Chapter 8 - No Hawai’ian Mai Au
While traveling through Africa, an Englishman asked an African man, “How do you say, ‘Where’s the WC’, in Kenyan?”
The African man replied, “Unasemaje ‘Unasema Kiingereza’ kwa Kiswahili?”
Surprised with an answer, the Englishman paused, eyes bulging, then replied, “Never mind, I’ll just hold it.”
The African man said, “Suit yourself”.
Two Men On a Train to Kisumu
From “Africa’s Lost Culture”
The geographic seclusion of the Hawaiian Islands, combined with their fragile cultural permeability and largely unmonitored points of entry, presented unique circumstances reinforcing the ambiguity in Barack Obama’s citizenship and identity. Of all the places in the world to declare one’s U.S. natural born status, the State Of Hawaii in 1961 was cutting it as close as one can get to disqualification. For mainland America, this was the perception about established native Hawaiian’s born in that era, including those who were even willing and able to provide a full and detailed set of natal documentation for work far less prolific than the presidency.30 Therefore, one might imagine the suspicion about someone, like Obama, with known cultural plurality presenting meaningless, innocuous documentation become the most powerful person on the planet.
A citizen of the U.S. cannot come from nearer to the outer boundaries, more removed from the familiarity of iconic markers, more distant from the mainstream society, at any earlier time in American history, and still have political credibility to convince this nation of their possession of America’s highest form of citizenship credential. Hawaii is as far from vintage America that anyone one can be born without mitigating circumstances and still be, technically, considered a natural born American. It’s ironic the liberal establishment enjoys the word “fringe” when castigating Obama identity seekers, considering Obama is the most fringe Presidential candidate in American history, geographically speaking. Perhaps an investigation of Obama’s “fringeness” requires individuals who are equally willing to go out to the fringes and apply some reasonable analysis.
Courtesy: Wikipedia 2009
Relating this perspective in real world terms, the distance from Honolulu, the capital of Hawaii, is the same distance to our nation’s capital, Washington D.C., as Moscow, the capital of Russia, is. They are both about 4850 miles away. If anyone would have been born 4850 miles in any other direction from Washington D.C. than Hawaii, they could have been a citizen of one of 17 other nations.22 With interest to establish confidence and assurance in one’s status of citizenry, the choice of location to establish roots would be better suited for a far less remote, urbane proximity from Hawaii, if that choice was intended to afford citizenship in America, in general.
When Hawaii became a state in 1959, its new government had yet to develop a thorough systemic process for recording demographics of its native, new born and recent migrant population. Understandably, most, if not all, of the indigenous population in Hawaii in 1959 did not possess an official birth record in the form which we commonly know them today. Hawaii was a culturally rich, but far less municipally complex society. That is a compliment to Hawaii’s sense of sovereignty and cultural genesis.
When they think about the region’s migratory history, people sometimes forget that each of the Hawaiian Islands is surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. Completely contrary to the features of land locked states of Midwest America, Hawaii is water locked. It’s reasonable to assume that Hawaii’s migratory activities, during its Territorial Era before 1959, were a challenge to monitor. Possessing 750 miles of coastline, there are 8 land masses that are traditionally considered the main islands along with 10 minor islands and another 10 islets all of which stretch for approximately 1500 miles in the middle of the Pacific ocean.40
Geopolitically speaking, located 1,860 miles from the nearest continent, the Hawaiian Island archipelago is the most isolated grouping of islands on Earth.41 Hawaii’s unique geography presents interesting possibilities when we consider the unverifiable information about Obama’s origins. This should not be discounted in any investigation of Barack Obama’s natal identity. In fact, unfortunately, this geographic uniqueness should be considered a promotion to Obama’s covertness, today.
Prior to modern times, unlike nations which share land borders with other nations, Hawaii’s unique geopolitical location in the Pacific Ocean allowed travelers to have access to a variety of remote, largely unmonitored entry locations. These unique geographic features should not be underestimated in their effect on the history of Hawaii’s cultural and migratory history, and the impact on circumstances promoting a general, if not specific, ambiguity about Obama’s natal origins there.
From sea to sea, America had established the foundations of its identity during the previous 240 years of international and civil conflict, before Hawaii’s statehood. Beginning in the 20th century, U.S. Immigration and vital records systems had begun to develop and utilize advanced technology for recording and securing personal information. But, it was not this way in Hawaii. To say that Hawaiian immigration and vital records agencies were proficient at their purpose of witnessing, recording, creating, protecting and storing vital information about its citizens would be an exaggeration.30 In the beginning of the 1900’s and into the 1950’s, the idea of migration in the U.S. was conceived exclusively on the premise that people came to America through the eastern coastal routes, not the western ones. This mass migratory “trend”, along with the isolation of Hawaii, greatly contributed to its cultural and geopolitical plurality by drawing government immigration oversight away from the west coast of America. This was a naturally subtle, but significant circumstance in promoting the kind of situations like Obama’s.
Aerial of Honolulu, circa 1960 Courtesy: Honolulu Advertiser
HAWAII'S UNIQUE IMMIGRATION HISTORY
America was simply less inclined to provide resources with the same vigor to the immigration and travel volumes to western routes as it was to those along the Atlantic sea board.
In order to account for those living in, migrating from and moving to the new State of Hawaii in the mid 1900’s, the U.S. government, along with the new municipal governments of Hawaii, implemented efforts to improve the demographic records accuracy. One of these efforts was the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program”. It was hoped this would improve the government’s ability to account for pre-statehood U.S. Hawaiian residents and create an official clearinghouse for Hawaii’s indigenous people. 5
One of the program’s improvements was to record and maintain the most complete as possible set of records for those already residing in Hawaii, for those who could provide some form of basic identification, even verbal testimony. This process was, in most cases with the indigenous population, very rudimentary if not completely circumstantial. After all, the U.S. government had no history of generating thorough census data for confirming the historical identity of any individual living in Hawaii prior to statehood, except by that which was provided by the person, the present governing body, their family members or whatever form of documentation was available in any form. Obviously, it would have been a challenge to search, record and store the personal information of the indigenous inhabitants, and migrants, in the Hawaiian islands 50 years ago, with no system of verification.
Despite the permeability of Hawaii’s borders, it is unreasonable to think that Obama’s mother, or grandparents, immigrated to Hawaii from the mainland with any intention of creating a situation, premeditatedly, which would affect Obama’s future in American politics. This is just not plausible. More likely, the intention of Obama’s mother was to afford her son with the best possible chance for opportunities within the roster of geographic locations she had access to. And, she understood that the best place to accomplish this was in America. Certainly, a different longitude would have provided irrefutability, but Obama’s family did not think about him becoming President some day when they made the decision to move to the Hawaiian Islands. That point should be resolved in our minds. However, politics is perception, not actuality or fact.
It is also unarguable that Obama’s early life, parents and migratory nature create an air of anonymity about his life. One might expect a candidate for our Presidency to be more natively established than one with such mixed geographic roots to begin with. This is a significant problem for Obama and perhaps for America. Vintage America doesn’t want a fringe dweller who refuses to disclose his activities, or someone from the distant realms unwilling to be transparent about who they are and where they come from. This only makes people nervous, not supportive. They want a stalwart, a recognizable agent of assurance. If Obama has nothing to hide, this decision should be very easy to make.
In 1961, Honolulu began to develop its infrastructure and replace dilapidated architecture.
This photo is an example of a building that was
torn down and replaced by Aala Park. Courtesy: Honolulu Advertiser
OBAMA'S HAWAIIAN BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS
The policies employed by news agencies, and municipal agencies, governing how births are announced in any community are still evolving, even today. As social values continue to change, news agencies are finding it necessary to continuously update the standards they use to receive, authenticate and publish community information regarding births. As an example of modern changes in policies by newspapers, the Register-Guard, a newspaper serving a community of about 400,000 in Oregon changed their birth announcement policy to include births to same sex partners in December of 2008.27
The newspapers in Hawaii had an interest in maintaining a community birth announcement service for their readership in 1961, but they also have a responsibility to convey accurate information about the personal matters of births, deaths, marriages and divorces. As a metropolitan area in 1961, Honolulu was served by two primary newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin. Both newspapers had a birth announcement service for the Hawaiian community. And, both newspapers have said they applied a set of policies when publishing birth announcements to make sure they were accurate, timely and appropriate. However, there are some discrepancies among different sources on the details of those policies applied in 1961. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin says it now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health. Contrarily, the Advertiser posts the following on its website as of 2009:
“To complete this request, please send a photocopy of your baby's official state-issued birth certificate and signed permission letter from the parent(s) allowing The Advertiser and its Web site to use the submitted information and photo. Address it to: Birth Announcements, 'Ohana Section, The Honolulu Advertiser, P.O. Box 3110, Honolulu, HI 96802. You may also fax your information to 525-8055 or hand-deliver it to The Advertiser at 605 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu.”69
Based on this, it appears the Honolulu Advertiser still allows information to be delivered by persons other than those from the Department of Health. If the newspapers confirmed the information provided to them for their birth announcement section in 1961, how did the papers determine what information to print which was not provided by the Department of Health, or omit information determined to be different than an approved source?
On July 22, 2008, bloggers posted birth announcement pages from the two Honolulu newspapers (See Appendix). The Sunday Advertiser, appears to have been published August 13th, 1961 indicated by the date in the upper left corner of the image. The other page, allegedly taken from the Star-Bulletin, does not show a date of publication. Comparison of the information in the two pages suggests they were probably published very close in time to another.
-Image of alleged Obama birth announcement, Honolulu Advertiser-
Courtesy: World Net Daily
The federal guidelines governing the protocols used to report vital statistics left loopholes by which the state level Health director could have discretion over the information and method of verification.
What is surprising about the birth announcements is not the fact that Obama’s appears among them. What is odd is that the announcements all appear in the exact same context, in the exact same order and the exact same quantity in both papers. There are a total of 24 visible birth announcements in the clippings of the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, and all of them show the couples as being married and living at the same address. A side by side comparison of each paper’s announcements suggests the two newspapers used the same source for their birth announcement information because each announcement is contextually identical. The names are printed in exactly the same order in one paper as the other in no particular alphabetical order, and the quantity of announcements is the same. The formatting is the same in the way the names are presented, as are the addresses, the sex of the baby and the month and day of birth. The extent of these similarities between publications, which presumably were competitors in the news business, prompts questions about their birth announcement publication process. This is not to suggest any forgery in the clippings, but it does suggest that the papers presumed a lot of conclusions about their announcement applicants from a very narrow source of information without the level of confirmation one might like to believe would support Obama’s claims to a Hawaiian birth.
The allegation that the announcements were printed from information provided by the Department of Health is not what raises questions. If there is anything more detracting from the authenticity of these announcements than the fact they could have been printed fraudulently from information provided by random sources, it would certainly be the fact that they were printed with such inflexible interpretation and lack of verification from a single municipal source. This suggests that the information used to print birth announcements in Hawaii is overly controlled, but under-vetted, by authorities. This might allow too much anonymity in the dissemination of public information from the municipal agency in Hawaii. These announcements appear to be the product of the latter situation, rather than any dishonest intent.
Most importantly, if birth announcements are published by the Honolulu newspapers from information they receive from the Hawaiian Department of Health, then we must determine the process, legal and administrative, by which the Department of Health publishes the documents and in what form they are conveyed to the newspaper.
Based on research of Hawaii Revised Statute 338, regarding the issuance of vital records and birth registration, it has been discovered that the state of Hawaii obligates its Office of Vital Records, under the autonomous approval of the Director of the Department of Health, to issue an authentic, legal, birth certificate for a child not born in Hawaii or the U.S., and to allow the parents of that child to declare Hawaii as the birth place if they claimed Hawaii as their place of residence within one year of the child’s birth (see HRS 338-17.8) This means that if a child is born in Africa to parents who resided in Hawaii within the year preceding the birth, then the child can be registered in the state of Hawaii as a “natural-born” citizen of the U.S. and the Hawaiian Department of Health must produce a legal “Certificate of Live Birth” showing the place of birth for such child as being in Hawaii. The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" only conveys the city and state of the parent's residence as the place of birth, not the actual place of birth, when the original document is issued under and administrative process governed by Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 and Administrative Rule 91. In fact, the 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S. states:
"Place of residence in birth statistics refers to the geographic area which constituted the mother's usual residence at the time of the birth…all (birth) events occurring within the United States, that is, the 50 States and the District of Columbia, are allocated to a place of residence within the United States. For nonresident aliens, the place of residence is considered to be the same as the place of occurrence..." Page 5-5, 1961 Vitals Statistics Report of the U.S. - Volume 1, Natality.
In Obama's case, the actual location of birth was omitted and replaced with the location of his mother's claimed residence when the birth was registered, which is a legal method of birth registration in the state of Hawaii under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. This policy was enacted as early as 1902 under the "Certification of Hawaiian Birth Program" which enabled expatriated foreigners to receive native sanctuary from political persecution during China's communist revolution as well as other international conflicts. This policy was readily accommodating for immigrants because the U.S. did not account birth data from 1900 to 1914. Even more shocking is the revelation that this action can be taken at any time after the birth, even 47 years after, if the applicant provides evidence, which is autonomously approved by the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health alone (see HRS 338-17 and Administrative Rule 91), that the parents of the applicant were residents of Hawaii within a year of the applicant’s birth.
This being the legal facts, it would then be incumbent upon newspapers to print information for birth announcements based on the documents provided by the Department of Health without considering any investigation of the actual natal demographics to be necessary. Herein lies the disconnect in the chain of accuracy and the reasonable doubts about the accuracy of Obama’s birth announcements. If the newspapers print birth announcements based on information they receive from the Hawaiian Department of Health, and the Department of Health publishes birth certificates for children born outside of the U.S. based on parent’s previous residence in Hawaii, while allowing for the declaration of Hawaii as the place of birth, then it is logical to conclude that the birth announcements contain birth information which, although is administratively reconcilable, is not factually or demographically accurate. Therefore, the birth announcements, alone, are unreliable in determining the natural born status of any child born in Hawaii without a review of the original documents provided by the Department of Health used to publish the announcements.
The announcements of Barack Obama's birth in the Advertister and the Star-Bulletin may appear to have been printed in the newspapers in 1961. Unfortunately, however, based on the source of their content and the laws permitting inaccurate accounting of natal demographics, they fail to demonstrate Obama’s actual place of birth. The lack of certainty about the procedures, sources and policies being applied at the time of his birth do not secure confidence that the newspapers were completely diligent in confirming the accuracy of the information provided in documents by the Department of Health. It appears the newspapers printed birth announcements by a “one-size-fits-all” format. This fact makes the announcements less reliable for determining natural born status than if the information had been provided by random sources.
The only conclusive action able to clarify the authenticity of the information in the birth announcements for Barack Obama is for the actual creator of the source information to submit it for public review. If it is determined that the source information was indeed provided in the form of a “Certificate of Live Birth” published and authenticated by the hospital in Honolulu, signed by the attending physician, the registrar and the parents with all 50+ data metrics, then the announcements may be
Advertiser vs. Star-Bulletin Birth Announcements (Parents),
circa August 13-14, 1961 (as printed)
Advertiser Announcements Star-Bulletin Announcements
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel K. Haas Sr. Mr. and Mrs. Samuel K. Haas Sr.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Staley Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Staley
Mr. and Mrs. Richard R. Kitson Mr. and Mrs. Richard R. Kitson
Mr. and Mrs. George P. Ayau Sr. Mr. and Mrs. George P. Ayau Sr.
Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus J. Raymond Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus J. Raymond
Mr. and Mrs. Robert I. Arakawa Mr. and Mrs. Robert I. Arakawa
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Y. Takahashi Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Y. Takahashi
Mr. and Mrs. Allington K. Brown Mr. and Mrs. Allington K. Brown
Mr. and Mrs. Cirillo V. Caperto Mr. and Mrs. Cirillo V. Caperto
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel L. M. Mokuahi Sr Mr. and Mrs. Samuel L. M. Mokuahi Sr
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Clifford Sr. Mr. and Mrs. John R. Clifford Sr.
Mr. and Mrs. Peter C. Kamealoha Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Peter C. Kamealoha Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Walker Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Walker
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace M. Durkin Mr. and Mrs. Wallace M. Durkin
Mr. and Mrs. Mike M. Nagaishi Mr. and Mrs. Mike M. Nagaishi
Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Earnest Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Earnest
Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. H. Chun Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. H. Chun
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Waidelich Mr. and Mrs. John R. Waidelich
Mr. and Mrs. Emmett P. Simpson Mr. and Mrs. Emmett P. Simpson
Mr. and Mrs. Melvin K. F. Liu Mr. and Mrs. Melvin K. F. Liu
Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Wright Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Wright
Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Asino Mr. and Mrs. Norman Asino
Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchie
Mr. and Mrs Harry Y.W. Wong Mr. and Mrs Harry Y.W. Wong
considered. Otherwise, without supporting documentation, they are simply too ambiguous to serve the purpose of verifying natural born identity and thus, constitutional eligibility for government service.
Thus, the state of Hawaii gives itself permission to recognize Obama as a natural-born citizen by its own autonomous definition despite the fact that its administrative declaration is in complete contradiction to federal Constitutional law which draws discernment as follows:
"The difference between the synthetic endowment of natural-born status provided by the state of Hawaii as opposed to the federal Constitutional requirement is that the federal mandate requires thecandidate to actually be born under medical verification and federal legal jurisdictions. The birth of a natural born civilian must be documented with a standard NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" and it must be signed by a licensed professional qualified to witness and attest to the legal and medical characteristics of a "live birth" at the moment of the birth, within the geographic region affording U.S. Constitutional protection for the witnesses and the child."
THE MARRIAGE MYSTERY
Despite the fact that the National Vital Statistics Division of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reported more than 1040 ‘illegitimate births’ in Hawaii in 1961, an average of nearly three per day, (see Appendix), the two newspapers apparently took liberty to determine everyone having babies during the first week of August 1961 were married and living at the same address. Nearly 6% of all births in Hawaii in 1961 were to unmarried or single parents.54
Based on the fact that the announcements give information on births in the largest urban area of Hawaii over a period of 9 days, one would expect to see at least one unmarried couple having a baby...or even one single parent birth. However, the assumption was made in every case and there is no evidence the Health Department’s office of vital statistics also provided marital status of the parents for verification of information in birth announcements. Obviously, the possibility exists that everyone was actually married, but according to the NCHS, the month of August has one of the highest birth rates of the entire year (1,460 in 1961).54
Obama submitted a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ through his website which shows his mother’s name as ‘Stanley Ann Dunham’, which was her maiden name. But the newspapers took the liberty to assume, her last name was the same as Obama’s father, even though the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ shown by Obama does not give his parents marital status.. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not provide information about the legitimacy of the birth like the U.S. Department of Health’s ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ does. As previously shown, John McCain’s birth certificate shows that his birth was ‘legitimate’.
If the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is as valid and complete as the liberal media promotes it to be, then how did the newspapers know the marital status of Obama’s parents when the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ he provided does not give that information? Where is the original document used by the newspapers to print the announcements which show that Obama’s parents were married? What other source of information were the papers using? If the papers were printing information accurately, as they received it from the Hawaiian Department of Health, his mother’s name would have been printed independently since she had a different last name than her ‘husband’ as it appears on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, unless, of course, the Department of Health also provided a marriage Certificate for Obama’s parents. However, if the Hawaiian Department of Health served as the source of vital information for the newspapers, the marriage announcement would have also appeared in these same newspapers based on the information we have been told about the date and location of Obama Sr. and Dunham’s marriage in February of 1961. No public record of the marriage of Obama’s parents has ever been found.
Marriages are considered vital events, just as births, deaths and divorces are, by the Hawaiian Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics. The fact the birth announcements would appear in both newspapers, but not the marriage announcement seems inconsistent with way information is reported by the Hawaiian Department of Health, considering the way the birth announcements are printed. In some jurisdictions of the U.S., a notification of marriage must be posted in an approved public place, usually a newspaper, for some duration in order to be valid. It is unclear if this statute applied in Hawaii in February of 1961, when, as Obama has stated, his parents were married. To date, no documentation, certificate, license or announcements of marriage have ever been found for the marriage of Obama’s parents. This only lends yet another layer of ambiguity about the identity of Obama.
Also, if the parents of Obama gave the Hawaiian Department of Health permission to release their residential information to the newspapers, then why were the papers willing to only print certain parts of the announcement accurately without any concern for printing an accurate account of the parent’s married names based on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ presented by Obama?
Aside from any questions about the validity of the birth announcements, there are reasons to investigate the sources of information in order to determine if the newspapers accepted information from sources other than just the Hawaiian Department of Health. If anyone could submit a request for a birth announcement in a newspaper at any time, how did the newspapers confirm the validity of information in applications for birth announcements in 1961? Were only residents of Hawaii allowed to post a birth announcement in the Advertiser or the Bulletin, or could an announcement be placed by parents who, at one time, lived in Hawaii and wanted to share the news of the birth with the community where they once lived, even though the local Department of Health would not have the birth certificate in Hawaii? This happens frequently in other newspapers around the country.
In late 2008, Jorge Baro, an investigator with a Florida agency working with the web press group, World Net Daily, submitted an affidavit to the U.S. District Court of Mississippi regarding his investigation of the Obama addresses published in the birth announcements. Baro’s investigators contacted Ms. Beatrice Arakaki, who lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway at the time Obama was born in 1961. She is the neighbor to the address of the alleged residents, Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, as published in the Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser. Ms. Arakaki said she had lived at her current residence on Kalanianaole Highway since before 1961 to the present day and that she does not remember the residents of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway having any child, let alone a black child by a white mother. Arakaki’s testimony certainly raises doubts about the accuracy of the birth announcements if not about the accounts of Obama’s presence in Hawaii during the time his grandparents resided there.
The owner of the residence located at 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, when Obama was born, was Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are now deceased. This does not prove that the Obamas did not live there as renters, but it presents further questions about the integrity of information available about Obama’s origins.
Contradicting the information posted in the newspapers, World Net Daily posted images on August 18th, 2009, from a 1961 Honolulu directory page showing separate addresses for Obama Sr. and Dunham at the time of Barack Obama’s Birth. Writing for World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi presented evidence which shows the Obama’s having separate addresses. Corsi reported that it was Ann Dunham’s parents, Obama’s grandparents, not Obama Sr., who were renting the property at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.
“Additional research has established that the grandparents, Madelyn and Stan Dunham, lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, not Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham. Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. Obama apparently did not live together after their marriage, with Dunham evidently remaining in the rented 6085 Kalanianaole Highway house. Barack Obama Sr. lived alone at an 11th Avenue address in Honolulu, closer to the university.”66
This brings us to the conclusion that the newspapers in Hawaii may not have thoroughly confirmed, or printed accurately, the information they receive before publishing birth announcements. It is not reasonable to think the newspaper would allocate resources to investigate the information they received for birth announcements, especially if it came from the Department Health.
Excerpt from Hawaiian Polk listing of Honolulu directory page showing Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, Obama’s grandparents, residing at the address posted in the Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser. Courtesy: World Net Daily (August, 2009)
Excerpt from Hawaiian Polk listing of Honolulu directory page showing Ann Obama, Barack Obama’s mother, residing at the address posted in the Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, but his father, Obama Sr. appears to have an address elsewhere near the campus of the university at 625 11th Ave. Courtesy: World Net Daily (August, 2009)
THE HOSPITAL MYSTERY
There has also been appreciable focus on the question of the hospital of Obama’s birth as well. To date, no official, verifiable documented evidence has ever been provided disclosing the name of the medical facility in which Obama was born.
To many, this is the foremost indicator of a plot to conceal Obama’s records. The hospital is not bound by the same privacy laws as a municipal agency and since the hospital is where birth records are created, it might prove more difficult for Obama to manage information from a specific hospital if Obama’s records were kept there.
In a November 2004 story published in The Rainbow Edition, a news publication for the Education Laboratory School, columnist Bennett Guira opens the story “A New Face In Politics” with:
“Barack Obama was born on August 4,1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.”32
No source is cited for Guira’s statement.
Barack Obama’s Wikipedia biography was first published in March 2004 with “Queen’s Medical Center” as his hospital of birth. In 2006, the entry was deleted, and information about the actual hospital remained unstated, but vigorously debated on the site, for two more years until September, 2008 when the biographical information was changed to show Kapi’olani Medical Center. No primary or eyewitness sources have ever been cited for this information, and the page was subsequently, and conveniently protected from further revisions by security measures just as debate over Obama natal information began to increase.
As far back as 2004, news sources in Kenya were reporting on Obama’s political success in the United States while identifying him as Kenyan-born. On June 27th, 2004, the “Sunday Standard”, a Kenyan based web news publication, republished an AP article and re-titled it as:
“Kenyan-Born Obama All Set for U.S. Senate”
The article goes on to describe the circumstances surrounding Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate.
However, according to statements made by his half-sister , Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. She is younger than Obama and was not an eyewitness to Obama’s birth, so she is providing this testimony based on what she has been told by others. No source has been revealed for her knowledge of this and no member of Obama’s family who would have witnessed his Hawaiian birth remains alive.
During a campaign promotion and picnic in Kapi’olani Park in Honolulu in February, 2008, Soetoro said:
"This is a place that's been relatively unchanged for him, and so much of who he is, was born here. He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children, two blocks up from where our grandmother still resides ... the place where he used to stick orange peels under his bed, where it got all dried out and ... nasty."31
Hospital administrators at Kapi’olani Hospital have never confirmed Obama’s birth there. They have only refused to comment on the matter.
It is important to note that, along the Lunalilo (H1) Highway, current Google earth maps show there are 4 medical facilities all within two miles of each other. Queens Medical Center, Shriners Hospital, Kaiser Permanente and Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.
Regardless of any perceived reliability in the ongoing, and ever changing testimony about Obama’s natal history over the past 5 years, the ambiguity surrounding the issue undermines confidence in Obama and detracts from perceptions that he is a reliable individual who exhibits behaviour consistent with his message. This is the tragic result of Obama’s lack of response to the questions about his natal history. Its ultimate result will be a diminished opinion about his legitimacy and an increased sentiment discounting his validity as a leader.
THE NORDYKE TWINS: OBAMA'S KAPI'OLANI HOSPITAL BIRTH MATES?
In July 2009, The Honolulu advertiser published images of two ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ for twin girls born on August 5, 1961 at the same Hospital where Obama claims to have been born one day earlier. The Advertiser published the photostatic prints of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s (Certificates of Live Birth) of the twins born to Eleanor Nordyke at Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, 19 hours after Obama was supposedly born at the same facility.
When compared to the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ provided by Obama it is obvious the Nordyke’s forms of birth certificates are not the same. The differences in the respective documents further demonstrate the deficiency of the Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ to provide adequate information about his natal identity. The irregularities between the two forms only lend limited insight to the unresolved information and gaps of data which seem to erode further the ambiguity in Obama’s true natal identity. The obvious question is: Where is the hospital version of the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ which was certainly issued for Obama just as one was issued for each of the Nordyke twins, if he was indeed born in the same hospital?
The Nordykes’ documents are header titled ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, Obama’s is a ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’. Next, the Nordykes’ ‘Certificate’s of Live Birth’ show more information than Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’. The Nordyke’s ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ show the name of the Hospital as Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not show the name of any hospital or facility. The Nordyke’s ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ show their parents address, the birthplace of their father, his occupation, the birth place of their mother, the names of the doctor and the birth registration administrator. Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ shows none of this vital information.
-Images of photostatic copies of Certificates of Live Birth for Nordyke twins, dated August 5th, 1961, one day after Obama claims to have been born in the same hospital.-
Recall that Article 2 of the constitution requires that for anyone to be a natural born citizen both of their parents must be U.S. citizens, or by circumstance prescribed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, one parent must have been a U.S. citizen for more than 5 years after the age of 14. We know that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. But, yet we cannot determine exactly what his citizenship is from the ‘Certification of Live Birth’. It says that his race is ‘African’, but there are many nations on the continent of Africa from which one can be a citizen. Was his alleged father a Kenyan citizen or a British citizen? This lack of information alone should have alerted members of our government to, at least, investigate the matter further. This is simply and completely inconsistent with the way normal people would expect to see information conveyed from a presidential figure, especially one advocating a new era of transparency in government.
Also, if the Department of Health releases information to the Newspapers, why are the births of the Nordyke twins not announced with Obama’s? The dates of birth published in the newspaper announcements show dates of birth ranging from July 30, 1961 to August 7, 1961. The Nordykes were born on August 5th.
Photographed copy of Obama’s ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ circa August 2008. In comparison with an authentic American Certificate of Live Birth, notice the absence of any information related to a hospital of birth, an attending physician, the legitimacy of birth, the birth place of the parents, Obama’s race, or, most importantly, the attesting signatures of the registrar. Courtesy: World Net Daily
OBAMA WAS THE ONLY CHILD BORN OUT OF SEQUENTIAL ORDER IN HAWAII?
An investigation of the chronology of the births of the twins in relationship with Obama’s birth also revealed that Obama’s certificate number is not sequential with the Nordyke twins. The ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ issued by Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital to the Nordyke twins show the last 6 digits of the File Number preceding the certificate number given on Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’, even though the Nordyke twins were born a day after Obama, and their births were registered 3 days after Obama’s was registered. Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. and was issued file number 151 – 61 – 10637. The ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ for Susan Nordyke also shows that her file number was registered with the Hawaiian Registrar’s office at the Department of Health on Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke was born five minutes later at 2:17 p.m. and was issued file number 151 – 61 - 10638, which was also registered with the Hawaiian Department of Health on August 11, 1961.
Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was issued a registration number that is higher in the sequence than the Nordyke twins, Certificate No. 151 1961 - 010641, even though he was born the day before the twins. It would be expected that Obama’s Certificate Number would come before the twins in the registration sequence. This is particularly suspicious considering his birth was also registered with the Department of Health three days earlier than the Nordyke twins on August 8, 1961, and that his birth has been shown announced in the local newspapers while the Nordykes’ have not.
Why was Obama’s birth registered out of sequence by the State of Hawaii? Research of the ‘1961 Vital Statistics of the United States Report, Volume 1 – Natality’, reveals one possible reason Hawaii officials may have intentionally altered Obama’s non-sequential number. The reason is premised on the assumption that Obama may not have been issued an original (Vault) Hawaiian birth certificate until just recently.
In 1961, the Hawaiian population was smaller and cultural inconsistencies within the island nation were conspicuous and more profoundly noticed than inconsistencies in mainland America. This would certainly apply to a mixed race child being born to a teenage, white mother in an urban hospital in August of 1961. Therefore it would be much easier to analyze and track specific vital birth statistics based on the quantifications of race, age of mother, urban births versus rural births, births in hospitals, and more importantly, in Obama’s case, mixed race births in Hawaii to a teenage, white mother.
Susan Nordyke File Number 151 61 10637, Born August 5, 1961 at 2:12 p.m.
At Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Gretchen Nordyke File Number 151 61 10638, Born August 5, 1961 at 2:17 p.m.
At Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Barack Obama Certificate No.151 1961 010641, allegedly Born August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m.,allegedly at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
The Vital Statistics harvested by the U.S. Department of Health, in 1961, were calculated by the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD) based on a 50% statistical sampling method. This was a periodic, but common practice for statistical reporting agencies challenged to process very large amounts of statistical data. The NVSD used this method many times between 1950 and 1965, including births in 1961. The 50% sampling method used by the National Vital Statistics Division in 1961 reported specific demographic and racial statistics only on the even-numbered birth records provided by each state.55 The Vital Statistics Report from 1961 states the following on page 232:
Barack Obama’s unique natal statistics would not be recorded by the National Vital Statistics Division, if he was issued the next available odd certificate number. Obama’s Certification No. ending in 010641 is an odd numbered birth record which would allow his record to be skipped in the statistical reporting process. Otherwise, assuming that no births occurred between Obama’s and the Nordyke twins 19 hours later, Obama’s Original (Vault) Certificate of Live Birth file number should end evenly in 010636, not 010641.
Another inconsistency with the Obama document is the format of the numbering. The Nordyke twins have a 10-digit file number, whereas Obama has a 13-digit number. The numeric inconsistency regarding the ‘1961’ year portion of his number is partly the result of the 2000 “Y2K” changeover whereby computer systems began using a four-digit format to indicate the year whereas in 1961 the Department of Health did not use computer systems for filing and indexing vital statistics, nor would there have been the same need to as today. This is an indication that the particular document and the database from which it is created originate sometime near or after the year 2000.
The use of the leading zero in the final six digits of his Certificate Number prompts the need for clarifications about the indexing methods used by the Hawaii Department of Health. When the Nordyke twins were born, the indexing capacity of the Hawaii Department of Health was based on the number of births within the state in 1961, just two years after Hawaii became a state. The quantity of digits required for its filing system were coordinated within the capacity of the number of births it was required to count. The Nordyke twin’s certificates are indexed with mechanically typeset numbers reflecting a five-digit capacity with the highest number of registered births allowed being 99999 under the 1961 system.
Barack Obama’s certification number ends in a six-digit capacity perhaps because his Original (Vault) Birth Certificate may have been issued after the file indexing upgrade sometime between the changeover by the Department of Health from a five-digit capacity to the six-digit capacity needed to accommodate the possible number of births. In 1961, only 14 states recorded total births over 99,999. But, since the development and advancement of computer technology, it has become easier to process larger statistical numbers and therefore provide automated indexing systems capable of handling numbers with higher multiples of digits. Within a six-digit system, the State of Hawaii is able use up to 999,999 unique file numbers per year. This capacity probably would not be utilized. However, this provides a more flexible, efficient statistical management system.
If we are to presume that the last five digits of the Nordyke twin’s file numbers, and the last six digits of Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ represent the actual number of births in 1961 through the month of July and into the first five days of August, it provokes questions why Obama’s file number is out of sequence. Was he the 10,641st baby born in Hawaii in 1961, or was he simply the 10,641st file number used to register a baby in Hawaii by his mother. This evidence is presented not to ignore the possibility that the State of Hawaii simply applies a newer indexing system for all records they have on file but, if this is the case, then why has no individual ever come forward with a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ issued to them before Obama’s was issued?
This is yet another piece of information lending to the inconsistent manner in which Barack Obama has allowed access to his basic identity. Regardless, the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ presented by Barack Obama is an abysmally wanton document completely deficient of any reliable, confirmable information needed to verify his natal identity.
Until the questions about Hawaii’s birth documentation process are answered as they pertain to Barack Obama, this lack of information will only erode further his credibility and detract from his legitimacy as the President of the United States.