Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Chapters 11 - 17

CHAPTER 11 - Executive Privilege

“…though justice be thy plea, consider this,
that, in the course of justice, none of us
should see salvation. We do pray for mercy;
and that same prayer doth teach us all to render
the deeds of mercy."

William Shakespeare
“The Merchant of Venice”
Act IV, Scene 1. circa 1600

Of the people, the Constitution presides over the powers of national authority in service for all Americans. By no other authority shall we permit a diminished vestige to assume the blood ransomed right to that pristine throne. It is preserved for the worthy, the just, the reverent and the venial. For, where lies the treasure of our restitution if we have failed to redeem the virtue of history’s Champion by the words we speak, the actions we take, and who we become?

The determination of eligibility to be the President of the United States falls upon the timelessness of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It does not rest upon the executive responsibility of any individual, municipality or private agency. Presidential eligibility is a matter of national importance to be determined by the representative authority with national jurisdiction. This is affirmed by the simple merit that the President is a national office serving the interests of all Americans.

On January 21, 2009, one day after he was installed to the office of the Presidency, Barack Obama signed Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially handicaps, if not prevents, the release of Presidential Records through the National Archives & Records Administration. The astonishing order implements executive privilege authority over the discretion of the National Archives and the Freedom of Information Act when the release of Presidential records and information is requested. The order states:

Executive Order 13489
January 21, 2009

Presidential Records

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) ‘‘Archivist’’ refers to the Archivist of the U.S. or his designee.
(b) ‘‘NARA’’ refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) ‘‘Presidential Records Act’’ refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201–2207.
(d) ‘‘NARA regulations’’ refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) ‘‘Presidential records’’ refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) ‘‘Former President’’ refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A ‘‘substantial question of executive privilege’’ exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A ‘‘final court order’’ is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified. (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General. (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Obama seeks to remain in control of his personal information during and after his presidency once it becomes a part of the official records of the National Archives. He wants to do this because Obama understands that any evidence showing that he is ineligible is not bound in its incrimination to the his term in office. If it is ever determined that he is ineligible, now or in the future, the policies which were passed into law during his presidency would be revoked, retroactively.

This executive order is nothing short of a confirmation of every suspicion America has about Obama’s nefarious natal and personal history. If this order is not an indication of Obama’s desire to hide his personal information, it is the most benign, most random, most ineffectual executive order in Presidential history, and, despite our national challenges, it was his first order of business after becoming President. Otherwise, what would be Obama’s reason for such a blatantly contrived piece of self-serving rule mongering? How does it help our economy or create better strategy in the war on terror? This order is a blatant and obvious attempt on the part of Obama to conceal his records forever. The ridiculous order essentially makes it illegal for the National Archivist to release information about a sitting or previous president without first consulting the incumbent attorney general or current president, and through consultation of the previous president.


Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 (1982) states:

“Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”59

Within this legal prose lies the presidency of Barack Obama.

When a child is born alive, even as defined by the State of Hawaii’s own HRS 338-1, the vital event warrants official documentation, just as a death, a divorce or a marriage. There are three primary methods by which a person is issued a record of birth. The first, most common and valid method, is through a medical verification. The second is legally, and the third is administratively.
As stated by Obama in his own 1995 autobiography on page 26, more than 12 years before he was allegedly issued a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ from the state of Hawaii, we know that he possesses an original birth certificate which was created at the time of his birth.

Therefore, we know that his original birth record on file with the State of Hawaii must be one of three possible documents. If his birth occurred in a U.S. hospital in 1961, as he says it did, the record is a standard National Vital Statistics Division ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, published through medical verification and issued by way of the federal U.S. Department of Health template (see Appendix). His record should be identical to those presented by the Nordyke twins and to those which virtually all Americans have. If he does not possess a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ then he could have been issued a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” through legal verification and provided through the state of Hawaii by way of an evidentiary hearing. Or, if it is not one of these two, then it is an authenticated certificate of birth from another country in the form of an appropriate document legally issued by that country.

However, the document that Barack Obama supplied to validate his constitutional eligibility is a municipally issued, independently published Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. This is a fallow form of identification which is obtainable not by a medical or legal process, but through an administrative process overseen by an autonomous individual who, despite possessing managerial responsibility at the municipal level, does not possess federal authority or State authority under HRS 338-1 to make determinations about natural born citizenship for Presidential candidates.

Moreover, unless this individual was present at the birth, they do not qualify as a credible witness as to whether or not that particular vital event was a “live” birth in the location stated by the applicant. Completely contrary to the mandate of Article II of the U.S. Constitution,

Obama has produced what actually amounts to nothing more than a cover document designed to protect one’s identity, not disclose it. Most importantly, the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not provide adequate information to confirm natural born status or allow confirmation about any amendments that may have occurred to the original birth record. This is why it is deficient for determining political legitimacy and eligibility of a presidential candidate. By publishing a document which conceals the natal information of an individual, the authorities of the State of Hawaii have violated the authority of the federal mandate prescribed by the U.S. Constitution that a presidential candidate must be a verifiable natural born citizen.

Moreover, the version of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, which Barack Obama posted on his Fight the Smears website in June, 2008, has been shown to be an altered image and is not a birth certificate by any definition. Its authority was fraudulently endowed by a pandering media and by misplaced faith in the remote authorities in the far away land of Hawaii. More specifically, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is not the medical version of an official birth certificate like the standard NVSD ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, so therefore it cannot be an accurate testament to the biological origins of the bearer. In fact, there is a case to be made that it was intelligently designed to resemble the federal template version in name only with the intention to cause confusion about its identity.

As a matter of undeniable fact, Obama’s posted version of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is not even a copied image of any ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. The image America has been shown is of an independently published document which is issued by the State of Hawaii to indicate that some version of a birth record was created and that, at some point in the past, in no definitive place, a person was born. In Obama’s case, the State of Hawaii refuses to even confirm that the Hawaiian Department of Health, a state-level municipality, actually issued the document Obama has presented. There are no signatures attesting to its authenticity, and officials within the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics refuse to confirm that Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is a valid document issued through the State of Hawaii. This, more than any other controversial fact in the Obama birth certificate saga, has undermined the credibility of this document.

Despite help from Hawaii, Obama’s media supporters still feel a need to petition for acceptance of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. They eagerly quiver a printout of a reproduced copy of a computer image in front of the camera and caterwaul that they hold the holy grail of Obama’s eminence. The ridiculousness of such a spectacle makes it easy to understand their recent failure in broadcast ratings. American’s know a fake when they see one. Americans now understand that Hawaii’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is a form of documentation that is in no way linked to the federally issued template called a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. As a document issued by a local municipality, a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is in no way representative of any legitimate, ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, let alone a document that should be allowed, by itself, to clarify the natural born status of the most powerful figure in the world, especially in the form of a document that a sycophant at MSNBC prints from an obscure left-wing website. Most of the liberal media still believes a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is the same as a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. Their ignorance about the difference in these two documents only compromises the integrity of the verification process while exposing the media as an unsuspecting tool of Obama’s propaganda machine, which includes the governing body of the State of Hawaii.

Contrarily, a standard NVSD ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is a sovereign document originally and genuinely created through the federal authority of the U.S. Department of Health and conveyed through the licensed authority of an individual endowed with medical expertise to determine the validity, time and place of a live birth event. It is attested to by one or more individuals who are eyewitnesses to the live birth event and who can agree with the licensed authority on the time and place of the birth, and so witness it by a signature, under penalty of laws protecting against the falsification of vital records, to their firsthand account of such event.

This is the most important distinction between the standard NVSD ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and its failed cousin, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. A ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ allows reviewers to hold the issuer accountable. It allows the American people to know the identity of the individual(s) who have staked their reputation and professional integrity on the accuracy of the document.

Based on the prescriptions outlined in the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report, Volume 1: Natality, an authentic U.S. birth certificate must contain the signature of these individuals along with the required data and information prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health in order to be considered the most authentic possible form of birth certificate. It is within this definition where we discover the vastness of disparity between the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and the abysmal deficiencies of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. It is this obvious lack of authenticity which drives valid contention against Obama’s natal obscurity.

Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was issued to him through an administrative process, not a medical one. Without the eyewitnesses available to attest to his birth, he was able to use the laws of Hawaii to maintain his registered native status and exploit the authority of the Director of the state’s Department of Health to gain a birth document which the State of Hawaii is obligated to authenticate. However, when the media says that Obama has posted his “birth certificate” on his website, it is a lie rooted in political rhetoric and state-level administration, not federal law defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Although the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ may be a sufficient form of identification for some state agency services it is not adequate in determining the federally warranted identification of any individual running for office within the federal government, especially the Presidency. The inclination to afford less credibility to a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ comes not from any suspicion about a contrived conspiracy involving the State of Hawaii’s authentication of a fake document, the document’s credibility problem, inherent to Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’, is the result of the obscurity in the source information it represents. This was one extraordinary circumstance in which the concealment of Obama’s original birth record greatly helped him avoid the vetting process. The State of Hawaii was able to “piggyback” the authority of its municipally published ‘Certification of Live Birth’ on the federally issued template of a standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.

Recall, as previously discussed in chapter 7, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands discounts the validity of the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, despite the fact that it is issued within the very same state where the agency exists. This is because the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ can be issued to someone who also was given a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ issued during the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program until 1972, but who might not actually be a natural born Hawaiian. Land ownership is a socially and politically sensitive matter in Hawaii which requires thorough vetting of the applicants for native land ownership.

Obama was born in 1961, before the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program officially ended. He would be able to receive a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ based not only on his time of birth, but also by the fact that his parents claimed Hawaii as their residence prior to his birth. Ironically, though, Obama is not even a genealogically eligible applicant for native lands ownership in Hawaii, let alone an eligible candidate for the presidency of the United States.

The differences between a standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (Birth certification through the U.S. Department of Health in a hospital and witnessed by a medical professional and eyewitnesses) as opposed to Hawaii’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (Birth certification by a local municipality through administrative rule, testimony and secondary evidence), creates a problem in the minds of those who manage the indigenous land rights of natural born Hawaiians. It’s ironic that a municipal agency like the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has their priorities defined on the establishment of authentic natural born citizenship that they post an advisory to potential applicants for the privilege of declaring themselves Hawaiian, yet the Hawaiian Department of Health can’t even explain how the applicants for its vital records are able to establish natural born citizenship of the United States. Apparently, in Hawaii, native land ownership is more important than becoming President.

Not only is Hawaii’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ inadequate in providing enough information for accurately determining Obama’s constitutional eligibility, its title elicits a false precept about its authority to clarify natural born identity as well as ‘live’ births. The title of the document and the explanation about its use by the State of Hawaii, Department of Health is incoherent and confusing. Most of the explanations on the State of Hawaii’s website about the vital record processes and policies seem to be written with the intent of driving most people away from wanting to know about them. Because of this, most people in common America numbly accept the state of Hawaii’s response to Obama’s situation. It is too difficult and time consuming for most people to research the facts and interpret the responses of personnel in their respective positions of authority. Now, with the added burden of public attention and inquiry about Obama’s situation, instead of acting affirmatively to serve the good of its patronage, the state of Hawaii has chosen to bring attention to the situation by being uncooperative.


Barack Obama was born during the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program which provided him with a unique set of permissions for receiving recognition by the state of Hawaii as a native born Hawaiian. However, if Obama was born in Hawaii in a hospital he would have received a standard NVSD ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. If he was born in Hawaii but outside a hospital he would have received at a later date and through secondary verification a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or a late registration of ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ which will state within the document that it had been issued as an ‘amended’ or ‘altered’ record. This is usually indicated on the record with a two letter code such as “CA” or “SV”, indicating that the Certificate had been Amended, or that verification was through a secondary source.

The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ would show the relationship between Obama’s parents, their race, and, possibly their occupation. It would show Obama’s weight and length at birth and whether or not he was legitimate or adopted. It would show the time and date of birth as well as the name of the doctor and hospital. It would be signed by the state of Hawaii’s Office of the Registrar or the authority from the office of the Secretary. In the case of Obama, this document would allow the people to know specific details that a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ simply does not provide, details which would greatly help in understanding his natural born status and the manner in which he came about it.

If Obama was born in another country, upon moving to Hawaii his mother could have registered him as being foreign born but still received a Certificate of Live Birth through late registration. This may have been done in order to secure welfare benefits for Obama by Ann Dunham. Obama would receive a Certificate of Foreign Birth and it would be filed as such as an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ in the State of Hawaii. Then, through the administrative authority of the Director of the Department of Health, by way of Ann Dunham’s claim to residency in Hawaii prior to Obama’s birth, a Late Registration of Certificate of Live Birth could have been issued. This would allow Dunham to apply for welfare benefits or other forms of state assistance for Obama’s care.

The possibility of a late birth registration for Obama is important to note because the birth announcements in the local newspapers would have been printed without regard for Obama’s place of birth. Then, if he requested a copy of this ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ he would have received the actual duplicated copy of the foreign born birth certificate with the foreign country’s header title. Or he could have been issued a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ where, under the ‘CITY,TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH’ section, it should state the name of the city, and country of foreign birth. However, given Hawaii’s recognition of artificial nativity, key information which is instead omitted from a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is the very essential information needed to establish and determine natural born citizenship. The first piece of information it omits is the type of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ from which the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was created. The ‘Certification of Live Birth’ prevents us from clarifying the primary document’s header title, color, appearance, size, texture, production quality, form, label, type and writing legibility.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-6 of the State Public Health Statistics act states that if the parents are unavailable to provide the Department of Health with a birth certificate, then the agency has the authority to “secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”50 It also states that the agency has the authority to prescribe the amount of time needed to do this. But, the statute does not describe the options for someone who no longer has access to witnesses of their birth. This is the case with Obama. His mother, father, grandparents, and probable physician are all dead. If Obama was born in another country, upon moving to Hawaii his mother could have established Obama’s birth record as Hawaiian in at least two different ways under this rule. The first way was to not disclose to anyone where he was born and then register him through the late registration birth process as being born in Hawaii.


Registering for a Late Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (see Appendix) is one avenue toward receiving a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ as well. If Obama was able to take advantage of this rendition of the birth registration process, he could have been issued an official ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ showing his birth in Hawaii. In registering for a Late Certificate Of Birth (also called a Delayed Certificate of Birth), Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 permits the registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence (See Appendix). This was intended to clarify Hawaiian native status for individuals born in the time between the territorial area and statehood of Hawaii.50

The ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ presents an interesting possibility in providing a plausible explanation for Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ issued and stamped in June, 2007. If Barack Obama wanted to conceal a foreign birth, or other piece of information, this is the document which would provide him with the best possibility of doing so. Another problem with Hawaii’s document issuance process occurs when an individual requests a copy of his or her birth certificate, the Department of Health no longer provides a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (direct photo copies of the original birth document.) Recent statutes prevent the conveyance of the detailed information found on the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ under the guise of preventing identity theft. Instead they have adopted a policy, without the full understanding of the people, to offer only a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (Short Form), which is an independently published, digitally produced document created from data entered from the original vital record. This leads us to discover another problem. The header title. The Header title of a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ appears as follows:


The state of Hawaii has provided no information about the administrative process used to issue this document under HRS 338-18. And, even more shocking, Hawaii refuses to show evidence that Obama is not the first person to ever receive this document from the state of Hawaii or confirm that he was even issued it from the state of Hawaii. This leads many to believe that it was created specifically for his case and then adopted as a standard document for all future applicants. This leads some to believe that the State of Hawaii premeditated its own vital statistics laws in order to create a legal protection specifically for Barack Obama under the guise of protecting vital records from the risk of identity theft. Given the prevalence of this threat in America today, approval of such a measure would have been easily obtained. An investigation of the creation of this law and the time line of its inception corresponds with the chronology of Obama’s emergence into national politics and the awareness of his potential eligibility problem.
The State of Hawaii issues a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a surrogate for all forms of original birth records including a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth or a birth certificate from a foreign country. The Department of Health does this, without the accountability of originating documents, even though the original documents, from which the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ may be published, are issued under completely different circumstances and at different times apart from the time of birth.

The document required for determining natural born citizenship is the one where a medically licensed official directly witnesses the birth. Any other form of birth record is the result of testimony and secondary verification from others who may not have witnessed the birth. The ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is issued for any form of an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ issued through a hospital birth, domestic or foreign, and the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued through the courts or administrative rules. The problem is that the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not discern which one it was published from, and neither do the officials working for the State of Hawaii. Under these circumstances Obama has been allowed to become president, illegitimately.


In order to understand the genesis of the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, we would have to know from which form of the original birth record it began. The state of Hawaii should be forced to clarify the header title found at the top of the original birth record used to create the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (Short Form). For example, if the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (Short Form) was created from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, then the State of Hawaii should have to create a document equal in form to a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ except that the new document should be header titled “Certification of Hawaiian Birth”, not ‘Certification of Live Birth’. The designation of these terms would provide the understanding that the source Certificates used to create the Certifications were not created as the result of a medically certified ‘Live’ birth. It is astonishing to think that an illegitimate candidate was elected to the most powerful position in the world simply because of a clerical decision by the State of Hawaii to title their vital documents with the intention of obscuring the identity of its bearer.

As one possible scenario, Barack Obama’s mother may have been able to take advantage of this program to acquire an authenticated Certificate of Hawaiian Birth after giving birth to Obama. The statutes governing the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program did not stipulate that a person needed to provide documented proof that they had been born in Hawaii.50

The only way to resolve this is for the American people to determine which original birth record Obama was issued at the time of his birth. Unfortunately, there may be no legal course of action available to overcome Obama’s entrenchment, but there are political ramifications which would damage Obama’s standing if it is determined that he was given a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or an altered ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. The political consequences might be the reason for his secrecy, rather than any legal consequences. This is one possibility for his behavior, his trips to Hawaii and the innocuous placement of an image of the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ on his website. By presenting the perception of legal documentation, he hoped to discourage further questions about the underlying evidence involved in its creation.

If births and deaths are both considered vital events, it is not unreasonable to ask that if Hawaii allows the filing of a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ for anyone claiming to be the child of parents who once resided in Hawaii within a year of their birth, then, hypothetically, by equal logic, why does the State of Hawaii not also employ laws to issue a document called a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Death’ in such cases when the death of individual occurs outside the state of Hawaii and who has been proven to have resided in the state for at least one year prior to death? The answer is because it is ridiculous to record vital events among our population with consideration for the vital event’s potential to offer unique privilege to the individual. A dead person can receive no consideration for privilege from the state of Hawaii. So, why should anyone ever accept the authority of some random document called a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ which can be issued by an individual who was not an eyewitness of the live birth and which may provide the individual with particular rights of citizenship without authentic native origins?

Obama’s mother would also have been able to take advantage of the Certification of Hawaiian Birth Program having given birth to Obama within the dates of the program’s existence (1911-1972).50 The actual location of birth is not relevant to the process if evidence presented fulfills the courts satisfaction allowing a legal registration of birth in the state of Hawaii, and it is approved by the Director of the Department of Health. Hawaii has in the past issued “Certificates of Hawaiian Birth” to expatriated or politically-at-risk individuals seeking sanctuary from their native country.

Sun Yat-Sen, a Cantonese national and revolutionary leader of the republican movement that toppled the last imperial Qing Dynasty of China in 1911, opposed Communist rule and promoted a politically controversial doctrine which proclaimed that there were “Five Peoples of China”, suggesting that China was not necessarily a unified nation but rather one of diverse ideas working apart from, but in favor of, the Chinese identity. Ironically, this is a rather Obama-like ideal.

Records are scarce about his personal life, but, much like the suspicion of Obama’s desire to flee his past, it is suspected that Dr. Sun fled China for fear of political reprisal after communist, Mao Tse Tung became the nation’s predominant revolutionary in the early 1900’s.

The example of the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” belonging to Dr. Sun (see Appendix), was issued even though he was born to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Guangdong province (16 miles north of Macau), China, not Hawaii. He was granted a Hawaiian registration of birth after “demonstrating” he was born in the kingdom of Hawaii on November 24, 1870, which was four years after his actual birth, and probably after giving reasons to the territorial judge that he might fare safer in the islands rather than back in communist China. Sun Yat-Sen was granted some relevant form of Hawaiian citizenship because he lived there for a time, studying at the Lolani School where he mastered the English language.

Sun’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” was issued March 14, 1904 and after he signed a type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870. Sun Yat-sen was actually born on November 12, 1866. Like Obama, there was no cross examination of Sun’s testimony nor was there any conflicting witnesses to his claims of a Hawaiian natal origin at that time.

If Obama was able to obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth through legal channels, rather than through administrative channels, Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.7, he would have been asked to complete an application for a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”. This application would have required basic details such as his name, his place of birth to the best of his knowledge, his known date of birth, his current Hawaiian address, the race of his father and mother, his father’s name, his mother’s name, and if he possessed any physical identifying marks, concealed or not.25

The application for Certificate Of Hawaiian Birth would have been signed by Obama and filed with the assigned agency and the court. Although this scenario was unlikely pursued by Obama, it is important to explore it in order to gain perspective on the process through which he was actually issued a ‘Certification of Live Birth’.


Why should America care about any of this? Why should we seek to understand the establishment of natural born American identity in our President? Why is it important? It is important for two reasons. First, it serves as precedence for the permission of future leadership and the election of candidates who may not be loyal to America. Secondly, if we fail to confirm the legitimacy of our leaders, it serves to undermine the security of our national sovereignty leaving us open to global pathology, economic weakness, military vulnerability and, more importantly, ideological oppression. Without a well established mandate for the sovereignty of our President, America is left vulnerable to the influences of rogue internationalism.

It is in our vital national interest to establish stringent legislation governing the verification process of the identity of our leadership. The legal infrastructure is already in place. We simply failed to use it in the case of Barack Obama. The following hypothesis is one scenario that may have occurred whereby Obama could have circumvented our Constitution to become President.
The State of Hawaii’s document header title has caused rampant confusion about the Obama birth certificate issue.

Without any clarification provided, the header title on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not reveal whether it is was transcribed and printed from a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (Hospital version provided at birth) or Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (Statutory version provided after birth by testimony and secondary identification). The only difference between the two source documents is that one is authenticated by a physician while the other is approved by an official of the courts of Hawaii. In most cases, only one of these individuals actually witnesses the birth, but in Hawaii, the relevant official with jurisdiction over vital records is also a medical doctor. And, under normal circumstances in which a baby is born in a U.S. hospital with the physician present, it is that individual whom by the definition of natural born citizen is established.

We can conclude with a high level of certainty that Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of United States, was essentially proclaimed without corroboration, by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who is the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health and also, coincidentally, a medical doctor. The combination of her municipal title and professional license presents a unique set of qualifications which allows Dr. Fukino to exercise a broad subjective discernment in issuing certifications of vital events, particularly births. First, she has the authority to issue an official birth record under Hawaii’s Administrative Rule No. 91. Secondly, she is a medical doctor which allows her to confirm the occurrence of live births as they are defined by HRS 338-1, when she is eyewitness to them. Finally, she has the right, under HRS 338-17.8, to determine the form, manner and time constraints required for applicants to provide appropriate supporting information needed to obtain an official birth record honored by the State of Hawaii. Fukino does not, however, have the authority to determine natural born citizenship as it is defined through the legal mandates of the U.S. Constitution.

Despite this lack of qualification, Fukino attempted to invoke her own authority to autonomously declare Obama’s federally defined natural born citizenship. She attempted to base this on her Hawaiian-endowed prerogative to issue a birth certificate. She made this declaration in a press statement released on October 31, 2008.60 Acting within her ‘statutory authority’ afforded by Hawaiian law, Dr. Fukino took upon herself the cause of American legal justice along with an interpretation of what constitutes a natural born citizen, through a birth which she did not witness, 47 years after it occurred, in a location she cannot verify, while also proclaiming Obama’s successful fulfillment of Constitutional eligibility requirements.

Chiyome Fukino, circa 2008.

Essentially, the laws which appear to be the culprits in Fukino’s complicity to Obama’s case are defined through Hawaii revised statutes 338-1, 338-5, 338-6, 338-17 and 338-18, in coordination with the executive privilege afforded to Dr. Fukino by Chapter 91 of Hawaii’s administrative rules which give the Director of the Department of Health the power to issue birth certificates based on rules defined by the Director, alone. Then she invoked HRS 338-18 to cover it up.

These legalisms allow for the issuance of an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ in the form of an amended or altered birth certificate or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, containing original and updated information, when it is deemed that the new information would either more accurately testify to the facts of the birth, and/or enhance the safety of the birth registrant or fulfill the requests of an applicant who provides testimony about the residency of their parents prior to his birth. Fukino took one or multiple legal liberties to endow Obama with an artificial status of eligibility, then she used HRS 338-18 as her legal license to never have to be accountable for it.
Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states,

“…the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the Director of Health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth…”

This is an astonishing legal declaration which directly contradicts the Constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen”. Few people understand that there are laws within the State of Hawaii which originated as a consequence of the state’s tumultuous cultural plurality and geopolitical history and allow vital documents to be issued without an official eyewitness to the vital event. These laws also directly contradict the United States Constitution’s determination for being a natural born citizen.

Apparently, Hawaii has taken it upon itself to determine citizenship regardless of where an individual is actually born or what government they might actually be natively subject to. These are laws which, not only permit, but obligate officials to order the State’s Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Health to issue a form of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ at any time, after the occurrence of birth, under prescribed circumstances defined within the law and granted by specific heads of departments within the state’s governing structure. This is allowed without an official eyewitness to the location of birth and the record can be issued based on loosely confirmed circumstantial testimony and support documentation without any cross-examination or challenge from the public, whatsoever.

Hawaiian Statute 338-17.6 allows for the input of the location of the birth to be another State or Foreign Country and still be registered in Hawaii. The application for both the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth and the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ contains a question addressing whether the birth was in Hawaii, another State or Country.

On October 31st, 2008, five days before Obama’s election, Dr. Fukino released the following statement:

“There have been numerous requests for sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

If we analyze Fukino’s statement, some interesting conclusions can be made. In her opening line she says:

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate…”

The requests have been specifically for a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not his “birth certificate”. A “birth certificate” is a generic term. Using the words ‘birth certificate’ is an attempt by Fukino to remain ambiguous, and dishonest, in her description of the documents she has attested to, pertaining to Obama. As the Director of the Vital Statistics of Hawaii, she is fully aware of this. Without specificity it is easier for her to deny responsibility, and accuracy, in her responses.
Next, Fukino says:

“State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

There is nothing more ‘tangible’ than determining the federal eligibility and identity of our President. Fukino’s attempt to hide this fact behind an obscure municipal law designed to protect the identity of common people is shameful and suspect. Obviously the reasons for requesting Obama’s ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ are for the tangible reasons of validating his legitimacy to be president. Or, does Fukino actually believe Americans are trying to acquire the personal information of sitting president in order to steal his credit card numbers? Fukino is in error and is citing the law in order to provide herself with a reason to not disclose the detailed information in Obama’s records which she knows would compromise his political standing.
Next, Fukino states:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these types of vital records…”

This is the most revealing statement of her press release. Dr. Fukino is a medical doctor. Therefore, the use of the word ‘Live’ in the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ header title is justified under the legal definition found in HRS 338-1 because she is a medical professional possessing the credentials to determine the characteristics of a ‘live’ birth, even intrepidly. However, the customization of the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an administrative stunt to allow Fukino to authenticate birth records based on a simple fact that since the person applying for the document is alive, they must have been born ‘Live’. The loophole in the statute in Hawaii is that it does not require the medical official to be an eyewitness to the location of birth in order to apply the word ‘Live’ to a birth occurring at the same time the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is issued. The location is the essential piece of information needed to determine natural born status, not whether the child is born alive.

Fukino’s qualifications as a medical professional also allowed the state of Hawaii to justify the use of the word ‘Live’ in its document header title despite the obvious confusion this would create in the public’s mind between the official U.S. Department of Health’s ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and the State of Hawaii’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’. In fact, it was done intentionally when the document was created for the specific purpose of further obscuring Obama’s natal information. It is not unreasonable to think that members of Obama’s campaign may have also promoted the use of these similar terms in order to intentionally create ambiguity and confusion between a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.

By miring the document’s identity in “label confusion”, Obama’s handlers knew the public would be challenged to distinguish the difference between the two documents, which were so closely named with only a subtle difference of merely three letters. The action taken to use “ion” in the word Certification versus “e” in the word Certificate was an intentional effort to confuse the American people. Thus, Obama knew he would be able to remain ambiguous about his natal history while the public debated the identity of the document rather than the authenticity of the information in it.

This level of insidiousness and misrepresentation of identification has never been seen in American history. The depth of collaboration and planning undertaken by the representatives of the Democrat party in cooperation with the Hawaiian state government and the officials overseeing the vital records of that state is unprecedented. The tragedy is that it prevented the American people from discovering the truth before electing Obama.

When Fukino says that she has the authority to issue ‘these types of vital records’ according to laws unique to Hawaii, and within the limitation of the State of Hawaii, she is correct. However, unfortunately, the determination of eligibility for the Presidency is a matter to be resolved by the federal authorities with jurisdiction in election law, not by the remote authority of some municipal employee. The laws of Hawaii are irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements of natural born citizenry.
Fukino continues:

“…and have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Here, Fukino exposes a truth about Obama’s birth records. She is telling us that she has seen and verified a document that she herself approved and then issued to Obama under HRS 338-17.8. Notice she again refuses to identify the type of document when she refers to it as “original birth certificate on record” rather than a standard “Certificate of Live Birth” which would be the document Obama would have received in 1961 if he was indeed born in a hospital in Hawaii. This is irrefutable. There is no other reason not to reveal this unless she is complicit in hiding the fact that Obama’s record is not an unaltered ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ originally issued by some other source other than the hospital in Honolulu and signed by the attending physician and registrar in 1961. She confirms this by saying that the records she has seen have been verified in accordance with state policies and procedures. Of course they have. Hawaii’s state policies and procedures allow the Director of the Department of Health to issue any birth certificate, other than an original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health federal law, for anyone providing proof which satisfies the unconventional, non-constitutional laws of the state of Hawaii. Unfortunately for Dr. Fukino, the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the only document available which adequately establishes the natural born status of the bearer. This is an irrefutable fact.

In her final statement of the press release, she attempts to relinquish all responsibility from Governor Lingle for her role in the charade. She says:

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

Governor Lingle did not need to instruct that this particular record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record because the document issued to Obama was authenticated by Fukino. But, this does not mean that the document is a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. The ‘vital record’ itself requires examination. The process by which it was issued and the evidence used to verify its authenticity, in relation to the establishment of Obama’s natural born citizenship are in question. Fukino has done nothing, to date, to satisfy the requirements of these valid questions. She remains vague, non-specific and dismissive.

Fukino made a generalization in referring to the documents on file as an “Original Birth Certificate”. The Form Transcript of the Press Release from State of Hawaii, shows Dr. Fukino probably made a mistake in using the words “…Obama’s Original Birth Certificate”. Though these terms may be accurate, insofar as the documents held by the Office of Vital Statistics are original, they are a massively ambiguous generalization which opens the matter to questions for clarification about the type of Original Birth Certificate she has seen and verified.

Allowing this statement to go unattended was an attempt, on the part of Obama supporters, to take advantage of the confusion in the press about the mysterious process used by the state of Hawaii to issue original vital records and prevent suspicion about the possibility that they did indeed issue a birth record for Obama through an administrative process, rather than a legal or medical verification by confirming eyewitness accounts of the birth. Keep in mind, if Obama was issued a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’, even before his grandmother had passed in 2008, there are now no living eyewitnesses to his birth. The acquisition of a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian birth’ would have been issued solely on evidence provided to the Director of the Department of Health by Obama, alone.


On July 27th, 2009, embattled by more inquiry into the matter of Obama’s records, Dr. Fukino further trimmed the edges around her statement, when she said:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago."

Nothing in HRS 338 or Administrative rules governing the authority of any official working for the state of Hawaii allows Fukino to determine the citizenship of anyone! She is a health professional, not an immigration law professional!

Not only is this statement astonishing and incorrect, Fukino does not have the authority to make it. Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was too young to pass citizenship to him. As a matter of Constitutional mandate, this disqualifies Barack Obama from being a natural born citizen. Fukino breached her municipal jurisdiction and made this declaration about Obama’s citizenship which can only be determined through an official assessment from federal vetting agencies with authority in federal election and citizenship law. Fukino is only qualified to report vital statistics in the state of Hawaii, not determine natural born citizenship of a Presidential candidate as it is defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Again, Fukino refused to identify the actual document, instead calling it the “original vital records”. Of course they are original. She originated them! However, she overstepped her authority when she declared that just because there are original vital records maintained on file by the state of Hawaii Barack Obama therefore is a natural born citizen. Fukino is not qualified to determine natural born citizenry. This was an irresponsible statement by Fukino. She has the authority to issue birth certificates based on criteria prescribed by the laws of the state of Hawaii, not proclaim herself an awarder of citizenship status to any presidential candidate who happens to wind up in her office asking for an original birth certificate. The irrefutable fact is that Dr. Fukino was not an eyewitness to the location of Barack Obama’s birth, and therefore does not even have the authority to certify his birth as ‘Live in the United States’ under the federal mandates of the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, let alone the authority to call him a natural born citizen under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, notice in Dr. Fukino’s final statement, she does not include, along with having “seen” and “verified”, that she also “recently issued” this type of vital record for Barack Obama. The reason she uses the terms “these types of vital records” is because there are more than one type of birth certificate available in the state of Hawaii, and more specifically, the record she is referring to in Obama’s case is not a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. There is a high probability that it is either a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or an Amended ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ based on a Birth Record Amendment application which Obama filed with the State of Hawaii. However, neither of these documents has been shown to prove he is a natural born citizen. It just means, based on Hawaiian law, he sought a state-issued birth certificate artificially proclaiming he was born in Hawaii by the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health. Unfortunately, for Obama and Dr. Fukino, however, the U.S. Constitution does not recognize Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 as proof that a presidential candidate was actually born in the United States to parents who are not both U.S. citizens.

The first hard date we have indicating when the State of Hawaii became involved with the Obama birth records problem was on June 6, 2007. This was the date stamped on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ the Obama campaign posted on the internet in fall of 2008. However, we can be confident that Fukino and the state of Hawaii have been involved in this process long before Obama was elected. Since then, whether or not this date is accurate, no access has been allowed to any other documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health which would clarify the types of original documents used to publish the ‘Certification of Live Birth’.

The only other evidence of the Hawaiian Department of Health’s attention to the Obama eligibility matter are the previous mentioned statements and press releases issued from Dr. Fukino and Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM).

Unfortunately, although her intentions are to protect the integrity of the original information, Fukino’s statements have worked to further undermine confidence in Obama’s true identity. It is appreciable that Dr. Fukino vouches for the presence of Obama’s record, but the question she needs to answer is when did she issue it? And, what was the title of the original document on file?

The official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate is given through authority granted under Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision designed to prevent identity theft. However, it sits uneasy and implausibly in the minds of reasonable American’s that there are potential identity thieves poised to steal the information of a sitting president and use the name “Barack Hussein Obama” for personal or substantial gain. This might be a legitimate concern for a president named “John Smith”. But it simply is not justified for protecting the identity of such a controversial president with the name “Barack Hussein Obama”.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review the original standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ or Original (Vault) Certificate of Foreign Birth, originally provided to the agency, and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.


In March of 2009, after months of increasing political pressure and questions about Obama’s natal history, Florida Representative, Bill Posey introduced a bill that would required future presidential candidates to submit documents and birth records in order to establish eligibility for the office of the presidency. The bill states:

H.R. 1503
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

The following headline appeared on July 27, 2009 immediately after Fukino’s second major statement about Obama’s birth records and eligibility matter:

“Hawaii again declares Obama birth certificate real”

The ignorance in this headline is breathtaking. It demonstrates a lack of responsibility by our media to investigate this matter objectively and thoroughly.

Of course the documents are real! No one has ever claimed that the documents on file in Hawaii are imagined. Hawaii has thousands of birth certificates from foreign born citizens that are “real” documents.

In this context, if Obama had a birth certificate from Kenya on file with the state of Hawaii, it would still be real. Or if his birth certificate said that his father was someone other than Barack Obama Sr., the document would be real. Or if the original birth record was a Certificate of Hawaiian birth issued by the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health or a municipal court in 2007, the document would be real. We understand that Dr. Fukino has seen it, and that it is real, and that it is authentic. That has never been the question to Dr. Fukino or the Obama Administration. Their continual elusiveness to answer to plain and simple questions in this matter is nothing more than an insult to America’s intelligence. Their current treatment of the matter does nothing toward helping America define Barack Obama as a Natural Born Citizen or disclosing the information in the documents. At no time, during her statements has Dr. Fukino ever divulged the specific content or pertinent details in Obama’s birth record related to the issue of Natural Born status.

Otherwise, once again, an official of Hawaii states that they have the “secret information” on record but yet they refuse to say where the documents came from, what type of documents they are, who signed them, what information they contain, how many there are or if they are altered or amended. Unfortunately, the only result is that Fukino has compromised her own integrity by allowing herself to be influenced by Obama’s ambiguity.

The failure of our government to embrace the core of this matter is astonishing. The American people are not challenging the existence of an Obama Hawaiian-issued birth certificate, they are challenging the lack of public access to it, and, thereby the validity of his eligibility to be president of the United States. Subsequently, Americans disdain the lack of action on the part of officials to review and disclose the information which this man’s documents contain. American’s actually hope the document confirms in eligibility. No one actually wants a constitutional crisis. The confirmation of Obama’s valid eligibility will only solidify a resolution and allow us to avoid a course of action in the future which undermines the office of the Presidency.

We can now understand how Dr. Fukino, is able to state that Obama’s records show he was born in Hawaii. The Certificate Of Hawaiian Birth, a foreign Birth Certificate and the Amended ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ are both considered an ‘original vital birth record’ by Fukino, and the State of Hawaii. Under this authority, Dr. Fukino is telling the truth within her scope of responsibility insofar as she has no personal knowledge or eyewitness account of Obama’s birth or its location. She is only responding to the information on record before her, based on the jurisdiction of the laws and documents she has access to, which were created by a “backdoor” administrative process she oversees.

Under these circumstances, the documents that are on record with the State of Hawaii, generated by the State of Hawaii, actually do show Obama was born there, but not because he actually was. Under Hawaiian law, Fukino is only obligated to confer within her limits of knowledge which is intentionally confined by a designed deniability.

Unfortunately, in her July 27, 2009 statement, however, Fukino overstepped her authority by proclaiming Obama a natural born citizen. It may have been an attempt to prevent questions about whether or not the certificate was issued as a result of Obama’s Late Birth registration process and, whether or not, from that document, they issued what amounts to be a mistitled short form document called a ‘Certification of Live Birth’. A standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is not the same as an original ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’, but they are both considered original vital records by the state of Hawaii.


Apart from exposing the weakness in the terminology referring to Obama’s records source, Fukino may have violated state law in this statement when she disclosed personal information about Obama’s citizenship. In a statement issued from the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Communications Office by Janice Okubo says:

“Dr. Fukino has said that her statement stands on its own, and she does not feel there is any need for further comment.
“Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record.”

The bottom line is that Americans do not want further statements from anyone. They simply want to see the documents they are requesting. The consequences for noncompliance on the part of Obama will be a reduction in his credibility and a diminishment of his political influence. Obama’s refusal to submit his personal records completely eviscerates his previous claims of upholding transparency and honesty during his presidency.

Ironically, in her statement on July 27, 2009, Fukino may have violated state law when she disclosed that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. The same laws which allow Fukino to issue artificial birth records also prevent her from disclosing information in them. By issuing a statement providing alleged information in Obama’s records, she is violating the very laws she cites for her reasons not to provide access to the actual records.

Why does Fukino refuse to call the ‘original vital records’ an ‘original Birth Certificate’ in her new statement? Remember the wording from the state of Hawaii about its agency wide recognition of a ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’ and a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth as documents both serving as primary form of idenitification? And, recall, both documents are considered the authenticated form of an original birth document. They are the same as far as the government of the state of Hawaii is concerned, including Dr. Fukino. Notice that Dr. Fukino still has not clarified whether the “original vital records” she observed are in the form of a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, provided by through a chain of possession involving the hospital, the doctor, the records administration of Kapi’olani hospital, the registrar, and the Hawaii Department of health in 1961, or if the “original vital record” is a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to Obama by way of an application process, and a court proceeding some time after his birth through secondary documentation and witness testimony.

Furthermore, Dr. Fukino is not qualified to make the assessment about whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. The question of Obama’s citizenship is a matter of legal definition, not a matter interpretation from a state’s Department of Health official. For someone with expertise in medicine, not immigration law, this was a strange and contrived statement by Fukino. The facts surrounding Obama’s birth have not been officially reviewed in any credible, non-biased investigation so it is irresponsible for any official of the state of Hawaii government agencies to make such a statement. She is only qualified to report the information provided in the “original vital records”, which could be a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which we have discovered is not necessarily provided just to individuals born in Hawaii. Dr. Fukino is not qualified to interpret the information for political reasons.

The question of contents of the “original vital records” still remains unanswered as of July, 2009. If Fukino is qualified enough to determine if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, why is she not qualified to determine whether the original vital record document is a Certificate of Hawaiian birth, or an Original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’? What is the Header Title of the original vital record on file for Barack Obama?

Invoking her statutory authority, Dr. Fukino exercised executive privilege and was able to legally issue an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ for Barack Obama, in accordance with statute 338-17.8. She was able to this after Obama provided proof that his legal parents, Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama, Sr., had declared the State of Hawaii as their legal residence for one year beginning sometime after February 1, 1960. He was able to produce several pieces of documentation including birth registration information, newspaper announcements, mother and father’s college registration, and other personal records.

The submission of these facts therefore obligated Dr. Fukino to fulfill her duties prescribed in Chapter 91 of the State of Hawaii’s administrative rules. Legally, there is not much action that can be taken to revoke the certificate created by Fukino. But, the story can be told along the perceptions of politics and how the documented facts of this matter will diminish and reduce the authenticity of Barack Obama’s presidency. His legitimacy remains at risk not because the law has been proven violated, it is at risk because he has violated the trust of America.

We are confronted by an appalling conclusion. The agencies of the state of Hawaii, specifically the Director of the Department of Health, have concealed the truth from the world that Obama is, in fact, a compromised President and that he is merely a paper citizen of the state of Hawaii. What emerges from this complex delegation of testimony and circumstances is a simple, inconspicuous fact that the State of Hawaii essentially manufactured Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency through its own state laws without regard for federal jurisdiction in the matter.

By issuing Barack Obama a birth record through administrative rules, and then a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ to cover it up, Hawaii’s obscure policies provided a legal protection, under the guise of a document designed, ironically, for preventing the revelation of one’s identity, not disclosing it. All of this converged subtly, but effectively, to exploit a vetting weakness and provide Barack Obama with a contrived channel to bypass the U.S. Constitutional requirement obligating a Presidential candidate to be born in the United States of America to two parents who are U.S. citizens.

This behavior is not consistent with individuals we would expect to be transparent with the American people. It is covert, secret behavior we would expect to see from our enemies. The state of Hawaii is complicit in assisting Obama in his commission of one of the greatest frauds against this nation in American history. He exploited a Hawaiian backdoor of administrative loopholes which exist because that state’s cultural permeability at the time of his birth. Not surprisingly, Hawaii made this possible just as it has been doing for Obama since he was deposited there more than four decades ago.

CHAPTER 12 - Co-Wiki-dences

To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the hidden manna,
and will give him a white stone,
and in the stone a new name written,
which no man knows…

Revelation 2:17

Among the documented facts previously discussed there are several other coincidences which support reasons to question Obama’s natal identity, his character and his eligibility to be president. The peripheral situations are based on facts coincidental to Obama’s election and they further indicate a need for a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his tenuously vetted candidacy.

Death has a devastating effect on our ability to discover truth about possible controversies. When a victim dies, it is impossible to communicate with them and ask them about the circumstances surrounding their demise. The greatest piece of evidence in the investigation of any conspiracy comes from the victim. It is through their eyes, from their mind, from their perceptions that we can gain the greatest insight into the possibility of a conspiracy involved in their demise. Death of the victim(s) greatly inhibits or prevents the discovery of truth in any conspiracy involved with their death.

We enjoy imagining that someday, perhaps when we proceed to the afterlife, there will be a place where the events of history have all been recorded in meticulous detail and available for unrestrained, unlimited review. We fantasize that we can enter a theater-like environment and ask any question about any event that ever occurred and have it answered to the full satisfaction of the truth.

What would we want to know? What events might we inquire about? The truth of the Bible? The mysteries of ancient civilization? UFO’s? Or, maybe we would inquire about more personal events like the loss of a family member. Perhaps we would ask about the iconic conspiracies of our time. What happened to Amelia Earhart? Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone in the assassination of JFK? Did America really put a man on the moon? Was George W. Bush complicit in the planning of the 9-11 attacks? Was Barack Obama a rogue dispatched by enemies within the United States to undermine vintage America?

The public murder of a leader triggers a visceral response and desperation to find resolution of such an event. Upon review of the JFK assassination, information prompted legitimate, but difficult to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the death of President Kennedy. The JFK assassination conspiracy is interesting and provocative. However, due to the historical span of time, we lack substantial documentation and evidence to confirm an actual conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. John Kennedy is silenced. He is unavailable to answer questions. All of the primary characters involved in the tragedy are gone.

So many things about Kennedy’s death work to tempt our minds with fascination about government involvement, but establishing any obvious evidence is profoundly difficult, if not impossible. Most of the witnesses have since passed. Media technology at the time was inadequate for providing determinable and conclusive analysis. The forensic evidence was compromised almost instantly when the integrity and confidentiality of the crime scene was violated by removing the measureable, scientific remnants. The victim was evacuated, the crime scene was altered and evidence was removed.

When the extreme political left accused the Bush Administration of complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, even those in our government who politically condemned his policies refused to investigate such ridiculousness, but not because of the implausibility of such a scenario. They refused to pursue such investigations because the demands to provide evidence in proving such a conspiracy are so difficult and so far removed from the grasp of the effective power possessed by mortal people, it would be impossible to find resources for it. This is a defining characteristic of a conspiracy. The time and resources required to investigate such a scheme is so massive and so intensive, it can’t be contained in the spectrum of reasonability. A conspiracy is usually comprised of an idea so extreme that it evades our ability to find logical, imaginable plausibility to understand it. However, the idea that a presidential candidate is concealing information about himself that might compromise his political career is not an extreme concept.

The difference between the assassination of JFK, or Bush’s alleged involvement in 9-11, and the Constitutional eligibility conspiracy created by Obama is that we know there is an existing sequence of documentation which allows for the investigation of Obama. There is no time limit to discover the facts despite the misinformation American politicians try to disseminate. The impersonation of a President is a permanent crime scene and we are able to confront the perpetrator who is alive and available for questioning.

On September 10, 2009, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe was speaking off the cuff with some of his constituents when he said:

“The way the system is set up you have a separation of powers. You have the judicial, the executive and the legislative. You, as a citizen say, ‘this is unconstitutional’, so you file a lawsuit. The whole idea of the birth certificate for Obama, for example…you could do that (file a lawsuit), and by the time you have a decision it would be 10 years from now.”

Inhofe is giving a typical politician’s response to the Obama birth certificate issue because he ignorantly believes that the political intensity of the debate over the issue is what determines its legal validity. Inhofe’s mistake is in believing that the displacement of time between the popularity of the debate and final decision in any legal action against Obama’s eligibility would delegitimize the lawsuit. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, any decision which determined Obama was not eligible to be president would immediately enact rescinding powers to any legislation signed by Obama. Every law passed during his administration would be rescinded.

To conspire is to collaborate among two or more people in order to intentionally, and with premeditation, commit an act of deceit. By this definition, most agree that our government is a conspirator, by nature. Within the course of events leading up to and surrounding Barack Obama’s election there have been a series of interesting circumstances which have promoted his ability to seemingly conceal personal information vital to authenticate his presidential eligibility. These circumstances have only helped to compromise America’s perception of his character and his political standing.

In the absence of fundamental information needed by the American people to accurately and thoroughly consider the real identity of Barack Obama, the media is far too often exploited as a tool to “manufacture” an alternative identity for him in the place of the real one. Aside from broadcast and print media, the internet is particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse, and even more specifically, is the vulnerability of openly collaborative information sites.


Late on the night of Thursday, April 17, 2008 Washington D.C. Metropolitan police were on routine patrol in an eastern district neighborhood, just a few blocks north of the Whitney Young Memorial Bridge on East Capitol Street, when they heard shots fired from the vicinity of the Judah House Spiritual Baptist Church located at 43 Anacostia Road. Upon arriving at the scene, police discovered the dead body of 24 year old Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (“Lieutenant” is his given name, not a title), in the front seat of a blue 1994 Honda Accord.

Just weeks before the discovery of Harris’ body, he had been stopped by Metro police on March 25, 2008 for a minor traffic violation. Upon a warrantless search of his vehicle, assumably permissed by Harris, officers located what they suspected was document evidence indicating that Harris may have been involved in a large credit card theft scheme.

At first, the documents in his possession appeared to fit the standard evidencieary profile of a common credit card theft scheme in which applications were stolen from the mail of recipients. Then, information is “mined” about the person(s) and used to apply for credit cards by criminals in the recipient’s name. The information used in such credit card scams can be assembled from any number of sources in which the vital information about a credit card applicant recipient may be taken. These sources might include canceled check stubs, phone bills, social security wage report, bank statements, old driver’s license information and passport applications. In order to gain this information, thieves might simply steal the credit card applications from mailboxes before the recipient claims their mail. But, in more sophisticated schemes, postal workers conspire with the thieves to provide the applications before they even enter the mail delivery system.

At the time Harris was stopped by police on March 25, it was reported there were approximately two dozen credit cards along with applications for other cards and what investigators have now determined were the scanned images of passport application documents taken from top secret files at the U.S. State Department. Shockingly, among the images of passport applications were those of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
After the discovery of the passport application images in Harris’ possession, the Metro police department notified the enforcement division of the State Department who immediately launched an internal investigation into how the information about Obama and the other candidates might have found its way into Harris’ hands.

On March 20, 2008, State Department spokesman, Sean McCormick said the investigation revealed that the department’s file system security was circumvented on three separate occasions on January 9 on February 21 and again on March 14, 2008, by three different contractors working for the State Department’s Bureau of Consolate Affairs, Passport Processing division. He said, “In each case, we contacted our contractors, their employer…”

It was soon learned the three contractors performed unauthorized searches of passport information. Investigator’s reported the breaches were committed by two “low-level” service contractors while the third breach was committed by a mid-level, non-managerial contract employee during training in which he merely looked at sensitive personal information. McCormick did not identify the mid level employee but said the culprit was disciplined and he elaborated that the incident was not classified as a typical intentional breach of security protecting personal information but rather an occurance during a training exercise on procedures for searching personal records. At the time, McCormick said the breaches seemed to be “impudent curiosity” among the other two contract workers, who were not connected to one another. McCormick said the breaches did not appear to be politically motivated also admitted that officials only became aware of the incidents on March 20, 2008, just five days prior to Harris’ traffic violation.

However, reaction to the incidents from Obama’s chief campaign Press Secretary, Bill Burton, suggests they were potentially apocalyptic when he said, “This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even for a (Bush) administration which has shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.”

Burton’s comment was somewhat less than politically neutral itself. It was also incorrect. The government’s job is to protect the American people from enemies abroad, not private information breaches. The American people will develop the best way to protect their own identity while telling the members of a government working for them what standards they must meet when disclosing their personal information before being allowed to serve us in a position of power.

Burton’s paranoid rant continued, “This is a serious matter that warrants a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

Burton’s overreaction prompts further questions about what he meant by “political purposes” considering the State Department’s own investigation revealed that the information accessed was by remedial employees doing administrative work and was in no way motivated by political interests. What “political purposes” might Burton have been afraid the information in Obama’s passport file would be used for? If the information contained within the passport files of Barack Obama were an honest rendition of this character and identity as a legitimate, natural born, U.S. citizen, there should be no concern about anyone with clearance working within the U.S. State Department viewing it. The only circumstances warranting such a sharp response from an Obama advisor like Burton would be if he were worried that something compromising about Obama’s identity might be revealed to the American people.

The breaches had apparently been so disturbing to others close to Obama as well that when news reached members of Congress, it prompted a statement from Senator Joe Biden, who had not yet been chosen as Obama’s running mate:

“I am deeply troubled that State Department contract employees sought access to Senator Barack Obama’s passport files. Firing or disciplining those responsible is an important first step. But we need to understand why these employees had access to this, information in the first place, why they sought the information, and why it took over two months for this matter to come to light. I urge the Secretary of State to promptly refer this matter to the State Department Inspector General for investigation.”

Biden’s defensiveness about anyone having any access to any of Obama’s personal information seems to be consistent with the covert behavior among the democrat party even today. His attitude only fuels questions and suspicions about the personal information Obama is trying to conceal, while damaging the trust of the American people. If the personal information about our officials is not even accessible to those working for the actual branch of our government that collects and stores the personal information about our officials, what possible chance do Americans have in knowing the identity of those serving in our government? If an individual working for the State Department is reprimanded for accessing sensitive information without fear it would be abused, it becomes clear that our government is wrought with characters of unseemly notoriety.

At the time, Biden was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had congressional oversight duties of the passport office. And, despite animate demands for a full investigation of the breaches by Biden and all three presidential campaigns, the incident was oddly and suddenly forgotten after April 17, 2008, the day of Harris’ murder.

The investigation revealed that the two “low-level” contractors worked for a contracting company called Stanley, Inc. Stanley Inc., a 3,500-person technology firm based in Arlington, Virginia, provides passport publications and information search services for the U.S. State Department. The mid-level contract employee worked for a division of Stanley Inc., called The Analysis Corporation. Both Stanley contractors were fired immediately after the unauthorized search, according to a company spokeswoman. However, the spokeswoman refused to identify the contractors or give speculation why either of them had accessed Obama’s passport application files. The lack of corroborating information about the incident has made it impossible to know whether the contractors removed or copied any information they accessed.

Stanley Inc. is an R.U.C. (Resident Unit Contractor), which means it does all of its business with the U.S. State Department. The State Department is its only client and all of its employees have some form of security clearance from mid-level to “Top Secret” status and are trained on the laws governed by the U.S. Privacy Act. The Stanley spokeswoman told investigators that all Stanley employees must sign a Privacy Act acknowledgment before beginning work. She also emphasized that Stanley Inc. prides itself on extensive background checks for its workers. Approximately 53% of its employees have medium security or “Top Secret” security clearances, which means their employees didn’t just “walk in off the street and are now curious about Senator Obama’s files.”

In 2006, while still under the Bush administration, the State Department awarded Stanley Inc. a $160 million contract to print and mail passports to applicants. The Washington Times reported on March 22, 2008, as evidence of the State Department’s apparent approval of their service, the firm was awarded another $572 million contract to continue support of the Department’s Passport Services Directorate, interestingly, now under the watch of Obama’s Secretary of State, and one of the individuals whose personal information was accessed, Hillary Clinton.
The employer of the third mid-level contractor, The Analysis Corporation (TAC), is a McClean based technology firm which was instrumental in automating the State Department’s terrorist watch list since 2001. One of TAC’s contractors who accessed Obama’s and McCain’s files was described as a veteran State Department analyst with an appreciable security clearance and had an otherwise exemplary employment record. It has been learned since the investigation began that TAC is staffed with a large number of former intelligence community officials and is headed by John Brennan, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center and a former deputy executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

It was also learned that Stanley’s chairman, Philip Nolan, has made campaign contributions to Republicans and Democrats alike, including to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Brennan advises Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues, and has donated to Obama’s campaign.
All of these facts prompt a peculiar observation. What might have the well screened employees of a highly respected, repeatedly contracted, incestuously staffed, critically mandated, intensily securitized, intelligence services firm like Stanley found so important about Obama’s personal information that they would risk their jobs to know it? Their actions reinforce the argument that knowing the authentic identity of our Commander-in-Chief is more important than any opportunity we uphold in America.

Given the related questions about Obama’s natural born citizenship, combined with his and Clinton’s coincidental trips to Kenya in July and August of 2009, the State Department has never been more powerful in its capacity to conduct international reciprocity with vital information about the members of the U.S. government than it does at this time. The appointment of Clinton to the head of State allows her to have full discretion over matters of State Department file security measures and the diplomatic ability to enter into agreements with foreign governments regarding the methods and treatment of sensitive information about members of our government. She also makes final decisions about how that information is secured and exchanged between the U.S. and other nations. Clinton’s position gave her the bargaining power to secure any information which she determined was compromising to any member of our government, for any reason. This information would include vital statistics such as the immigration, travel destinations and birth records of Barack Obama.

According to one CNN report, a State Department source confirmed that passport files generally contain scanned images of passport applications, birth date, basic biographical information, records of passport renewal, and citizenship information. Based on this information, it becomes difficult to understand how a commoner with a less than pristine legal record, like Harris, was able to acquire sensitive information about the most powerful people in the world which was historically held within the security measures implemented by members of the U.S. Intelligence apparatus. How does something like that happen?

Coincidentally, on the same day Harris was “randomly” stopped for having tinted windows, only days after the State Department learned of the breach, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, Ann Barrett reportedly resigned from her position after the security probe found the credit card scheme was linked to the use of personal passport data files breached at the State Department.

State Department investigation spokesman, Tom Casey, stated that, prior to his murder, Harris had told federal authorities he had obtained personal information about passport applicants from an employee of the U.S. Department of State. This was corroborated with the same account of Harris’ testimony in an affidavit filed with the U.S. District court in which he gave sworn testimony that his source information for credit card applications was partly supplied by a source at the State Department. However, neither Casey nor the court documents reveal the identity of the alleged co-conspirator, nor do they deny that it was Barrett. Prior to her resignation, there is no available testimonial evidence from Barrett about Harris’ involvement or whether she had a “criminal relationship” with the 24 year old.

When information about a possible relationship between Harris and the State Department probe was discovered, Metro Police Commander, Michael Anzallo, head of the department's Criminal Investigations Division was obligated to address the press about the matter. However, he gave little information about the death of Harris other than to say that medics had pronounced him dead at the scene and that police had no information on whether Harris’ death was a direct result of his acquisition of information about Obama or his cooperation with federal investigators about either the passport security breach or the credit card scam. He also refused to comment on any evidence found at the scene.

"We don't have any information right now that connects his murder to the case," Commander Anzallo said. He also would not elaborate on the number of shots fired, whether there were any eyewitnesses in the densely traveled area around the crime scene, or whether the police were working with any other agencies in the investigation. As of July 2009, it is not clear if investigators are treating the credit card scam and the passport security breach as one case, or separate cases. Nor is it clear in what capacity Harris was cooperating.

It has never been determined through the investigation if Harris had ever used passport information in previous credit card theft attempts. But, what is certain is that, based on his knowledge of the content of the passport documents, Harris could have given testimony about the personal information of Obama.

Media sources tracking the investigation told Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.

“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
On March 22, 2008, The Washington Times reported the investigation, lead by Acting Inspector General William E. Todd and the chief IG branch investigator, James B. Burch, a former U.S. Secret Service agent, focused on the mid-level employee of The Analysis Corp. who was not terminated. The employee inadvertently triggered alarms that finally alerted State Department officials after he looked into the passport files of both McCain and Obama.

John Brennan

Upon questioning by agents from the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Service and State Department, Harris “admitted he obtained the passport information” from a State Department employee. Harris also said the fraud ring submitted credit-card applications using the names and “identifying information” of the persons listed on the passport applications, and that a postal service employee then would intercept the cards before they were delivered to the appropriate residences.

The Obama administration’s involvement in the death of Harris is unlikely. However, the reprobate liberal media is once again derelict in its duty and is shamefully cowardice in its avoidance of the Harris tragedy. Liberal lust to protect Obama at all costs circumvents the moral and professional responsibility to report on this astonishing story,

Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.

From a memorial for Lt. Quarles Harris

regardless of its implications, or facts. But, no matter how much they choose to ignore it, they will never change the fact that a young man, outside the confines of our government, with possible intimate knowledge of Barack Obama’s secret biographical origins was murdered during an active federal investigation of related criminal activity which may have warranted exposure of revealing documents in federal court. His murder occurred during the most critical moment when his testimony would have at least exposed a credit card scam involving our own State Department and, at most, exposed the biographical deception of the President of United States, all amidst a fervent national debate about Obama’s natal information.

Harris’ mother, Cleopatra Harris, told ABC affiliate, WJLA , that she believed her son’s murder may have been due to his knowledge of compromising information about someone.

“Yes I do. I think it had a hell of a lot to do with it,” Mrs. Harris said. “The story made my son appear to be a snitch.”

The question of who might have been more motivated to silence Harris is yet to be answered. However, we can assume that Obama benefitted from a convenient “resolution” to a series of troubling questions about the identities of everyone from the highest members of our government to the lowest levels of criminality with untimely murder of this unwitting, petty thief.


Wikipedia a free web-based and collaborative multilingual encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 13 million articles have been written mutually by millions of user volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the site. Wikipedia is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.44 Wikipedia and its affiliated sites consistently rank in the top 10 most used sites in the world.47

Though the information provided on Wikipedia is reliable and corroborated for the greatest majority of its articles and features, the information is not always accurate. As an encyclopedia site that is openly collaborative, the articles are not always edited honestly. And, often vigorous debates ensue within the “talk” module of the site about the authenticity of sources and revisions. Sometimes the debates result in the banning of some users from the Wikipedia editing privilege. This is particularly true in the case of Barack Obama’s Wikipedia sites.

Despite excellent screening and arbitration of users, Wikipedia is vulnerable to exploitation by political propagandists who might use the site to disseminate erroneous information, favorable or not, about Barack Obama. When this happens, the information is rarely corroborated with documented fact creating a false perception about Obama to inexperienced users who mistakenly attribute the information to the authority of Wikipedia. Then they pass along incorrect information and a misinformation campaign begins and spreads like wildfire. Many times the entries on Wikipedia are backed by secondary, not primary, sources. Secondary sources include print, television, radio or government sources reporting about events and activities that others told them about.

Most Wikipedia users and revisers don’t have firsthand knowledge of the subject matter they are writing about or editing. Many of the more reputable users do collaborating research and cite sources, but some do not. Overall, the accuracy of Wikipedia is a tenuous state of its reliability which relies on the evolution of truth through emerging facts that everyone eventually either agrees is reality or, by consensus, discards as inaccurate.

The risk of internet “vandalism” is always a threat to a massive web resource like Wikipedia. Though the security features to correct malfeasance are excellent on the site, it is still vulnerable to intentional misinformation and abuse against high profile biographies like Barack Obama’s. Wikipedia has been used by highly proficient users to “construct” facets of Barack Obama’s identity without the necessary source documents to back the claims made in his biography. This is not to say that users of Wikipedia are intentionally deceptive, it simply means they are not using primary, first-person, eye-witness accounts or originated sources for their entries. One example of this is the “Barack Obama” biography article.

“Barack Obama” information appeared for the first time on Wikipedia’s Main page in the website’s “Today’s Featured Article” on August 18, 2004 as a short story about his then position in Illinois government. Since then, several standard Articles have been created about his life, his career, and his family. Of these, the primary biography page called “Barack Obama” has grown in popularity currently receiving tens of thousands of views per day.

On Election Day alone, November 4, 2008, “Barack Obama” was viewed 2.3 million times.45 In July, 2009, the page was viewed 697,335 times.45 Along with the large amount of attention, abuse and false information have been troublesome and wide spread on the page, mostly since the summer of 2006.

A review of the revision history of the Wikipedia “Barack Obama” biography page shows that there have been utterly thousands of revisions to his specific biographical information. Within his biography there is currently an ‘Early Life and career’ section containing Obama’s birth information that has been edited approximately 5,000 times alone. This is significant because page statistics show that no other biography within the entire library of Wikipedia’s global website has had the subject’s natal information revised as much as Obama’s. This is an indication of widespread awareness of the controversy surrounding his origins and natal identity and, most importantly, an indication of the complete lack of resolution Americans, and the world, have about the matter. Unfortunately, any argument against Wikipedia’s authority to determine the significance or accuracy of Barack Obama’s natal information is greatly diminished by the fact that Obama himself has been so evasive on the matter. Without the authority from the source, America is left to other forms of investigation and media to find the facts and establish truth. The massive numbers of reversion and reiteration in the data is accountable only to Barack Obama and his advisors. This is the consequence of intentional ambiguity.

At the time it of its original posting on Wikipedia in 2004, then Senator Obama’s biography Article called “Barack Obama” remained largely unrevised for almost 2 years, except for minor edits. This activity remained consistent until August, 2006, when information regarding his trip to Africa coincided with revisions made to his birth information. This is not to insinuate that there is a connection between the trip and the change of birth information, but the timing simply raises another of many flags in the circumstances we will discuss.

The Wikiuser log shows that a very active Obama information screener, a wikiuser known by username ‘HailFire’ had never made a revision to Barack Obama’s Wikipedia article page before their first one on August 25, 2006.33 The date is significant in that it coincides with the exact day of Barack Obama’s visit to Kenya during his well publicized six nation tour beginning in Cape Town, South Africa on August 19th.

A review of the Contribution Summary revealed the total number of edits made by ‘HailFire’ as of August 4, 2009, and over a 3 year period, for all sites, at 10,511. This large number peaked curiosity about the role “HailFire” plays within the Wikipedia community. Upon review of the USER:HAILFIRE bio page, no personal information is provided other than a quote and a tag emblem on the web page stating:

“This user is a member of WikiProject United States presidential elections.”38

‘HailFire’ is an example of the kinds of digitypes operating within the realm of media information supporting the Obama Administration. Statistics show this user as the most active contributor to Obama’s Wikipedia sites. As of June, 2008, ‘Hailfire’ had made 1300 revisions to the “Barack Obama” site alone.33 This is 800 more than the next closest contributor. This is not to imply complicity with any effort to manage misinformation, but it is interesting how uncorroborated, secondary information can become truth over time, despite the absence of facts.

Along with data about Hailfire, another interesting account is a revision made by username ‘Wizzy’ to the “Barack Obama” Wikipedia biography. ‘Wizzy’s’ first revision was also made on August 25, 2006, as well, but an hour and 41 minutes prior to ‘HailFire’s’ first revision. This revision was made to Obama’s ‘Trip to Africa’ section. Unlike ‘HailFire’, there is detailed personal information available on ‘Wizzy’ including his name, contact and blog information, places of African, Britain and American employment and other biographical information including growing up in Kenya and travel throughout Africa and south asia.36

A review of ‘Wizzy’s’ user contribution information reveals his number of edits as being 4,777 as of August 4, 2009.36 A cross reference of the ‘Wizzy’ username with previous other Wikipedia page revisions revealed thousands of entries on several hundred pages containing information and content about African nations, leaders, politics and geographical information. In actuality, more than 98% of “Wizzy’s” edits were in this genre of Wikipedia’s web content. The revisions to these Africa themed pages was so numerous, compared to other normal users on Wikipedia, it led one to believe ‘Wizzy’ has a particular capacity or knowledge about African affairs.

Additionally, a review of the discussions between ‘Wizzy’ and other users prompted curiosity about his expertise in computer applications and his involvement with the technical operation of the Wikipedia website. A review of the page revisions by ‘Wizzy’ reveals the use of WPCD template technology which is described as a document template application used for “transclusion” which allows revisions to many Wikipedia articles and pages at one time.

Some might say that ‘Wizzy’ visited Barack Obama’s page merely because he had interest in Obama’s trip to Africa. However, if the personal information above is an accurate identification of Wizzy, having grown up in Kenya, it is difficult to imagine how he had never heard or read about Barack Obama before and given his expertise in the Wikipedia subroutines that he or she would have never made a revision to the biographical information of a Presidential candidate who has family ties in the same country ‘Wizzy’ grew up in.

What is clear, however, based on the Wikipedia revision records for the Barack Obama page, the username ‘Wizzy’ had never appeared on the revision page until the day of Obama’s visit to Kenya on the 25th, after having already been in Africa for a week. Since then, ‘Wizzy’ has only made 3 revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page as of August 9, 2009.


In the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital.35 It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. The ‘Early Life’ section which contains information about Obama’s birth first received specific revisions by ‘HailFire’ on September 13, 2006 when he or she removed the reference to Queens Medical Center. No explanation is given for the removal of the phrase “…at the Queens Medical Center” from the Barack Obama page and no cited source was given as a reference for removing the information.

No information was entered to replace it for nearly 2 years, until June 7, 2008 when a revision attributed to the username “G.-M Cupertino” was made which contradicted the original entry as the hospital Obama was born in. The significance of June 7, 2008 is significant because it is one day after Obama was allegedly issued a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" but yet a week before the document image was released on the internet which was stamped by the Hawaiian Registrars office, June 6, 2007. Some believe the date of the stamp on the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ is wrong by one year due to a clerical oversight.

A review of the “G.-M. Cupertino” User contributions page revealed this user has nearly 30,000 edits with a predominant history of revisions mostly to articles containing information about foreign celebrities, figures and leaders.49 Most interestingly , however, it reveals that this user only made revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page twice, out of 30,000 edits, and one of the edits was to add “Kapiolani Medical Center” as the name of hospital to his birth information.

On June 7, 2008, revision activity and discussion about the content of the Barack Obama biography Wikipedia page exploded. Revisions began to occur by the minute, many of them reiterative, back and forth. Unregistered users began making changes and debating the issue with established wikiusers. After several hours, action was taken to increase the security of the Barack Obama article preventing general users from further editing the page.

Attempts to track the identity of user ‘G.-M. Cupertino’ revealed that the user was conveniently banned from editing Wikipedia due to violations of the ban policy. No other explanation was provided and no source was ever provided for the now protected change to Barack Obama’s birth location.

At the time of the writing of this book, On July 12, 2009, another edit war began in another Wikipedia article called “Obama’s Early Life and Career”. This time the article was edited back and forth saying that Obama was actually born in either Hawaii or Kenya.

Regardless of any perceptible bias from wikiusers and the Obama Administration, in general, their contribution to the information filtering and control of information disseminated about Obama only contributes to the massive ambiguity surrounding his natural born identity. Obviously the Wikipedia edit wars are just one of many sources of internet based information. We cannot decisively say that these specific individuals are involved in any formal effort to protect, reinterpret and misinform about Obama’s biographical information, but these circumstances only reinforce the difficulty in finding answers to basic questions about Obama’s natal identity.

Less than one week later, someone conveniently posted the infamous ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ on three separate websites which shows his birth location as Honolulu, Hawaii. Although the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ contains no information about the hospital, the Wikipedia affair is symptomatic of how the media and the internet is used as a tool to reinforce the permission for uncorroborated, irresponsible information that is not proven...or provable. The simple fact of the matter is that no official records have ever been provided from any source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. More than a year later, no changes have occurred to the birth information on the Barack Obama article, mainly due to page security measures, which has never been confirmed by primary sources or documentation from the Hospital, any birth records or eye witness accounts.

On January 24, 2009, just days after his inauguration, Barack Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Medical Center (See Appendix) on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, in which he said, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.”

Unfortunately, this president has yet to offer any proof that he was born in America, let alone Hawaii, let alone Honolulu…let alone the Kapi’olani Medical Center. A letter claiming to be verification is just another piece of propaganda.


The absence of expected evidence in any controversy tends to be a strong indicator that more questions must be asked in order to resolve gaps in time lines and events. However, the absence of information needed to resolve some questions just simply means that there is no documentation to prove a theory one way or another. In this case, the only source of information comes from the testimony of people to fill in between the documented evidence we possess.

To date, no verifiable documented evidence, originating before Obama’s birth, has been discovered to indicate that Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was present in Kenya at the time of his birth. This is particularly strange considering we have been provided with documented evidence of her whereabouts and activities at every other time in her life, EXCEPT during the time surrounding Obama's birth.

This does not mean she was not present in Kenya, it just means we have not discovered documentation showing it. Before exploring the possibility that Obama’s mother gave birth to Obama in Kenya, we need to explore some essential facts, given the information we have access to already.


Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942 according to available documentation.

We can conclude from her alleged transcripts (see Appendix) that Dunham graduated from Mercer Island High School in June of 1960, six months before her 18th birthday. At some point between June of 1960 and late August of 1960 she moved with her family to Hawaii where she enrolled for fall term at the University of Hawaii Monoa (U of H) attending there beginning in early September of 1960. She was enrolled in two 100-level classes including a four-credit Philosophy class and a four-credit Russian language class during which she allegedly met Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., a British national student from Kenya.

Over the next two months, we can assume Dunham and Obama, Sr. became close. If Obama Jr.’s birthday of August 4, 1961 is accurate then Dunham must have become pregnant by the spirited native Kenyan sometime around early November of 1960, or perhaps as late as her 18th birthday on November 29, 1960.

Dunham completed the fall term at the University of Hawaii with a lacklustre 1.35 grade point average, which may have been the result of being distracted by learning of her pregnancy sometime between mid November and the end of the fall term at U of H at the end of January 1961, depending on the actual date of conception.

Based on a memo (see Appendix) and response to questions sent to World Net Daily from current University of Hawaii Registrar, Stuart Lau, the University operated on a Semester, rather than quarterly basis, in 1961. This means it had a fall, spring and short summer session but no session referred to as “winter term”. Many four year colleges operate on a quarterly basis with shorter fall, winter, spring and summer sessions.

Throughout high school, Dunham appears to have been an excellent student with a cumulative GPA of 3.35. Therefore it stands to reason her academic performance during her first term at Hawaii must have been the result of a significant distraction from academics. Dunham may have been alerted to her pregnancy prior to early registration for spring semester classes, usually prior to Christmas break, for the next session. Dunham’s transcripts show no record of her attempting to schedule classes for the spring semester of 1961.

Obama Sr. attended the University of Hawaii from September 1959 to Spring of 1962, according to another memo sent to World Net Daily by Stuart Lau which states:

“The university of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Barack Obama (Sr.):

Dates of Attendance: Fall 1959 – Spring 1962
Degrees Awarded: BA – Economics, Spring 1962
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Monoa

Like most of the information sought about President Obama’s past the memo from Lau is yet another underwhelming example of unwillingness to offer details. We are left with unanswered questions about Obama Sr.’s class schedule, actual terms of attendance or whether or not there is a break in the succession of terms of attendance during his time there. These records exist at the University of Hawaii in the form of transcripts.

Obama, Sr. achieved a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics in 1962 having graduated as a foreign student allegedly funded through scholarship resources provided by organizations with ties to Islam and the governments of Britain and Muslim Somalia. No access to Obama Sr.’s academic records has been allowed to determine if this information is based in facts.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he would have been subject to dual citizenship because his father was from the East African Territory of Zanzibar under the jurisdiction of the British Colonial government. In 1961, Zanzibar (Kenya) had yet to officially achieve independence from the British Crown. As such, Obama would have taken citizenship from his father who was a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This means that Obama Sr. was probably traveling with a British Passport.

Because he was born to a British citizen of colonial Kenya, Obama, Jr. became a native citizen of Kenya by default when independence was internationally recognized in December, 1963. His rights to British citizenship would have expired on his 21st birthday leaving him as only a dual citizen of Kenya and America. As a person born with plural citizenship, Obama is arguably ineligible to serve as President. The writers of the U.S. Constitution intentionally excluded dual citizens from becoming President because of the potential for plurality in political interests.

The next chronological record available is of Obama Sr. and Dunham’s marriage. Evidence presented in divorce court documents filed by Dunham in January of 1964 state that Obama Sr and Dunham were “lawfully married in Wailuku, Maui on February 2, 1961” when she would have been approximately 11 to 14 weeks pregnant. However, no marriage certificate has ever been found, nor has the name of anyone licensed to perform the marriage ceremony been revealed.

The marriage was probably more of an attempt to legitimize the pregnancy, but it may have been covert because Obama Sr. may not have disclosed that he was already involved in a consecrated relationship with a woman named Kezia in his home village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Kenya. It is now commonly held that Kezia and Obama Sr already had children together at the time of Dunham’s pregnancy. This raises the question that if Obama Sr. was already married, was the marriage between he and Dunham really “lawful”?

Beyond the date of Dunham’s alleged marriage to Obama Sr. in February, 1961 and her enrollment for extension classes at the University of Washington, scheduled to begin on August 19, 1961, just two weeks after giving birth to Obama, there are no accounts of her whereabouts for nearly seven months. This gap of time raises many suspicions about her activities and whether or not she may have traveled to Kenya during this time with Obama, Sr.

Reporting on Obama’s trip 1st trip to Africa as an elected official, the Chicago Sun Times posted a story on July 10, 2006 by Lynn Sweet in which a Kenyan reporter referred to Obama as a “son” of the Nyang’oma Kogelo village. The story read:

“Obama has visited his father's Nyanza Province in Kenya twice -- but never, obviously, as a U.S. senator…A reporter from Kenyan television NTV put it this way in the story that ran about the coming Obama trip: "Barack Obama who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 was born to a Kenyan father who hailed from a sleepy little village in Kogelo, Siaya district. And this village will perhaps be more eager to welcome their son home come next month.''34


Documents released on July 29, 2010, and posted on the website, show that Ann Dunham applied for a passport in 1981 and specified a date of her marriage to Lolo Soetoro as being March 5, 1964 which is 15 days before receiving a Decree of Divorce along with an Award of Custody of Obama Jr., from Barack Obama, Sr. on March 20th, 1964. Although no marriage certificate, application for license, or public announcement of marriage has ever been found for any of Dunham’s marriages to either Soetoro or Obama Sr., the passport documents show that an immigration official verified Dunham’s marriage to Soetoro with some form of marriage certificate and approved the application as accurate.

As reported on August 1, 2010, by Dr. Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, the State Department released the documents on July 29, 2010, responding to a request submitted by Christopher Strunk, a New York resident who has actively pursued obtaining documents regarding Barack Obama's birth and his eligibility to be president under the "natural born citizen" requirement of Section 1, Article Two of the United States Constitution.

Corsi also reports that Ann Dunham’s passport applications show that she applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to “inadvertently” obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a “General Services Administration” directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.

Theoretically, if we use the "three years-plus-two year renewal" time model for any previous application, going back from July 18, 1970, Dunham could have applied for and received an original passport between August, 1960 when she allegedly met Obama Sr., and July 18, 1961, two weeks before giving birth to Obama.Dunham’s 1965 passport application is missing despite a statement on the State Department’s website stating that the U.S. Passport Services Office maintains U.S. passport records from 1925 to the present.

The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry.The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s travel and whereabouts when Obama was born and possibly reveal the location of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s official whereabouts to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.

There is also a disparity of an entire year between the disclosed dates of Mr. Soetoro’s birth in separate applications. In one application showing passport No. Z2433100, dated June 2, 1976, Dunham states “January 2, 1935” as the date of Soetoro’s birth. Then, in her application showing passport No. Z3037221, dated April 28, 1981, Lolo Soetoro’s birth date is listed as “1936”. There is no explanation for this disparity.


It is important to note that, as of August, 2009, no documented evidence has been found which places Ann Dunham in Africa at the time of Obama’s birth. However, there has been testimony which suggests that Obama was born in Kenya. One instance of this testimony occurred in a taped telephone conversation in which Obama’s Kenyan grandmother seems to say Obama was born in the coastal city of Mombasa. The October 16, 2008, telephone interview was conducted by American Christian minister Ron McRae, who describes himself in a subsequent legal affidavit as an overseer of the Anabaptist Churches in North America.

Sarah Hussein Obama is the third wife of Obama’s paternal grandfather and is not related by blood to Barack Obama. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who visited her village during the presidential campaign, she is unable to read or write and doesn’t know when she was born, though some reports say she was born in 1922.

Former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general, and lifelong registered Democrat, Phil Berg, included a transcript of McRae’s conversation with Sarah Obama along with sworn affidavits from McRae in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court after district courts dismissed his Aug. 21, 2008 complaint alleging Obama was born in Mombasa.

Calling from Detroit, McRae stated that Sarah Obama was with several people listening to the call on a speakerphone. The interpreter was Vitalis Akech Ogombe, the community chairman of the Nyang’oma Kogelo village in Western Kenya located approximately 30 miles west of the Lake Victoria-city of Kisumu.

“In the ensuing public conversation, I asked Ms. Obama specifically, ‘Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya?’” McRae testified in his sworn affidavit. “This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”

Sceptics of the interview say there is a possibility something was lost in translation between McRae, who was presuming Obama was born in Kenya, and an elderly African woman who reportedly does not understand the English language. Abscured by a combination of English, Kwaswahili and the local Luo tribal dialect, she may have understood McRae simply to be asking where she was when Barack Obama Jr. was born, or that she simply knew his Hawaiian birth occurred shortly thereafter while she resided in Kenya. Furthermore, her interpreter immediately attempted to clarify that her famous grandson was born in Hawaii.

The tape is controversial because of the apparent conflict between McRae’s repeated insistence of Obama Kenyan birth and the the interpreters repeated insistence that Sarah Obama meant he was born in Hawaii. This is complicated further by the fact that the tapes are truncated where Sarah Obama affirms her presence at the birth. The abbreviated versions leave out a section in which the interpreter insists she actually meant the birth took place in the U.S., but does not give an interpretation of her exact meaning.

The Chicago Tribune reported on March 27, 2008 that Sarah Obama received a letter from Barack Obama Sr. in 1961 telling of his plan to marry Ann Dunham. Sarah’s husband, Hussein Onyango Obama was apparently angered by the arrangement. Six months later the Kenyan family received a letter about the Aug. 4, 1961, birth of baby Obama. The Tribune reporter quoted Sarah Obama in which she said she was “so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.”
Aside from the assumption that Sarah Obama first learned about Obama’s birth through a letter from her son, her husband’s anger over the marriage makes it more unlikely Dunham would have visited Kenya while pregnant. Avoiding Obama’s family might have been preferred during this time.

However, two members of Sarah Hussein Obama’s Luo tribe who are fluent in Swahlili and English told the internet press group at World Net Daily that they believe Sarah Obama declared Barack Obama Jr. was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and that she was present at the birth. According to World Net Daily (WND) one of the tribal members personally knows Sarah Obama and the other holds a position in the Kenyan government.

World Net Daily (WND) also reported that the source who knows the grandmother declared:

“I have keenly and attentively listened to the tape over and over again, and I can confirm from Sarah’s own confession that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in her presence.”

The WND source said that though Sarah Obama’s voice is hard to understand, “she admits of actually having been there at his birth.” He said that while the people present in the room with Sarah Obama “tried as much as they could to change the tone of the whole story … to me it seems someone is coaching her from the background and seemingly trying to guide her on what to say.”

World Net Daily reported that the Kenyan government source agreed with this assessment.
“I have listened to the tape,” he said. “The preacher asked whether Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, and the translator asked the same. When she said Mombasa, it was like a surprise, and those there thought she could not have meant to say Mombasa.”

The Kenyan government source said that at that point “they began insisting Hawaii was where Barack Obama was born.” But, Sarah Obama can be heard uttering “Mombasa” in response to McRae’s question about where Obama was born.

McRae explained the disruption as follows:

“Though, some few younger relatives, including Mr. Ogombe, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!”

“During the conversation, Sarah Obama never changed her reply that she was indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya,” McRae concluded.

A second affidavit was sworn by Kenyan Anabaptist minister Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, a pseudonym chosen to protect his safety. Shuhubia, a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya, was present in Kogelo during the taped conversation. According to World Net Daily, Shuhubia’s recollection of the conversation agrees with McRae’s conclusions about the interview.

McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes.” One of Sarah Obama’s grandsons, present at the interview, tried to counter his grandmother’s responses to McRae’s question by interrupting her and interjecting that she was wrong and that Obama was not born in Kenya, but the U.S. Sarah Obama was undeterred, however, verifying the place of birth of Barack Obama as Kenya.

At this point, McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if he was born in Hawaii and she has never left Kenya, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insist, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!”
Shuhubia also testified in his affidavit that Sarah Obama “never changed her reply” that she was present in person when Senator Obama was born in Kenya.

He further testified that he traveled to Mombasa, Kenya, where he interviewed personnel at Coast Provincial Hospital, “I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar,” he swore. “I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III, in Mombasa, Kenya, on Aug. 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Barack H. Obama Jr. and his mother were present, however the file on Barack H. Obama Jr.’s birth in Kenya is top secret,” he stated.

Keeping in mind the heavy accent from the Kenyan interpreter, a portion of Bishop McRae’s conversation with Sarah Obama went as follows:

McRae: Mrs. Obama, you can rest assured that I am praying for your son, uh, for your grandson.

Translator: Yes, it is also helpful towards… it is beginning to help.

McRae: Okay.

Sarah Obama: (unintelligible)

Translator: She says she is cover your prayers for her (unintelligible) for her son.

McRae: Okay. And tell her that I will be coming there in December and that I would like to come by and pray with her.

Translator: Yes. Ye atakuwa mweze Desemba.

Kweli Shuhubla: In December. He will come in December and he wants to come and talk with you.

Sarah Obama: (unintelligible)

Translator: Oh, she says you’re so encourage her. Your coming in December, so you can talk with her.

McRae: Amen. I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, about his, uh his actual birthplace? I would like to see his actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya.

Translator: Ailuma zalima Obama (unintelligible)

Kweli Shuhubia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was she present when he was born?

Translator: Yes. She says “Yes she was!” She was present when Obama was born…

McRae: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

Ogombe: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

McRae: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

Ogombe: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

McRae: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

Ogombe: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

Until Obama provides the “Original (Vault) Birth Certificate of Live Birth” from 1961, with the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor in attendance, the facility of birth cannot be verified. Obama posted on his website an image of a ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (short form), obtained in June, 2007, which does not provide the name of the hospital or the doctor.


A radio interview with the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., Peter N.R.O. Ogego, brought further attention to Obama’s eligibility saga when, on November 6, 2008, the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a “well-known” attraction. 124
Just days after the election, radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on Detroit’s WRIF “Mike In The Morning” called the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego regarding the election of Obama. 124 During the nearly 20-minute conversation, the specific exchange of interest was as follows:

Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”

Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.” 124

After the interview, attempts were made to contact Ogego in order to allow him to clarify his statements. But, an assistant to Ogego insisted he was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama. However, it is clear from Ogego’s reply to Fellhauer’s question that he knew who the question was referring to and that he was speaking about Obama Jr. when Ogego said, “His paternal grandmother is still alive…”

Barack Obama Jr’s Grandmother still lives in the village in Kenya.

In an interview with World Net Daily, Clark said he was surprised to hear an official of the Kenyan government admit to Obama’s Kenyan natal origins given the massive public information campaign launched against allegations that Obama is an ineligible candidate.124

“For two weeks prior to the election, I had been reading on the air about this business of Obama needing to be disqualified because he is not a legal U.S. citizen and that he was born in Kenya and moved to Hawaii where he never properly naturalized,” Clark said, “I always assumed if there was any truth in any of this, Hillary (Clinton) would have found out and taken care of this issue a long time ago.” 124

However, Clark was unfamiliar with the massive amount of money and political investment made by the liberal establishment in Obama’s candidacy.

Clark continued, “Given the fact that I had read so much of this on the air, it was a natural question to play around a little bit and suggest as a joke that Obama was born in Kenya.” 124

He said the embassy’s recent claims that the ambassador was speaking about Barack Obama Sr. don’t add up.

“If you listen to the call in its entirety, you will find it was very obvious we were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father,” Clark said. “So, the idea that he thought we were talking about his father seems a little far-fetched to me.” 124

Clark said Ogego’s statement that Obama’s Kenyan birthplace was already an attraction caught them offguard. As of January, 2009, many transcripts of the conversation between the hosts of WFIR and Ogego had been removed from the internet without explanation.

The Lingle-Napolitano Factor

With internet search engines burdened with requests for information about Obama’s family, doctors, friends, schoolmates, addresses, and personal records, there is one other individual that might be worth taking a closer look at with regard to any effort to keep some of Obama’s records secret. It’s easy to overlook potentially significant relationships among key individuals that might otherwise indicate a cooperative element needed for conspiracy. One relationship that strikes a chord of interest is the one between the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle and Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.
One of the odd developments in the issue about Obama’s birth certificate is the decision by Lingle to remain uninvolved in the decisions regarding Obama’s birth records held by the state of Hawaii. Lingle, a Republican, did this despite hundreds of requests to look into the matter, alongside the ongoing defensiveness by Obama staffers and supporters. Lingle’s actions left many Americans suspicious and wondering why. If the documents would exonerate Obama’s Constitutional eligibility and support his defense by his supporters, then they would not need to be kept from public access. Lingle’s ambivalence regarding Obama’s personal information may be a little easier to explain given the history between Lingle and Napolitano. Napolitano first served as the Arizona’s Attorney General from 1999 to 2002. She was later elected Governor of Arizona in 2002, then re-elected in 2006, serving for two years before being appointed by Obama as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in January, 2009. Beginning with her governorship and up to the present, she traveled on several occasions to Hawaii to attend the USS Arizona Memorial Ceremony with Lingle. Photos of the two together are posted in the embedded pages of the Memorial’s website. They are also photographed “chumming” together at the National Governors Association meetings. In February 2006, Napolitano was named by The White House Project as one of eight female politicians with aspirations to run for the presidency. In January, 2008 Napolitano backed Obama as the Democratic nominee for president. On November 5, 2008 Napolitano was named to the advisory board of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, and on December 1, 2008 Obama introduced Napolitano as his nominee for U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary.

Hawaii Governor, Linda Lingle on the right and then Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano on the left. Courtesy: USS Ariz. Memorial

Without accusations, this relationship begs for answers to some questions. Seeing an opportunity to capitalize on their previous relationship, did Obama appoint Napolitano as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in small part, to provide him with the channels to ensure the secrecy of his natal history through the exploitation of the relationship between Lingle and Napolitano? The dynamic sets up well for Obama if his intention was to conceal the truth about his natal information because Lingle would have final authority over all non-legal procedures regarding his records held within the Hawaiian Department of Health. Given the relationship, is it possible that Obama might have been inclined to secure Napolitano’s appointment, in part, for her efforts in orchestrating a plan with Lingle to keep information about his records concealed under Lingle’s watch?
Upon Obama’s announcement to run for President, did Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and now Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano ever discuss how to "fix" Obama’s issues sometime after February, 2008? In a July 7, 2008 story published by The American Prospect, writer Dana Goldstein wrote:

“She (Napolitano) went on to law school at the University of Virginia and then landed her clerkship for Judge Schroeder, who remembers Napolitano as a gregarious people person who happily excelled at detail-oriented paperwork. ‘I thought that if someone likes people as much as she does and yet is able to get down to the nitty-gritty and crawl around in boxes of figures, she's an extraordinary person,’ Schroeder says.”

If anyone had experience and qualifications to fearlessly “take charge” of the personal record profile of Obama, Napolitano did. She had legal understanding of immigration and citizenship law through her governorship of one of America’s most “invaded” states and, most importantly, she had the background and experience to comprehend forensic, legal complexity of vital records. With her authority in the subject matter, and her personal relationship with Lingle, it seems reasonable that gaining compliance through the State Of Hawaii would be more convenient than it might otherwise be without her personal experience there.
Through her relationship with Lingle, was Napolitano able to “incentivize” Hawaii’s cooperation with the Obama administration? The 2009 Department of Homeland Security Budget Report indicates the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health will receive the largest grant in the state’s history for security enhancement measures.
The dynamic here is strategically intelligent on the part of the Obama administration because the political right would be less inclined to openly investigate the acquiescence of a republican governor in such a scenario. Given the distance from main street America, burying documents in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is a pretty smart move too.

Daniel Martinez describes rare Pearl Harbor
artifacts to Linda Lingle, middle, and Janet Napolitano.
After proclaiming 2006 "The Year of the USS Arizona Memorial" in her home state, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano hands the official proclamation to Pearl Harbor Survivor and Arizona Memorial Museum Association founding board member Ansil "Sandy" Saunders.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2004—Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, left, and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano share a light moment at the Opening Plenary of the National Governors Association Winter Meeting.

Will Obama’s Real Obstetrician Please Step Forward?
Throughout the investigation of Obama’s constitutional eligibility, one of the questions remaining difficult to resolve is the name of the attending physician at his birth. This is unprecedented. The question is unnecessarily difficult because this piece of biographical information is so easily researched and confirmed for nearly every other American ever born for the past 70 years. During the FDR’s presidency, the Social Security Administration was created in concert with the U.S. Department of Health’s Vital Statistics Registrar.
Obama has said that he was born in Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. If this is true, he was most certainly delivered by an Obstetrician or other attending medical professional and support staff at the hospital. As of July 2009, no medical professional or staff member has ever been named by Obama, nor has any individual or staff member with knowledge of Obama’s birth at Kapi’olani Hospital ever come forth and identified themselves. Even in a case of a birth 48 years ago, one would expect at least one individual, still living, who worked at the hospital in 1961 to recall the birth of a currently elected U.S. President.
Obama is not only the first ‘black’ president, he is also the first president in U.S. history without any testimony or revelation from an eyewitness as to the location of his birth. He is the first President in U.S. history allegedly born in a hospital without the American people knowing anything about his medical care, prenatally and post-natally. He is the first president who will serve without ever having a confirmed memorial attributed to his specific birthplace. All of this could be solved if we had access to one document. If we had Obama’s ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ available for examination it would answer these questions.
In a strange twist of coincidence, both Lingle and Napolitano have had occasions to personally interact with Dr. Rodney West, M.D. prior to his passing in February, 2008. West served as a volunteer greeter and presenter at the USS Arizona Memorial and was present at the Ceremonies attended by Lingle and Napolitano from 2002 to 2008. This is significant because Dr. West was the obstetrician who was attributed as being the attending physician at Obama’s birth.
One source says that Dr. Rodney T. West was the Obstetrician in attendance at Obama’s birth. If this were true, Dr. West would have attested Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth, though records have not been made available to validate this.
On inauguration day, Paula Voella of The Buffalo News published an interview she conducted with a woman named Barbara Nelson. Nelson spoke to Voella about an alleged conversation she had with Dr. West in 1961. Voella’s story recounted Nelson’s testimony as follows:

Nelson said, “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.
His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

Nelson went on to comment about an experience teaching Obama in class one day.

“During one class the question was posed “of what should we be most afraid,” drawing answers that included “death,” “hell,” “biological warfare,” “fear” and “isolation,” said Nelson.
“I recall Barack sitting in the back of the room,” Nelson said, demonstrating a hands-behind-his-head pose and describing his lanky, outstretched legs.
“When he pulled himself upright I thought ‘Bingo. Here we go,’ ” she said, expecting the discussion to move to a new level.
“And he said, ‘Words. Words are the power to be feared most. Every individual has an unmonitored arsenal and whether they are directed personally or internationally, words can be weapons of destruction.”

Born and raised in Hawaii, Dr. West sits at his
Straub Clinic desk before his retirement in 1956.

According to Nelson, Barack Obama’s mother was allegedly known by Dr. West. According to several uncorroborated accounts, Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu. If Dr. West was the attending physician, he would have signed the ‘Certificate Of Live Birth’ and maintained medical records of the birth in the hospital’s files. The problem with this claim is that, according to information provided to the National Park Service, where Dr. West volunteered at the USS Arizona Memorial, he retired from his work in Obstetrics in 1956 (See Appendix). Obama was born in 1961.

Kenya’s Independence and Hawaii’s Statehood
Widely considered Kenya’s founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, was a political prisoner held by the British crown for 7 years. The release of Jomo Kenyatta in August of 1961 near the time of Obama’s birth, and the subsequent declaration of independence of Kenya as a sovereign nation are relevant coincidences when investigating Obama’s natal history and his father’s migration to America. It is important to analyze the relationship between the beginning of the era of independent government in Kenya, and the time of Obama’s birth because this relationship has an impact on not only his father’s presence in America, but also on the municipal processes by which Obama’s birth records would have been created and made available.
While Hawaii was being absorbed into the United States, the nation of Kenya began to emerge as an independent nation in 1960. With the lifting of the territorial emergency, after years of intense political and military conflict, Jomo Kenyatta was elected as the President in absentia of the Kenyan African National Union on May 14, 1960. This is a significant date because it is widely considered by an overwhelming majority of Kenyan citizens that their country’s independence began on this date, even though Kenyatta would not be released from prison for another 16 months. The rest of the world would not officially recognize Kenya’s independence for three more years, but international travel and migration from the region eased considerably.
Kenyatta later served as Kenya’s prime minister from June 1, 1963 as the chosen transitional leader until Kenya was officially declared independent on December 12, 1963. Kenya became a republic one year later on December 12, 1964, as Kenyatta was elected as the Republic of Kenya’s President.
During this time, Hawaii was burgeoning as the newest state in America. It became a destination of mainlanders and international travelers alike incentivized by the prospect of new opportunities, warm climate and rising economic status. Stanley Dunham, Obama’s maternal grandfather saw the prospects in this new state when he decided to move his family there, along with approximately 10,000 new residents in the first few years of statehood.
Combined with Kenya’s national sovereignty, Hawaii’s statehood created a series of economic, political and social gateways which enabled a fluid opportunity for migration for Obama’s parents between the two regions if they so chose to take advantage of them.

The Opacity of “Otherness”

The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ issued through the template version created by the U.S. Department of Health, is the only affirmation of one’s eligibility to be president of the United States. It is the preeminent form. However, there are other documents that, in their sum, are equally as weighted in presenting an overall picture of Obama’s biographical identity.
If Obama continues to act under the cover of such suspicion, it will only work to harm his efforts and image as a leader. The American people have a right to know the identity of their leaders and that those leaders have the interests of our national sovereignty in mind.
Those who supported the election of Barack Obama are as diverse and measured as those who didn’t support him. At the extreme edge of both sides, dissenters present passionate hypothesis intended to justify their opposing ideologies. In the realm of ideas this is the nature of intellectual competition. Sometimes, in our lust for dramatic complexity, we forget the simplicity of reality and its subtle power to provide all that is needed for revealing truth. In this case, we only need to look at the actions taken or not taken and what they have produced or not produced.
The demand for Barack Obama to show his ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is motivated by a logical layering of circumstances and his strange ambiguity. A high majority of Americans assume that anyone running for an elected position already meets the constitutional eligibility requirements to do so. This assumption manifests through a desire to believe that our government is effective in protecting the sovereignty of our nation through a thorough process of disclosure of personal information from candidates to those with the authority to challenge, disqualify or confirm the candidacy on our behalf. In this case, it does appear that Barack Obama has failed to provide some key documentation which thoroughly and satisfactorily pronounces and articulates his identity in an open, public manner.
Eligible or not, the election results favored the name of Barack Obama. However, in the wake of his election, many American’s express legitimate questions about the absence of his basic personal information. Whether or not those questions were motivated by ideological extremities or delusion is a matter of argument and theory. In America, we have the right to hate or love our leaders. American’s with questions about Obama’s legitimacy are as qualified to oppose him as those who accept and believe in him. We may not like this, but we have no free license to violate the rights of others simply because they have disagreeable beliefs.
Whether or not the review of Obama’s personal records are the right of the American people is extraneous. What right to privacy and protection do we have when we’ve been robbed of our eligible leaders, their candidacy tossed aside by the illegal defiance of our declining social values? The preeminent necessity, at the present time, is that the provision of Obama’s records, and their subsequent validation, would close the argument once and for all, in the minds and actions of citizens in America who are the most relevant and legitimate to Obama’s success. Logically, it is in the best interest of Barack Obama to release as many documents as available that substantiate his legitimacy to be President. Wouldn’t he want to assure people he is qualified? The act of erecting barricades to viewing these documents alone makes one doubt Obama’s character.
The constitution of the U.S. was written for all Americans. It should be upheld by all Americans. Barack Obama has instead remained uncooperative with the American people in the broader issue of his authentic identity. Instead of acting in affirmation of the nation’s concerns for the welfare of our sovereignty, Obama strangely shrinks from responsibility when confronted with a simple task of providing documentation supporting his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the President. This is alarming. It seems unreasonable that, while Obama engages the most difficult challenges a nation could possibly face, he can’t even produce the simplest of information about himself.
Simply providing this document and allowing a historical analysis of its authenticity, Barack Obama would easily answer and silence any significant questions about his constitutional eligibility to be president. He refuses to allow the release of this document for public review, and in doing so, has effectively prevented any deductive research about his demographic history.
America is one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. The systems we use to collect, store and maintain information is unparalleled. Within those technologies and systems we utilized the best possible methods for recording the biographical information of our elected leaders. We issue drivers licenses, social security numbers, postal numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, birth records, immigration records, passports, medical records, educational records, marital records, financial documentation and thousands of other extraneous documents during a lifespan. There is no excuse for someone serving in our government to not provide all of these documents in their current and updated form.
The ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is just one of the records which would lead to a sequentially effective analysis of the truth about Obama’s natal identity. He could also provide records containing his academic registration including financial aid, admission status and performance as a student in the American system of education. He could provide records of immigration and travel. He could also provide professional records. He could provide all of these records in the interest of transparency.

Academic Documents
For someone who is upheld as such a scholarly intellect as Barack Obama we have a shockingly small amount of information about his years in school. And, this miniscule quantity of information covers from the time he was in Kindergarten until he graduated from Harvard. That is approximately 22 years of academic records.
Prior to his announcement to run for the Presidency, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Obama’s operatives performed a thorough ‘sweep’ through his academic history and essentially redacted large amounts of information which would connect him to the peripheral aspects of his identity they were trying to conceal. Financial aid information was sealed. Class registration records and transcripts are all sealed.
The popular suspicion about the reasons Obama’s operatives used to conceal his academic records is that he was enrolled in college as a foreign student receiving financial aid based on his foreign status. As a foreign student, Obama would have submitted applications for financial aid showing that he was a citizen of Indonesia, Africa or, perhaps Canada. His academic transcripts would indicate that he was a non-resident foreign national. He also would have been issued a set of financial aid transcripts revealing the sources of his college funds.

Neilani Kindergarten Attendance 1966-1967
We have little documentation of Barack Obama’s early years in Kindergarten. His teacher, according to the picture was named, Ms. Sakai.

Elementary School in Jakarta, Indonesia
After Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro sometime in 1966, Obama moved to Indonesia and took the last name and citizenship of his stepfather. While living there, he officially used the name Barry Soetoro to enroll in Franciscus Primary then Besuki Elementary grade schools in Jakarta.
In his lawsuit against Obama, Phil Berg presented a record of grade school registration, from the school in Jakarta attended by Obama, showing him registered as “Barry Soetoro.” The record also lists his citizenship as “Indonesian”, his religion as “Islam” and it was signed by “L. Soetoro”.
In his book, ‘Audacity of Hope’, Obama writes:

“Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools.”

Some contend that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship when his step father adopted him and then enrolled him in a state sponsored school. Indonesian law in 1968 may have prohibited children with dual citizenship from attending state sponsored schools and therefore would

Traveling from Indonesia, circa 1971

have required Obama’s step father to provide legal documents showing Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. In order for Obama to attend, he would have had to become an exclusively Indonesian citizen. This then begs the question, when did Obama become a U.S. citizen again? Did he engage the process through the U.S. Immigration Service and if so, where are the records which show his citizenship transfer between 1966 and 1971?

Punahou schoolmates, circa.1972

Punahou High School, Honolulu, Hawaii
Alleged picture of Obama while at Punahou High School
Courtesy: World Net Daily

Occidental College, California
During his years at Occidental College from 1979 to 1982, Obama spoke of a friend named Wahid Hamid, a fellow student who was an immigrant from Pakistan and traveled with Obama to Karachi in 1981. Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York.74
To date, no records of his attendance at Occidental have been made public.

Columbia University, New York, New York
Access to Obama’s academic performance records, financial aid records, registration records, and admissions records pertaining to his attendance at Columba University has been denied. He has not provided documents which illustrate his academic work during this part of his life.
In “Dreams from My Father,” Obama writes about having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls ‘Sadik’ who Obama says, “…had overstayed his tourist visa..” No member of Obama’s staff have ever provided any details about the identity of ‘Sadik’.74
On March 10, 1983, Columbia’s student news paper, “The Sundial” published a story headlined, “Breaking the War Mentality” by Barack Obama. Here are some Excerpts from that story which focus around Obama’s liberal views and the theme of lack of willingness for disclosing his identity. Regarding Selective Service registration, Obama wrote the following:

“At this time, the current major issue is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration. The law requires that all male students applying for federal financial aid submit proof of registration, or else the government coffers will close.”

In protest of Selective Service registration, he wrote:

“An estimated half-million non-registrants can definitely be a powerful signal.”

“…names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience--that of war. But then, there are some things we shouldn't have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.”

Harvard College records
Many questions remain unanswered about Obama’s attendance at Harvard. The lack of information about how he was able to afford the nearly $40,000 per year expenses as a graduate Law student leave many to believe he was afforded a considerable amount of financial aid from undisclosed sources. Some have a suspicion he received aid and stipends applicable to those classified as foreign students.

University of Chicago scholarly articles
No records of Obama’s academics have been made available by the University of Chicago as of August, 2009.

Immigration and Travel Documentation
Because Barack Obama lived in Indonesia as a boy, many wonder if he was required to naturalize or apply for U.S. citizenship upon entering the U.S. in the early 1970’s, after living in Indonesia. If he is not a natural born citizen but is a naturalized U.S. citizen, the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Department will have records on his international travel and passport information. To date, legal request for access to his passport information has been denied.
During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama said he traveled to Pakistan as a college student in the early 1980s. According to his campaign staff he visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from visiting his mother and half-sister in Indonesia, staying with a friend, Mohammad Hasan Chandoo, at his family’s house in Karachi for about 3 weeks. He also traveled to Hyderabad, India. What was his stated citizenship in his passport?74
The denial of access to information fuels an ongoing debate about the changing state of Obama’s citizenship during his time in Indonesia, and if any change of citizenship required re-naturalization upon returning to the U.S. Indonesian citizenship laws are difficult to understand with regard to foreign born, paternally adopted children, but, it is an indisputable fact that Obama was living in Indonesia from 1967 to 1970. The U.S. Immigration & Naturalization service has provided no information regarding Obama’s application for citizenship, passport information or his travel visas to and from Indonesia.

Personal Records of Corroboration
Secret Service Registration:
“Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980. His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel AmonPublic Affairs Specialist”

The Shameful Media

“A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

The liberal media complex has become the empire of misinformation that voices of wisdom have warned about for years. Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Ingraham have been cautioning us about employing a combination of the entertainment industry, ideologues and colossal mega broadcast conglomerations to perform the traditional functions of journalism.
The media’s interests have become far too consumed by monetary and political interests to allow it to simply observe events and report information. Today, ideological corruption drives subjective decisions by media organizations which, upon conveying “spinformation”, contaminate the consumer’s ability to make decisions essential to a healthy society. Instead, media agencies are driven to enhance viewership by inflaming negative passions among the public rather than be fair to their sources. The media is manufacturing truth, not discovering facts. Once the media sacrifices its integrity, it becomes easier to compromise standards of objective journalism and relinquish power to those the media are supposed to hold accountable, mainly, politicians and our government.
Once the media has allowed itself to be used by socially subjective interests, it will eventually be destroyed by a deteriorating indecency. This has become no more apparent than the failures of recent news networks to meet even basic journalistic standards.
America was warned about the liberal media’s inability to authenticate a candidate’s personal data four years prior to Obama’s document situation. Several weeks before the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Mary Mapes, former CBS Executive, produced a segment for “60 Minutes” criticizing President George W. Bush's military service. The segment was supported by documents purportedly from the files of Bush's commanding officer, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian. During the segment, Dan Rather, CBS Senior anchor, attested that the documents had been authenticated by document experts, although, in fact, they had not been.14
Later, CBS was forced to admit the documents had not been authenticated and that CBS could not confirm their authenticity. CBS also stated that they did not have any original documents, only faxed copies of the alleged documents.14 Accusations of conspiracy to smear Bush’s candidacy were justified. As a result of an internal investigation, it was determined that Mapes had committed criminal malfeasance in journalistic conduct and displayed serious lapses in judgment.
Dan Rather of CBS was accused by the nation of lying for the liberal establishment when he reported the false information regarding George W. Bush’s military service. The Killian Document scandal destroyed CBS News’ credibility for years and turned Dan Rather’s 45 year career into a shell of its former legitimacy. The entire affair marred an otherwise respectable tenure in broadcast media, simply because a biased network’s lack of integrity and personnel who had compromised their ability to seek facts over their desired characterization for someone they opposed.

“CBS terminated Mary Mapes and demanded the resignations of ‘60 Minutes Wednesday’ Executive Producer Josh Howard and Howard's top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, as well as Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005 and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005. Dan Rather also resigned as anchorman in 2005.”15

In the eyes of the media, the difference between Bush’s unauthenticated documents and Obama’s unauthenticated documents is determined by a subjective ideology which promotes disdain for Bush and favor for Obama. The liberal media is determined to make news....not report it. And, not just make news, but manufacture truth with it. Obama has been the beneficiary of some of the most favorably generated “truth” from a biased media in the history of America.
Unfortunately, the liberal media takes great artistic liberty in implementing its duties while compromising even the basic foundations of objectivity. ABC, NBC and CBS have committed themselves to be Obama's personal public relations support agencies and to report in the most contrived and favorable terms anything that Obama does or says. We are now witnessing the complete ethical and moral breakdown of America's media infrastructure. It is a foregone conclusion that objective journalism is dead. What’s next? The constitution?
Journalism was murdered by the ideological interests of liberal broadcast networks, driven by the financial interests of the liberal establishment. Moguls like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Jeff Immelt and Jeff Zucker are guilty as charged in their actions against fairness for all. Their interests are consumed by a lust for money and power, nothing more. During their patronage and leadership of NBC Universal, they have taken media bias so far to the left, it actually required the creation of a competitor network willing to put so much weight on the middle, that it would balance the scales and provide fairness in America’s media industry. But, the offense was committed first by the liberals in media. MSNBC, the cable network of NBC Universal, is not as much of a news broadcast agency as it is a network for liberal activism. Some isolated networks are holding the line, though. For the first time since Obama was elected, a national media network host actually posed the golden question vintage American’s had been waiting for regarding Obama's harried behavior. It took 7 months of lying in a coma, and two trillion dollars, but on June 23rd , 2009, one prominent media figure, Bill O’reilly, in an interview with fellow Fox News host, Glen Beck, finally asked, "What is the end game for Barack Obama…?"19
What is the intended result from this executive rampage? Since Obama’s emergence onto the national stage, many Americans had, and still have, valid and unanswered questions about his constitutional eligibility to even hold an elected position in America let alone be president of the United States. Because of the liberal media’s pandering in an anti-conservative political climate, driven by liberal government, Democrats had the help they needed to propagandize a successful Presidential campaign and manipulate support from as many racist minorities, pathetically ashamed whites, and slews of psychotic, Christaphobic liberals to get Obama ensconced as their manservant for the liberal establishment.
Many conservative Americans actually feel compassion for Obama because they believe he is overwhelmed by his own friendly fire. He is fighting on the front line between the oppositional sides of ideology while his liberal ‘friends’ do drive by attacks on the people he is trying to establish cooperation with. Obama is not stupid, but he simply cannot meet the requirements of the over inflated favorability he receives from the liberal media. Each story about Obama elevates his perceived supernaturalism so high that eventually his actual mortality is going to disappoint his fans.
On the other hand, media favorability for Obama has worked to unfairly smear his political opponents, as well. It was shameful watching liberal media activists hack away at Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. In an interview with the ultra leftwing CBS reporter and Dan Rather replacement, Katy Couric, Palin’s sense of worldliness was attacked with a question spiked with the kind of hatred we’ve come to expect from such a malcontent as Couric. In attempting to challenge Palin’s qualifications to be the Vice President, Couric asked her, “What magazines or newspapers do you read?”
Palin was refreshingly unassuming. Unfortunately, she missed an opportunity to expose a vast character flaw in a dreg like Couric. Her response should have immediately confronted Couric’s desolate, blind fetish for the authority of America’s failing magazine and newspaper industries’ as a qualification for anyone to run for public office. Palin should have turned the question back on Couric in pointing out Couric’s overconfidence in her profession’s industry to erroneously define someone’s qualifications for the liberal brand of leadership. There is more merit in relying on the timelessness of faith based literature and fairly presented information, not glossy magazines and pet box liner.
Instead, Palin wasn’t a blood thirsty liberal like Couric. And, Vintage America liked Palin for that. It made her more decent than Couric. Completely disregarding the fact that she had more executive experience than Barack Obama, the media chose to discount Palin’s qualifications in government. The attack on her qualifications, while ignoring Obama’s lack of them, was laughable and obvious.
But, NBC leads the degeneracy. On April 15, 2009, hundreds of thousands of people gathered, under their 1st Amendment rights, to protest the Obama Administration’s apocalyptic American Recovery Act, a trillion dollar tax and discount liquidation of the working middle class. Gatherings across America and modeling their message on the protests demonstrated during the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, during which about 200 colonists dumped tea from ships arriving under the British flag, into Boston Harbor. The original Tea Party was an act of civil demonstration in defiance of the British government’s attempt to impose unfair taxation on the people of America.
Modern, vintage American people understand the significance of such an event. But, like a growing tumor, the malignant stupidity of the liberal media continues to spread aggressively throughout the fallow reality of its declining significance. If Harvard residue Jeff Zucker was previously unable to comprehend the reasons why his NBC News networks were being consistently defeated in the ratings game by more credible broadcast organizations, like Fox News, he was either dead or unconscious. Either way, he should be fired. MSNBC’s performance is not only indecent, it’s professionally abysmal. And, the ratings prove it.
Given the depth of depravity and verbal perversion of some media in America at this time, it was never surprising to hear a reprobate reporter from NBC, ABC, or CNN, or the Howard Stern Show, say something disparaging against patriots for exercising their Constitutional right to speak freely against Barack Obama. Even after 8 years of their own verbal desecrations against the previous president, the liberal establishment adorned their garland of hypocrisy attacking the same freedoms they laid claim to while vomiting their hate for anyone disagreeing with them during the Bush Administration. This was no more evident than the manner in which liberal news networks like MSNBC and CNN, along with a multitude of left wing websites, characterized patriotic Americans peacefully demonstrating at the "Tea Party" gatherings nationwide. Supporting a family friendly intention by demonstrators, many of the approximately 500,000 citizens attending the "Tea Parties" were accompanied by children.
If one had viewed the demonstrations through the lenses of CNN or MSNBC, it might have been concluded by less intelligent viewers that the protestors were raising lawless havoc in our cities, committing hate crimes and vandalizing their way down police-lined streets. The way the peaceful protests were covered by the liberal media was meant to tease liberal fantasies to see so-called “right wing nuts” behaving how they projected they would. But, it never happened. As demonstrators maintained decorum, the liberal mainstream media discounted the legitimacy of the First Amendment exercise. Cynics working in the liberal media were unable to conceive the idea of truly peaceful protest. Apparently, Tea Party-goers didn't destroy enough property, break enough windows, overturn enough vehicles, commit enough arson, or assault any innocent bystanders by which their assembly could otherwise be considered a "legitimate protest" by the immoral slag of the psychotic leftwing. The protestors were characterized as right wing nuts on one hand, yet they were not committing enough acts of violence or craziness for liberals to consider their activity effective. The liberal media has such a screwed up value system it can’t make up its mind.
During a “912 Teaparty” demonstration, in an interview with Glenn Beck on September 12, 2009, Andrew Brietbart, founder of, made the following statement:

“I wanted to come to the heartland of this country, I wanted to tell the people out in Los Angeles, and out in New York, that this blue-state mentality that keeps pitting Americans against Americans dividing us by race, religion and ethnicity…that it’s ridiculous. The media foments this and the political left foments this. To put this on some amorphous mass of people to somehow say that they are bad, that they are racist, that they are “teabaggers”…its starting to add up in these people’s minds. They are finally saying, ‘wait a minute, I’m a nice person, why are you attacking me?’
This is one reason why people are coming out to Tea Parties. They are using this opportunity to express decency. This is not a crazed group of people.”

With all of the discounting of the Tea Party demonstrations by the liberal establishment, perhaps this well-behaved, honorable cross-section of decent American society should have regressed into animals protesting with more violence and destruction like the deranged liberal anarchists have throughout history. Doing so might have then garnered the requisite respect and recognition of legitimacy. Perhaps the restrain of the crowd, their maintenance of purpose and genuine discretion could have given way to the destruction of NBC's studio or GE's corporate headquarters (GE owns 80% of NBC as of 2008). But, alas, these acts of otherwise criminal misfits never occurred and the transfer of the jurisdiction over right and wrong is advanced once again. Tea Party organizers offer no apology for not conducting themselves in dank, liberal newsworthy form. They are stoic and confidently anchored in a generational understanding that the very creators of America were also bold, courageous minorities. “Tea Party” attendants are reluctant to engage violence yet able to if attacked, but mostly they were acting within a similar, divinely purposed substance of individualism and for a cause of representational liberty as the founders of America. But, we should not unfairly burden our liberal invalids with such complex, traditional conceptions. In the studios, the atrocious display of despicable speech, used by hacks from MSNBC and CNN to describe those attending Tea Party gatherings on April 15, reached the lowest standard of amateurism ever witnessed in the history of American media. The language used by Obama sycophant David Shuster of MSNBC might have warranted an FCC investigation for violations of decency standards. His description of Tea Party participants as "teabaggers", an underworld term used to describe the sexually illicit act of placing one's testicles in the mouth or face of a prone victim, can only stem from the unseemly nature and felonious character ruling the culture of his disturbed, hateful media organization.
Shuster, a pure sample of the pathology in liberal media, proceeded with his pornographic rant by unnecessarily repeating the name of conservative political action organizer Dick Army while overtly emphasizing his first name repetitively. Sounding like some perverted third grader given permission by his teacher to say a naughty word as it appeared in the day's Dick & Jane reading, Shuster seemed to take joy and gleeful pleasure in his own iterative intonation of the word "Dick".
America, however, thought it was profane and, to paraphrase the idiot, "dick-less". Never before has a media organization, once considered by itself as a legitimate outlet of broadcast journalism, been so debased and utterly reprobate in its portrayal of other human beings. Never before has any organization championing itself on its own mantras against social injustice, anti-humanism, racism, classism and other non-progressive standards of decency been so racist, so classless, so inhumane, so indecent and so anti-American.
Ironically, congratulations are in order to all left-wing hacks at MSNBC in their abject failure to objectively cover gatherings all over America. In less than two hours of disgrace, both CNN and MSNBC managed to completely confirm to the entire world why they were being destroyed from within, indicated by depleted viewership, reinforcing the accuracy of our media rating system. By casting unfair, vulgar disparagement on decent, averagely perceived Americans, MSNBC and CNN solidified their derelict identities as two of the most vile, desolate and narrowly minded representatives of anti-Americanism in the entire 260+ year history of media in this country. Being tilled under by better opinions and superior intellect, Shuster’s boss was obstinate to the difference between the universally embraced standards of right and wrong. NBC's viewership was proof. Shuster's despicable use of the sexually derogatory term “teabaggers” is just another example of the overwhelming evidence.
Ratings reveal that MSNBC was crushed on a daily basis by more than 4 to 1, by Fox News, among viewers of cable news. Amusingly, the daily re-run of Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" had never been rated lower than the highest ranked show on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC or Turner's Headline News. The re-run!72 In April, 2009, Fox News had 13 cable news shows in the Neilsen top 20, including ALL of the top seven. "The O'reilly Factor", hosted by pithy broadcast stalwart Bill O'reilly had been and still was at the time of this publishing, the number one cable news program for more than 8 years straight. The program consistently received more viewers in its respective time slot than MSNBC, CNN and CNBC combined! 72
This is the adult world equivalent of getting beat up on the play ground for being the class jerk. Liberal media hacks were, once again, exhibiting the very reason they were rightfully bullied in grade school as children. They bring it on themselves for being a bunch of mindless hacks. And, this was a sign that GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, also a Harvard drone, and Zucker, were being removed from their professional significance by better competitors and failing to win the support of the decent Americans they insult on a daily basis. This is the real reason for their failed viewership. Banishing itself deeper into the desolate territory of tabloid journalism, MSNBC’s ratings continued to plummet for months under the escalating prominence of more fair, logical and balanced broadcast media.
MSNBC’s Shuster should be forcibly dragged from his hole by the FCC and jailed for using sexually explicit, family-unfriendly language during a prime time broadcast. He is a disgusting foul mouthed pervert working for an even more reprobate organization. Shuster, along with his comrades-in-perversity, Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are mere examples of why the wrong people are suffering and dying for American freedom in the world today. These ideologically consumed creatures spew the revilement of their bosses, while lacing their meaningless, ever insulting, diatribes with bottomless decanters of witless pander. If lipless dregs like Matthews are allowed to continue to spit all over themselves verbally insulting Vintage Americans, under the guise of equated legitimacy, what does it say about the accessibility of the 1st Amendment to common people?
If only our military could choose who they wanted to fight for, and who they would turn over to the enemies of America. After all, most of the people attending the “Tea Party” gatherings only happen to be the very patriots who either fought, or lost family in the fight, for every liberal’s right to actually be alive and choose to hate decent people as much as they do. Meanwhile, those working for Zucker, holding the clueless in America hostage under the façade of media activism, should consider when the end will come as their professional integrity sinks into the ratings abyss.
Cable entertainment is descending as well. HBO liberal and yack show host Bill Maher characterized Obama truth seekers during his liberal circus, ‘Real Time with Bill Maher’ on August 2, 2009 as follows:

“For the past couple of weeks, we’ve all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the “birthers”…the far right goof balls who claim Obama wasn’t really born in Hawaii, and therefore the job of the president goes to the runner up, Ms. California, Carrie Prejean . And, you know, there is nothing you can do to convince these people. You could hand them, in person, the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, with the placenta , and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb, with Don Ho singing in the background . And they still would not believe it. Hey brithers, wanna hear my theory? My theory is, Obama was born in America, and you were born with the umbilical chord around your neck. I don’t know what his mother was doing when she was pregnant, but I’m prett sure yours was drinking. . Oh, I kid the birthers and actually there is one thing that makes me think they could be right. We’re Americans, of course we’re going to hire an illegal alien to clean up.. I’m joking, of course. And, laughing it off has also been the reaction from democratic leaders, so far. Proving that democrats never learn. Cuz, in America, you know what? If you don’t immediately kill errant bullshit, no matter how ridiculous, it can grow and thrive, and eventually take over like crab grass or Cirque du Soleil. This “birther” stuff might be a diluted, time wasting, right wing obsession, but so was Whitewater, and look where that ended up? Liberals said, ‘Oh, what are they going to do, keep expanding the case until they impeach the president over a blow job?’ . Yeah. I’m telling you, in America there is no idea so patently absurd that it can’t catch on……Now, you may ask, ‘How does something as inane as Whitewater, or Swiftboats, or the birther thing gain traction? I’ll tell you how. The same way the story about how Elton John almost died by injesting too much of Rod Stewart’s sperm gained traction in my highschool. Dummies talking to other dummies . Its just easier now because of the internet. And, because our mainstream media does such a lousy job of talking truth to stupid. Lou Dobbs said recently that,’People are asking a lot of questions about the birth certificate.’ Yes. The same people who want to know where the sun goes at night . And, where to put the stamp on their email. And, Lou, you are their new king. Which is why it is so important that we, the few, the proud, the reality based, attack this stuff before it has a chance to fester and spread. This is not a case of democrats versus republicans. It’s sentian beings versus the lizard people. And, it is to the lizard people that I offer this deal. I will show you President Obama’s birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin’s highschool diploma ”17

Bill Maher, host of HBO’s “Real Time”

The problem with ideologues like Maher is they encourage ignorance by denying the essence of the matter with their one dimensional form of defense. They use hostile mockery and personal insults while comfortably sheltered among their liberal friends. Maher certainly understands that if he gave that speech in a studio in Dallas, he would be summarily dragged from the building, kicking and screaming, and remanded to a beating by Texan “lizard people”. He presents himself bravely nestled in the friendly confines of the liberal asylum. But, one wonders how he might fare in Vintage America.
Lou Dobbs responded to one of Maher’s L.A. Times Op editorials, saying:

“…its interesting that there are people who want to stop the freedom of expression in this country. And, frankly, I can’t understand why they do. Bill Maher has just written an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times where he says, ‘Stop the birthers!’ He’s so concerned with people with a point of view other than his he calls them dangerous, which is the most interesting part of it to me.
This is a President who campaigned on “transparency” and “openness”, and I don’t understand, for the life of me, why it should be such a big deal to turn over a birth certificate. And, it’s also made a mess of things for a lot of liberals because they are on the wrong side of this. They should be on the side of disclosure, openness and transparency, as was their president, when he was pandering for their votes.”

End Game: Reparative Justice

“I am willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose, for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends.”

Van Jones, Special Advisor to Barack Obama

When King Solomon ordered his court to cut a baby in half to settle the dispute of two women claiming to be its mother, he was exercising wisdom and measured grace. Each mother told the same story that they resided together and had each given birth to a child. They both claimed the other’s baby had died the night before and that the live child was hers. Each mother accused the other of stealing the other mother's live baby and replacing it with the dead one. Each mother claimed upon waking that she had discovered the dead child sleeping with her, which was not hers.
In this dispute, where there is no evidence or witness, King Solomon's ordered for a sword to be brought. He declared that the only fair solution was that the live child would be cleaved in half and each woman would share the baby with half given to each.
Upon hearing this horrible verdict, the baby's true mother cried out in anguish, "Please, My Lord, give her the live child - do not kill him!"
However, the woman who lied held within her a bitter jealousy and exclaimed, "It shall be neither mine nor yours - divide it!"
Realizing that a true mother's instincts are to protect her child, Solomon instantly gave the baby to the real mother, who was willing to relinquish her baby in order to save its life. He knew the real mother of the child would never allow the child to be killed, even at the cost of giving it over, alive and well, to a reprobate liar worthy of death herself. And, when the woman falsely claiming to be the real mother of the child exposed her willingness to allow the baby to be killed as a means of satisfying her lust for reparative justice, we can only imagine the punishment Solomon levied against her for her deceit and willful disregard for innocence.
Today, more than 3000 years later, America is in danger of being cut in half by a rampaging, jealous, bitter liberal faction of our society. Only now, the purveyor is not a wise King. It is a radical enemy.
The radical liberal establishment seeks to achieve justice for its secret disdain of others based on a deep seeded hate along America’s cultural, racial and genealogical differences. The radical left takes its queue from the struggles of our past during which it only sees the injustice committed against itself. By this blind conclusion, the radical left believes it has a right to confiscate the wealth of those who it has declared, without reason, rationale or care, to represent the demographic characteristics of those who implemented oppression over those who represent their demographic characteristics today.

The End of the Dollar In early 2009, in an attempt to back the Obama Administration’s 3.6 Trillion dollar budget, the United States Treasury is took measures to monetize the U.S. economy by printing money at an unprecedented rate. Most Americans have little understanding that for each dollar printed by the Obama treasurer, the value of all subsequent notes loses value at an accelerated rate. This means that Americans must work harder for longer just to maintain the quality of their life. As a consequence, world markets began a mass exodus out of their investments in American securities. This, combined with the message that our condition was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, was pushing the America people into a slow submission to Obama’s insidious socialist agenda. Simple minded Americans, and most of Obama’s liberal constituency, fail to grasp the concept that the value of money is not legitimized in the fact that it merely exists, nor do they understand that the value of money actually decreases when the government prints it faster than our society can produce to back it with our industrial markets, products, and services. The baby must be alive and well, not just two halves of carnage given over in equal portions to those in dispute. Monetizing our economy is the equivalent of putting the sword to the infant. When this happens, no one wants what's left. Other governments lose confidence in our value and refuse to do business with us. And, alas, Obama’s fetish to see us like the rest of the world becomes reality. Unfortunately, he is failing to make the world like us. By diminishing the value of our monetary system, Barack Obama has imposed a situation in which we are now borrowing money from the value of what he thinks we will be in the future. Simply put, he is putting our grandchildren into debt before they are even born. While he conducted press conferences professing his disadvantage by way of inherited circumstances, the passage of his government-expanding, market-destroying budget only reinforced what right-thinking Americans have known all along. That Barack Obama took a challenging financial situation and turned it into a disgraceful cataclysm of irrevocable indebtedness. He did little more than tell us how unfair it was that he was limited to one step forward when he came into a two-step office. And, so, his response was to take 4 steps back.
Obama’s response to this situation failed to address the essential and material causes while he implemented a ongoing series of further destructive anti-solutions. The American government has lost touch with the reasons that, historically, have made America the most advanced economic representation of humanity. It is failing the people it serves by selling us short to a discount status based on a global standard that neither matches our qualifications, nor promotes the capability to bring value to our effort. Eventually, as the vaults empty, and more money is pushed into our midst, the quantity of dollars in our market will diminish our value, while the mere printing of money will only cause a global inflationary crisis. At that point, the production of money descends into the near criminal activity of counterfeiting because it is not backed by a standard of value demanded by anyone.
In terms of healthcare reform, it should be apparent that Obama resents the quality of life enjoyed by vintage America, in part, as provided by the greatest, and most expensive, healthcare system in the world. Yes, it may be in desperate need of administrative improvement, but even in its current state, it is still the most demanded, best healthcare industry in the world. It employs the best doctors, the most advanced technology and the highest regarded institutions. Obama knows this. He is not stupid. He's simply indignant that some minorities in American society, unfortunately, are excluded for what he believes are reasons of racial demographics, when, in actuality it is because they are unqualified or fail to meet the minimum economic requirements to afford the advanced healthcare offered in the elite sectors of our society. It is the result of the monetization of America's health care industry. And, he will attempt to accomplish this by using his speciously endowed power, his ambiguous identity, his ostentatious charm and his secret psychological vendetta to remove monetary and political resources from vintage Americans and reinvest them into demographics he believes are more worthy of his image.
But, the most shortsighted aspect of Obama's ideology comes through his audacious sense of entitlement. He actually believes that affluent members of our society, and medical professionals, have an obligation to provide selective healthcare to minorities. Obama is proceeding under the resolve that heath care providers must subscribe to his version of entitlement-based healthcare. In the end, this will decimate the quality of the medical profession and utterly drive the best doctors from the industry. No doctor will want to practice medicine in an environment where they are constantly limited in their ability to develop, with their patients, the kind of relationships needed for effective healthcare decisions. It has become frighteningly obvious that Obama’s agenda, if he succeeds in implementing it, will have apocalyptic ramifications for traditional Americans of vintage heritage. Vintage America must realize that this man is not intent on changing America for the benefit of all of its citizens. Contrarily, Obama intends to do great harm to the longstanding establishments of traditional America. He is blinded by his personal experience and hatred for the advance citizenry of our nation because he thinks that Vintage America has unfairly assumed jurisdiction over the world's interests. But, what he refuses to accept is that the prosperity of the fittest is a universal truth without regard for his liberal social values. It is fascinating that Obama has never attempted to conceal his ideology insofar as he has been able to carry out his agenda through traditional political channels and legal shelter. The political climate, and absurd hatred for the previous administration, made his coup that much easier to achieve. And, evidently, we have always had an uneasy suspicion that Obama was a monger of social and community issues related to race, poverty, minorities and entitlement politics to such a degree that the American way of life was at risk. The only way America will get out of a deficit is by vesting its hope and worth into the best members of society qualified to redefine the valuation of our existence. Whether by discovery, faith or innovation, we will only become a viable nation again when the most qualified members of our society are unburdened of the liberal obstacles of socialism and entitlement based monetization systems. Only then will there be freedom to declare what is worth spending our worth for. We are in default. There is a keeping of right, and banishment of wrong, that must come. And when it does, it will call on margin the warrants of an excruciating recompense bringing forth the derivative of extraordinary change. This change will not permit the corrupt minions of our current rulership to make a nation into a visage of liberal idolatry, as is being manifest under the Obama directive. This change will force upon us the necessary and hard to embrace questions of to what do we attribute our great worth, and what is worth our hard and committed endeavoring. This change will destroy the wrong and exalt the righteous to which has been accounted treasures in grace. But, for those without shame for this malfeasance, the natural order of our economic dynamic will hand them over to their own reprobate minds by which they will commit acts of destruction upon each other and receive into themselves the penalty of their error, which was long overdue.
Our cause is to undertake the epic endeavor of forging this path further into the darkness of this moment. In recognizing our true salvation, we are now demanded by the requirements of our Creator to stand on the rock of our grandfather’s sacrifice and determine in “myself” the reasons for a new accountability.


After an examination of all the available evidence, combined with the absence of what is considered the basics biographical information for every other person, it becomes blatantly obvious that Barack Obama, and his administration, along with a complicit liberal media, are working to conceal his true identity, and his actual character. Obama’s ascendance to power and his ambiguous claim to a natural born, American political identity have been facilitated by numerous acts of malfeasance and disreputability on the part of his staff, his cabinet, the Hawaiian state government and his media relations personnel all acting to promote a liberal agenda contrived upon the unseemly doctrines of reparative economic justice against vintage America.

From the moment of his conception, presumably in late fall of 1960, Barack Obama was set on a course of controversial existence and ambiguity. Conceived in bi-racial illegitimacy, he made his way into the world without the purveyance of a loving father and into the responsibility of wayward teenage mother who craved international adventure. Once deposited into the outer fringes of America’s constitutional jurisdiction, the islands of Hawaii provided Obama with a statutorial, as well as, the cultural camouflage through which he would later be afforded the necessary legal assistance to assume a synthetic legitimacy for his ideology and his political ambition. The remoteness of Hawaii from mainland, vintage American culture along with its permeable geopolitical permissiveness served as an incubator where Obama experienced the open transaction of America’s transient multiculturalism and diverse racial demography. It is also upon the remote islands that he met and formed relationships with some of our nation’s most notorious pioneers of radical ideology.
Taken from this plentiful world at age seven, he was swept abroad, by his mother’s second marriage, to Indonesia where he took a new name, a new citizenship and a new look at the world. In Indonesia, Obama was old enough to understand the difference between poverty and affluence. He began to see the difference in the economic provisions of America contrasted with the underdeveloped micro-economies of the melanic world. In this observation, he was not taught about the constructive principles of individual accountability and capitalism. Instead he was taught that holding those with what you want accountable for that which you do not have was a legitimate way to achieve success. He was indoctrinated at an early age into the false belief systems of leftist activist regimes and race-based propagandized politics. Even before Obama was 10, impressed upon by an overwhelming culture of liberal internationalism, he was chosen to become the consummate community organizer of our time.
Returning to America in 1971, without ever having established legal U.S. citizenship, Obama comleted primary and prep school then came to launch his academic endeavor in the best school’s foreign scholarship money could buy. He was afforded a classical but decidedly liberal education in the most prestigious institutions built during the origins of America. He brought to the college experience his memories and anger of a deprived childhood and a determination to find justice for everyone he considered like himself. Isolated, intelligent, economically challenged, ideologically willful and most importantly, not white.

Throughout the years of his liberal training and community activism, Obama became involved with the most notorious leftists of our time. Liberal black activists and communist sympathizers influenced his thinking and taught him how to prosper using a leftist ideology to justify the confiscation of monetary wealth from conservative, traditional society. Moreover, liberal criminals enabled Obama’s socialist mentality by teaching him to exploit race-based shame tactics, hate mongering and black justice theology to convince affluent descendents of alleged “slave owners” into believing that they falsely owe his father’s culture, and thus him, a debt for slavery. Through this insidious reclamation of economic thievery, Obama is now implementing a plan of Reparative Justice against vintage Americans.
It has become clearly and presently dangerous for vintage America to continue to ignore Barack Obama’s militantly liberal agenda for this country. If the decent people of vintage America do not take up defense and stand on the true principals of righteousness against the liberal establishment, then, by default, they are agreeing with Obama and surrendering their values and freedom to his politics. Vintage America can no longer remain unengaged.
Be acutely aware of where Obama comes from. Driven by a distorted, pathological sense of cultural justice, acting within the insidious framework of racial politics, Obama and his administration are implementing standard, radical, ‘community organization’ policies designed to confiscate vintage American affluence. The desire of Obama liberals is to shame Americans of white heritage into surrendering their wealth to the causes of liberal policy. If shame fails, Obama will use his installment to power to pursue policies of taxation, liberal indoctrination, collectivism and punitive legalities in order to confiscate the wealth of affluent, vintage Americans. He will then work to redistribute that wealth under a stratagem to socially reengineer America along the liberal establishment’s artificial terms of preferentiality for melanic multiculturalism, internationality and economic collectivism.
In order to fully understand Obama’s motivation to conceal his true origins and his natal identity, one must have an understanding of his political intentions. Obama fully understands that his natal identity opens a political and legal Pandora’s box from which all forms of discredit and unwanted exposure would pour. Obama’s ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, no matter what form it exists in, is a window into his character as a man. Why else would he hide it? As such, he must keep this window concealed and shut from the view of the American public in order to remain a viable leader seeking reparative economic justice for the liberal establishment.
Obama’s senatorial voting records and bill sponsorship history, as an Illinois state senator and a U.S. senator, show that he is the most fringe liberal politician in American history. From this evidence, combined with his comments and sentiments against America, it is obvious that he is also racially biased and a seeker of justice for America’s enemies.
Burdening the affluent members of our society with trillion dollar stimulus bills, trillion dollar healthcare redistribution plans, trillion dollar credit funded bailout programs, trillion dollar deficits and trillion dollar systemic restructuring of the American society, Obama is hoping that the liberal establishment will be able to create a political consensus which will force an affluent, conservative minority to surrender to his version of morality.
Obama harbors a deep, personal, racially motivated disdain for many traditions and vintage cultural consistencies in America. He has shown himself to be little more than a glorified leftist street radical mentored by the psychopathic visionaries of the fringe civil and universal rights movements of the 60’s and 70’s. Revealed through his international apology tour of 2009 and through his undermining of necessary and successful security measures established by the Bush administration before him, it is obvious that Barack Obama not only sees the interests of nations abroad before he sees the interests of America first, but he has little concern for the actual welfare of the traditional culture of America. By apologizing to the world for America’s defense of itself from threats of terrorism, Obama is softening our position now for compromise in the future. This is the evil in his scheme revealed. His revulsion toward the founding fathers and framers of our constitution drive in him a liberal doctrine to undermine the sovereignty we have fought to establish over the past 300 years.
Then, by removing the effective defensive measures under the guise of affording the rest of the world with the “right to not feel offended” by America, Obama is placing the essential citizens of America in a vulnerable position from which they will either only have the choice of being destroyed or surrendering to alien interests. His fetish to see America integrated into a collective global community reveals a lack of appreciation and understanding of the uniqueness and opportunity of advance human citizenry that America provides for the entire world.
A culture of inflammatory race mongering runs rampant through the Obama administration. Simply put, Obama and his liberal sycophants believe that white people owe reparations to dark skinned people. And, if he can’t take white society to court and sue them for reparations, he will create policy meant to tax them for it. Er’go, government imposed Healthcare reform.
Obama currently has on his staff people who believe that white people are actively trying to murder black people in America through environmental policy. Van Jones, a special advisor to Obama on the environment staunchly believes that white people are working with the ‘white’ environmental movement to channel industrial poisons into the drinking water of minority communities.
Obama himself has made disparaging remarks against the Cambridge police along racial lines while taking sides with his black friend, Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates. Obama and his racist dregs make these conclusions based on an astonishingly narrow minded and intellectually shallow perception of modern history during which all of America, white people and black people, suffered and bled during one of thousands of eras of world history in which slavery played a part in the evolution of a civilization. Obama believes his brand of reparative economic justice is justified because he is unable to see this larger view of human history. He does not see America as the first nation which fought a civil war, and suffered the deaths of a million white people over the issue of human slavery, he mistakenly only sees America as a place where the exploitation of dark skinned humanity began and where the affluence of vintage America was acquired through the enslavement of melanic cultures. Liberals refuse to acknowledge the four millenniums of slavery which existed in those cultures long before America even existed.
Reparative economic justice is the liberal establishment’s golden calf, of course, but there are other coveted mantles of liberal lust being sought through the advantages of having a figure head like Obama. Ultimately, this is about power and the ability to control the lives of traditionally independent and affluently free people. Obama’s scheme is to avenge what he sees as the injustices of America’s past, without regard for America’s generosity and goodness, through an undermining of its economic, social and moral standing in the world. Ultimately, he seeks to make affluent white people either work for his liberal government in the form of taxation of their wealth or forfeit their enginuity and innovation to the minority social structure, as Obama’s special advisor, Van Jones, speaking about the transfer of wealth to non-white sectors of American society, once said, “give them the wealth…”.
The liberal establishment does not view America as a destination with opportunities for the entire world, it sees it as a resource from which the melanic cultures of the world have a right to take. Through this false prism of contrived racial justice, built upon a foundation of his own ambiguous personal origins, Obama and his liberal minions seek to implement a devious political doctrine meant to avenge the slaves of America’s past. And, even though slavery ended with a six year long civil massacre and the Emancipation Proclamation from a Republican president, Obama seeks to enslave the descendants of slave owners in economic servitude and generational indebtedness to the rest of the world.
Barack Obama refuses to allow the American people to see his true identity for several reasons. As these reasons apply to his constitutional eligibility to be president, there are three questions Obama has not provided documented answers to as of 2009. He has not disclosed conclusive, collaborated, confirmable records demonstrating that he was born in the United States. He has not provided conclusive, confirmable evidence that both of his parents are U.S. Citizens. And, he has not provided legal documentation of his acquired citizenry during and after his migration abroad.

Natal History
Barack Obama has failed to provide the appropriate information about his natal history which would allow for the verification of his eligibility to service as the United States President. The U.S. Constitution mandates that the President be a natural born citizen under the established, biological parentage of two native, naturalized or natural U.S. citizens. These are the mandates required to be President of the United States. The information needed to determine Obama’s satisfaction of these mandates exists in official natal records and medical documents which he has refused to allow the American people to see. This covert behavior, by default, demonstrates a blatant lack of credibility in Obama’s natural born right to serve as the President. His refusal to be transparent with his personal history justifies America’s rejection of his legitimacy, regardless of whether or not his records affirm his legal ability to be President.
Barack Obama has an original birth certificate. It existed before he was allegedly issued a “Certification of Live Birth” from the State of Hawaii. How do we know this? Obama specifically mentions in his autobiography of having the document in his possession. On Page 26 of “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes:

“I discovered this… folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”

The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, which has been falsely called a ‘birth certificate’ by the liberal media, was allegedly issued to Barack Obama in June, 2007. His autobiography was published in 1995. Therefore, by his own words, we know that an original birth certificate existed, at least, before 1995. Where is this original document? Why has this document not been shown to the American people? What information does it contain that Obama does not want the American people to know about?
According to testimony, and a Press Statement, from the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Obama’s ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ exists, or once existed, within the Vital Statistics office in Hawaii. However, we do not know the fate of this document and we know that it is not in the traditional form of a hospital issued ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ as prescribed by the U.S. Department Health, National Vital Statistics Division. Therefore, Obama’s natal history file does not provide conclusive information that he is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. The document which has allegedly been issued to Obama by the State of Hawaii does not contain the name of the hospital, the name of the doctor or the citizenship of his parents. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published cover document meant to conceal identity, not reveal it.
The issuance of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ has never been confirmed by the State of Hawaii. No qualified official from the municipal government of the State of Hawaii has ever attested that Obama was issued a record of birth titled a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ by that state. Everyone has just assumed it came from the Hawaiian agency. The document Obama has presented contains no names of any official or registrar from the state of Hawaii, except for an ambiguous and illegible image of a stamp posted to several obscure, politically suspect websites. These images have never been shown in context with the entire document allowing the public to confirm that the document actually exists.
Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, if issued by the state of Hawaii, is published independently under the guise of identity protection laws within the State of Hawaii. It is a cover document meant to provide carefully selected information which, in Obama’s case, would mislead many Americans into believing that it was an actual, standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. The header title of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’” was also carefully contrived in order to mislead as many Americans as possible into believing the document was a standard Certificate of Live Birth, and therefore, authentic and adequate for establishing his natural born identity.
If Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was issued to him by the state of Hawaii, it is a cover document reflecting an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ which is in the form of either a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth or an “altered”, “delayed” or “amended” ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. This document was issued to Obama by Fukino. Fukino exercised her legal authority, as afforded by Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 and Administrative Rule 91, based on Obama’s testimony that his parents were residents of Hawaii for at least one year prior to his birth abroad.
Obama’s Hawaiian birth record, whatever title it has, is a document issued based on the tenuous cultural history of the Islands of Hawaii. It does not qualify political candidates for natural born citizenship of the United States. It only qualifies them to be recognized as native citizens of Hawaii after the possibility of being born anywhere in the world.
The secondary evidence and record of testimony given by Obama to Dr. Fukino during the application process for an ‘original birth record’ states that his race is African or Caucasian just like it says his parents are. Both of these racial classifications undermine his legitimacy and burden his political endeavor to seek reparative economic justice against white America. If his natal records show that he is Caucasian, it will undermine him politically with his liberal minions for his lack of identification as the first black president. Comparatively, if he officially and draw fire from white America for acting against his own documented heritage with anti-American policies meant to steal money from his grandparent’s heritage. If his natal records show that he is African, like his father, it will undermine his efforts to distance himself from the appearance of being born in Africa.
Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809 in Hodgenville, Kentucky. Despite a severe lack of vital records (Kentucky did not have a Department of Health in 1809), the lack of media (The Kentucke Gazette, Kentucky’s first newspaper, did not print birth announcements in 1809),82 the lack of written accounts by eyewitnesses (there were no physicians available to attend Lincoln’s birth), during an era that was obviously far less technologically advanced than the 1960’s when Obama was born, the entire world is still able to know, with an irrefutable level of certainty, where and when President Lincoln was born. 152 years before Obama!
In this light, there is no reasonable excuse for why every fact about Obama’s birth and citizenship should not to be disclosed in open forum. These facts should be addressed in an honest effort at full transparency on the part of Obama. All documents should be provided. Every American should have the opportunity to know and verify his place of birth, his date of birth, the name of the attending physician, the name of the hospital, the number of the room in the maternity ward where he was born and the name of the hospital administrator. This should be allowed in order to allow the American people to have confidence in the sovereignty of Barack Obama’s identity and his genealogical loyalties to the security of America.
Contrarily, Obama is the first president elected to office with significant unanswered questions about his natal history and basic personal information. He will be the only president in history without a confirmed memorial constructed to recognize his confirmed and verified birth place. The information sought is basic biographical data that every America would otherwise be obligated to show for far less significant applications and employment.
The primary question which remains unanswered is whether or not he meets the Constitutional eligibility standard of being a Natural Born Citizen needed to hold the office of the President of the United States.
If we are unable to redeem the U.S. Constitution with authentic proof of Obama’s legal eligibility, then we must engage the more fierce and punitive authority of legitimacy. Whereas we may be unable to bring lawful standing against Obama’s covert natal identity, due to his influence over the liberal court system, we must engage the option of challenging is legitimacy through an organized public rebellion against his radical agenda. If the United States Justice Department refuses to cooperate, despite the righteous command of the American people, we must circumvent its authority and bring the universal laws of God and truth into the measurement. Under this, Obama is forced to acknowledge the fullest roster of evidence in order to preserve his own reputation, his place in history and his legitimacy.

Americans need a harsh reminder of the tragedy wrought upon our nation on September 11, 2001. Entering the 2008 election season, our nation was beginning to forget the wounds of the 9-11 attacks, war, economic stresses and a changing internal demographics of our society. As America came to the end of the Bush era, a politically tumultuous time, our political climate was ripe with anxiousness for significant change. Whether one supports or opposes Obama’s predecessor, no one can deny the polarization of our national identity along political lines in current times. The chasm between our ideologies continues to widen and intensify today.
Many need to be reminded that Barack Obama is human, not a god. He was born into this world by a mother and a father. When his mother gave birth to him, the moment he emerged from the womb, she was in a geographic location somewhere on the planet Earth that was documented by someone. It is the truthful knowledge about this geographic location that determines whether or not he is eligible to be the elected leader of our great country. Some say he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Others believe he was born in Mombosa, Kenya. What is not disputable is that the full disclosure of records available about his natal information has never been provided by Obama.

A Poetic Truth
The dialogue induces that descendents of Vintage America have become modern day Hamlets; Orphaned children of our dying founding-fathers whose killers seek to possess the credit for a vacated pristine throne. In recent years, dramatic renditions of government conspiracy give an articulate reference to the story we have discovered about Barack Obama because it reminds us of the negative effects political power can have on our leaders.
Recent screenplays recounting major events in the history of our government form prayerful dialogue which embodies the true hope of history’s redemption. In paraphrasing words spoken by the main character in the motion picture, “JFK” we can apply equal sentiment to Obama’s predicament:

“….the ghosts of our founding fathers confront us with the secret destruction at the heart of the American dream and they force upon us the appalling questions: Of what is our constitution made? What is our citizenship, and more, our lives, worth?”9

What is the state of any republic when a suspect presidential candidate can be elected to the highest office under overtly suspicious circumstances and the representatives of our media and legal systems scarcely take notice? How many political lies disguised as environmentalism, social justice, racial equality, affirmative action, and unscheduled “containment” trips abroad must happen before people assemble against them?9
The American public has never been allowed to see Barack Obama’s personal records. Why? The American public has yet to see the authentic documents and recorded evidence of his education, citizenship and international travel. Why are these documents being withheld and silenced by the liberal political machine and other members of our government?
When courageous legal councilors have justifiably asked these essential questions and demanded crucial evidence, the answer from activist judges has always been given under the auspices of “right to privacy” and protection from identity theft, or you’ve been reviled by insidious accusations of racism and fanaticism.
That kind of privacy and censorship is fascism. The election of November 4, 2008 was a takeover of the American government by radical and foreign interests. The most tragic result of Obama installment was the demonization of President Bush’s commitment to defeat radical, global Islamic terrorism while securing sovereignty and energy resources for our grandchildren. These necessities have now been compromised by liberal environmental interests and economic internationalization. The synchronization of environmental legislation with energy security is the biggest business in the world today worth more than three and one half trillion dollars a year. Obama understands the anchor for controlling and exploiting affluent Americans is through shaming them into surrendering to the good intentions of liberal doctrine.
In 1600, English poet, Sir John Harrington wrote, “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? For, if it prospers, none dare not call it treason."7 The 2008 election was an installment of alien doctrine and a legalized destruction of the founding principles our nation has fought to preserve for 260 years. It was a radical overthrow cloaked in the appearance of righteous change and it was accomplished by complicit individuals in the American liberal media, foreign governments, democrat party, and appointed liberal Judges of our supreme court, including despots of the liberal financial industry. This election diminished the office of the President to little more than a theatrical puppet, and nothing but a tool for liberal indoctrination. Obama’s commission, now, is to speak as sincerely as possible of America’s desire to be adored by the world while upholding the corrupt foreign consensus of human rights, while fulfilling his fiduciary role as an agent for the liberal congress in their subterfuge seeking unilateral control of confiscated monetary resources through urbanized entitlement and dependence ideology.
We need to look no further than the members of our government who benefitted the most from this election. They will never ask Obama to release the hundreds of documents and sworn affidavits of testimony pertaining to his identity, birth, cultural affiliations, and residential history because it does not personally benefit them to do so, even though it is the constitutionally appropriate action. Let’s demand to see the “top secret” records on Obama’s educational, immigration, travel and medical history, including his international activities in the 1980’s in Indonesia, Kenya, India and Pakistan, that seem to have miraculously and conveniently disappeared just as concerned Americans began to request them.
Before the age of 30, Obama was apparently a ghost. Even more intriguing, being the legitimate candidate that leftist bastions of our society claim he is, why would he want to conceal vital facts about his identity if they do indeed, as the liberal sentiment claims, exonerate him? This can only be explained as the unintended consequence of an over-wielded elitism perched upon the stanchions of self-fed audacity. Under the guise of reparative justice, Obama enters the marble hall already clothed in the autonomous presupposition that he need never respond to the necessity of our lowly inquisition. It is beneath him, in his delusional mind. However, the truth is that all of this information became our right to know the moment he took a position of responsibility for the security of our lives. It became our property the moment Mr. Obama declared his candidacy for the public office of President, in our service, employed by us. We pay for his service and we have the right to know the full depth and breadth of his identity and qualifications, just like any employer does. Or, does Mr. Obama and the liberal establish believe that we work for the government instead?
Because the government considers us “mobbish” and too disturbed or hateful to face the reality of his possible illegitimacy, after such a populous declaration of his messianic destiny, we are not allowed to see his personal information for an undeclared, undetermined amount of time, if ever. We cannot get cooperation from any legal authority to provide legal leverage, and the media is in bed with the suspects in the White House. Vintage America is on its own, here.
The best we can do is remain vigilant and prepare for sometime in the future, when we can access some remnant, or source in the Library of Congress or the records of Supreme Court and find out what the DNC and Mr. Obama actually concealed about his identity. However, the consequences of exposing any facts supporting a disqualification of Obama, now or in the future, will cause a crisis in our legislative structure. Every bill signed by Obama will be disqualified and every law passed under the congress during his tenure will be erased from the record if his ineligibility is discovered. This is why he signed Executive Order 13489 which essentially makes it impossible for the public to access his Presidential Records. Every act, every executive order, every military command, every staff appointment made by Obama will cease to exist from our history. This is the burden we face when our leaders are not properly vetted and their identity is left ambiguous. If it is discovered in the future that they were indeed an imposter, every action taken under their rule must be stricken from existence. Otherwise, we should just rewrite our constitution premeditatedly, now, to avoid the crisis in future. Along the way we can go back and write ourselves a less genuine history, one that discounts the words of the Emancipation Proclamation,

“…whereas the authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons..”12

Individual human beings must be willing to implement justice. Truth seeking websites alone have raised nearly $10 million from people hoping to discover some truth about this strange moment in our history. They are driven by the same spirit of our founders to secure the sovereignty of our nation and authenticate the natural born identity of our highest leader.
Most of us in vintage America believe in redemption. As we live life in a corrupt social structure, we realize the divisiveness of the moment imposes deceit upon truth, if not only for the benefit of the present, but also to satisfy the future for the blind lusts of the few.
Shakespeare wrote:

“..know, thou noble youth, the serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears his crown…remember me.”39

Remember your ancestors who braved the journey for independence, freedom and inalienable rights. Anyone who has given their life for the causes of America’s liberty, fighting against those who would take it way, should be upheld as one murdered by history’s villainous agents of hate who seek to steal the value of lives more worthy than their own. The deranged ideologues are harmoniously aligned upon a radical message against decency, accountability and charity.
The people of America seeking truth about the identity of Barack Obama are not collectively crazy. They are not necessarily racist, nor are they absolutely hateful in their inquisition. They may simply be concerned about the investment of the past 260 years. They are concerned for upholding the honor and value of the blood and lives sacrificed by all people who helped build and protect America. Black, white, brown and red. They are concerned for the future generations of our vintage heritage and the preservation of their sovereignty.
The people of traditional and conservative values, to which has been entrusted the worth and validity of the epic American cause, in fulfilling your obligation to expose this loathsome band of robbers, remembering that this is a nation of the people, for the people and by the people, demonstrate the effectiveness of your national sovereignty by bringing upon these desolate people a weight of conviction and judgment that removes them from the privilege of American leadership.9
The discovery of Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be President of the United States would be apocalyptic to our national identity. This is reason enough for some elected officials to ignore the issue completely. Their fear of both the imagined and unknown consequences has overcome their sense of duty and their obligation to serve America. They are terrified to do what is right in this situation because they are afraid of what they might find.
However, our elected representatives have an obligation to protect our confidence in the Constitution and its regard, our sovereignty, our interests, and our lives. They have an obligation to obey our requests for any and all information appropriate to maintaining our well being. They serve us. We don’t serve them. Our politicians have completely failed to do this in the matter of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President. They are now derelict in their duty to ensure that our government remains secure and that the integrity of our national interests are served by individuals with interests to benefit America.
Our politician’s refusal to investigate this matter, their lack of response, and their selfish adherence to preserving their reputations, rather than the protection of the American people, only deepens and intensifies the American public’s perception of Obama’s malevolence. Members of Congress have received more than a million letters on the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. Most, if not all, of them remain ignored.
Discovering that Obama was not a natural born citizen would have a personal impact on many Americans as well. When President Kennedy was assassinated it had a profound impact on the national psyche as a whole. Obama’s disqualification would have the same kind of broad sweeping effect. For some it would be horrific and force them to accept an unwanted reality. For others it would be a galling disgrace and a confirmation of betrayal of the American confidence in our Constitution. Some would deny it. Some would use it as a banner for political justification. Regardless of its individual effect, it would shake our confidence and impact the national sovereignty of America as a whole. It would fundamentally expose the identity of our nation to vulnerability and create a sense of confusion. When our leaders are found to be illegitimate or dishonest it impacts our country negatively, for all of us.
Since the identity of any nation is tethered so intimately to the image of its leadership and constitutional history, it is imperative that the people remain diligent to preserve the integrity of an appropriate relationship between government and people, always upholding the proper boundaries and form of that relationship. Regardless of political loyalties, the loss of an elected leader, to any circumstance, is no small matter. It is a matter of crisis, especially when the lost individual is found wanton and the office of leadership is tarnished and undermined. For those who support and voted for Obama, his delegitimization will be unfortunate, but for those who did not vote for him it would be infuriating and disgraceful. Either way, his disqualification would have a negative impact on the whole country. This may be one of the primary motivations for Obama to prevent the release of his personal records. Perhaps he believes, at this point, that it is better for America if he remains a secretly ineligible president instead of an exposed illegitimate one.
There are many reasons American’s have for pursuing the truth in this matter. For some, it is merely the excitement of exploring a conspiracy. For others it is a genuine sense of duty to our previous generations in honor of their sacrifice and bloodshed for America. For others, it is hatred for the kind of “change” Obama brings to America as a consequence of his persona and ideology. Still, for others, it is a sense of legal duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the integrity of America government. For others, it may be a need to protect political party affiliations.
The Mombosan Son has been installed to his place of power. And, now he intends to gain control over the resources, minds and able bodies of the greatest people in human history. He intends to implement a vast policy of indentured servitude designed to evade the conspicuousness of its horror. Although he acts to appease the social values against our historical form of slavery, he is exploiting the shame of those with weak minded contrition and their ignorant hatred for America's societal prerequisites.

The Obama Timeline

1498 Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama reaches East Africa.

1505 Portuguese invasion of East Africa.

1593 Construction of Fort Jesus on the Mombosan Coast.

1698 Arab Muslims invade and take over Portuguese East Africa

1729 Portuguese leave East Africa

1730 – 1880 Era of Arab-driven African slave trade.

1770 March 5 The Boston Massacre

1773 December 16 The Boston Tea Party

1776 July 4 United States Declaration of Independence. Revolutionary war begins.

1778 British explorer Captain James Cook discovers the Hawaiian Islands and names them the Sandwich Islands

1783 Sept 3 Treaty of Paris. End of Revolutionary War

1787 Sept 17 U.S. Constitution is signed.

1883 Germany assumes governance over portions of territory of Zanzibar (Kenya) through arrangements with Sultan of Zanzibar.

1888 With tensions rising over access to coastal trade routes and shipping ports, Germany relinquishes its coastal territory of Zanzibar (Kenya) to British East African Company (BEAC), in exchange for the inland region of Tanganyika (part of what is now Tanzania).

1893 Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani surrenders the kingdom to the United States.
1894 Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s future first president, is born in Ichaweri
1895 Britain takes control over the BEAC and declares the Territory of Zanzibar (Kenya) a protectorate under the British crown and names it British East Africa.

1896 First railroad begins construction from Mombosa to Kisumu (Lake Victoria). Project is delayed when two lions kill 135 workers in Tsavo along the settlement rail line.

Queen Liliuokalani abdicates her throne in Hawaii.

1898 Hawaii is annexed to the United States.

1900 Hawaii becomes a United States territory. The Great Chinatown fire leaves 7000 people homeless in Honolulu.

1905 Dec 31 Frank Marshall Davis is born in Arkansas City, Kansas

1906 Completion of Railroad line from Mombosa to Lake Victoria brings thousand of European settlers to fertile lands of Zanzibar (Kenya) to establish trade lines and plantations.

1911 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program begins in Hawaii as a means to account for indigenous births prior to annexation.

1915 United States establishes official vital statistics reporting regions in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Begins using official form birth certificate which later evolves into the standard “Certificate of Live Birth”.

1920 Kenya is changed from a protectorate to a British Crown

1921 Young Kikuyu Association (YKA) Kenyan rebellion begins to protest British settlements and pervasive Kenyan land ownership by Europeans.

1927 Frank Marshall Davis moves to Chicago where he writes his
first poetica “Chicago’s Congo”

1931 Frank Marshall Davis moves to Atlanta

1933 U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Office
establishes the “Certificate of Live Birth” as the standard
form for reporting births in the U.S.

1935 Frank Marshall Davis moves back to Chicago
1936 Barack Obama Sr. is born in Nyangoma Village,
In the Territory of Zanzibar (Kenya), under the jurisdiction of the British Commonwealth. Obama’s natural born citizenship is subject to Britain.

1940 May 5 Stanley Dunham and Madelyn Payne are
married in Wichita, Kansas

1942 Nov 29 Ann Dunham is born in Wichita, Kansas to Madelyn Payne and Stanley Dunham

1944 Dec 26 Bill Ayers is born in Chicago. He is the son of Thomas G. Ayers, CEO of Commonwealth Edison and Chicago philanthropist.

First African is “allowed” to assume seat in Colonial government body in Africa.

1945 – 1955 Dunhams move to Ponca City, Oklahoma, then to Vernon, Texas, then to El Dorado, Kansas

1948 Frank Marshal Davis moves to Hawaii with his wife, a 20 year old, white Chicagoan named Helen Canfield.

British Nationality Act of 1948 makes Obama Sr., as a native born in the territory of Zanzibar (Kenya), a citizen subject to the British Commonwealth.

1952 Mau Mau Rebellion begins in east African territory of Zanzibar (Kenya), in which native east Africans violently oppose British government. This was the indirect cause of decreasing British power in the region.

1953 April 8 Jomo Kenyatta is arrested and imprisoned after being charged as a principal in the Mau Mau rebellion.

1955 Dunhams move to Seattle, Washington. Ann attends Nathan Eckstein Jr. High School

1956 Dunhams move to Mercer Island, Washington. Ann attends Mercer Island High School.

Mau Mau Rebellion begins in Kenya. Kenyan African Union (KAU) is reformed.

The standard “Certificate of Live Birth” form is revised to include detailed information about mother’s age, race. The standard form is recommended for official use at the National Vital Records conference.

1958 John McCain III Graduates from U.S. Naval Academy.

April 14 Jomo Kenyatta completes prison sentence, placed on probation and moves to house arrest.

August Hawaii Becomes 50th State. Barack Obama Sr. is awarded a scholarship from an American program offering educational opportunities to Kenyan students. Abandoning his wife, Kezia and son, Abongo, Obama moves to Hawaii where he enrolls at University of Hawaii to study Economics.

April 15 One million of Kenyatta’s supporters sign a petition demanding his unconditional release.

May 14 Kenyatta is elected as KANU president en absentia

Summer Ann Dunham completes High School and moves with family to Hawaii.

September Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. meet while taking a Russian language class. No records have been released verifying Obama Sr. class enrollment. It is assumed his Russian language class is elective.

November Ann Dunham becomes pregnant.

1961 Jomo Kenyatta is elected President-in-absentia of burgeoning Kenyan Republic

February 2 Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham are allegedly married. To date no marriage certificate has ever been discovered, nor has any published announcement. According to testimony, Obama Sr. had not divorced his first wife, Kezia, therefore leading to accusations of bigamy against Obama.
After this date, there are no records, documents, testimony or evidence available to account for Ann Dunham’s whereabouts. She is virtually unaccounted for for more than 6 months until records from the University of Washington show that she is enrolled in classes there.

August 4 Ann Dunham gives birth to Barack Obama Jr.

August 5 Nordyke Twins are born in Kapiolani Hospital, allegedly one day after Obama. The Nordyke’s standard “Certificates of Live Birth” are posted on the internet in 2008 which further confronts Obama’s lack of a standard document.

August 13 Obama’s birth announcements appear in Honolulu news papers. The information source for the announcements appears to have come from Hawaii’s Department of Health which registered births for children born outside of the state if the parents were residents there for a year prior to the birth. The announcements also say that Dunham and Obama Sr. lived at the same address although evidence shows they did not. Oddly, the Nordyke twins announcement does not appear with Obamas, even though the information allegedly automatically is reported to the newspapers from the Department of Health.

August 14 Jomo Kenyatta is officially released from house arrest. To many natives of East Africa, this is the date of Kenya’s de facto date of Independence.

August 21 Records reveal that Ann Dunham was enrolled in extension classes at the University of Washington only weeks after giving birth to Obama. Testimony from a friend confirms Dunhams presence in Washington at this time.

Oct 28 Jomo Kenyatta becomes president of KANU

June Obama Sr. graduates from the University of Hawaii, Manoa.

September Obama Sr. moves to Cambridge, Ma., abandoning Ann Dunham and Obama Jr. to attend Harvard.

1963 Ann Dunham returns to college at the University of Hawaii to study Anthropology. She meets Lolo Soetoro, a foreign exchange student from Indonesia.

1963 May Kenyan African National Union (KANU) wins majority of seats (83 of 124) in Kenyan civic elections. This is essentially the beginning of the end of British colonial government in Kenyan parliament.

December 12 Kenya declares independence, begins process
of drafting a constitution. Jomo Kenyatta is chosen as Kenyan Prime Minister.

1964 January Ann Dunham files “libel for Divorce” from Obama Sr.

February Ann Dunham allegedly receives Kenyan CCRB for proof of paternal parentage in order to gain exclusive custody of Obama Jr.

March Dunham is granted Divorce from Obama Sr. and exclusive custody of Obama Jr. when judge invokes “Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights” ruling against Obama Sr.

December Kenya is recognized by the international community as the Republic of Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta is elected as Kenya’s first president.

1965 Obama Sr. receives a Master Degree in Economics from Harvard. East Africa Journal publishes an article by Barack Obama Sr., where he criticizes the government approach to economic planning. Obama’s published views put him in a conflict with Kenyan president, Jomo Kenyatta, and consequently his career is ruined.

Columbia University professors, Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven develop the “Cloward Piven Strategy”. Much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer.

Bill Ayers becomes involved with the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical left wing activism group.

1966 Based on Cloward-Piven Strategy, George Wiley leads the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) working to increase the number of welfare recipients in America. From 1966 to 1975, the NWRO artificially increased welfare recipient rolls in the U.S. from 4.5 million to 11 million.

May 2 The Nation magazines publishes Cloward and Piven’s “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”

1967 Ann Dunham receives a Bachelors degree from the University of Hawaii.

Dunham and Lolo Soetoro are married and move to Jakarta, Indonesia with Obama Jr.

Summer Barack Obama Jr. is adopted by Lolo Soetoro and takes his name. In Indonesia, Obama becomes known as Barry Soetoro.

October 26 While serving in Vietnam, John McCain is shot down and captured. He is tortured and held captive in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years.

Fall Obama attends Francisus Primary school in Jakarta.

1968 Bill Ayers comes to notoriety as a radical organizer for the Students for Democratic Society organization.

June Bill Ayers becomes a leader of the “Weathermen”, a violent leftist organization.

Fall Obama attends Besuki Elementary School, a state sponsored, predominantly Muslim school. He is enrolled under the name Barry Soetoro, stating a religion of Islam.

1970 Formers member of George Wiley’s NWRO, Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado co-found ACORN in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Mar 6 Greenwich Village town house explosion in which three
members of Ayers “Weathermen” group are killed while
assembling nail bombs which were intended to be used in a
terrorist attack on Fort Dix military base during a dance.

Aug15 Ann Dunham gives birth to Maya Soetoro in Jakarta, Indonesia.

1971 Barack Obama Jr. returns to Hawaii from Indonesia. There is no evidence the 10 year old Obama renounced his Indonesian citizenship or whether he applied for U.S. citizenship. Obama’s citizenship status remains in question to this day.

Antonio “Tony” Rezco emigrates from Syria to Chicago.

Fall Barack Obama Sr. travels to Hawaii. This is the last time Obama Jr. will see his alleged father.

1972 May The Weather Underground, led by Bill Ayers, bombs the Pentagon.

1974 Ann Dunham returns to graduate school in Hawaii.

1976 -1977 Barack Obama Jr. begins a “paternal-like” relationship with Frank Marshall Davis

1977 Community Reinvestment Act is passed under Carter Administration. The legislation essential puts pressure on banks and lending institutions to relax lending standards to enable lower income borrowers to get home loans.

Aug 22 Jomo Kenyatta dies in Mombosa.

Daniel Arap Moi becomes Kenya’s second President.

Aug Barack Obama leaves Hawaii to attend Occidental College.

1981 Barack Obama Jr. disregards American advisory against travel to Pakistan. Using an unidentified passport, Obama enters the Muslim country with a friend from college who’s family lived there. Obama first makes a stop in Indonesia to visit his mother and sister before leaving for Pakistan and India.

Fall Obama transfers from Occidental College to Columbia.

1982 Barack Obama Sr. dies in an auto accident in Nairobi.

1983 Ann Dunham receives Masters degree in Anthropology from University of Hawaii.

Barack Obama receives a Bachelors Degree from Columbia University.

1985 Chicago organizer Jerry Kellman hires Obama to run the Developing Communities Project which encourages the poor to use protests and civil unrest to ‘agitate’ money from the government.

Michelle Robinson (Obama) graduates from Princeton University.

1987 Bill Ayers receives a Doctoral of Education from Columbia University.

Lolo Soetoro dies.

July 26 Frank Marshall Davis dies in Honolulu.

1988 Obama is admitted to Harvard Law School. Records about his means of paying the $40,000 per year tuition are concealed. Suspicions arise that Obama paid for his Harvard education by applying as foreign student in order to receive foreign aid.

1989 Tony Rezco and Daniel Mahru create Rezmar Corporation. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar Corp. is paid $100 million to arrange public-private relationships supporting low income housing improvement in Chicago’s south side.

1990 Feb 5 Barack Obama is elected President of Harvard Law Review.

Summer Obama is “noticed” by ACORN’s Madeline Talbot while he is doing summer activist work on Chicago’s south side for “Friends of the Park” community organization.

1991 Obama receives his law degree from Harvard and returns to Chicago.

Tony Rezco offers a job to Obama, but Obama does not accept.

1992 Ann Dunham receives Ph.D. in Anthropology from University of Hawaii

Barack Obama and fiance’ Michelle Robinson make first trip to Africa.

Barack Obama officially joins ACORN and works for the left-wing group’s “Project Vote!” as a canvassing organizer.

Oct 18 Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson are married in Chicago.

1993 Obama begins serving on the board of the Woods Fund Foundation. He serves on the board with Bill Ayers for 8 years.

1994 Obama serves as member of DMB&G legal team in a lawsuit against Citi-Bank Mortgage.

April Obama represents Barnett in Barnett v. Daley, voting ward redistricting case.

1995 Barack Obama is appointed by Ayers as Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s Board where he serves with Bill Ayers for more than 6 years. Records about Obama’s work with Ayers and the C.A.C. have been sealed. They are kept at the University of Illinois Library.

Obama represent s ACORN in “motor voter” registration case.

Obama launches political career at Ayers’ Hyde Park residence after a gathering in which he is introduced as the successor to state senator, Alice Palmer.

Clinton Administration begins vigorously enforcing New Community Reinvestment Act under Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Many believe this is the reason for the eventual housing collapse in late 2008.

Nov 7 Ann Dunham dies of ovarian cancer in Hawaii.

1996 Winter Englewood Apartment building controversy involving Tony Rezco. Residents of the building owned by Rezco are subjected to freezing temperatures when Rezco is unable to pay utilities, leaving them without heat in the dead of winter.

1997 Jan 14 Barack Obama receives a $1000 campaign contribution from Tony Rezco while residents of Rezco’s Englewood Apartments are freezing without heat because Rezco cannot “afford” to pay utilities.

Nov Obama is elected to the Illinois state Senate.

2002 Mwai Kibaki is elected President of Kenya after Daniel Arap Moi steps down after 24 years in power.

2003 Reverend Jeremiah Wright gives infamous “God Damn America” sermon. Obama attend Wright’s church for more than 18 years but denies having known about Wrights radical views against America.

2004 July Barack Obama addresses the 2004 Democratic National Convention at the Fleet Center in Boston, Mass.
Aug Obama is profiled on Wikipedia for the first time. Information in the article states that he was born in Queens Medical Center. Over the next 4 years, Obama’s personal information on Wikipedia will undergo more than 5000 reiderative changes and edits. More than any political figure in the world, in the history of Wikipedia. Questions about Obama’s natal identity begin to increase.
Nov 3 Barack Obama is elected to the U.S. Senate from the state of Illinois.
2005 January Barack Obama purchases a home from Chicago slum lord, Tony Rezco. Obama later expresses regret for the business arrangement he made with Rezco, which he never gives details about.
Barack Obama and senate delegation travels to Russia for Nuclear facilities tour during post-USSR nuclear deproliferation era.
Nov 21 Kenya Constitution Referendum election seeking to divide power between the Head of State (President) and newly appointed position of Prime Minister (European Style rule). The referendum is rejected 58% to 42% despite President Kibaki’s encouragement of a “Yes” vote. Kibaki’s Opposition becomes known as the “Orange Democratic Party”
July Employment Policies Institute releases report on ACORN’s involvement in voter fraud activities.
Aug Obama makes second trip to Africa spending time in Kenya.
Oct Obama’s book, “Audacity of Hope” goes public. During the book tour Obama speaks openly of running for President.
2007 National Journal labels Obama the most liberal senator in American history based on voting record.
Feb 10 Barack Obama announces his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential election while giving speech in Springfield Illinois.
April 17 L. Quarles Harris is found murdered in Washington D.C. just three weeks after it is discovered he is in possession of documents acquired through the State Department. Among the documents, which are allegedly being used in a credit card scam, are passport applications of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Obama receives endorsement from ACORN.
Oct Obama’s cousin, and fellow Luo tribe descendent, Raila Odinga signs “Memorandum of Understanding” with African Muslim leadership to enact Sharia law if he is elected president, if he is supported by Muslims.
Dec Election in Kenya re-elects Mwai Kibaki over Obama’s cousin and communist party member, Raila Odinga. After losing the election, Odinga incites rioting demanding a new election. During the violence, 1200 Kikuyu tribe members are murdered and more than 800 christian churches are burned.
Feb 28 Power share arrangement, brokered through the U.N,s Kofi Annan and the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Jendayi Frazer under the Bush Administration, divides political power in Kenya between the President, Mwai Kibaki and new Prime Minister position filled by Obama’s cousin, Raila Odinga.
Aug Phil Berg files lawsuit against Obama for proof of eligibility to be President
Obama posts a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” on several “Obama-friendly”, leftwing websites. The State of Hawaii refuses to answer questions whether or not the state’s municipality ever issued the document to Obama.
Oct $800 billion TARP bailout
Oct 16 Obama’s paternal grandmother tells Minister Ron McRae that she was present at Obama Jr’s Kenyan birth. The telephone interview between McRae and Ms. Obama is mediated by a translator which causes confusion about the questions McRae is asking about Obama.
Nov Minnesota election controversy reveals Al Franken (D) wins seat over Norm Coleman (R) by less than 500 votes after it is discovered that ACORN may have been involved in voter registration fraud of possibly more than 40,000 Minnesota voters. Frankens “victory” gives the senate its 60th non-Republican seat and essentially a supermajority over Republicans.
Nov 4 Barack Obama becomes 44th President of the U.S.
Jan 20 Orly Taitz files lawsuit on behalf of Captain Pamela Barnett, Dr. Alan Keyes and 42 other plaintiffs challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President.
Jan 21 Obama is inaugurated as the 44th President of the U.S.
ACORN is exposed by two freelance journalists posing as members of a prostitution ring seeking assistance from the left wing group. Their undercover videos of meetings with ACORN personnel reveals a culture of criminal activism endorsing prostitution, child prostitution, illegal immigration, human trafficking and tax fraud. Congress votes immediately to de-fund the organization.
June General Motors files for bankruptcy despite $20 billion tax funded bailout attempt.
June 4 Obama delivers “Muslim outreach” speech to Muslim world while visiting Egypt.
July Obama travels to Africa for the 3rd time. He avoids Kenya on this trip.
Aug 1 Orly Taitz submits request for verification of CCRB in conjunction with Obama eligibility case, Barnett v. Obama.
Aug 3 Hillary Clinton arrives in Nairobi, Kenya for 7 state tour only one month after Obama avoided Kenya during his trip to Africa. Clinton’s trip coincides with the revelation of hoax CCRB submitted by Taitz in the Barnett v. Obama case. The trip is described as one of the earliest by a Secretary of State in any administration. Some describe it as “surprising”.
Oct 29 Justice David O. Carter dismisses Barnett v. Obama. This is the 24th case seeking Obama’s proof of Presidential eligibility to be dismissed in less than a year, by the American court system.
Nov U.S. House of Representatives passes $1 Trillion Healthcare Reform bill. The largest, most expensive piece of legislation in American history. The bill is sent to senate for review and debate.

No comments:

Post a Comment