, what is the fruit of this tree going to be like? We know what the roots are.”

It's difficult to take Mr. Beck's outrage seriously when he has been so unwilling to question the "seed" of eligibility of the "tree" whose "fruit" he is worried about. If anyone has watched Beck's show, he has featured on his famous chalk boards an image of a tree labeled with the various factions of the Obama Administration. The drawing shows the branches, the fruit, the trunk and the roots of the "Obama" tree, but it fails to show the seed from whence it came. Of course, Mr. Beck knows that every tree starts with a seed. The seed establishes roots which support the tree which then grows branches and the fruit. Beck sees the rotten fruit, but refuses to embrace the fact that the original seed was not viable. Although he is right to be concerned about the "fruit", he has failed to prioritize his lamentations about the foremost problem which was the nature of the "seed".

The founders of America rightfully decreed that a President of our nation had to originate from a "seed" bearing certain natal characteristics which reflect the best interest of the sovereignty of America. They called these natal characteristics, "Natural-born". Being natural born means that the individual seeking to become President must not have achieved his or her citizenship through legal or administrative process after being born outside of the jurisdictions of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. This was essential because our founders understood that only a natural born President could never be without the protection of the Constitution when confronted by foreign interests.

Of course, Mr. Beck was right, but he had not fully vetted the depth of the truth in his words. Perhaps, he just stumbled on it. In fact, we do not know what the seed of the Obama "tree" is. The birth of the tree begins with the seed, yet Beck refuses to engage the debate over Obama’s natal "seed" because he has said that “it is an argument we can’t win.” The tragedy in this is that we cannot win any argument regarding any part of the tree unless we question the nature of the seed from where it was born.

However, until media powers, like Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are willing to investigate the legitimacy of the seed as the first essential measure of this usurpation outside of the propositions offered by secondary sources and liars, the true weight of this illicit scheme will remain successfully covert, concealed from the domain of obviousness. For, if we can’t argue against the legitimacy of a man’s identity, then how are we ever supposed to justify an argument against the legitimacy of his decisions? If we are unwilling to uphold the standards of sovereignty in the identity of leaders, then why would we ever be willing to uphold the standards governing over, and limiting, their legislation?

Bill O’Reilly actually told his viewers that his staff had fully investigated the Obama eligibility issue, and upon discovering two birth announcements published in 1961 in two Honolulu newspapers, (as though his investigation had discovered something no one else had at that point), he thereby determined that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His tragically misinformed conclusion was that the two papers would never forge birth announcements to covertly assist Obama’s aspirations in the off chance he might run for president sometime in the next 50 years and therefore how could he have possibly not been born there. O'Reilly, therefore, made the quantum leap that Obama was obviously born in Hawaii and, therefore, refuses to look any further into his eligibility. It is a very sad demonstration of journalistic laziness for someone with such a respected, longstanding career in media. O'Reilly is the most fair minded, credible, experienced media personality in the last 15 years. His career spans more than 35 years. However, his treatment of the Obama eligibility issue is quite sad.

If O'Reilly had done an actual investigation, he would have discovered that the newspapers print from information received from the Hawaiian Health Department and that the Hawaiian Health Department creates birth registration lists from file numbers assigned to birth records created through methods of accounting births which do not consider geography or medical verification in determining natal citizenry or residential status. Hawaii treats a natural born child the same as a foreign-born child when Hawaii is declared as the parent's residence.

Oh, what a tangled web we find when we understand the actual facts about the process and legislation governing the issuance of birth documents in Hawaii. It’s difficult to imagine that such a powerful media force like O’Reilly could be exploited by such blatant misinformation.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338, alone, eviscerates O’Reilly’s conclusions and makes him look foolish. Never mind the fact that these same newspapers have unequivocally stated that, in 1961, they printed information provided directly by the Hawaiian Department of Health and that this same Department of Health is obligated under state law to issue birth certificates for births outside of the United States under Hawaiian law.

HRS 338-17.7 and 17.8 explicitly states that the Director of the Hawaiian Health Department is obligated by Hawaiian law to issue such certificates, when a request is made to the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health for a birth certificate, if proof is provided that the parents claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of the birth, and that these certificates must state Hawaii as the place of birth based on the protocol that the mother usual residence is considered the same as the place of birth. The statute also says that the validity of the proof of residency is to be determined not by a judge or a federally appointed official, but by the director of the Hawaiian Health Department, alone! In this case, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

O’Reilly fails to understand that this creates a chain of falsely endowed natal information under the authority of the local municipality as to the actual birth place of those it serves, while blatantly dismissing the federal authority of the Constitution in matters of Presidential eligibility, as well as the authority of the U.S. Department to Health obligating the states' Health Department director to report natal statistics for native born children, only.

O’Reilly also makes his "confirmation" declaration while excluding documented evidence that Obama’s mother sought to register the birth of Obama for the simple, logical purpose of receiving state aid as a single, teen mother, which, obviously was not a part of any conspiracy to see Obama become president, but rather a lie to make sure he had food and clothing as an illegitimate birth. It is not outside the bounds of probability to conclude that Obama’s mother, upon learning of Hawaii’s permissive foreign birth registration laws, simply registered Obama’s birth as occurring in the state of Hawaii for the purpose of receiving welfare funds.

This is not extraordinary to consider. Nearly 1000 other single mothers did this in Hawaii in 1961. This doesn’t suggest some epic, 50-year long conspiracy. It just simply means that by the time Obama’s handlers realized he was not eligible to be president because of his foreign birth, they were already too deep into the financial and political commitments to allow him to be disqualified. It was then incumbent upon them to investigate every possible way to promote Obama’s candidacy without ever allowing the public to have hard knowledge, backed by evidence, of the actual story of his birth as it related to the issue of Constitutional eligibility or, more importantly, his political legitimacy.

There was no conspiracy 49 years ago, there were just practical decisions made by the adults in Obama’s early life which were only recently discovered to be disqualifiers of Obama’s presidential candidacy. Once these discoveries were made, given the massive overinvestment of liberal money into Obama’s candidacy, actions had to be taken to neutralize this information in order to prevent it from being discovered and, therefore, prevent it from stopping Obama’s election.

Bill O’Reilly’s investigation is astonishingly wanton and lacking of any significant depth, not because he lacks the power to gain access to the information, but because he is limited by his own adherence to the mainstream modalities of media popularity. Simply, he fears being called a loon. It is this fear which has allowed Obama to get away with this grand lie.Quite simply, we do not know what the full tell-tale roots of Obama are. We have never been allowed to see this covert underworld of secret information. Therefore, since we are not allowed to see the legitimacy about the roots, we simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of his fruit.

Yet, it is at this very conjunction where media personalities like Beck and Bill O’reilly have failed in their journalistic responsibility to connect the actual roots of Obama to the fruit of his corrupt ideology. Mr. Beck, God love him, has frequently used the analogy of a tree, with accompanying drawing of such image on his chalk board, containing photos of people and influences of Obama’s corrupt past, but these musings only go as far as Obama’s past can be verified by investigation in the domain of safe obviousness.

With great affection for Mr. Beck, we must hold him partially responsible for allowing Obama to grow this putrid fruit because he has failed to uproot the poisonous tree by its roots. Beck is afraid to take that risk for fear of being referred to as a “birther” by people who hate him anyway. It’s weird. Beck has refused to dig to the very depths of this man’s lies. The deepest available information. Unfortunately, until a powerful force of justice takes this risk and makes a compelling argument against Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy, his policies will continue to be enacted with impunity. Ultimately, Beck and O’Reilly will go down in history as men who had the power and ability to raise significant forces against the deficiencies of this rogue leader, but refused to because they were too afraid of being called names by people with no honor.

You, on the other hand, have remained silent long enough. Your patience has been appreciated but the cry of your fathers’ blood has become too unbearable. Your overdue response should not be as much about the disputed theories regarding one leader’s natal information as it should be about the blatant offense of his audacity against the honor and sacrifice of those far worthier. Of course, your revulsion should be prompted by a lack of basic information which everyone else in normal humanity would unanimously consider commonly available to identify any other person born in America for purposes far less important than being a President.

However, the absence of this basic information in Obama’s case has reduced the value of his character and made him appear ridiculous rather than respectable. The residual void makes it difficult to take him seriously in the shadow of such artificial authenticity. As a result, the entire affair has worked to diminish the prestige of the Office of the American Presidency and has kneaded into the fabric of our government the corrupt deficiencies of covert ideology. Whether acknowledged or not, the failures of Barack Obama reside in the failure of his character measured against the judgment of history and God. His failure to make known his name among men has compromised his legitimacy among rulers.

On the other hand, perhaps this tragic manifestation is our fault. We allowed the manifestation of Obama to happen by permitting 50 years of progressivism to have authority in establishing guilt-based social standards in this country, when, in fact, we should have forcibly maintained jurisdiction over America’s essential sovereignty and authority in the world by eradicating these degenerates from our government, our neighborhoods and our society. When the advanced citizens of humanity become complacent and passive, the resulting vacuum is filled by a malignancy called progressivism. The primary symptom of this disease is the election of a radical ideologue.

When a nation betrays its founding principles, defies the message of its vintage heritage, adopts foreign policy as its own, enacts social standards based on economic justice, covets personality rather than character, promotes equality on the merits of demography rather than ability, surrenders the interpretation of its constitution and laws to derelict power-mongers and employs the most corrupt radicals the peoples tax money can bribe…the result is the covert emergence of a man like Barack Hussein Obama.


Vastly exceeding the necessary spending required to resolve our economic challenges, Barack Obama is obstinate to concede the favorable circumstances he actually inherited from previous administrations which provided his opportunity to build on our economy and strengthen our national security. Instead, ever the campaigner, Obama would rather wallow in the shallow eddies of history’s recent tide-pools blaming selected, but historically common, challenges on a single previous administration without ever exercising his Ivy League intelligence to understand the larger sea of reality.

Using the failures of the Bush administration to make even worse decisions under the guise of fixing the problems is a shamefully wanton deficiency for such a self-proclaimed agent of generational hope and paradigm change. He wants to fundamentally transform a 260 year-old nation, yet he continually blames his greatest, most powerfully opposing challenges on one, single administration during our most physically vulnerable era. Disappointingly, one would expect Obama to represent a cause substantially greater than lamenting his preeminent difficulties as being the result of one of the past 43 Presidents before him. Certainly, we hope he will uphold a worthier cornerstone of his fleeting moment in history. Endowing Bush with such power makes Obama seem petty.

Whereas Obama and his drones fail to understand that money is only effective when it is concentrated into the hands of those with the responsibility to spend it correctly, conservative Americans hold to the time tested reality that our stewardship to life, first, is the prerequisite to peace. Conservatives understand that defending life is the preeminent cause to having a lifestyle worth improving. Liberals do not understand this. Without the basic rights to national security, Barack Obama would not even have his current opportunity to improve our economic situation and, thus, employ any policy to “fundamentally transform” the American quality of life. Because of Bush’s hard work in the field defending America’s right to exist, Obama has the opportunity to now get the house in order.

Obama’s ease in blaming Bush is the result of his lack of understanding that America’s exceptionalism and security is not free. We should not be too harsh on Obama’s rookie status, however, his lack of executive experience on the international stages prevents him from understanding that defending our nation against hate and bloodlust costs large sums of beloved and well-spent treasure.

Among the obvious circumstances benefitting Barack Obama's tenancy, is his opportunity to serve as president in a world without the menacing presence of Saddam Hussein. For decades, the Iraqi dictator terrorized the Middle East and threatened world stability while murdering and torturing more than a half-million Iraqi citizens. His trial and execution made the world a better place.

This reality brutally confronts the weakness of liberal dissonance and forces upon the conscience of haters of vintage America the inexcusable question of our responsibility, as a super power, to act in the defense of oppressed people in underdeveloped and distressed nations. Surprising to most liberals, sometimes the threat is not global warming or an earthquake. When the threat is evil, sending bottled water and blankets is certainly appreciated, but inappropriate. Sometimes, it’s actually necessary to send American warriors with a mission to shoot bullets into the bodies of really bad people.

In the course of America's response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein presented himself as the convenient idiot justifying both his removal and the world’s proactive establishment of an overwhelming military presence amid the region of the planet where enemies of humanity breed and conspire against us.

The liberal denial of benefits in establishing a military presence in a place where attracting the attention of radical Islamic terrorists is less of a threat than allowing them on American soil only demonstrates liberal blindness to national security issues and their dejection about not thinking of it first.Moreover, Obama’s incapacity to understand the brilliance of the Bush Administration’s initiation of a proactive military presence in the Middle East is just one example of his profound ignorance and ineptitude in matters of quelling actual violence and hate. Obama is content to measure the depths of human rights violations within the narrow doctrines of social entitlements he once pushed on the glimmering streets of a pristine American city.

However, Obama is a rank fool compared to the epic genocide confronted in the streets of foreign squalor by the Bush Administration. And, this makes sense in accordance with an understanding about those who voted for Obama. The minions of the Democrat party have failed to associate the reasons for being alive, even at the most trivial level, with Bush's prevention of their death through another cataclysmic terror attack, to date. Tragically, this liberal ignorance may prove itself as the potential doorway through which terrorists can find opportunity to murder innocent Americans, again, under Obama.

Given the liberal establishment's irrational disdain for the former president, and his ancestors, their failure to appreciate his unwillingness to cower and wait for the next attack is a frightening insight into their desolate politics and their acceptance of self destructive fatalism. Of course the rest of the world hated George Bush. He refused to allow them to kill us! Bush understood something that Obama will never grasp.

The rest of the world does not have the right to not be offended by our desire to not be murdered by them. Yet, impudence remains the defining characteristic of liberal rookies in America’s war, who are subject to a culture of death and derelict to imagine effective, and feasible, global solutions to this lethal world-wide fanaticism.Obama gets to be president of a country that was made safer, and kept safe, for more than seven years after the worst terror attack in American history.
The murder of 3000 innocent people, from 90 different countries, at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, took America, and the world, by surprise and prompted the efforts of our most powerful leaders to do their best to never allow it to happen again. Let’s remember who is really to blame for this atrocity. This transgression against humanity is the fault of insidious creatures which hijacked planes, full of innocent passengers, and used them as weapons to implement hatefully justified destruction and death.

The Bush administration took on the endeavor to realize a safer world by implementing controversial, but effective, proactive policy intended to fight against our terrorist enemies. Meanwhile, Obama is merely riding a pendulum of natural reaction while trying to make everyone believe he is making it swing. He’s not.In the weeks following the attacks of 9-11, many on the right called for the use of nuclear weaponry on several selected major cities in the Middle East as retaliation for ALL terror attacks in the past 50 years. Liberals refuse to see the measured focus of Bush's destruction of Saddam Hussein's government, and the subsequent liberation of the people of Iraq, as amazing demonstrations of restraint and responsible application of American military might, in lieu of the alternatives Bush was called to consider.

Vintage America must remind the deranged liberal hordes that America is the responsible one. If we fail in our responsibility, then, by definition, the world is already in sharp decline.Of course, the policies of the Bush Administration were extraordinary for our time. And, so were the destructive tactics of our dissonant enemy. But the fight against global terrorists and radical Islamic violence is an extraordinary matter requiring extraordinary responsibility. Obama’s liberal herd must be forced to understand, either by reason or apocalypse, that our response to a global terrorist threat should never be measured by a need to merely defend our lifestyle. Rather, it should always be measured by our right to the priority. What good is preserving our quality of life at the cost of not being alive to experience it? Vintage Americans are confident that Bush understood enough of this to make a pragmatic difference. But, they are doubtful that Obama understands it.

In Obama's narrow focus to tinker with economic leakage, he is failing to appreciate the implications of a breach in the successful dam Bush built to contain the terrorist threat. Whereas Bush was willing to go to the headwaters of terrorism and fight at the confluence and tributaries, we can only hope, desperately, that Obama will not withdraw completely, resigning our nation to finger plugging a collapsing structure at the precipice of our greatest vulnerability.

Most of Obama's supporters simply lack the mentality to realize the pointlessness of American citizenship without the resolve and methods to defend it by exceeding the level of lethality being employed against it. There is nothing more important than our security and the responsibility we have to ourselves, and the world, to remain eternally prepared to respond to terrorism with every available resource at anytime, everywhere. Our safety is no longer dependent on our geography, so we must prioritize our response to terror in every decision we make, regardless whether or not it concerns foreign or domestic matters. At a minimum, we owe this to the victims lost.This lack of acknowledgement is the biggest problem vintage America has with Barack Obama, and it is reflected in his first year approval ratings.

Prevailing as the macrocosm of his party, there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. How can we find safety from our foreign enemies under the administration of a man so alien to the fundamental truths of America? His character deficiencies present fodder for opinion, but it remains an obvious truth that his past offers nothing extraordinary to which we might attribute our confidence, or dispel his "otherness". How can it? It doesn’t exist because he refuses to reveal it.

Rather than merely squat on a constituency’s fawning lust for his media darlingness, perhaps if he had invented a useful implement, or submitted to some form of military service, or led a church, or even presented some evidence of physical sacrifice for America, we might have more favorable reasons to embrace him. Aside from merely being the man running on a “not-Bush” message and opposing the party of conservatives, what grand, selfless act has Obama committed to express his appreciation for the privilege of being a member of America’s advanced citizenry?

Though liberals will disdain it eternally, President Bush will be remembered in history as the father of the global war against terrorism. He was not a perfect leader, nor was he absolutely right in all decisions. However, along with the relinquishment of executive challenges, like many presidents before him, Bush has given Obama some extraordinary opportunities for success and distinction. Aside from the obvious fact that Bush was decidedly opposed to allowing the mass murder of Americans, it rests upon the responsibility of his successor to make the most of the grand stage foreset by the fundamental actions of such an unfairly and ignorantly reviled historic figure.


Compounding the stress of America’s difficult economic challenges, it remains a mission of most liberals to evoke hatred for Obama’s predecessor in response to what Democrats view as the unfavorable circumstances Obama “inherited” as president.

Disregarding the historical fact that our president's terms in office rarely begin or end coincidentally with the resolution of America's common problems, the liberal establishment is differentiating Obama's time in office, from other president's, as abnormally deprived by the previous administration. Much of this juvenile vitriol is showcased by the bias of the pro-Obama liberal media consisting of broadcast networks NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as well as major publications, most notably, the New York Times, Newsweek and Time magazine, and hundreds of radical leftwing internet sites like the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos and Salon.

The media’s dementia over Bush began way back in the 2000 election when the liberal establishment was put in its place after the Supreme Court had to intervene on the Democrat’s attempt to disqualify absentee ballots in Republican districts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of fairness by upholding election law, instead of liberal fantasy, which resulted in Bush winning the election by far less of a margin than the difference of actual votes cast in his favor.132

Then, scorned by the 2000 Election, the deranged liberal media cabal upped the ante by committing blatant slander in 2004 when CBS news producers, with the help of anchor, Dan Rather, used what appears to be the preferred method of cheating by liberals; A document scandal.

Instead of contriving documents in favor of their candidate, as they did for Obama in 2008, liberals employed a wing of their propaganda apparatus and showcased manufactured documents containing unfavorable reviews of Bush’s performance in the National Guard.

The malfeasance of CBS resulted in the end of Dan Rather’s career and the firing of several executive level employees at CBS. However, the flavor of the liberal approach toward getting their newest manservant installed in the White House in 2008 had been foreshadowed.

In 2008, with all the appropriate documents in place, their epic plan to contravene America’s founding principles would finally take center stage.However, despite the lies from liberal media networks, the nature of executive responsibility obligates the president to the will of the people who hire him. And, as America's political history reveals, a president's performance is evaluated benignly, in the long run, without comparison to the performance of previous office holders. History will not blame George Bush for Obama's failures. Nor will it blame Obama for the next president's conduct. In some cases, the new president must take on challenges which, as determined by the people, are within his capacity to resolve. Rather than engaging the opportunity like infantile, blame mongers, perhaps it is overdue to acknowledge that the decisions made by the successor actually have made the problems much worse than they would have been if he had done nothing at all.

Let's make sure we account blame accurately among all the suspects. Let us not forget the members of Obama's own party, including Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Chuck Rangel, serving in high ranking committee positions with influential ties to our banking and mortgage industries, who all played illicit roles in undermining our economic situation during the previous administration. Many of these congressional Democrats used their political leverage to pressure lending institutions into issuing mortgage loans to customers they knew could not afford them.

The lending industry acted in accordance with the desolate intentions of liberals to redistribute opportunities in the housing market, by inferior standards. The end result was financial collapse because liberals pushed banks to give loans to the less affluent, high risk demographics of our society.The disastrous result of this stupidity was the fastest increase in foreclosures in American history, leading to the collapse of the housing market and the mortgage lending industry. Since then, more than 780 billion dollars in tax payer money has been used to rescue the mortgage and banking industry, to date. And, it appears this still will not be enough to solve the problem. We will borrow more of our grandchildren's worth because Barney Frank thought it was "fair" for recent, jobless immigrants, some of them residing here illegally, to live in ponzi-mortgaged houses. These are tidbits of information the lying liberal media refuses to tell us about.

Regardless what liberal propaganda disseminates, the executive branch of our government has no real, appreciable culpability, comparatively, for these realms of an economic downturn. So, finger pointing by a president sends a message to the essential economic power in America that his appointment was the wrong choice and that his abilities to resolve the issues for which he was hired were overestimated. When a president tells America that his job was made harder by his predecessor, America’s advanced citizenry concludes that he was the wrong person for the position, not that he has been unfairly treated. America wants somebody who exhibits mastery over problem he faces, no matter the reasons for it. America needs a leader willing to acknowledge the benefits of his successive place in the legacy of American Presidents, not blame them for his uncertainty and lack of qualifications.


After being received by America at a young age, in the remotest outpost of American geography, without the demands of the standard confirmation of his identity, Obama was afforded the opportunity for an education, and the means to pay for it, by a generous society.

Does anyone actually believe Obama paid for a Harvard Law degree by writing part-time for the “Sundial” and organizing war protests?

Obama was afforded professional opportunities available nowhere else on earth and he was blessed to be a part of a family structure reinforced by advanced social and economic resources, relatively speaking. Just by the fact that he existed in America, even if he did nothing with his life, Obama inherited a greater socioeconomic advantage than 98% of the world's population.

American institutions, and the financial system that supports them, were established by far worthier pedagogues and social engineers than Obama will ever be. His American predecessors pioneered innovation and built our society, developed a scholastic standard, established industry and created our quality of life, long before he arrived to benefit from them.

Obama’s academic accomplishments are recognized, and his command of language is appreciable, but the liberal promotion of his value is greatly inflated. Millions of Americans have completed higher levels of academic achievement worthy of far more veneration. And, without the availability of American scholarships, institutions, and industry, liberals need to be reminded that Obama would have been relegated to just another third world existence. In his eagerness to “showcase” the challenges he inherited from the Bush administration, Obama might promote himself better to a larger number of Americans if he would also recognize the benefits of inheriting his opportunities from those who came before him. After all, by the time Obama was ensconced as president in 2009, America’s history had progressed for 260 years...without him.

America had survived two major economic depressions and several smaller, but no less significant, ones. We had elected 43 other men before Obama who presided over far more challenging eras of our history than Obama ever will, and we fought and survived eight major wars in which millions of Americans sacrificed their lives and safety to secure the rights and liberties Obama, and all Americans, now enjoy.


Though we are all better off for having emerged from the Civil War, certainly, we would wish that we didn’t have to engage in such a terrible conflict. But, we did. So, with this historical fact securely in place, let it not be ignored that Obama is a particularly special beneficiary of the results of that conflict, by way of his much lauded heritage, even though he has no proven genealogical connection with American slaves.

Sadly, however, Obama seems to lack an appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors to bring him, and all black Americans, equality in a free society.There is a sense among vintage America that Obama secretly believes that, because of his one sided view of the history of our struggle for civil rights, he is somehow entitled to a privileged position in leadership. And, this does not sit well with the citizens of America who actually have bled and died, with the ability and power, to change it.

Of course, slavery is a part of an unfortunate chapter in our history as a species, and as Americans. But, equally, so is the fight we've engaged for freedom from it...for all humanity. Throughout the history of humanity, the suffering incurred to abolish slavery, and to emancipate its victims, is equally tragic. Emerging from the horrors and loss of our civil war, America was brought to a better place in time, where Obama is rightly embraced. Sadly, however, it is less without regard for his race than those lost in the Civil War might approve of.

However, in a political irony, one teeth-gnashing reality which liberals hate to acknowledge is that the end of slavery in America was the result of legislation passed under a white, republican president. And, the Emancipation Proclamation which followed led to the amendment of our constitution after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of white abolishionists on both sides of the Civil War. But, the radical left in our country, hell bent on redefining the significance of history for the purposes of promoting a reparative agenda, deny the sacrifices made by millions of Americans to bring an end to slavery.

America remains the only developed nation in human history to fight a nation-wide civil war over the issue of slavery. Perhaps this, in itself, is seen as irrelevant by some. Our society has become too depraved to appreciate the association of its venerated extravagances with the blood shed by heroes to provide it. And, as Obama continues to rob future generations of their worth to pay for his liberal dreams, perhaps we are beginning to realize that slavery has actually not been abolished, after all.Ironically, it appears Obama is reconstituting the sins of our past, in a new form. He is acting as a fiscal change agent serving the interests of radical left reparative justice ideology. By his assumption of power, Obama is enabling a systematic economic slavery, much to the joyful redemption of ashamed whites who voted for him, for the purpose of avenging the victim mentality rooted in plantation slavery. Obama might command more respect if he expressed an appreciation for some of the positive things he, and all Americans, have inherited from the legacy of those warrior's commitment to freedom through sacrifice.

Contrary to the liberal chorus, it remains a valid point that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather it is the result of being rejected by it. In this case, rather than relegating Obama’s upbringing to the proverbial single parent stigma, it appears the absence of his black father actually enhanced Obama’s chances for success. In 1962, his father, Barack Obama Sr., abandon him and his mother to attend graduate school on the east coast. Therefore left to an upbringing by his white mother’s family, in predominantly white society, Obama was linked with the facets of traditional American heritage necessary to his success. On the other half of his biography, Obama’s father was obviously not a man prepared for fatherhood, let alone raising a miscegenated son in an interracial marriage, in 1960’s American society. But, obviously, neither was his mother prepared to abort her pregnancy. However, it is difficult to find fault in them. They made a mistake in their youth without the guidance of those possessing better judgment.

The presence of Obama’s father, during his impressionable years, would have probably been a detriment in many ways to Obama’s personal success in the long run. Thankfully, for Obama, his mother was blessed to be a part of a generous, supportive extended family, willing to provide for their grandson. However, if Obama is thankful for this amazing salvation, it does not show in his demeanor as a president when he plays the petty blame game and engages this charade over his ambiguous birth.Barack Obama was brought to this moment in our history for a reason. Whether it serves the political interests of any party or individual, is unknown. But, what is known is that America is facing challenges, and, to some degree, these challenges have been ongoing for years, irrespective of the president serving at the time. But, also, the President’s experience has been given a wonderful legacy inherited by each of its successive office holders. Obama has made the most of his inherited opportunities as an American. But, there still remain a slew of ominous, unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding his early life.


America is an open, free, economically diverse, successful society. Yet, the only standard we are inflexible to uphold is the mandate against the plural identity of our leadership. America was created this way in order to prevent enemies from taking advantage of our open system, and therefore, our vulnerable population.
Why are Obama’s natal origins important to America’s understanding of his identity and character? Regarding the matter of birthright, does Barack Obama have an inherent right, as a direct consequence of birth, to serve as president? What standard does America use to determine eligibility for leadership?Most would agree that the opportunity to be President is not a right, or an entitlement. It is a privilege. And, throughout our history, that privilege has fallen on men who, regardless of wealth or social standing, meet specific biographical, legal and genealogical criteria which demonstrate loyalty, citizenship and a tangible alignment with America's overall founding values. These criteria are defined in the language and prescriptions set forth by our Constitution.
These values typically, though not always, are a legacy perpetuated through generations of family-inspired leadership and honorability. The founders of America were linked by threads of these criteria and by a common mindedness to realize the American ideal. Obama’s “otherness” is defined by more than just his rapid ascendency to executive power in American politics. He brings with him a slew of cultural and ideological pluralities that America is not being given a chance to embrace.

America is being left in the dark about Obama and never in the history of this nation has a candidate for president been so secretive, so elusive, and so ambiguous in the necessary expression of his essential and documented self.

In light of this truth, Obama is the first man put into the oval office whose parents were not both U.S. citizens, as defined by the laws in effect, at the time of his birth. Obama’s mother, though born in the U.S., had not physically resided in the United States long enough after the age of 14, as prescribed by citizenship inheritance laws in effect in the 1960’s, to be a U.S. citizen. Ann Dunham had to have resided in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday, in order to be able to pass on the rights of full citizenship to Obama when he was born in 1961. She was not yet 19 when Obama was born. His father was a Kenyan national, subject to citizenship laws of the British Commonwealth. Regardless, he was not an American citizen. Obama’s Presidential eligibility is in doubt merely for these reasons, let alone for reasons based on questions about his geographic birth place.

Therefore, despite the psychotic lust of the liberal establishment to pin the argument in favor of Obama’s legitimacy to the questions of his geographic birthplace, there are far more important ambiguities in his cultural, migratory, paternal, genealogical, and ideological biography which pose far greater threats to American sovereignty than his physical birthplace.All legalities and conspiracies aside, this is historic in the case of Barack Obama because it represents the first instance in our history in which we’ve failed to accurately define the plurality of our elected leader’s national identification, even if it were not for the purposes of recusal. Obama’s covert identity speaks to the antecedence of presidential validation and how failure to establish a candidate’s sovereign identity “from conception to election” sets precedence for future passive tolerance of leaders who possibly possess plurality in their national loyalties and interests. This can potentially compromise national security and, more horrifically, compromise the physical security of our nation.

If we, as a nation, misinterpret or dismiss the eligibility standards required for our leaders to serve and protect us, we make it easier for foreign influence to take advantage of our national resources and our people. Without the constitutional prescriptions for sovereignty in the identity of our leaders, America is potentially made vulnerable to foreign authority and, worse, the harmful intentions of our enemies, through the exploitation of our leader’s insecurity. Barack Obama has been allowed to serve in our government despite possessing an ambiguously plural identity.

Whereas, any other nation on earth, in defense of its leadership’s sovereignty, would require verifiable acceptance of personal data metrics, or an accepted native citizenry by legal exception, Barack Obama’s presidency is the result of inheriting the position, in part, as a result of progressively relaxing standards used to vet candidate qualifications, and a failing method demanding a singular national identity. This is something never before seen in modern times. Obama has been allowed the privilege of serving as president amid unanswered questions and unsatisfactorily disclosed information about his basic genealogical, demographic, educational and immigration history. We do not know who this man is, or what he represents or what he intends to implement as a leader of the most powerful nation in human history. Despite a complete lack of disclosure supporting Obama’s compliance with the people’s Constitutional prescriptions, he has been allowed to assume control of immeasurable resources in the American government.

If we have a genuine interest in upholding the principles of vintage American values, defined through our Constitution, while having a rational discussion above the caterwaul of unreasonable liberal disdain, this analysis can benefit the pursuit of rationality. If we are interested in holding our leaders accountable for their dishonesty and partisan selfishness, this book is one perspective to consider. The story of Barack Obama’s ambiguous claims to political legitimacy, and the amazing reasons for his intentional effort to obscure the facts of his identity should be all we need to command our government’s compliance.


Sadly, since web-press hack shops like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and the Annenburg Foundation vouch for Obama, it appears the Constitution is no longer consulted by our justice system in matters of national sovereignty and government accountability.

While ignoring legitimate requests for legal assistance, our derelict court system has divorced itself from any role in protecting American in this matter. Reminiscent of Herod, spineless judges have shuffled the matter off into the nanny care of the political realm, rather than a taking charge of it with the authority of legal mandates. It’s easier for judges to wash their hands of the people’s grievance. In doing so, they are complicit in undermining America’s future, and perhaps the personal security of Obama.

In an October 29, 2009 ruling to dismiss one of the highest profile cases against Obama’s eligibility, after his previous contrary ruling to grant trial, United States District Court Judge, David O. Carter gave this convoluted, misguided rationale to justify his incorrect decision:

“Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Among judges given the opportunity to respond correctly to questions about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, Carter’s misunderstanding is not unique. Every judge presented with this case has provided different reasons for the same result. The variances of random and benign rationale by different judges across the country is an indication that something other than legal precedence is influencing their decisions. Ominously, it seems judges have been infected with a contagious form of cowardice cloaked in sophistication. They all lack legal standing to make their decisions to dismiss this case, so they are left with little more than abstract reasoning.

Carter’s ignorance of the prerequisites of Constitutional eligibility and how they apply to the endowment of legitimacy to a “sitting President” is breathtaking. In his fallow explanation, Carter never gives a coherent legal reason for his moral reversal, nor does he address the reason for the plaintiff’s case, which is a failure by Obama to adhere to the federally mandated requirements of eligibility which are arrived at through the existing standard vetting process. The failure in this vetting process is the preeminent breach in the legal process by which Obama became artificially elected to begin with. Instead, Carter makes an absurd quantum leap from his previous position of realizing the “…vital nature in clarifying the rights of military personnel to serve under a legal President…” into the realm of declaring all elections pristine and all Presidential “sittings” as final. His aimless rant borders on incompetence.

Essentially, the failure of Carter’s logic lies in his misallocation of authority to the popularity of a candidate over the more substantive authority of the preeminent Constitutional mandates for becoming President. Carter’s choice to call Obama a “sitting President” provides artificial legitimacy to a fraudulent adherence to the vetting process without ever addressing the more essential question of Obama’s ineligibility. Carter fails to understand that just because a candidate was popularly elected, this by no means is an indication that he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office. Furthermore, Carter fails to acknowledge the validity of actual evidence showing that Obama’s natal eligibility is in question. The fact that both of Obama’s parents were not U.S. citizens is enough to bring actual legal authority against Obama, let alone the possible fraudulent misrepresentation of his unnatural natal prerequisites.

In Obama’s case, the election simply means that he was approved by a misinformed consensus, which was ultimately misled by a breach of constitutional law, and deprived of its right to vote for a legitimate candidate. Carter has incorrectly chosen to uphold Obama’s “elected status” as a President without ever considering the more important question of Obama’s “vetted status” as a candidate, first! The people bringing cases against Obama are not challenging the fact that he won the popular vote, they are challenging his adherence to the legal process, (from his candidacy, to his status as President-elect to the certification of election results to his Inauguration, to the invocation of his executive powers), by which he came to a position to participate in the election to begin with. Rather than define Obama’s legitimacy along distinctive legal boundaries, Carter has capitulated to the enticements of social influences under the weight of deranged liberal propaganda.
Legally Defined Progression of U.S. Presidency

1. Declaration of Candidacy
Achieved through application to the Federal Election Commission.
2. Vetting and Eligibility Review. Achieved through adherence to Constitutional mandates and requirements. Performed and determined by officials of the Secret Service in cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Federal Election Commission, the Social Security Administration and other agencies possessing biographical, legal and personal information about the candidate.

3. Primary Election Process. Achieved through party specific election process.
4. Presidential Election Process. Achieved through the completion of a national election within the structure of the national Electoral College.

5. President Elect Status. Achieved by receiving an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270), but not yet inducted by Inaugural oath. Electoral votes for each state are determined by the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2. Since 1964, there has been 538 votes available in the Electoral College, apportioning one vote per each member of congress plus three for the delegates of the District of Columbia (435 members in the House, 100 members in the Senate and 3 delegates in Washington D.C.)

6. Election Results Certification. Validated through Federal Voting Systems Standards (FVSS) and achieved through each state’s election officer, under the jurisdiction of each state’s office of the Secretary of State.

7. Inauguration. Achieved by taking of Presidential oath given by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

8. Invocation of Executive Powers. Achieved through signing of laws and executive orders during term(s) of Presidency.

9. Succession. Achieved by completion of term(s) in office either through new, valid election results, Constitution mandates on maximum terms in office or death.

10. Official Historical Recognition. Achieved when legally defined records of Presidency are authenticated through the official oversight of Library of Congress in cooperation with the White House, the State Department, the Secret Service, the Defense Department and the Intelligence agencies of the U.S.

From the listed steps above, it is easy to see how Carter’s lack of understanding of Constitutional preeminence of the vetting process prevents him from employing his own proportionate judgment toward the appropriate question in this case. Carter chose to dismiss the case based on his desire to endow more validation upon Obama’s Inauguration while denying the equally, but preemptive, validity of the vetting process. Carter failed to correctly interpret the legally defined progression of a legitimate presidency when he decided that, since Obama is currently the president, he must have achieved the position legally. Carter made the decision in his own mind to endow Obama with Presidential legitimacy.

This decision is recurring in Obama’s eligibility saga. It is the exact theme used to justify the decision by the state of Hawaii to legally endow Obama with his natal legitimacy after he applied for a “Certification of Live Birth.” The Director of Health in Hawaii, upon seeing Obama alive, standing in her office, made the quantum leap to conclude that since he is alive, right in front of her, applying for a Hawaiian birth certificate, he therefore must have been born in Hawaii 47 years earlier and therefore must now be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Otherwise, how could he possibly be a candidate for the U.S. Presidency, right now? The propensity on the part of Obama’s protectors to engage in this form of irrational, free association about his identity is ridiculous.

Likewise, Carter’s attempt to argue that his ruling was justified by “Constitutional limitations” was nothing more than an abstract decision, based on his freely associated conclusion that, since Obama is living in the White House, he therefore must be the President, and therefore, he must have been an eligible candidate. Otherwise, how could he have possibly been elected? The ridiculousness in this thought process is self evident. Essentially, Carter attempted to make Obama’s refusal to prove eligibility look like it was the will of “sixty-nine million of the people”.

The disgrace in this cowardly buck-passing is that Carter illegally dismisses his own authority to enforce Constitutional law by refusing to clarify the legitimacy of a federal office holder. In doing so, Carter has failed to protect the security of the American people. Like Herod in the trial of Jesus, Carter is simply washing his hands of the people’s grievance…then, only afterward, is he actually making the key decision which he knows will defeat their right to have that grievance remedied. His decision, like every other judge’s, to dismiss this case was a miscarriage of justice.

Despite the filing of more than 30 lawsuits by American citizens questioning Obama’s constitutional legitimacy and seeking to determine the facts one way or the other, no challenge has been allowed to go forward by the liberal court system. All have been dismissed or turned away without so much as a review of the charges or a hearing to determine if the evidence presented is verifiable or authentic. The liberal empire, with the help of selectively “blind justice” is allowed to continue its destructive riot deep into America’s conscience. There is nothing more egregious to those who sacrificed their lives for this country than for a judge to arrogantly dismiss the constitution and disregard the basic rights Americans have to petition their government for a redress of their grievances.
Every court that has dismissed a case asking Barack Obama’s to disclose his personal information, is violating not only Article II, but also the 1st Amendment of the constitution. The liberal establishment knows this. It also knows that the reiterative legal process to challenge such rulings simply overwhelms the resources of average Americans. Obama understands that if no grievance is filed, no redress is required. Obama wins by default because the judicial system is taking his side and helping him remain anonymous to the people.

When judges break laws, justice is simply too oppressed to reconcile. Perhaps political corruption permits such atrocity in the liberal ranks of America’s fringes, but the moral compass of middle class America remains true. Honesty and disclosure are rightly held as primary characteristics of a qualified leader. By the lack of evidence demonstrating Obama’s full identity, this is obviously a standard the pandering liberal is unable to meet when consenting to their own deception under the guise of political loyalty. Over the past two years, judges have had ample opportunity to help Americans answer their vital questions about Barack Obama, and they have all failed in their duty to do so.

Obama may not be able to rewrite the Constitution, but he, with the help of our judicial system, is going to try to make America think it means something other than it actually does. Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. During his announcement, he opined, “The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed...”114

Obama intends to use the legal system to redefine the essence of America and implement the most massive redistribution of wealth in world history. Attributing his ideology to the “genius of our founders”, rather than expressing respect for the strength and sovereignty of America, Obama is making an audacious statement about what he believes is the flexible weakness of the American Constitution. His comment can be accurately attributed to his actual intention to challenge, if not outright circumvent, the laws governing the electoral process in America, not only for himself, but, as we have seen, for those who serve in his administration who have been sympathetic with communism, radicalism, and authoritarianism. The number of radicals and law breakers in the Obama Administration make our current government the most endemically corrupt generation of leadership in American history. Firing Van Jones and Anita Dunn, for their engagement in communist ideologies, is just the tip of a very large, very deep, revelation about the socialist agenda of the Obama administration.

The problem with the Obama mentality, whether it is exhibited by judges, lawyers, politicians, voters or Obama himself, is that it is completely contrary to what the founders actually framed within the language of the U.S. Constitution. In actuality, his radical ideology will only press against justice and promote more stringent, oppressive laws to control judicial decisions in the future.

Of course, the Constitution is very specific in its demands upon a potential candidate’s responsibility to disclose the appropriate information needed to meet the qualifications for the office. It is even more commanding of a candidate to satisfy the “spirit” of service by prompting standards of transparency in self identification. The implication of our founders is that our leaders would be subject to the people and required to provide for the confidence of the people and, most importantly enforce the sovereignty of the United States of America. However, when vindictive circumventors of America’s vintage election rules infiltrate the highest offices of leadership, it falls upon the courage of judicial champions to uphold the spirit, as well as the letter of the law against them. Without these lines of defense for the people, it then becomes incumbent upon the people to defend themselves.


Obama’s covert natal history is not the result of any conspiracy, in the traditional sense. Instead, it is the unintended consequences of the liberal establishment’s financial overinvestment in the cult of one man’s distorted historical relevance, without the due diligence to thoroughly review his candidacy beforehand. Obama’s infringement is the result of a mass derangement on the part of the political left to vindicate their hatred of George W. Bush for the previous 8 years while implementing their rendition of radical reparative economic justice through a vindictive representative. What better way to punish political rivals and ideological opposition than to impose the power of hate through government policy? As a result, Obama was installed by liberals to take freedoms and resources from people liberals hate.

Liberal investment in Obama’s victory was so deep and so motivated through the vengeance of a massive liberal vision of America, it became imperative to find an ordained, like-minded radical, like Obama, in the White House, even if it meant sacrificing morality and truth to accomplish it. Obama’s deficient natal transparency is merely seen as an inconvenience to those motivated by the prospects of the greater liberal agenda. However, it is their failure to see the reverberating consequences of such shortsightedness which will be the downfall of their fragile icons.
Even respected members of America’s media have recklessly dismissed the importance of Obama’s undefined natal legitimacy. They have concealed the truth and diminished its importance by imposing secrecy about Obama’s true identity without fully weighing the actual truth of its content or the consequences of its exposure.

The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the drones of the liberal cabal simply lack the intellectual and moral ability to implement solutions to the problem of Obama’s origins in a straight forward, honest manner. They do not have the skill to mitigate the political damage while achieving a “safe zone” of reconciliation with the American people about the matter. This dissonance is the result of their choice to hastily over-commit the full measure of their resources into an effort to get this man installed as the champion of an epic liberal agenda, while forsaking the basic principles upon which the institutions of American government were originally founded. In their willful lack of forethought, they have betrayed the founding fathers and undermined the integrity of modern America.

Before anyone ever discovered the problem with Obama’s vital information, the liberal establishment had already invested a billion dollars into his exaltation prior to his 2007 announcement date. By the time the truth about Obama’s real identity was realized, the investors were already committed to the 50 year-old radical agenda and Obama’s representation of it. Yet, finding themselves confronted by a terrible truth, they were already beyond the point of no return. There was no way to undo the transactions or withdraw the commitments to liberal interests. There was no way to un-promise the beneficiaries of an Obama presidency. The unions, the community organizations, the people seeking higher office, all had to be compensated, somehow, through the channels of Obama’s executive Presidential power. Allowing Obama’s withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential campaign after January of 2007 was impossible for the survival of the liberal establishment’s royalty and its financial viability to bring neo-liberal change.

The amount of money and human resources given by the liberal establishment to the cause of electing Barack Obama is unprecedented. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign raised more than $66 million in August, 2008, alone,113 setting a one month campaign fundraising record. Then, Obama raised another $104 million just within a few weeks of the 2008 election to set the overall Presidential campaign record. The Democrat Party’s balance sheet shows the liberal establishment raised nearly $750 million in private donations for Obama’s enthronement, nearly 3 times more than the McCain campaign. To give perspective, in 2004, Bush and Kerry raised a combined total of $504 million between the two parties, during the primaries.111

The amount of money raised through conventional campaign fundraising methods is only part of the liberal “investment” obligating Obama, however. In the months leading up to the 2008 election, Obama spent a quarter of a billion dollars on T.V. campaign ads, shattering the record set by the Bush administration by more than $50 million.112 This unprecedented injection of money into the broadcast networks of NBC, ABC and CBS not only translated into a propaganda-like monopolization of the American mainstream entertainment and media complex, it is the root of the prevailing blind loyalty to Obama’s presidency by media moguls, like George Soros and Warren Buffet, and the massive, world-wide pageantry created around Obama’s mystique. Frighteningly, this liberal pathology translates into billions of future dollars directed toward helping the liberal regime maintain power through the most massive propaganda machine in human history.

Obama’s political legitimacy in America is anchored in these fiduciary relationships rather than in any foremost adherence to the Constitution. His presidency is undeniable proof that if an ideological faction of American society throws enough money at a personality and a political cause, it will use any means necessary to justify the results of appointing its selected representative, regardless of that individual’s eligibility or legitimacy, even forsaking the principles of American exceptionalism.

It is impossible for the liberal establishment to separate such a fawning relationship from the lavishes of such large sums of money given for Obama’s installment. Combined with Hollywood’s slobbering fetish for Obama, it becomes apparent that America’s entertainment and media industry was at financial risk along with the liberal political establishment. So much so that failure to realize Obama’s election would have been fiscally fatal for many of the oligarchy pushing his reign. This is the essence of why Obama’s apparatus was unable to allow his removal, even after discovering comprised integrity in his vital information and natal history. Monetarily, it simply became cheaper and more expedient for Obama to circumvent the Constitution and betray the confidence of the American public by obscuring the facts, concealing the truth and destroying any effort to expose his biography, rather than risk political collapse and electoral failure.

Tragically, therefore, we are left with no choice but to conclude there are two possible reasons why Obama has concealed the details of his natal history. One reason is that there is information contained therein which compromises him politically, but not necessarily legally. Or, there is information in the murky recesses of his origins which compromises his eligibility to serve in American politics by revealing that he does not meet the requirements of American constitutional law to hold his office.

Regardless of which reason applies, there is only one consequence; Fundamental questions remain unanswered and there is no confirmation of any irrefutable evidence verifying the concealed facts about Obama’s true identity. Therefore, because of this vast violation of transparency, there will be an immovable obstacle preventing Obama from ever becoming a legitimate leader of any significance. Until these matters are reconciled, Obama is a little more than a fugitive from his obscure past, rather than a much needed distinguished helmsman leading America toward any better future. By all logical assessment, Barack Obama’s identity has been measured, and it has been found in desperate need of clarification.

Symptomatic of the overbearing pressure to control information about Obama, in August, 2009, the administration began to crack under the criticism of their leftist policies. Two months later, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel declared Fox News an enemy of Obama’s agenda. This tactic of demonizing a news organization was last seen during the Nixon administration. And, we all remember how that turned out for the President. Fox News remains the only real media network refusing to frame its news reporting with bias in favor of Obama. This “declaration of war” on a media resource revealed an abysmal weakness on the part of Obama’s information managers. It exposed their thin skin and demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also revealed their lack of confidence in the righteousness of their agenda.

The American people may not have intimate knowledge about Obama’s deception but they know, through Obama’s character and behavior, that he is hiding something about himself. He exhibits a multitude of symptoms of an individual fearing exposure. He is anxious, pressed, elusive, defensive and unnecessarily verbose in response to simple, intimate matters which affect him personally. Yet, he is absent and unresponsive in more universal matters of great importance which pose great threat to others. This tends to indicate a preoccupation with interpersonal, rather than external, issues.

Obama is ravenous to blame others for what he perceives are their failures in previous administrations, yet he is morally incapable of accepting responsibility for his own deficiencies. He is comfortable in apologizing for what he believes are mistakes of those who came before him, having the luxury of criticizing them for their difficult choices rather than risking his own reputation for a better result, yet he is completely void of any cognizance about his own ineffectiveness. Only cowards judge history without first being accountable for the future they cause.

Most disturbing, however, Obama preaches the virtue of transparency and the abstract rule of law, as he evangelized so eloquently during a televised speech13, while avoiding the standards of both when they apply specifically to his behavior, mainly the disclosure of information qualifying him for leadership. Historically, this has been shown to be a dangerous characteristic in an appointed leader.

Obama believes our government, and our nation should be different. But, he also seems to believe, as demonstrated by his elusive behavior, that this difference should manifest as a result of circumventing the rules governing it, rather than through transparency and allowing the inclusive process to determine the legitimacy of his qualifications. Obama speaks of the importance of honesty and transparency, yet he acts dishonestly and opaquely.

Whereas, the Constitution is the “birth certificate” of America, we might say the bible is the “birth certificate” of mankind. And, every man and woman under the jurisdiction of each has a birth certificate from the qualified agency of the United States which has been appropriately evaluated, adequately attested and is self-evidentiary in meeting the requirements of those to whom their identity is subject. In every case, the validity of this document is not established by the document holder as has been the case with Obama. It is established by the authority of its creator in concert with the confirmation of witnesses possessing a vested interest and risk in the integrity of that individual. A birth certificate is only valid if the intended purpose of the record is fulfilled. It is only valid if it is recognized by those who honor it as an accurate testament of the bearer’s natal identity. To date, the documents provided by Obama were specifically designed to conceal his identity, not reveal it.


Martin Luther King was one of the greatest men in American history. His dream was that America would someday recognize the value of character over the derision of demography. In August, 1963, he said:

“In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline…” 134

He continued:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The search for truth has never been more important than in the case of the biography of Barack Hussein Obama because it goes to the roots of the generational struggle for equality by blacks in America. Dr. King understood that any attempt to achieve artificial equality through acts of malfeasance would only cast a darker shadow on the spirit of America and undermine the value of suffering by those who struggled before.

If Martin Luther King were alive today, he would tell Obama to be transparent about his biographical identity. He would tell Obama to uphold the honor of the generational struggle of blacks in America by refusing to allow dishonesty and ambiguity to rule over his righteous cause. King would tell Obama not to allow such a trivial lack of information to diminish the value of his opportunity to create lasting, honored and enforceable values across all demographics in American history. Unfortunately, Obama’s election would have greatly disappointed Dr. King. In King’s commission for his heritage to avoid “wrongful deeds” in seeking justice, Obama has failed.

Never in the history of this nation has any elected official been so ambiguous or so evasive about the facts of their biological identity while pandering for such favorable consideration for his racial identity. Never has any president been so unwilling, so completely dismissive of an undeniably basic inquiry about the substance of their character by the American public while wanting to be respected by that public for his heritage. Never have the vetting authorities been so passively deficient in fulfilling the letter of informative transparency while defending their fraudulent opacity. Never has such an adept orator been so inept at the basic skill of communication while failing to act responsibly as the primary authority of his own vital information. Never has personal information about any elected official been so manipulated and so blatantly scripted with such a massively endemic effect as the circumstances surrounding the natal origins, and subsequent identity of this ghostly stranger. But, more importantly, never has an American president suffered from such justifiable excoriation of his character over such a fundamental question of integrity.

Apart from Obama, however, Martin Luther King would also admonish us for putting too much importance in a single document as the definitive depths of a man. However, he would also say that we should focus on the substance of character of the person who would deny open access the vital information that single document represents. Martin Luther King would say, “If you are someone seeking a grand endorsement of the importance of a piece of paper, exclusively, don’t waste your time.”

Dr. King understood, after such dishonesty from the American government over the years, there is no document available, authentic or counterfeit, which would reconcile the truth anyway. The damage is done.

We can be confident that Martin Luther King understood the decisions made by our leaders have direct influence on our daily lives and a profound impact on our psychology. As a means to justify his campaign for change, Obama may enjoy blaming Bush for the challenges he ‘inherited’. However, the fact remains that once conditions deteriorate beyond what the American majority is able to accept as the previous administration’s fault, Obama will be left holding a very big, and dirty, bag of garbage that he will be blamed for creating. The tide had already begun to turn within the first 9 months of his first term when his approval index sank to the lowest of any president in that time frame in history.

By August of 2009, the radicalism of Obama was violating America’s psychological boundaries of acceptability and grace. His “economic justice” policies drove our annual national deficit from $30,000 per household to $80,000, and this was before the passage of any healthcare reform bill.132 Aversion toward Bush is no excuse for making things monumentally worse. Just because the previous tenant left a pile of garbage on the lawn, it does not give Obama permission to throw it into his neighbor’s yard along with an even bigger pile of his own…then raise taxes for hauling it away.

When we discuss the issue of citizenship in America, it is important to research the immigration laws and understand the reasons for the constitutional prescription of such a mandate. The sovereign identity of our nation is tethered synchronically to the literal character of those in our leadership. This was an important component of Dr. King’s understanding about the foundations of unity.

King’s ideal transcended race and reached the global conscience. As such, aside from the domestic importance, the message of Obama’s natal sovereignty, demonstrated through the identity of our President to the rest of the world, impacts international opinion about our security and our responsible command over the potentially destructive power we possess. This message is vitally important for the confidence and security of our own citizens as well. It is imperative that America have an effective process in establishing, verifying and attributing the accurate identity of any person filling our most powerful leadership position.

The records which are available about Barack Obama’s natal history are inadequate for determining the truth about his origins. However, more importantly, any final conclusion about his legitimacy to be President resides in the information contained in existing records that are currently unavailable. The documents on file with the state of Hawaii present information which compel the employees of that municipality to confirm that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, however, it is a certainty that none of them were present at his birth, nor are any of them qualified to define his birth by the requirements of the federal guidelines governing the determination of a witnessed ‘live’ birth in the United States of America.

Any credible argument supporting the fullest possible disclosure about Obama’s natal history will present detailed knowledge about the purpose of different forms of available documentation, at a minimum. Specifically, an understanding of the history of Hawaiian immigration, and the documentation thereof, is also important in understanding how Obama was able to take advantage of some unique circumstances.

The appetite of Obama supporters to invent him as the secret champion of liberal advocacy only paints him as a shadow boxer in a league of 43 previous “prize fighters”. This stems from the willful denial of their own available and equal accessibility to America’s true blessings, weighed against their desperate inability to abandon politically correct absurdity.

There was no greater demonstration of this degeneracy than when, during a July 16, 2009 hearing of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, in a heated debate over the Obama administration’s environmental policy’s impact on jobs, Committee Chair, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) actually told the President of the Black Chamber of Commerce, Harry Alford, a vintage American, that the environmental policies of her party were justified because other black leaders supported them. Boxer’s insidious accusation was that Alford should support Obama’s environmental policy simply because he too was a black man. This rightly offended Alford who was attending the committee to discuss the issues of energy and job loss, not race based politics. Boxer was obviously invoking Alford’s race in order to promote her desolate political point of view.131 Boxer also exposed herself as a racist.

Liberals, like Boxer, have infected the psychology of America with race-based ideology, not for the promotion of better social values, but for the advancement of their guilt-driven liberal doctrine. Like Boxer’s blatant condescension of Alford, if we allow liberals to promote Obama’s dishonest racial ambiguity, through the terms of ‘first black’ anything, it allows them to package their deception about his grandeur in a message that diametrically opposes the ‘evil white dominion’ of America’s essential history, while condescending our nation’s melanic cultures. This fa├žade contradictorily derides the image of America’s white founders who were inconveniently different, demographically speaking, than the liberal preference for a synthetic society whose laws, opportunities and rights are based on skin color.

The ridiculousness in the liberal’s regard for Obama is that they want to promote him as the ‘first black’ champion of all things progressive, yet they refuse to show any documented vital statistical evidence that he actually is eligible to be “black”…let alone eligible to be President. The most absurd fact of this entire charade, however, is that his Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ refuses to disclose his racial identification whereas the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ would resolve this vital question about his natal identity. Liberals discount Obama’s obligation to disclose his personal information by stating that his ambiguously documented identity does not affect the fact that he is the elected President.
However, liberals will not face the undeniable truth that a fraudulent election does not have authority over the rules of the U.S. Constitution, nor does a slobbering love affair with the celebrity they seek to exalt. The hard lesson for liberals to accept is that Obama’s failure to be transparent does affect his ability to be an effective president and it may, in fact, lead to a complete diminishment of his Presidency sometime in the future. There is no time limit for his disqualification to have future consequences on the decisions he makes today. Hypocrisy eventually consumes the whole of a man, not just the parts that are kept secret. Obama’s illegitimacy will result in a Constitutional and legal crisis of unprecedented proportions. In this light, he is no better than the despots of history who deceive their way into a position in order to abuse the power it provides.

In general, politicians simply lack the moral fortitude to take a decisive position on the issue of Obama’s natal information. At this point, very few in America have the fortitude or monetary resources to legally challenge Obama’s ambiguous claim to American political legitmacy. However, it is always possible to challenge his authenticity as a leader. He has shown himself to be a vulnerable, oversensitive target of criticism. His natal illegitimacy has metastasized into political illegitimacy.

On August 28, 1963, set against the sky line from Memorial Park, as a warm eastern wind began to wipe the tears of America’s racial inequality away, Dr. King was frighteningly sincere in his glorification of the subject matter we was speaking about. King’s credibility was embraced because his message confirmed his behavior and his behavior confirmed his identity. King created a situation which allowed vintage America to accept both the grace of an effective figurehead with the doctrines of the U.S. Constitution.

Comparatively, 45 years later, on the night of November 4, 2008, set against the city sky line from Grant Park, as the cold Chicago wind began to freeze Oprah’s tear-ridden cheeks, Obama was frighteningly sincere in his glorification of subject matter he was lying about. Obama’s credibility is strained because his message does not confirm his behavior, and his behavior does not confirm his identity. He is creating a situation which forces vintage Americans to choose between an unsubstantiated figurehead and the U.S. Constitution.

After the lack of evidence about Obama’s identity is considered and we hold him to King’s standard,“…judging him not by the color of skin, but by the content of his character”, it is difficult to deny the embodiment of King’s warning in Obama.

Unfortunately, America is left to conclude that, in the process of “seeking his rightful place”, Obama may indeed be “guilty of the wrongful deeds” King advised against. The entire affair is a tragic undermining of the cause for racial equality and a hindrance to the redemption of America’s sons.

Ask the essential questions….

Why are commonly available documents, universally known to virtually all Americans, which account the alleged “natural-born” natal history of Barack Obama, being withheld from the public when these very documents, by the testament of Obama’s own handlers and apologists, would otherwise exonerate his claim to American political legitimacy while simultaneously defeating his opposition?

According to the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Office, the “Certificate of Live Birth”, containing 55 entry boxes provided for information about the occurrence of birth, is the official document used to document natural born children in the U.S. This document is only declared valid with the signature of an attending licensed professional qualified to determine to the characteristics of a “live birth”, and a registered professional licensed to record vital events. Where is this document for the birth of Barack Obama?

What malevolent information could possibly be contained within the secret documented history of Barack Obama that it would prompt such vigorous contentiousness through legal counteraction, social ridicule and mass propaganda meant to prevent it from even being reasonably discussed, let alone, actually revealed?