Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Chapters 5 - 7

CHAPTER 5 - The Roots of Obama’s Radicalism

“The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty…”

Benjamin Franklin

In an effort to understand the intentional obscurity of Obama’s natal identity, it is also important to know the methods, motives and origins of the radical ideology he was trained in. Discovering the substance of his private character today promotes clarity about the motives his handlers have for concealing the duplicity of his biography and, therefore, the reasons why the liberal establishment desperately seeks to conceal as much of their vast socialist agenda as possible. Liberals understand that if the true radical nature of Obama’s ideology is revealed, it will become associated with their insidious plan for social justice and, therefore, be violently rejected by vintage Americans.

Exposing the origins of Obama’s identity will bring overwhelming moral and political rejection upon the liberal social justice agenda and undermine the scheme they have covertly worked to implement over the past 40 years. Within Obama’s identity reside the secrets of an ambitious deception to conceal liberal cultism and the actual violations of human rights the liberal establishment intends to commit against the people of America. There is, therefore, a vested interest on the part of the liberal elite, and goats of the sect, to promote only the most pristine truths about Obama, even if they have to be manufactured.

The seeds of America’s destruction are sown in the origins of socioeconomic rebellion and liberal radicalism and these seeds are the same from which Obama was grown. The fruit of the liberal crop has manifested into the life of Barack Obama as the representative of an epic liberal agenda that is the antithesis of the founding fathers’ intention for America. It has become imperative for liberals to prevent even the slightest hint of revelation about Obama’s secret natal past.

Liberals argue that if Obama was ineligible to be president he would have been disqualified by “officials” early in the vetting process, long before he was ever awarded the Democrat Party’s candidacy over Hillary Clinton. However, this argument is based in ignorance about the ambitious ideological forces promoting Obama’s ascendance to power and the massive amount of money spent prior to any awareness of his potential illegitimacy.

Obama followers choose to ignore the ordained relationship between Obama and the American liberal establishment by dismissing the dynamics of monetary and political power behind his candidacy. They ignore the deeply contrived, historic reasons for his selection as a representative of the radical cause.

Around the time of his birth, the conditions enabling Obama’s presidency were set in motion long before he materialized to fit the template created by the liberal establishment in the early 1960’s. According to the members of the covert liberal power structure, Obama simply emerged as the most qualified, most trainable individual able and willing to carry out their half-century-old, global-wide agenda for power and monetary control. Barack Obama did not win an election as much as he merely availed himself as the best possible manservant able to fulfill the qualifications created by a secret, but powerful, liberal oligarchy.

Nobody wants to believe that a Presidential election would be allowed to proceed under suspicions of fraud and corruption. The accusation of a fraudulent election tarnishes this historic American tradition of the democratic process, which is deeply rooted in the rights afforded by our Constitution. Elections are an ultimate expression of liberty while establishing equality and empowering the people with the ability to choose their leadership.

However, elections are also flawed, polarizing and contentious by nature. They expose the ideological differences within the American population and force us to reveal personal beliefs while challenging virtues which mandate that political differences should never warrant criminal behavior, violence or deception. Unfortunately, these violations occur with startling frequency. Obama’s lack of transparency is just one instance of many violations committed by nearly every administration in American history. There are instances when the presence of criminality is so systemic, so blatant and so degenerate that it demands our attention and commands our actions against it. Obama’s radical, corrupt political career is one such instance.

Obama was installed to the office of the President as a result of the most contrived election in American history. Brokered by liberal elitists, the crowning of a radical like Obama was planned in advance for more than 45 years by the highest echelons of corrupt liberal influence. It was implemented by communist activism rooted in the post-World War II fanatical practice of community indoctrination and supported by the radical industries of civil rebellion, race-mongering, black liberation theology and reparative justice ideology. All of these liberal ‘industries’ are driven by reprobates consumed by a delusional, mindless lust to achieve five primary objectives:

1. A destruction of individualism and personal sovereignty with intentions to diminish the value of personal responsibility, self reliance, personal security and accountability. The undermining of individualism is intended to enable an acceptance of collectivism and communist socioeconomic structure.

2. Undermining of America’s Judeo-Christian foundations with intentions to cultivate intolerance for authentic Christian morality and charity while obscuring the commonly understood differences between right and wrong. This enables the implementation of repressive legislation against a Christian, faith-based lifestyle which is beholding to a belief in power and authority greater than any established by humanity. The power of a greater Authority is the primary threat posed by Christians to liberals.

3. Vengeance against Anglo-European ancestry achieved through the employment of shame-based, racially disseminated legislation meant to establish legal precedence for reparative social justice for slavery and perceived racial inequality.

4. Confiscation of capitalist wealth achieved through punitive taxation and socialist legislation implemented under the guise of national security, crisis management and economic protection.

5. Reformation of social order achieved through the restaffing of traditional political power structures and government bodies along disseminations of demographics rather than individual qualifications and performance quality.

All of these objectives have an ultimate destination at which liberals hope to arrive through self-determined power and monetary fascism. The ultimate goal, through Obama, is autonomous authority on a domestic, if not global, scale. This agenda for autonomous power has been supported through the liberal media ranks and covert transactions of the leftist financier apparatus, including moguls like George Soros and Warren Buffet, who operate secretly under cowardly, passive-aggressive tactics promoting artificial equality, economic justice and the monetization of incivility.

What was once created with an intention of providing community services and alleviating poverty has been hijacked by a corrupt liberal establishment bent on profiting from the poverty and involuntary demography of others. The good intentions of the civil rights movement and social reform revolution is now infected with the violent fanatics and intellectually amoral revolutionaries incubated in the origins of 1960’s elitist, criminal radicalism.
Rebelling against the establishment of independence, capitalism and self-reliance taught us by the “Greatest Generation”, while selfishly exploiting the provisions of their parent’s post-World War II sacrifices, the degenerates of social rebellion cultivated illicit organizations through their radical, anti-capitalistic ignorance. Beginning around the time of Obama’s birth, the baby-boom generation began filling America’s institutions of higher learning. Soon thereafter, radical ideology began to emerge from universities which directly confronted traditionalism, conservatism and individual prosperity.84

The organizational effort of this criminal generation resulted in the birth of radical, violent, fringe groups like the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Black Panther Party, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Communist Party of the U.S. (CPUSA) and, most notably, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which Obama was willingly pulled in by during the early post-college years of his professional development.83


When confronted with the question of Obama’s Islamic past, liberals forget that Obama was born during a time of great social and economic conflict. Liberals also disregard the fact that his young, white mother was a globalist scholar with Midwestern American roots while his alleged father was pure black Arab-African with a history in Muslim culture and citizenship subject to British colonial rule.

Obama sympathizers work hard to discount any idea that his father was Muslim, despite the fact that Obama himself said his father came from a Muslim family. In reality, Obama’s sycophants have limited information about Obama’s religious loyalties one way or the other. They discount Obama’s Muslim past because of the relationship between Islam and terrorism and the political problems this would create for Obama. Regardless, the dynamics of his heritage should indicate his ideological plurality and his aspirations to commit America to a doctrine of internationalism. Obama does not recognize the exceptionalism of America. He sees America as just one of many nations of the world with no more qualifications to be individually prosperous or more perennial than any Islamic nation.

When Obama says he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, it means he seeks to remove America from its place of inclusive exceptionalism in the world. He wants to make America equal to other nations of the world by removing its sovereignty, diminishing its monetary value, discounting its constitution, rendering it militarily vulnerable and, ultimately, causing it to be absorbed into a global community. Obama seeks to achieve this not by promoting America’s exceptional qualities to the world, but by demoting America to an underdeveloped status found in lesser countries, and more specifically, Islamic nations. America is not equal to other nations because America’s government respects freedom of religion, not favoritism for any specific religion.

At the beginning of his presidential campaign, Obama engaged an effort to discount the roots of his radical mind-set. First, he denied having ever been a Muslim. Yet, accounts of his younger years and school records (See Appendix), while living in Indonesia with his mother and step-father, Lolo Soetoro, show a culture dominated by Islam and discloses that he “practiced” elements of the Muslim religion while attending a ‘madrasah’ (school of Islamic doctrines) which required identification with Muslim traditions. It is reasonable to believe that Obama, as a child, merely availed himself to the cultural currents of his existence, having little say about his early radicalization, driven mostly by liberal adults, before he was even able to make decisions for himself.

Testimony from his Indonesian schoolmates, teachers and neighbors suggests that while attending Besuki Elementary School, Obama practiced Islam, attending prayer in a local mosque. According to one of his Indonesian school principals, Tine Hahiyary, the young Obama studied “Mangaji” which is the Muslim ritual of openly reciting the Koran. In Indonesian schools, Mangaji requires students to recite the Koran in the Arabic language. Typically, since Indonesia is, and always has been, a Muslim nation, non-Muslims or even moderate Muslims would not send their child to Mangaji classes. Obama was probably taught to read and write in Arabic and study the laws of Islam.

A former classmate, Rony Amiris, describes Obama as having enjoyed football, playing marbles, and being a very devout Muslim. Amiris states, “Barry was previously quite religious in Islam.”
Former classmate Emirsyah Satar relates that Obama “was often in the prayer room wearing a sarong. He said, ”Obama was frequently observed in the school’s prayer room and at the local mosque for traditional Friday prayers.”

In Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama wrote, “In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies.”

Although Obama’s handlers insist he has never been Muslim, many Indonesians wonder why Obama is hiding his Muslim past. Satar, now CEO of Garuda Indonesia said, “Obama was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion.”

However, the result of Obama’s bi-theology presents a troubling dilemma. Obama professes a Christian faith, yet he refuses to acknowledge the undeniable connections between terrorist violence and its exclusive relationship with Islamic jihadism. If Obama says that he is not a Muslim, and never has been, it is difficult to promote an argument against what he says he holds in himself as authentic faith, yet, the way to confirm Obama’s claims to Christianity is to judge him on the “fruit” of his life…lest we be judged by the same standards.

Obama has done little to promote America to the rest of the world. His effort to discount the value of America is a primary motive found the violence espoused by radical Islam. This prompts fair-minded people to question how a nation of our advanced society, comparatively, can permit such political influence, socially, when we cannot even account for the legitimacy of our president’s identity, legally. We have no publicly authenticated documentation allowing for the confirmation of Obama's personal history, including his religious conditioning, yet we blindly trust him with the future of our Judeo-Christian heritage? Regardless of any arguments surrounding the geography or paternity of his origins, the fact remains that there are chasms of missing or extraneously arranged testament to the religious demography of this man. Never in the history of America has there been an elected leader with such mysterious biographical origins and beliefs.

According to testimony, Obama returned from Muslim Indonesia to Hawaii in 1971 where he attended Sunday school at Honolulu’s First Unitarian Church, which, according to statements by its pastor, "has always been, and to this day still is, involved in political activism." In the 1970s, the First Unitarian Church served as a sanctuary for draft dodgers and had close ties to the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

Our only evidence supporting any conclusions about Obama’s religious beliefs come from his own mouth. In his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama said many favorable things about Islam and his personal experience with the religion. Unfortunately, he said few favorable things about Christianity and its influence on the writing of our own laws and our Constitution. In the speech, Obama said the following:

“More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”116

Obama refuses to acknowledge thousands of years of Islamic terror and oppression throughout pre-modern Europe, including the religion’s culpability in continental slavery, war, and oppression. Obama’s misunderstanding of European expansion throughout the post-modern world is simply fueled by a personal indignation about the colonial history of his father’s Kenyan heritage. He continued:

“I’m a Christian. But, my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the Adhan at the break of dawn, and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know of civilization’s debt to Islam…So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”116

However, would Obama fight with equal vigor against the negative stereotypes of Christianity and Judaism? Obama’s pander is void of any acknowledgement of America’s Christian roots and the role it would play in the improvement of the relationship between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian west.

On January 4, 2007, Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison became the first Muslim member of the U.S. Congress to swear his oath of office on a copy of the Quran. As a political stunt, he asked the Library of Congress to allow him to use the copy of a Quran which belonged to the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. Obama made a point of this in his speech:

“…And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.”116

Obama is a shameless propagandist when he sympathizes with the victimization of melanic cultures. What he did not include in this statement about Jefferson’s Quran was that our founding father possessed the book for little more than the purpose of educating himself about the belief systems of Muslims during America’s first international conflict with Islamic nations and the creation of the Treaty of Tripoli.

On January 9, 2009, Christopher Hitchens wrote in his “Slate” blog entitled “Jefferson’s Quran: What the Founder Really Thought About Islam”:

“…In 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery.”117

The inconvenient fact liberals fail to acknowledge in their lust to find favor for Islam is that our founding fathers were resistant to religious favoritism, not promoters of religion. And, many of them understood that Christianity is not a religion. Jefferson had little regard for the spiritual value of Islam in terms of religious faith. In fact, Jefferson reported to Congress and Secretary of State, John Jay, of his unpleasant and contentious experience with Tripoli’s Muslim envoy to London, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When asked by Jefferson under what authority his nation had to enslave migrating people and steal their money, Abdrahaman stated that:

“…the right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in the Koran, that all nations who should not have answered Muslim authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”117

Not much has changed in the Muslim world in 1240 years. The precepts of the religion espouse violence against non-believers while demonstrating little concern for the preservation of life.
To Jefferson, the Quran was a book, like the other thousands he read, for the purpose of implementing knowledgeable legislation.


“…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

Barack Obama
in “Dreams From My Father”

The Democrat Party, as well as the liberal establishment, are desperate to conceal as much of Obama’s true radical identity as possible. Unfortunately, the influences of radicalism commanded the attention of Obama at an early age, after a tumultuously migrant, fatherless upbringing in remote, impoverished corners of civilization. During his formidable years, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Obama sought and received guidance from members of his own demographic who, at the time, were adulterated in the radicalism of “anti-everything” that opposed the doctrines of “my efforts to gratify me.”

In the late 1970’s a teenaged Barack Obama met Frank Marshall Davis while the two were both living in Hawaii. Davis, an avowed member of the Communist Party and one of the era’s poetic pioneers of fierce anti-American radicalism, developed a paternal-like relationship with the biracial adolescent, which Obama acknowledges in his book, “Dreams From My Father”. In the autobiography, Obama speaks affectionately of an older black poet, identified as "Frank", being the decisive mentor helping him establish his current racial identity in his African-American half, thus associating him more closely with the most left-leaning of any constituency in America.104
Davis was born in Kansas like Obama’s Mother, and, after spending several years in the capital of corruption, Chicago, evacuated to Hawaii in 1948 under the advice of another Communist Party member just as the McCarthy anti-communist blanket began covering mainland America.106

Even after moving to the island territory, Davis could not escape his communist reputation and was a known member of the radical political party subservient to the Soviet Union. The 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) member. Additionally, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.104
Obama wrote in his book that, just prior to leaving for Occidental College in 1979, he spent time with "…Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self."104

He writes that "Frank" told him that college was merely "an advanced degree in compromise," and cautioned Obama not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh_t!"104

Providing one source of radical influence shaping his perspective on race, Obama also writes that Davis told him, "What I'm trying to tell you is you [white] grandma's right to be scared.... She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."104

Davis’ influence in Obama’s faith life coordinates with skepticism about Obama’s actual religious beliefs. Davis wrote hateful verse against Christianity, also. In some of his poetry, Davis called Christ "a Dixie Nigger" who was little more than "another New White Hope". Davis also derided Christians as hypocrites "who buy righteousness like groceries" and he spoke indignantly of Africans being killed with a "Christian gun" by missionaries subscribing to "the religion of Sweet Jesus," rather than by a spear.104

Its not surprising that when American journalists and bloggers began shedding light on the nature of the relationship between Obama and Frank Marshall Davis, focusing on Davis’ political ideology and writings, Obama’s political manipulators began retracting and discounting the information. In a second printing of Obama’s autobiography, it was discovered that several excerpts containing specific elusions to Davis in the first edition were omitted from the second edition. Questions to Obama’s publishers about the obvious redactions went unanswered.
Based on his relationship with Davis, it is probably no accident that the young Obama embedded himself into Chicago politics shortly after graduating from Columbia University, even before he graduated from Harvard Law. A native of the windy city, Davis certainly must have impressed upon him the nostalgia of Chicago’s call to radicalism and the elder fanatic must have created images of racial injustice in the impressionable mind of Obama.

Unfortunately, Davis passed away in 1987 leaving Obama as the only living source of information about the relationship between them. However, one notable, but no more proven part of Obama’s ambiguous origins is a theory that Frank Marshall Davis is actually the biological father of Obama. This was investigated by freelance investigator, Andy Martin who, after traveling to Hawaii on an extensive Obama-fact finding mission, explained in a press conference:

“That is why he (Obama) has refused to allow access to the original or ‘vault’ birth certificate. We believe the original certificate did not list a father. Barack Obama became the father as a result of an agreement between Ann Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama, Sr.
If Obama had told the truth at some point in his life, instead of living endlessly with the lies that were imposed on him by the adults in his life, we would have avoided a great deal of confusion. I, for one, have deep compassion for Mr. Obama. He is not the first person in history to be caught up in this kind of family fraud.

The disclosure by the two women in his life that he was not the ’son’ of his ‘father’ also explains why he manifests such extreme ambivalence to both his mother and grandmother. He is angry because he was cheated out (sic) of his real father.

Obama was robbed of his birthright of being the son of civil rights royalty, and of a father with whom he was completely simpatico. He could have grown up the son of Frank Marshall Davis, civil rights pioneer and activist, cutting-edge journalist, poet and man of letters. Mr. Davis was an extraordinary man during a dark period of this nation’s history…the pre-dawn of the civil rights era.”108

Since we have been allowed so little access to vital information about Obama’s biography, establishing the identity of his father in an original birth certificate, seems remedial compared to the ridiculous measures and expenses Obama has taken to conceal his natal information. If it was ever determined that Obama’s covert behavior and millions in legal fees were expended for the innocuous purpose of keeping the identity of his real father a secret, it would probably only increase his support from the other millions of Americans who never knew their real father either. If Obama had just been honest from the beginning, American could have avoided four years of mistrust, suspicion and irreverence. Then again, if all of this were about keeping America from knowing the identity of his real father, we might have to question Obama’s inability to prioritize. Afterall, to most Americans, there is no contest when evaluating what to do about our president being the son of a communist compared with protecting America from a nuclear Iran. Right?

Mr. Martin’s observations are proportionately qualified by an extensive and long running investigation of Obama since 2004, when questions about his constitutional eligibility and natal identity began reverberating across America. Unfortunately, even as admitted by Martin, a DNA test is probably the only sure way to establish the paternal facts about Frank Marshall Davis as they pertain to Barack Obama.

Regardless, whether or not the “Davis fatherhood” theory Martin espouses is the truth, what is certain is that it is yet another piece of concealed vital information bearing direct ramifications on the identity and political worthiness of Barack Obama. The specifics of the issue do not detract from the fact that Obama remains elusive and completely contradictory to his own promotion of a new era of transparency in government. Therefore, we should always remain hopeful that authentication is forever a possibility, one way or another. However, more importantly, we should remain conscientious to address the motives and effects of any such secret carried within the man serving in the most powerful position in our government, regardless of his legitimacy.

As the Obama presidency rampaged through its first year, more evidence of communist influences within his administration became exposed. First, senior environmental advisor, Van Jones, resigned in early September, 2009 amidst a firestorm of controversy over his communist past. Then, in November, Anita Dunn resigned her position as White House Communications Director when video surfaced which exposed her as being in favor of the communist philosophy of Chinese dictator and mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung. Dunn admitted her communist inclinations in a speech to a group of high school students. These are just the examples of the communist sympathy within the Obama administration which the American people have become aware of. Now, questions about others are being asked and prompting investigations into their backgrounds, ideologies and identities.


Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were professors of sociology and political activists at Columbia University at the time of Obama’s birth. On May 2, 1966, The Nation magazine published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.", written by the two pedagogues. In the article, they explained their theory that welfare was a form of exploitation used to keep poor people appeased and oppressed. They theorized that welfare, rather than meeting life’s daily necessities, was a way to keep indigent people from overcoming obstacles by lulling them into complacency. Along this initial concept, there is little resistance to Cloward’s and Piven’s idea. Many would agree that welfare has done little to decrease rates of poverty since it was introduced into American society more than 70 years ago.

However, Cloward and Piven deviate from a mere exposition on the ineffectiveness of welfare to a prescription for rejecting capitalism through acts of civil disruption against municipal order. Instead of promoting financial independence through hard work as a means of ending the personal need for welfare, Cloward and Piven forge a twisted promotion of rebellion against the prosperity of the white race and an increase of those relying on welfare as a means of burdening local social service agencies. Instead of addressing unnecessary compliance with government subsidy, they took their message in the opposite direction by promoting welfare on a more massive scale for the purpose of forcing local and state governments to seek vast reform policies and higher taxation at the federal level which, in turn, was intended to bring about economic equality through government taxation of the predominantly white middle class. Cloward and Piven said there were many people who were eligible for welfare but were not using it and they used this message to flood the welfare system with millions of recipients.84

In the shocking article, Cloward and Piven wrote:

“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.”83

Cloward and Piven were nothing more than social saboteurs fantasizing about a redistribution of wealth on a national scale, just as Obama seeks to accomplish today. Their goal was not to decrease poverty, it was to punish prosperity and confiscate the earnings of others. Furthermore, they wrote:

“…the ultimate objective of this strategy is to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…via the outright redistribution of income.”84

Comparatively, in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, Barack Obama made a parallel statement:

“The tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”85

Like Obama today, Cloward and Piven had broken liberal minds. They were radicals who understood that such a massive endeavor for “economic justice” would require an army of activists, referred to by Obama as “a coalition of power”, and referred to by Cloward and Piven as “widespread campaigns”, promoting the redistributive agenda to the impoverished masses. They hoped the resulting pressure on fiscal resources would lead to the dysfunctional breakdown of city and state social service agencies. Beholding to the same goals achieved through reparative social justice, Obama also seeks to overwhelm the financial capacity of working America with the hope it will lead to the breakdown of capitalism developed through white prosperity. As early as the late 1950’s, Cloward’s work in particular, inspired the formation of radical economic justice movements in cities like New York and Chicago.84

In 1965, in an effort to accomplish their aspirations for socialism, Cloward and Piven recruited George Wiley, an African-American professor at Syracuse University and former associate director of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). With the encouragement of Cloward and Piven, Wiley subsequently founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the mid 1960’s. Wiley was an enthusiastic practitioner of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Over the first three years of the NWRO’s activities, from 1966 to 1969, he expanded his pro-welfare organization by recruiting nearly 25,000 activist members and creating more than 500 chapters in major cities throughout America. During the first decade of his efforts, from 1966 to 1975, he artificially increased the number of welfare recipients from 4.3 million to 11 million, simply by registering as many people who qualified for welfare, based on the government’s standards for receiving it, as possible.84

Wiley’s philosophy was to simply hold the government’s requirements for welfare to the most literal interpretation as possible while exploiting the government’s inability to enforce welfare recipient qualifications, even if this meant exaggerating interpretations of demography and exploiting loopholes in the social service agency’s welfare legislation language. For example, if an agency determined eligibility for welfare based on what Cloward called the “maternalization” of an applicant, Wiley’s NWRO would promote the increase of dependents, essentially encouraging single mothers to have more illegitimate children in order to qualify for more welfare benefits.84
As a result of Wiley’s assault on the welfare system, the City of New York declared bankruptcy in 1975 and many other municipalities were stressed beyond their capacity to perform welfare services at the demanded levels. Wiley considered the fiscal failure of municipal services as a successful implementation of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Many local agencies began to seek funding and assistance from federal resources, just as Cloward and Piven had predicted they would. Born out of municipal sabotage, the origins of federally funded civil rebellion had taken hold in America. Based on the resulting municipal failures, the increase of welfare registration and the growth of the NWRO, the Cloward-Piven Strategy implemented by Wiley was determined to be a resounding success.84


Originally titled the “Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now”, ACORN evolved directly out of the success of the NWRO and was founded in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1970 by former NWRO organizers, Gary Delgado and Wade Rathke. Today, ACORN, now called the “Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”, has evolved from a regional organization into the largest national community organization serving lower income members and families in the United States. As an umbrella for multiple organizations, ACORN has more than 400,000 members with more than 1200 offices in America, Peru, Argentina, Canada, Mexico and India.86 ACORN continues to implement the radical ideology of Cloward and Piven today.

One of the most potentially damaging associations of Obama’s past is the well documented, but largely unreported, intimate relationship he has with ACORN. Obama’s associations with the notoriously corrupt organization are deeply established beginning with his history as an activist and community organizer in Chicago. ACORN first became aware of Obama during his pre-Harvard community organizer days when he volunteered in Chicago working with the city’s "Friends of the Parks."88

On March 2, 2008 the Los Angeles Times reported that the head organizer of Chicago’s chapter of ACORN, Madeline Talbott, took notice of Obama in 1990 because, as she said, "…he got people to vote with their feet."88

The Times’ article continued to say, "Obama's task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement….At the time, Talbott worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." 88

Talbott, a native Oregonian and 1975 Harvard graduate, was identified as a key activist rooted in ACORN's radical “economic justice” campaign in which she organized violent demonstrations to pressure banks into giving high risk mortgages to low income applicants. She was also deeply involved in the pressure of Fannie Mae prior to the mortgage giant’s contribution to America’s 2008 financial collapse which resulted from defaults on risky loans to low income applicants who she advocated.89

In a September 29, 2008 New York Post article titled "O’s Dangerous Pal’s, Barack’s ‘Organizer’ Buds Pushed For Bad Mortgages”, Stanley Kurtz reported:

“Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbot is a specialist in ‘direct action’ - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a ‘living wage’ law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.”89

Obama officially became involved with ACORN in 1992 when he organized a voter registration canvassing effort in Chicago. After graduating from Harvard, Obama was asked by ACORN leaders, including Talbott, to head ACORN-Chicago’s “Project Vote!” chapter. He was very active in registering African-American voters on Chicago’s South Side, where he worked previously as an organizer for the community’s park improvement effort.90 “Project Vote!” is one of more than 100 sub-organizations of ACORN. It was founded in the 1970’s by another NWRO organizer and ACORN co-creator, Zach Pollet.84

In November, 2007 Obama eluded to his work for “Project Vote!” in the 90’s and his long standing relationship with ACORN in a speech before members of the community organization:

“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran ‘Project Vote’ voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”87

Speaking at an ACORN-sponsored event again on December 1, 2007, cozying among other ACORN colleagues at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum, Obama made an unprecedented campaign promise to consult with the community organization in his first 100 days when he was elected president:

“Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we’re going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We’re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.”87

In February, prior to the 2008 election, the Obama campaign paid $832,500.00 to Citizens Services Incorporated, an ACORN affiliate, to fund ‘get-out-the-vote’ registration efforts which Obama confidently knew would benefit his campaign.87 Although ACORN is not classified as a “501 public charity” by the Internal Revenue Service, a designation which would prevent it from engaging in partisan activity, it deliberately creates subgroups like Citizen Services Incorporated to perform promotional duties for Democrat political candidates without penalty. This is one of ACORN’s strategies for hiding transient money and circumventing tax laws while demonstrating blatant favoritism for Democrat political candidates who share its radical ideology and redistributive agenda.

ACORN’s voter registration activities and its “Project Vote!” campaign have a long history of criminal activity and deception in favor of the Democrat party. In July, 2006, The Employment Policies Institute released a report on ACORN outlining the community organization’s nefarious election-fixing activities. As shown in the table below, from 1998 through the 2008 election of Barack Obama, ACORN has been reported or indicted in thousands of instances of voter registration fraud. ACORN, the actual parent organization, was officially charged with voter registration fraud in September, 2009 in Nevada. The federal case was still pending prior to the completion of this book.

Ignoring Obama’s connection with ACORN and the fraud-ridden “Project Vote!” organization, after his extraordinarily rapid ascendance through the ranks of American politics, is irresponsible. How many illegitimate votes has Obama been able to benefit from through ACORN’s illegal voter registration activities since his Illinois state senate campaign in 1996 until his installment as the President in the 2008?


In 1993, Obama was chosen to serve on the board of the Woods Foundation, a Chicago non-profit group which declares its mission as follows:

"Woods Fund of Chicago is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations.” 91

Obama served on the Woods board from 1993 to 2001 with former terrorist and criminal activist, Bill Ayers. During the presidential campaign, Obama was desperate to create disparity between himself and Ayers, but their past connections are too intimate for Obama to simply dismiss Ayers’ influence in his professional life.

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud 1998 - 2008
(State, Year and Details)


A contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested for falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.


Two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in Denver of perjury for submitting false voter registrations.

An ACORN employee admitted to forging signatures and registering three of her friends to vote 40 times.


The New York Post reported that ACORN submitted a voter registration card for a 7-year-old Bridgeport girl. Another 8,000 cards from the same city will be scrutinized for possible fraud.


Election officials in Brevard County have given prosecutors more than 23 suspect registrations from ACORN. The state's Division of Elections is also investigating Orange and Broward Counties.

A Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman said ACORN was “singled out” among suspected voter registration groups for a 2004 wage initiative because it was “the common thread” in the agency’s fraud investigations.


Election officials in Indiana have thrown out more than 4,000 ACORN-submitted voter registrations after finding they had identical handwriting and included the names of many deceased Indianans, and even the name of a fast food restaurant.


Clerks in Detroit found a "sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent [voter] applications" from the Michigan branch of ACORN. Those applications have been turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation.

The Detroit Free Press reported that “Project Vote!” campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to register nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters.


Nearly 400 ACORN-submitted registrations in Kansas City have been rejected due to duplicate information.

Four ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City for charges including identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election.

Eight ACORN employees in St. Louis were indicted on federal election fraud charges. Each of the eight faces up to five years in prison for forging signatures and submitting false information.

Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid. At least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally.


During a traffic stop, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee, who had violated a legal requirements that registration cards be submitted to the Secretary of State within 10 days of being filled out and signed.

North Carolina

County elections officials have sent suspicious voter registration applications to the state Board of Elections. Many of the applications had similar or identical names, but with different addresses or dates of birth.

North Carolina officials investigated ACORN for submitting fake voter registration cards.

New Mexico

Prosecutors are investigating more than 1,100 ACORN-submitted voter registration cards after a county clerk found them to be fraudulent. Many of the cards included duplicate names and slightly altered personal information.

Four ACORN employees submitted as many as 3,000 potentially fraudulent signatures on the group’s Albuquerque ballot initiative. A local sheriff added: “It’s safe to say the forgery was widespread.”

An ACORN employee registered a 13-year-old boy to vote. Citing this and other examples, New Mexico State Representative Joe Thompson stated that ACORN was “manufacturing voters” throughout New Mexico.


Nevada authorities indicted ACORN on 26 counts of voter registration fraud and 13 counts of illegally compensating canvassers. ACORN provided a bonus compensation program called “Blackjack” or “21+” for any canvasser who registered more than 20 voters per shift, which is illegal under Nevada law.

Nevada state authorities raided ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters as part of a task force investigation of election fraud. Fraudulent registrations included players from the Dallas Cowboys.

Bill Ayers was born in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, in 1944. He co-initiated the Weathermen (Later called the Weather Underground), a radical, violent terrorist group, in 1969. From 1969 to 1975, Ayers participated in a series of horrific criminal and terrorist activities targeting government facilities, functions and workers. The criminal exploits of his band of hateful comrades included the fire bombing of the residence of a New York Supreme Court Judge in 1970, the bombing of the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970; the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building in 1971; The bombing of the Pentagon in 1972, and the bombing of the U.S. State Department Headquarters in 1975. The Weather Underground was also active in aiding the prison escape of convicted drug-use evangelists and leftist ideologues like Timothy Leary.99

On March 6, 1970, while preparing for two other terrorist attacks, one at a social dance at the Fort Dix military base and another at the Butler Library at Columbia University, a group of Weather Underground activists were constructing a nail bomb which exploded prematurely. Fortunately, casualties were limited to the group’s deranged ranks. No innocent bystanders were hurt.99

Ayers was arrested and charged with attempted murder, arson, and conspiracy against the U.S. government. However, his federal criminal case was dismissed in 1974 on technicalities when it was discovered that illegal surveillance had been used to gain evidence and coerce testimony in the case by investigators operating under the FBI’s unscrupulous Counter Intelligence Program.99

Later, Ayers attended Columbia University as a doctoral student while Obama was an undergraduate there in the mid 1980’s. It was later determined that Obama’s first formal introduction with Ayers occurred during a gathering at Ayers’ home when state Senator Alice J. Palmer introduced Obama to the group as her chosen successor for the Democratic primary coming in 1996. This meeting is widely considered the beginning of Obama’s political career.99
Liberals desperately try to discount Obama’s relationship with the terrorist, Ayers. However, records and testimony reveal a deep involvement in shared ideology and left wing causes by the two men. In fact, the relationship between Ayers and Obama afforded Obama with several benefits.

First, in 1995, Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge after receiving a $50 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation for “social improvement” in Chicago public schools. Ayers asked Obama to chair the board of the Annenberg Challenge, a position Obama held until 2003, and a period during which Ayers remained very active with the organization. The Annenberg Foundation’s website later became involved in attempts by the left to push a false confirmation of Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as proof of natural born citizenship. The website did this while attempting to mislead the American public about its true origins in leftist causes while conveying a false message of objectivity.

In fact, records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge released in October, 2008 by the University of Illinois show that the Ayers-Obama connection was an intimate one. Ironically, Obama’s chairmanship of Ayers’ Annenberg Challenge is the only executive qualification in his entire life prior to becoming president.102

Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million grant to the Annenberg Challenge and raised another $60 million from other leftist civic groups, additionally. As the organizations chief fiscal manager, Obama was following Ayers' radical agenda to bolster organizations, like ACORN, to become involved with local schools and conduct programs to indoctrinate students and politicize them in the “values” of liberal beliefs. In all, it appears that Obama was personally or directly responsible for large contributions to ACORN during his tenure as an administrator of two very powerful leftwing organizations.102

During Obama’s time on the Woods Fund and Chicago Annenberg Challenge boards, both organizations intensified their leftist funding activities, exponentially. The Woods foundation gave grants to organizations which were intimately favored by Obama, including a $6000 grant to the Trinity United Church of Christ, headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “goddamn America” notoriety, despite the fact that the Woods Fund own rules say that religious-based organizations are not

The Benefits of a Relationship with a Terrorist that Obama Does Not Want You to Know About

Both Obama and Ayers were educated at Columbia University in the 1980's, where the Cloward-Piven Strategy was born.

Obama's legal profession combined with Ayers profession in Education leads to a relationship equipped with strong understanding and provocation for promoting their leftist "Social Justice" ideology.

Obama was afforded his first and only ‘Executive’ experience, prior to becoming president, as a result of his relationship with Ayers, while serving as a chair of the Annenberg Challenge board.

Obama's political campaigns were monumentally successful due in large part to the support he received from corrupt players in Chicago’s political and business scenes. These major players included Bill Ayers, who is the son of a renowned philanthropist.

While serving on the Board of the Woods Fund with Ayers, Obama was able to make personal financial gains through his relationships through other members of the board, including the arrangement he had with Ayers.

Obama's political career began as a result of Ayers hosting a promotional gathering at his home in 1995. Obama was formally introduced as a Democrat candidate in the Illinois State senate during this party at the Ayers’.

eligible for grants from the foundation.98 Wright has openly derided the United States and white people as part of a racially charged, politically biased message rooted in what has been coined “black liberation theology”. Obama attended Wright’s church for more than 20 years.
The Woods fund also paid more than $100,000 Northern Trust for its financial investment services, which is the same loan bank that provided Obama with a mortgage in his 2005 Rezco brokered Hyde Park property deal.102 Most notably, however, ACORN received grants of $190,000 over 5 years from the Woods Foundation Fund. 90
Simultaneous with his position on the board of the Woods foundation, Obama was hired by the Chicago legal firm, Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland (DMB&G). Founded in 1971 by Al Davis, the firm acquired a national reputation in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development work. Today, the firm has established a long history in filing suits on behalf of clients claiming racial discrimination in mortgage lending and low income housing development.101

It has since been determined that Al Davis, Obama’s former boss at DMB&G has a long history in business with Tony Rezco, Chicago’s notorious “slum lord” convicted of extortion and conspiracy, who also has been a friend and political contributor to Obama for more than 17 years prior to Obama’s White House tenancy.100 Rezco gave contributions to Obama’s Illinois state senate campaigns while benefitting financially from Obama’s longstanding activism and political work in Chicago’s low income housing developments. Even while some of Rezco’s housing projects were deteriorating, creating squalid and dangerous living conditions for many economically challenged, black families living in his projects, Obama accepted contributions from Rezco. In one instance, residents of the Englewood apartment building at 7000 S. Sangamon street were without heat for five weeks during the winter months between December 27 and February 3 of 1996.100 Obama took contributions from Rezco during this time.
"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official, "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''100

Coincidentally, in maintaining of theme of interconnectivity among Chicago’s liberal elite, it was discovered that Obama also served on the board of the Woods foundation while it was chaired by former Rezco partner, Howard J. Stanback, who headed New Kenwood LLC, a limited liability firm founded by Rezko and Obama’s former boss, Al Davis.98

In 1994, Obama served as an associate attorney of a DMB&G legal team representing three plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings of Chicago. According to the affidavit (No. 94 C 4094) filed with the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois Eastern Division, Selma Buycks-Roberson, Renee Brooks and Calvin Roberson claimed their “…home loan applications were rejected because of their race or color or because of the racial composition of the neighborhood in which their properties were located.”95

This argument was custom made to marry the two worlds of Obama’s radical ideology: Community activism and social law. The lawsuit was filed under statutes created through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which essentially mandated standards requiring private banks to ignore responsible lending practices and give more loans to high risk applicants and applicants seeking to buy homes in neighborhoods with unstable, urban real-estate markets.
As a result of a 1998 settlement in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal case, and the subsequent legal precedence from which Obama’s legal and activist career also benefitted, ACORN implemented a nation wide offensive on the housing industry by pushing banks, under threats of similar legal action, into providing residential loans to high risk, low income individuals. On many occasions ACORN activists, including Madeleine Talbot, physically trespassed onto bank property and levied protests. Talbot was arrested for this illegal activity in the early 1990’s.

The defining characteristics of the Cloward-Piven Strategy include inundating government with impossible demands until it grinds to a halt; extorting lending institutions, financial service providers, politicians, and HUD for affirmative-action borrowing; overburdening election systems with new voter registrations, many of them fraudulent; and, now, “pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans.”107

Yet, liberals love to tote the Clinton era (1992-2000) as a time of “progressive” prosperity and growth due to liberal economic policy. However, based on the policies of Democrats, the Cloward-Piven ideology of the liberal establishment, and associated criminal activities by liberal groups like ACORN, the American economy suffered the biggest collapse since the Great Depression, in 2008. This collapse can be easily traced to liberal radicalism and the implementation of Cloward and Piven’s doctrine for economic sabotage. The Clinton economic policies of the 1990’s included an accelerated continuance of the Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act and the beginning of the destructive sub-Prime rate lending practice which eventually caused the failure of our banking industry and our economy in 2008.

Sub-Prime lending is a dangerous, risky practice in which banks issue loans initially below current market interest rates with the stipulation that the rate of the loan will increase at a specified time causing the monthly payment on the loan to increase sharply. These loan products are primarily purchased by individuals who have difficulty in maintaining financial viability needed for a mortgage to begin with. The changing terms of the loan, resulting in an increase in payment, often causes financial hardship for the home owner which forces them to default on the loan.

The Community Reinvestment Act itself is widely considered the fundamental, root cause of the financial meltdown and housing market collapse of 2008. As the quantity of unstable sub-prime loans increased sharply in the 90’s and early 2000’s, the weight of financial losses from defaulting loans overburdened the lending market.

Sub-prime lending is rooted in the destructive, irresponsible ideology meant to provide minorities and poor people with an artificial opportunity for economic equality through a façade of home ownership. Essentially, sub-prime lending is a decompensation of fiscal standards based on pressure from activist tactics under the threat of punitive legal action. During the Clinton administration, the liberal wing of our federal government disregarded the laws of market physics in order to push for loans to people who could not pay for them while design policies to back the bad loans with tax backed subsidization through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Liberals brought this destructive practice upon our financial system in order to present the appearance of economic equality based on the artificial standards of race and demographics rather than objective assessment of viability and financial performance.

In reality, sub-prime lending and the entire economic equality movement through home ownership is rooted in the liberal government’s fantasy to maintain poverty for the purpose of justifying higher taxation to support more and more social programs and larger, more intrusive government.

Democrat members of congress like Senator Barney Frank, acting in concert with the Department of Justice, pushed aversive policies targeting American lending institutions which, under the common strategies of responsible lending, were simply unable to provide loans to poor people because of financial viability, not demographic bias. Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators also applied the Community Reinvestment Act to combat “red-lining”, a practice by which banks loaned money for mortgages in selective communities, based on economic status of the lendee, not their race.92

In 1995, the Clinton administration’s Attorney General, Janet Reno said, “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”92
Cloward and Piven could not have said it better.

Symptomatic of the corruption infecting the government’s intrusion on the lending industry since the late 90’s, the Justice Department initiated an investigation of Senator Chris Dodd (D-Ct) in 2008 for alleged ethics violations in which he received “special considerations” for mortgage loans from Countrywide Financial.94

Dodd received mortgage deals, in part, because of his role in the formation of mortgage lending policies as head of the Congressional banking committee. According to documents provided by Countrywide, Dodd received two loans in 2003 through Countrywide’s “V.I.P.” program on which he was given reduced interest rates and reduced closing costs saving him approximately $78,000 over the 30 year terms of the loans. He borrowed $506,000 to refinance his Washington Condo, and $275,042 to refinance a home in East Haddam, Connecticut. 94
Dodd refused to cooperate with the investigation for more than six months while Justice Department officials sought documents and specifics of the mortgage deal. Confirming the ties of corruption, it was revealed that Dodd received $21,000 from Countrywide for his political campaigns since 1997.94 Countrywide policy forbids such activities stating:

“Countrywide’s ethics code bars directors, officers and employees from improperly influencing the decisions of government employees or contractors by offering or promising to give money, gifts, loans, rewards, favors, or anything else of value.”94

In a September 2009 interview with CNN’s Larry King, radical liberal filmographer, Michael Moore, after an extensive investigation of the the Dodd ethics violation scandal said the following of Chris Dodd:

“Here’s the bottom line. He is the head of the Banking Committee. It is his job to be the watchdog of these banks and lending institutions. He should not do anything that even has the appearance of favoritism or impropriety.”96

In April, 1994 Obama worked on another case with DMB&G titled Barnett v. Daley, where he was part of a legal team seeking to increase black super-majority voting districts (wards) in Chicago from 19 to 24.97 According to the “racially-oriented” argument of the plaintiffs, the city of Chicago refused to update redistricting maps because, as they allege, the predominantly white government wanted to “maintain white voter strength” in wards where, although the black population was larger than white population, blacks possessed fewer voting-age residents, which was the standards used for redistricting boundaries.

Completely disregarding the social and economic reasons for a lack of voting-age blacks, the Obama legal team’s argument was completely based on race rather than the quantity of voting-age citizens, from all races, in each ward. According to the testimony in the case presided over by Judge Richard Posner, the Obama legal team based their argument on the racist allegation that:

“…no black aldermanic (city council) candidate in Chicago has ever beaten (in an election) a white in a ward that had a black majority of less than 62.6 percent, and it is emphatic that the ward in which the population is 55 percent black is not a black ward -- is indeed a white ward, even though only 42 percent of its population is white.”

In 1995, Obama worked on another leftist caused lawsuit against the state of Illinois. In the suit, ACORN and other plaintiffs sought to force the Illinois state government to comply with federal voter registration laws and demanded that it enforce a new "motor voter," which allowed people to register to vote when they got their drivers' licenses.

The connections between Obama’s activities with ACORN and the corruption of congressional banking oversight officials in our government become more apparent as the private lending industry began to capitulate under the weight of corrupt liberal influence. Lenders became less effective and more unstable due to its forced cooperation with liberal policies throughout the late 1990’s. During the early 2000’s the mortgage industry experienced one of the most artificially prosperous eras in history, primarily because of the government’s tax backed support for bad loans. But, the bubble was short lived as the actual valuation of stock caught up with trash loans void of financial viability and wrought with massive foreclosures.

Subsequently, as the “economic equality” movement progressed and government intrusion increased, liberal politicians and activists like Obama pushed on for aggressive lending legislation as a way to enforce “economic justice” by advancing the federal taxation needed to back, what in actuality, were simply bad loans. With this increase of risky lending activity in the real estate industry after 1998, the liberal wing of our government promoted the advancement of “federal mortgage” agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were intended to increase the confidence of banks and provide security for lenders to give riskier mortgage loans based on demographics rather than fiscally balanced lending policies. But, this attempt by government to interfere with proven market strategies in the lending industry failed miserably because it opened the door for massive corruption and preferential treatment of individuals by those managing Fannie and Freddie.

Unfortunately, as a result of the subsequent mortgage and housing market collapse, all Americans, even those with no fault against the lending industry, were forced to pay for the failure caused by policies promoting irresponsible borrowing which was supplanted by radicals in our government. The housing market collapse was a consequence of the liberal wing of our government forcing lending practices based on race and demographics rather than the allowing private markets to accurately assess individual financial viability based on tangible criteria and history of responsible credit performance.

Obama’s socialist ideology, expressed through his legal and administrative positions on matters of economics, shows that he is consumed by a desire to exclusively promote social values in economic development rather than promote the proven success of capitalism through responsible fiscal practice. Through legal activism, he disregards the reliability of market driven economic metrics for the sake of race-based economic preference. The problem with this ideology is that being a particular race is not more valuable to American’s than is the skill, intelligence and character the individual possesses. We don’t pay people for being black or white. We pay them for being effective and adept. Obama has a propensity to commit himself to destructive politics without ever acknowledging that a person does not fail or succeed to make mortgage payments, or healthcare insurance payments, or car payments, or pay college tuition…based on the color of their skin.

Obama’s history in the “economic justice” movement proves that he is on the wrong side of its result. His propensity to conceal information about his identity is merely a reflection of this wrongness. Whether he is grinding to distance himself from his relationship with ACORN or prevent the revelations of his natal history, Obama spends a large amount of political, financial and personal resources to conceal his true substance rather than reveal it. His defense of clients like Buycks-Roberson, Barnett, and ACORN demonstrates an inability to understand the essential foundations of America’s financial markets and capitalism, just as his legal defense against revealing his birth records exposes his lack of understanding about the importance of authentic character and legitimacy of identity in leadership. And, these are the essential reasons why he his failing as a president in 2009.

“I could not realize, nor could any man realize who does not bear the burdens of this office, how heavy and constant would be those burdens.”
John F. Kennedy
Speech, 1961

CHAPTER 6 - Political Legitimacy & The Constitution

“Confirm thy soul in self control, Thy liberty in law!”
O Beautiful for Spacious Skies

When Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency, he said:

“This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.”

What “meaning of citizenship” does Obama think has been lost? What “sense of common purpose” does he believe needs to be restored? Most importantly, what kind of “change” are those voices telling him to make?

On January 21, 2009, the day after Inauguration day, the USA Today headline read: “Obama Pledges To Remake America”. In those words, many Vintage Americans were left wondering what was so wrong with the blood ransomed America their sons and daughters had fought and died for. In the months between Election Day, November 4, 2008 and Inauguration Day January 20, 2009, the meaning of political legitimacy came to the forefront of America’s consciousness. And the conclusion Vintage Americans made was that Obama’s rendition of “change” was not going to be good for America’s sovereignty.

The legitimacy of any society lies in its establishment of a national identity through the constitutional standards of citizenship and the documentation of its origins. Just as natal documents contain the definitions of one’s U.S. citizenship status, the U.S. Constitution is also the birth certificate of America. Both testaments work together to form the framework of individual character and national sovereignty.

In ancient Roman society, during its most advanced period, citizens possessing a distinction of Optimo Jure status were citizens who were afforded the highest rights and privileges under the protections of the Roman culture. They were endowed with jus connubii (the right to marry), jus commercii (the right to own Roman land and enter into contracts), jus suffragiorum (the right to vote in Roman assemblies) and, most importantly, jus honorum (the right serve as leaders in the Roman government and forge alliances with foreign entities).21

Likewise, the early oceanic cultures of the 1st millennium Hawaiian islands, prior to contact with modern human cultures, implemented laws (kapu) to help guide their culture. The Kapu system also identified citizenship as well as guidelines of behavior for people of different ranks.

Like citizenship laws in Roman society, the Kapu System separated Hawaiian society into four groups of people. The alii were chiefs who ruled specific territories and held their positions on the basis of family ties and leadership abilities. Chiefs were held to be descendants of the gods and the highest chiefs, alii kapu, were actually considered gods. The kahuna were priests or skilled craftspeople that performed important religious ceremonies and served the alii as close advisers. The makaainana were held as commoners who raised, stored, and prepared food, built houses and canoes, and performed other daily tasks. They were the largest demographic of early Hawaiian society. The kauwa were outcasts forced to lead lives segregated from the rest of Hawaiian society for behavior which violated the kapu.20

Though these two cultures had never integrated, or shared a mutual understanding of the importance of citizenship status, they each possessed an inherent understanding of the value in upholding a social hierarchy through carefully defined legitimacy. With consideration for the establishment of personal identity, it’s necessary to recognize the precedence early cultures, like Hawaii or Rome, set for future nations. They provide evidence that even the earliest civilizations of humanity, far less technologically advanced than America today, understood the necessity in defining and upholding standards for citizenship under the power and protections of their laws. A person with aspirations for achieving a position of nobility, honor or success had to be afforded the privilege of some form of citizenship equal to their aspiration. Laws governing the standards of citizenship were absolute to this end.

Historical evidence suggests a society will fail without a well defined prescription and systematic identification of its citizenry served by the integrity of leadership. A preeminent reason for the Roman Empire collapse in 476 A.D. begins 140 years earlier with the division of its rule among the late emperor Constantine the Great’s three sons. Over the next 140 years the sovereignty of Rome, ruled by more than 20 emperors, each one more diluted than the last, was slowly eroded. In the end, the Roman Empire could no longer serve its constitution or defend its sovereignty from the hordes. It is widely understood that the western empire under Roman rule ended with the abdication of Romulus Augustus September 4, 476 A.D.23 Why did Rome fall ?

“The traditional explanation…points out the mass migration as the biggest reason for the collapse of Rome. In ancient European history it happened two or three times that huge migrations took place, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people set out to find new homelands. The fact that such a mass migration took place whilst the Romans were still in power, must be seen as at least a major contributor to their fall. For as we see in modern days too, armies can fight other armies, but they cannot fight entire peoples. The Romans were overwhelmed in a human deluge.”24

The success in maintaining cultural identity begins with establishing vital systems and identity sovereignty for its citizens.

What is “America”? What does it mean? Where did it come from and who thought of it? Since the beginning of the world, humanity has migrated and established community. When the conditions of man’s existence seek to destroy our desire for freedom and the truth of God in us, we move to action. We either seek sanctuary and community elsewhere, or we endeavor to overcome our oppressor. But act we must.

America declared its independence and became the preeminent sanctuary of our day, for all mankind. No other place on earth exhibits the characteristics of freedom that are found here. No other nation is as free from oppression. American evolved out of a desire of the few to resist the tyranny of state sponsored oppression. A new nation was born when the misuse of authority by its despotic government drove its advanced citizenry from its borders. It continues to provide sanctuary for the same reasons today. The earth’s inhabitants abroad may have deeper national history, but their passions direct them here to this amazing refuge of freedom. America became the result of this culling of man when advanced citizens of humanity were forced from their place to seek freedom, security and sovereignty.

From the banishment of Adam, to the evacuation of Noah, to the migration of Abraham, to the exodus of Moses, to the arrival of Joshua, to the emergence of the Church, to the establishment of Israel, to the creation of America, man has built nations. Those nations required organization, hierarchy and statutes in order to survive. For, it is the default nature of man to destroy himself without a higher commandment to preserve life and love one another. If a community fails to define legal structure within, it will eventually destroy itself, or become a destroyer of other nations.

As the Battle Hymn of the Republic says, we have “…liberty in law”, the U.S. Constitution is a national establishment of boundaries for government expansion and a prescription for allowing American rights. It is document based on independence, decency, strength, honor, humility, accountability, integrity and hope. America does not own the Constitution. The Constitution was given to us by higher preeminence for the purpose of defining the responsibilities of freedom. Freedom is an authority given to man to govern by the higher obligation to love God and others more than himself. Everyone who hates America has failed to understand what America is. America is the best possible expression for the responsible exercise of real human freedom on earth.

True freedom comes through the respect of boundaries. The word “constitution” actually means “freedom”. It has an interesting etymology. It is defined in three completely different, but integrated ways. A trinity of authority. It is defined as the ‘formal creation or establishment of something’, ‘the parts or members of something’ and ‘the way in which members combine to form something’. By these definitions, a constitution is a noun, an adjective and a verb. It is an object, a description and an action. It is a complete work establishing the fullest possible identity of that which possesses it.

The Constitution is a reflection of the love man has for freedom and joy. It is a document written for the purpose of inspiring the will of man while demanding the most authentic identity he can become. It represents the manifest hope for redemption and salvation. It serves as the standard for establishing a nation and the government which serves it. But, most importantly, it is not the highest power through which it was given to us as a blessing, not as a tool for indoctrination and selfish moorings.

We must adhere to this established standard by which the powers of America govern. But, if you only stop at the Constitution as the highest authority, you have failed to understand the spirit of America. Without seeking the origins of power upon which the constitution is constructed, we are vulnerable to ignorance and oppression without the direction or purpose to discover the reasons why we are here now. More critically, however, if we violate the standards of our constitution we betray the spirit of its intent and leave our future vulnerable to manipulation. Without this standard, we are no better than the tyrants of the world who wield power to fulfill personal interests and selfish ideology.

The U.S. Constitution addresses the matter of citizenship. Throughout its fragile parchment, the document echoes a message from our founders to be scrupulous, not careless, in determining the identity of those we choose to serve and protect us. It calls us to responsibility for our own cause and security by defining the processes, rules and, most importantly, identity for our government. The Constitution is not a set of lawful commissions against the people’s interest to serve themselves. It is a document written against the infringement by government upon rights of the people.

The establishment of any identity results from the corroboration of two sources of evidence, behavior and historical record. Nature and the bible provide for the identity of a higher power. Likewise, a nation has a constitution and the dynamics of a free, capitalist democracy to attest to its identity. And, people have their biographical records and documentation along with their behavior as the demonstration of their identity. The accuracy of these two pillars of identity work together to form character. The value of character is determined through the moral judgments those who witness it. But, the essence of character is not defined by what we for other’s to see, it is defined by what we do when there is no witness.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Sectors of our society attempt to use this as license to impose a “separation” of church and government. They falsely use it as a means of imposing an agenda to keep standards of morality and decency out of government entities, functions and facilities. But, this interpretation is mistaken, if not devious. The 1st Amendment is not a justification for the separation of the people’s pursuit of faith from the service of government. It is a commission directly laden upon the responsibility and obligation of government to remain apart from the authority of the people’s right to freedom of religious practice.

The 1st Amendment is an admonishment to the government, not the people’s assembly in faith. The words “Congress shall make no law..” is obviously addressing the action of the government, not the people. If the 1st Amendment were a commission upon the people it would say, “The People Shall not violate…”, the rule would be for the people, not the government. This is simply not what the Constitution is designed to do.

The 1st Amendment is a directive for government to remain uninvolved, not meddlesome or obstructive. There is no language, literal or intended, in the U.S. Constitution which directs an equal charge to both government and the people to remain separate. The word “separate” is not found anywhere in the document. The modern misuse of the 1st Amendment is an ominous effect of social intrusion on the purity of the Constitution’s legal definition. Political correctness has worked to distort the intentions and make the language seem morose and inconsiderate.
And, it is the same effect of social intrusion upon our Constitution which causes mystification of other Amendments and articles. It has affected our ability to conclusively define and implement the rules by which we define the very standards of citizenship and authenticity in America as well.

Under the looming, corrupt ideology of race based politics, America’s constitution is being assaulted by new social standards for interpreting even the most obvious meaning of constitutional language. Illegal immigration, radical civil rights activism and affirmative action have all served to degrade the value of the constitution by contaminating the pristine message of our founders. We have sacrificed national security in allowing people from anywhere, with any intention, to flood across our national boundaries. We have sacrificed financial responsibility by committing vast amounts of resources to entitlement programs for people who do not contribute a greater value to our society than they take. We have compromised our sovereignty by allowing people to serve in our government without taking diligence to authenticate their biographical information or hold them accountable for bad behavior.

The legal and judicial professions are commanded to serve not only the intrinsic directives of the law, they are also commissioned to pursue the spirit of the law and its intention. These responsibilities have been avoided under the manipulative liberal influence of political correctness and demographically preferential interpretations of the American law. Modern judges and lawyers are both guilty of serving the circumstance of subjective societal changes instead remaining constitute to the founding principles of America.
The Constitution prescribes a simple to understand set of standards for determining the eligibility of a Presidential candidate. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” 11

The wording used by the founding fathers makes it undeniably clear that they were intent on drawing a distinction between themselves, born under British jurisdiction, and Natural Born citizens who would not be born subject to any foreign jurisdiction other than the United States. At the time it was written, it was necessary for the framers of our Constitution to “grandfather” themselves in as being eligible to be President because America had not previously existed at the time of their birth. However, the “grandfather” clause applies only to those who had become citizens the moment America became a sovereign nation through the adoption of the Constitution. 11

The eligibility of anyone to serve in an elected office in the United States is defined through the Constitution. By way of historical confirmation and documented legal precedence, the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is one that is a citizen by no act of law, such as Naturalization, and that they are a Natural Born Citizen if they are born on United States soil.

In 1866, John Bingam, congressman from the State of Ohio said, “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a Natural Born Citizen.”11

Notice Bingam says, “…parents..” in plural form, not “parent”. It is obvious that our founders intended to deny eligibility of the Presidency to anyone who was subject to foreign jurisdiction at birth, and after the establishment of the constitution were not subject to foreign rule. This is important because the founders even denied eligibility to those who had fought for independence of the nation but remained loyal to other countries of origin. Their ultimate motivation was to protect the integrity of America by mandating a sovereign identity, without plurality, for its highest office. The need to preserve the purity of the identity of the individual serving as president was born out of the struggles our founders overcame to establish the independence of the nation. By defeating the most powerful military force in the world, and separating themselves from the most oppressive regime in the world, the founders of America had become champions for humanity. They had discovered a higher state of existence.

There are two distinct types of U.S. citizens as defined by the U.S. Constitution. A Native Born Citizen, also referred to as a U.S. Citizen or Naturalized Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen. A Native Born Citizen is not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen.11

A native born U.S. citizen is:

· One who was born to at least one parent who was a U.S. Citizen, or
· One who was born on U.S. soil, or
· One who became a Naturalized Citizen after birth through the naturalization and immigration process. 11

A native born citizen is not necessarily eligible to be the President of the U.S. unless he or she has fulfilled the refined standards afforded by natural born status. The framers of our Constitution instituted a higher set of standards required to be President. They require an eligible candidate for the Presidency to be a Natural Born Citizen, not just a U.S. citizen as defined previously. The debate over what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen takes several points of view. Remembering the fact that our founders intended that no foreign based influence have jurisdiction in the government of the U.S., it is understood that the intention for mandating a Natural Born Citizen is both:

· One who is born in the United States, AND
· One who is born to parents who are both U.S. Citizens. 11

There are logical reasons for elevating the standards required for a Natural Born American citizen to be president. The protection of national sovereignty through the security of the President’s singularity of identity is one of these reasons. The Executive Branch of American government carries untold responsibility and power. If the individual making decisions about the ways and means of using this power is influenced by the presence of innate foreign interests, above the interests of America, his power becomes a risk to our sovereignty as a nation.
As a nation governed by the rule of law, we cannot simply ignore the requirements of our constitution. When we begin to compromise our national identity by allowing non-citizens, or even those with ambiguous identities, to serve in our government, we open the door for unwanted risk to our national security.


Whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen remains an unanswered question. What is certain, however, is that vintage America is far less worried about the election of Barack Obama being a bad destination as they are about it being a bad direction toward worse things in the future. His lack of cooperation only lends validity to the fear Americans have about the direction of our nation, and more so, the things that direction is taking us away from. Elections are symptoms, not the disease. Vintage America is simply the first responder to the corruption of America. It is the siren and the front line of resistance and the most qualified to assess the presence of malignancy and pathology.

On February 28, 2008, the ultra liberal New York Times published a story raising questions about John McCain’s citizenship. The Headline read: “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out”.

Later, in July, the Times ran another piece entitled, “A Hint of New Life In The McCain Birth Issue”.

In response to these and other stories questioning his eligibility to run for President, John McCain submitted an original, “Certificate of Birth” displaying all the relevant information needed for vetters and the American public to determine the legitimacy of his candidacy. Obama has never submitted such a document.

Ironically, while inspecting the image of John McCain’s birth certificate (shown below), there was a particular word discovered on the upper left portion which adds to the demoralization of blind Obama supporters. Positioned on the document in plain view is the word “LEGITIMATE”. Certainly, the term is referring to the status of his parent’s relationship at the time of his birth, but it’s ironic that nothing more relevant or appropriate could have appeared on anyone’s natal identification as much as that word did for Senator John McCain. Unlike his 2008 election opponent, John McCain is legitimate in every way.

Aside from the fact that the American public has never been permitted to see Obama’s original birth records to date, it’s worth a sizeable wager that he has no reference to that word anywhere on the longest form of birth certificate anyone could ever issue to him. And that goes for any of the other hordes of records he has kept secret from America.

As Obama’s opponent in the 2008 election, John McCain III presented biographical information which prompted some questions about his eligibility to run for president as well. McCain is a good example to compare with the Obama situation because the circumstances of McCain’s birth only reinforce the constitutional definition of candidate eligibility, while Obama’s does not.

McCain was born August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Base in Panama Canal Zone, Panama. Democrats questioned his Constitutional eligibility based on the argument that he was not born on U.S. soil. However, contrary to Obama, both of McCain parents were Natural Born Citizens. The New York Times questioned McCain’s eligibility in several stories, notably, one published on February 28, 2008 titled “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out” stated:

“The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.”

Image taken from John McCain’s Original (Vault) Birth Certificate

McCain’s father, John S. McCain, Jr. was born in Council Bluffs, Iowa and was a naval officer serving in the interest of the United States in a territory under jurisdiction of the United States when McCain was born. His mother, Roberta was born in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
The first precedent for an argument in favor of McCain III’s Natural Born Status are clearly stated in the Naturalization Act Of 1790:

“And, the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

The language of subsequent clarifications to the Naturalization Act continue to provide for arguments against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility because they do not provide for citizenship under any U.S. constitutional definition for his alleged father who was Kenyan under British citizenry.

The second precedent for arguments in favor of McCain came On April 30th, 2008, when Congress passed Resolution 511 which was in line with the Naturalization Act of 1790 and served to reinforce its mandates. It reads:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "Natural Born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”73

John S. McCain III Circa 2008
Courtesy: Wikipedia

In employing the words “citizens” in reference to both of his parents and “natural born citizen” in a direct reference to the Constitutional definition, Congress effectively ended any future debate about candidates born to parents serving in the military.

Unfortunately, no such resolution, afforded with such precedent, is available for Obama. The purpose of the resolution was to bring clarity to an already existing standard, not to expand its definition to bring about inclusion of those who are clearly outside the literal definition of its bounds.

Though questions about McCain’s eligibility were rooted in logic and constitutionally-based concerns, the fact that he was a member of a family rich with history of military service and personal sacrifice, makes the argument against his eligibility even that much more difficult to make. McCain is a 1958 graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and a decorated Navy pilot. His father, Adm. John McCain, Jr. was commander in chief of all U. S. forces in the Pacific during the Vietnam War. His grandfather was a four-star admiral and his great-uncle was an Army General during World War I.

Many are familiar with McCain’s story as a prisoner of war. He spent 5½ years in captivity as a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton” in North Vietnam. After being shot down in his Skyhawk on Oct. 26, 1967, McCain was taken prisoner with fractures in his right leg and both arms. He received minimal care, was tortured, was forced to witness the torture of his fellow servicemen and was kept in wretched conditions.

In a story originally published in the May 14, 1973 issue of U.S. News & World Report, McCain gives a detailed, grisly account of his time in captivity. Upon his return from the horrors of Vietnam, McCain said, ”Now that I'm back, I find a lot of hand-wringing about this country. I don't buy that. I think America today is a better country than the one I left nearly six years ago.” He went on, “I had a lot of time to think over there, and came to the conclusion that one of the most important things in life—along with a man's family—is to make some contribution to his country.” In 1973, Barack Obama was attending grade school in Hawaii.

His arms and leg shattered, McCain lies in a hospital bed
in Hanoi, North Vietnam, after being taken prisoner of war.

Anyone who appreciates McCain’s story has a difficult time with results of the presidential election in 2008. Not because Obama won, but because they attribute McCain’s loss to a malignant disregard for Constitution spreading throughout the people of modern America. They view the “rejection” of a man like McCain by the majority of American voters as nothing more than a sign that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of America. Because, if an honorable man like McCain, who suffered the wounds of war in service to his country, is turned away by the obsequiousness for an inferior man like Barack Obama, America is certainly passing into that good night.

It saddens many to think that the future generations of Americans will never have an understanding or appreciation for the things men like John McCain have done to define America as the greatest nation in history. McCain represents the very reason America is available as a sanctuary to the world. If honor, courage, and sacrifice don’t define an essential part of one’s identity and citizenship, it’s very difficult to imagine what else does.

Though these biographical facts may not be pertinent in any legal argument over the constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate, they unarguably make the initiation of any process against him much more socially and morally cumbersome. Obama does not possess such genealogical leverage with regard to service and sacrifice. Sadly, neither do most of the people who voted for him.

If McCain had won the 2008 election, no lawyer or judge in his right mind would have ventured litigation against such a vintage American. If McCain had been born on Mars, the U.S. government would have declared the red planet a part of America, retroactively, to end the debate. Opposition to an essential figure like McCain would have been destructive to the historical identity of our nation. The social ramifications would have been cataclysmic.

The reason the argument is not equally detractive from Obama is because he doesn’t possess equal credibility. The media activists on MSNBC and CNN will caterwaul at conservative middle America for raising doubts about Obama’s identity, but they really have no factual standing against the argument that Obama has not acted affirmatively to disclose all things truthfully. This is an indisputable truth which did not burden McCain. And, one might say, it has never held contempt upon any candidate in American history as it has upon Obama to this degree.

Based on the way our legal system continues to treat the Obama affair, rejecting every appeal for basic information, however, it makes one wonder if judges in America are even effective in their purpose to interpret existing law anymore. Whereas McCain certainly exemplifies the identity of honor in America, it boggles the mind in wondering what could have possibly twisted the people of this nation enough to make them support an agent of such destructive liberalism with an ambiguous identity and a mysterious past.

Copy of Long Form Original (Vault) Birth Certificate posted by John McCain on his website,

Comparing the available biographies of John McCain and Barack Obama reveals interesting dichotomies. John McCain was born to an established family history with parents married 4½ years prior to his birth. Obama was conceived to an unwed, white teenage mother by a black, noncitizen, foreign bigamist who later abandoned them both. McCain was college educated in a United States military college gaining access, in part, through family tradition. Obama was educated in no less than 5 different schools in two countries gaining entry to Columbia University and Harvard Law through undisclosed qualifications, funded by undisclosed sources.

McCain is highly intelligent but struggled with academics. Obama is highly educated but failed to gain a well rounded intellectual perspective. McCain served in the U.S. Navy. Obama has no military service. McCain is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war. Obama has experience as a community organizer campaigning against the military. McCain was wounded and captured spending 5 ½ years as a prisoner of war in one of the most notorious detainment facilities in military history. Obama spent several years traveling throughout south Asia under undisclosed travel credentials funded by undisclosed resources. John McCain remained in the Navy for 22 years, despite suffering permanent physical disabilities resulting from his wounds, finally retiring with the rank of Captain in 1981. Barack Obama never risked his physical safety in service of America and remains healthy with no apparent impediments. John McCain entered public service in 1982 and has 26 combined years of U.S. Senatorial and U.S. Representative experience at the national level. Barack Obama is inexperienced in politics at the national level. McCain has been a Presidential candidate twice. Barack Obama served 3 terms as a state senator in Illinois while marinating in, arguably, the most corrupt state government in American history.

The most decisive act qualifying John McCain above Barack Obama is that he disclosed the information requested by the American people to verify his legitimacy. He was forthcoming, open and honest on the matter of eligibility. He allowed the American people to establish the verdict rather than declare one himself while hiding the evidence. In doing so, he was set free to be the man he was meant to be. Obama remains evasive and secretive, and therefore he remains chained to his delusion and the most mistrusted politician in American history. Sure, McCain was not elected to the Presidency, but he was the most legitimate candidate. And, at least McCain is not a fugitive on the run from his past, like Obama is.

When Obama stood on the lawn of the White House and claimed, “I won”, given the obscurity of his identity, vintage America came to realize that he had lost his soul in order to gain a perishing political world. The liberal establishment may not have desired an authentic man like John McCain for President, however, it reveals a tragic decline in their national character and aptitude, in opposition to basic American values, that they were forced by servitude to their own politics to choose a radical ideologue like Barack Obama instead. Things must have been very desolate in the liberal world, indeed.

“Even while lying in my own blood…I was not afraid.”

My Grandfather, June 6, 1944

CHAPTER 7 - Birth Certi-fiction

“When kings hide that which people know is to exist, bad things happen to kingdoms.”

Alexander the Great

Birth documentation, and the processes thereof, need to be analyzed before any conclusions are made about the lack of Obama’s natal information. By understanding the process and personnel involved in the creation of birth records, we can better evaluate the presence of deficiencies or falsehoods in a birth record as it applies to the authentication of citizenship, legitimacy and natural born status.

Attempting to understand the system of documentation used by the Hawaii state government to record birth information can be daunting. Officials from the State of Hawaii are uncooperative in providing much effective information on Obama’s records, even information they are obligated to share in the course of their municipal service. Also, Obama’s advisors and media helpers have worked very hard to make the process very confusing in order to prevent the American people from discovering which laws, administrative rules and forms of documentation have been exploited for Obama.

Before investigating the documents containing information about Barack Obama’s natal history, it should be understood that any evidence discovered which would subvert his image and credibility will already have been corrupted, softened or discounted by information manipulators from his administration and the liberal establishment. Whether it is through the alteration of the original source or by the dissemination of misinformation from the inner circle of Obama’s domain, we can be certain that no compromising information will remain pristine and purely rooted in its original truth. This is a primary characteristic of the devious apparatus implemented by the enemy we face. It has the ability to manipulate how we see reality through a corruption of the chain of evidence while taking advantage of the fact that no one alive today was present as an eyewitness to Obama’s origins. We must accept this premise before ever attempting to validate any piece of documented evidence opposing Obama’s place in history. All we can do is put the pieces together, remain vigilant and take control of our own power to implement our own campaign of truth and information. This will not be easy, because truth is so often a tremendous threat to those who seek power and influence.

Speaking on the investigation of Obama’s biography, one YouTube documentary which has since been censored and removed from the internet by Google/YouTube for undisclosed reasons, states:

“When you engage this investigation, keep in mind, if you discover something you think is unique and original, Obama’s operatives have either already thought of it, or they are currently implementing a plan to neutralize it. This is all they are paid to do. Just assume it. They are positioned strategically for the single purpose of protecting the ability of those in positions of power to remain in possession of that power at any cost. Also, remember the ultimate reason for the fight against them. Never forget that the value of the fight lies in the preservation of an inalienable right to exist, to be free of tyranny and oppression and to not be murdered by the voracious hordes spreading about the face of the earth at this very moment. Arm your mind! Be courageous, be brilliant and seek to become the life God created you to become.”118

There is a stubborn truth from which Obama will never escape, no matter how much information he successfully hides about himself. This truth is that he will never be the fully legitimate leader he wants to be until he comes clean about his identity. He will never have the consideration of history’s fraternal honor until he provides full access to the man he really is. Until that time, he is but a shadow leader possessing mythic ideas and unproven action. He is but a ghost of a pretend king left desolate under a dark anonymity without any justice to claim honor or responsibility for his effect. To whom shall we attribute such a memorial? Shall we pay it to a distant, mythic figure unconfirmed by recorded accounts? A somewhere man? An idea?

Obama is the least actual President in American history. Therefore, have confidence in the truth that if Obama’s Presidency is indeed constructed upon the foundation of a natural born rock, it will remain standing and your confidence will be fulfilled. But, if it is constructed upon the delusions of socially engineered clay, it will fall under the compounding weight of its own “politically correct” delusion. Most importantly, know that we, as vintage Americans, can live with both results.


In terms of defining constitutional eligibility for a candidate to be elected President of the United States, there is no more important standard document than an official, authenticated, ‘Certificate’ of Live birth. A ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the officially issued form of documentation used by the United States Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD), to record births of Natural Born U.S. Citizens. The forms of documents used in each state originate from this federal form. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is a document created by the municipality of the State of Hawaii which greatly deviates from the requirements of the national “Certificate of Live Birth”. Its creation was justified through the legal language of the Hawaii Revised Statutes enacted to protect the identity of individuals contained within the vital records held by the state.

Notice the subtle difference in terms used in the titles of these two documents. This is not an accident in Obama’s case. In its purest form, apart from any other rendition, the U.S. Department of Health’s ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not the State of Hawaii’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’, provides the essential information about the natal history of a person enabling the fullest possible clarification of their citizenship and identity. The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is also a document created specifically for the purpose of documenting and recording the occurrence of live births in America. Its form and content are prescribed for this specific vital event as a thorough means of recording the complete vital information of persons born in the United States.

Notice the word ‘Certificate’ is not the same word as ‘Certification’. And, more importantly, notice the word ‘Live’. The words ‘Certificate’, ‘Certification’ and ‘Live’ have great significance when discussing the issue of Obama’s natal documentation. In no less than 56 instances during major news network broadcasts during the past year of the Obama Birth Certificate saga, did hosts, guests and pundits misspeak, mispronounce or misunderstand these three words as they apply to Obama’s birth records.

During 18 different MSNBC broadcasts covering Obama’s birth information, the host or the guest mistakenly referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a federally issued standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.

In a discussion about the subject of Obama’s birth documentation between CNN’s Lou Dobbs and guest, Guy Lambert, Lambert used the word “Live” (L-i-v) rather than the word “Live” (L-eye-v) when he mistakenly described Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of LIVE Birth”.120

In a subsequent discussion on the subject between Dobbs and Roland Martin, Dobbs referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of Live Birth”.119 In another interview between Chris Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy, Liddy misidentified Obama’s document as a “Certificate of Live Birth” rather than a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’.121

In another Hardball interview with Representative John Campbell, Matthews again waggled his linen cardstock photocopy of a copy of an internet image of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and lamented it as a “birth certificate”. In a somewhat less than cordial response to Campbell’s explanation of a need for legislation confirming eligibility of future candidates, Matthews displayed his copied copy of a copy of an uncertified, unverified, unsigned, Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and told Campbell, “Let me show you his birth certificate. That is the way to deal with this. Mail this birth certificate to the wacko wing of your party so they agree with this…its over.”122

However, it is not over. Matthews’ ineptitude to form accurate adjectives in his ongoing series of discussions finally manifested in a frustrated implication that anyone asking legitimate questions about Obama’s natal identity was a racist. In an interview with Joan Walsh of Salon, and former mayor, Willie Brown, Matthews said, “I wonder if there is an aspect here of not documentation but pigmentation, that this is all about…”123

The rank and file liberal simply cannot resist their fetish for race-mongering and their propensity for hate-filled language toward their opponents. These tactics are used by liberals, like Matthews and Brown, because they simply, and definitely, are completely unable to answer the questions about the blatant absence of Obama’s birth information and the obscurity of his natal documentation. They are so frustrated by their own inability to respond with correct terminology and thorough knowledge they must employ idiocy and juvenility to conceal their ignorance. The least one might expect from those claiming credibility in media is a level of research allowing them to correctly identify and label the documents they claim advocacy for. When the media fails to apply appropriate terminology and correct grammatical reference to the actual words in communicating the information, intelligent people must reject the entire message about the matter.

Once one realizes the shocking audacity of Barack Obama’s operatives to intentionally obscure the meaning and use of seemingly subtle terms, the more apparent it becomes that they also exploited the remote Hawaiian laws which define them. Understanding the difference is paramount in discovering how Obama was able to take advantage of little known Hawaiian statutes to circumvent constitutional law and slip into the U.S. Presidency under covert circumstances. Once America understands the pathology behind Obama’s motives, our previously simplistic understanding of the words ‘birth certificate’ will never be the same again.
Again, since the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ form is the official birth document prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health, not the State of Hawaii, it is the most authentic possible document available for recording births. The history of its existence, in its modern form, extends as far back as the 1906 near the height of America’s immigration history.

Many of our grandparents have a standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ if they were born in America sometime after about 1906 when the first of America’s major immigration laws began to address the overbearing immigration volumes from abroad. However, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, which we have become so accustomed to associating with a birth certificate from Barack Obama is a document published by the State of Hawaii and is not an official document prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health Vital Statistics Office. It is not necessarily rejected by the NVSD, but it is not a form of birth record with a long history in American national vital statistics documentation.

The complex variations of Hawaii’s natal documentation process, in concert with its permeable, migratory culture and its geography essentially served as a type of administrative ‘Trojan Horse’ within which Obama was able to sneak into an ambiguously defined natal identity with just enough placatory information to fool liberal America into accepting him. He did this without being forced to answer, or provide proof of, the three most important questions of all. Where on the planet earth was his mother when he emerged from her womb? What was the identity and citizenship status of both of his parents when he was born? And, what is his current status of citizenry following his migratory history in his youth?


Without the full and complete conveyance of all available documents and records supporting the answers to these questions, Obama’s legitimacy as president is, by default, less than legitimate. If his mother was not in the United States of America or territory under its jurisdiction when she gave birth to him, then he is ineligible to be president. Or, if both of Obama’s parents are not U.S. citizens or by one parent (his mother) did not fulfill the statutes of U.S. citizenship for 5 years after she turned the age of 14, he is ineligible to be president.

And finally, if he is not currently an American citizen as defined by the immigration and naturalization service of the U.S., he is not even eligible to serve in our government, let alone as President. These facts are supported by the rule of law founded in the United States Constitution. There is no exception.

There are several unique, but integrating, theories popularized by Obama identity seekers to explain how he was able to circumvent a shallow vetting process. The laws governing vital records within the Hawaiian Department of Health create an environment of unabated permissiveness unlike anywhere else in the United States. Because of this, the theories are valid without needing to assert any suspicion of premeditation on the part of his family. Obama’s supporters are fond of attributing suspicion of family involvement to those doubting Obama’s authenticity because they want to paint those with legitimate questions as “crazy” to think his family was involved in fraud just to make him a natural born citizen in the “off-chance he might run for president some day”. Of course, this is ridiculous. Obama’s family had no idea that their pragmatic, innocent decisions would result in our current legal dilemma.

One group believes Obama was born in Honolulu despite the fact that there is no confirmable evidence available to prove this. No certified, back-traceable documentation has ever been provided to demonstrate Obama’s Hawaiian birth. There is no affirmative testimony from any hospital, no Original (Vault) ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ issued through the U.S. Department of Health, no prenatal or postnatal medical records, no hospital admission records of his mother, no eyewitness testimony from any medical professional, no doctor or birth attendant’s name, no maternity ward nurse duty roster or, most importantly, no eyewitness testimony on record from any member of his family at the time who, by the way, are all dead. In reality, based on the hard evidence to date, the only conclusion one can honestly make is that Obama was deposited in Hawaii at the age of five, but no one actually knows his natal information. Perhaps, Obama does not even know.

Another group believes that Obama was born in the home country of his alleged father, Barack Obama Sr., in Kenya, and subsequently entered the U.S. with his mother just days thereafter taking advantage of Hawaii’s tenuously monitored immigration policies and loose documentation process. His mother would have used the late birth registration process falsely declaring his birth in Hawaii. Part of this theory also considers the possibility that he was born in Kenya and came to Hawaii sometime later taking advantage of a native birth registration program which allowed foreign born children, with no previous record of birth, to be registered in the state through Hawaii’s administrative process.50

Another group theorizes that Obama was adopted. They believe his birthplace is inconsequential and that, at some point, he was paternally adopted and that Obama Sr. is not his biological father. Many also believe that neither Obama Sr. nor Ann Dunham is his biological parent. Obama’s adoption would have created unique circumstances during the custody hearing previous to the divorce filed between Dunham and Obama, Sr., in March of 1964.

The final group presents compelling, hard to refute evidence, that Obama’s 1961 Hawaiian birth is a matter of administrative definition through the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program which officially ended in 1972. This would essentially provide Obama with what the state of Hawaii considered an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ which the State of Hawaii also recognizes as an authentic document confirming a Hawaiian birth even though the birth can actually occur anywhere. The "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" could have been issued to him under a specific Hawaiian law, (not federal law) which places the responsibility for the issuance of the certificate solely upon the judgment and time constraint set by the Director of the state’s Health Department. He could have requested this certificate at any time after his birth by providing proof that his parents resided in Hawaii for at least one year or more, preceding his birth anywhere in the world.59 In this scenario, in the absence of all eyewitnesses to his birth, Obama constructed a disingenuous political standing based on administrative rule, not legal justification through statutory judgment based on testimony, without any legal cross-examination from any opposition. In essence, Obama has declared himself a legitimate candidate without any disclosure or confirmation of the facts through an open vetting process supporting his legitimacy. The only challenge he faces are the American people rightfully seeking the facts about his natal history through the court of public opinion and alternative media, like the internet. This is about legitimacy, not legality. There is a big difference. Obama may be found legally clear, but that does not mean he is a legitimate leader.

Obama’s handlers displayed a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ in August, 2008. Under all of the circumstances mentioned above, the state of Hawaii issues this same document as a surrogate document to show record of either his Original (Vault) foreign Birth Certificate, his Certificate of Hawaiian Birth or his ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. However, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not indicate which document it represents. And, unless the American people look deeper into the matter, they would never know this either.

For most, the issuance of an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ occurred in the form of a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ when we were born in the hospital. That was as far as birth confirmation needs to go for us. The attending physician was an eyewitness to our delivery along with, at least, our mother, and perhaps other family members. The maternity administrator verified the information provided by the parents along with the vital biographical information at the time of our birth. The record was created, authenticated and submitted to the governing agency assigned to maintain such records. This was a very simple, straight forward process for virtually all Americans.

It is important to also understand that the suspicions surrounding Obama are not so much driven by the presence of information he’s made available than they are made completely valid by the absence of even the most common, most mundane, recorded information that every other American is accustomed to possessing and disclosing for identification purposes.

The State of Hawaii Department of Health does not do a thorough job of explaining and clarifying its issuance and amendment process for birth records. The bureaucratic failure is not just found in Hawaii, though. Systemic to our problems with illegal immigration, the challenges and confusion surrounding our government’s policies and variances in documentation for vital birth records is as bewildering in New York as it is in California and in Arizona as it is in Hawaii. But, because of Hawaii’s unique cultural and geopolitical history, its policies remain the most difficult to clarify of all the states.

Most people do not understand the variations simply because they were never in need of them due to the conventional circumstances surrounding their birth. Along with this, most people were never a resident of Hawaii, either. The Hawaii Department of Health website states the following about vital records:

“Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health. In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18). Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver’s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor’s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs.”5

The final three words of this paragraph, “…and other needs.” have become particularly valuable to Obama. The purpose of a birth record for determining one’s eligibility for public office is never explicitly offered anywhere in the entire state of Hawaii’s internet based information system.
To fully grasp the weight of Barack Obama’s situation, it is important to understand the definition of the terminology and types of documents available. The following sections list and describe various documents available to Hawaiian residents and U.S. Citizens, which are authenticated as proof of identity, but which are not necessarily verified as proof of natural born citizenship. The terms used to describe them here may be found in variation, depending on the source.

A STUDY OF TERMINOLOGY: The ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’

Ultimately, of all of the documents allegedly in the State of Hawaii’s possession, Obama’s ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is the document America would like to analyze, in hand, in person. However, we need to be diligent with the terminology we use to inquire about this document.

The term ‘‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’’ is a generic, umbrella term applied to any originating document held within the Office of Vital Records attesting to the birth of a person. This is a critical point to keep in mind because not all ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificates’ appear in the same form, containing the same information, in Hawaii. Documents are header titled differently depending on the method of issuance and origins of the person possessing it. The Header Title is the specific label used at the top of the vital document to identify its content for recording purposes. It is extremely important that we make sure the words which are spoken to describe a particular document match exactly with the printed words which appear in its header title. Otherwise, as you will see, this is an endemic pitfall which led to the state of Hawaii’s unwitting complicity in hiding Obama’s natal history from the American people.

If Obama’s birth was witnessed by a physician and attested to by an official of the state, as virtually all U.S. births are, this document will be header titled ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health (see Appendix). The ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ application was established in the early 1900’s as the preeminent form of recording births in America. Containing the word ‘Live’ in its header title, this document attests to the vital event of a birth of a child who exhibits the characteristics of life as determined by a medical official qualified to do so, as prescribed by federal and state law. If Obama was born somewhere other than the United States, or if he was issued a version of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ sometime after his birth, it will be header titled with an indication of its origins, and the U.S. version of the document will indicate that the birth record is either “Amended”, “Delayed Registration” or “Altered”.

We need to pay close attention to what we are told about the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ by politicians and the media. There is a lot of ignorance impacting the language being used to describe this umbrella document. This is causing misinformation, miscommunication and misunderstanding about the State of Hawaii’s claims of their issuance and possession of an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ for Barack Obama. Obama supporters white wash the subject with dishonest claims of authenticity. They desire to avoid addressing the actual facts about this document because it reveals a realm of questions that Obama has not been willing to respond to with regard to his deficient natal records.

Depending on the type of document selected through the birth documentation process in Hawaii, the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is also referred to, unofficially, as the Long Form Birth Certificate. It is referred to as such because it contains the longest form of specific information surrounding the birth of an individual as possible. The blank application form is issued in template form from the U.S. Department of Health and contains approximately 45 to 54 boxes, or cells, for the input of information, depending on the state of birth. Some states require more or less information about the father than others, and some states do not include social security numbers for security reasons.

Most importantly, not all ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificates’ held by the state of Hawaii indicate a birth in the United States. This is partly due to the process of documenting Hawaiian citizens during the transition period between Hawaii being a territory and becoming a state. No other state has this unique documentation history in the past 50 years, since just before Obama’s birth.

Varying documents are given the generic title of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ because they are the originating source of birth information, and it doesn’t matter where the original document actually came from. Just because you have an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ filed with the state of Hawaii does not mean you were born there, or that you were even born in the United States. It just means that whatever document is held as an original birth record it is considered the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’.

The ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is the legally official, genuinely original document created sometime between the witnessed delivery of a baby and the registration of the birth with the governing agency where the baby was born. This is the document usually provided by hospital administration to the State/Provincial office of the vital statistics registrar, but this is not the only way an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ may be issued as we will see. The way it is issued and the way it is created are two completely different steps in the vital records registration process. This document exists in its original form in a securely held file at the designated agency assigned to house, maintain and protect such documents. The ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is the forensic confirmation of the occurrence of a birth. If there is ever a question about the existence of an individual without having ever seen that individual, the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ provides documentation of that person’s existence, and it provides the most information possible about the birth of all the forms of natal information available.

For those born in Hawaii in the 1960’s (after statehood), the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ appears “in hand” like the examples shown (See Appendix), and it will have original ink signatures from the attending physician, midwife and/or eyewitnesses of the birth. The defining characteristic which indicates this document as the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is that the signatures will be in original ink. This is also called having a “wet signature”. When copies are made of this document, the copy(s) are stamped with a signed seal of the registrar of the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records and the date of issuance. The original is returned to the vault until more copies are requested, or, in very rare cases, amendments of the document are allowed through a court proceeding (i.e. paternal identification).

After completion and filing with the agency, this document remains sealed as a vital record. It is a state owned document treated in much the same fashion as a legal affidavit, or transcript of witness testimony in a legal proceeding. Because of its originality, under no circumstances, except by legally acquired warrant or subpoena through the directed protection and authority of the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records, is the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ allowed to be removed from the housing facility. Hence the use of the descriptive word “Vault”.
The existence of two or more validated ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s’ for the same birth is illegal and an indication of falsification of vital records. Multiple ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificates’ means that a doctor either signed more than one certificate for one birth, or one or more doctors have falsified birth documentation by signing a certificate for a birth they did not witness. If there is such a case of filing multiple documents as an original vital record of birth, the state’s vital records agency is not necessarily to blame for the doctor’s and/or the parent’s crime. But, if the agency creates two or more ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificates’ for one birth, with an original signature from attending witnesses then all of those involved are guilty of falsification of identity and document fraud.

For example, if you were born in Honolulu in a hospital, an application form is provided to your parents to complete information about them. They sign the application attesting to its accuracy under penalty of the laws of the state of Hawaii. The official birth certificate form would then be filled in by an administrator at the hospital at the time of birth by transcribing the information provided by the parents from the application. This information is usually transcribed by a maternity ward administrator, transcriptionist or other administrative person. The attending medical professional would fill in birth weight, birth length, blood type (if applicable), full birth name, hospital or birth location and printed names of the physician and registrar. The document would then be signed by the attending physician who was an eyewitness to the birth and then the completed form is copied with the original submitted to the State’s Department of Health, Office of the Registrar of Vital Records and affixed with the state’s official seal, signed by the registrar and filed in a secure file within the agencies facility. The duplicate was usually created in a photostatic (negative image) form and retained by the hospital.

There are various circumstances which can affect the legality of this process. If you later moved to another state at any time soon after birth and your parents went to that new state’s agency claiming that an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ had never been issued, they could file for an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ of the state they moved to claiming that you were born in that new state. Doing so, they would have violated one, or both states’ laws. Additionally, if you have in your possession a document that is the actual ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, if it has not been removed from the agency after the statutes of limitations allowed for the official agency to hold it, then it was probably unlawfully removed from that agency.

There are a few circumstances in which some Americans do not have an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. If a baby was born in remote region of America or its territories, where no doctor was involved, this document may not have been registered. If you were born on foreign soil but later immigrated (usually illegally) to the United States, then you won’t have this document either.

There is typically a statute of limitations of 100 years for holding an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ by the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records. This was implemented to protect the privacy of those still living. After such time has passed the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is made available to the public through the agency’s archives and local library or records system. The laws protecting privacy no longer apply. You can, at this point, go into the archive and retrieve the actual document for copying and research purposes, under Freedom of Information legislation.


The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, with the document header title as such, is one type of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ available through the state of Hawaii. It was officially issued beginning during the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program” from 1911 to 1972. However, there is archival evidence that the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was issued for births and migrants prior to 1911. It was a faux precursor to the official U.S. ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ which became standard with statehood.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was implemented during the territorial era when Hawaii was under U.S. jurisdiction, before statehood. It was designed to take an account of those living in Hawaii and to provide original birth records for a person who could show, to the satisfaction of a territorial official with jurisdiction determined by federal law, supporting evidence for the registrant’s residency and birth in Hawaii. In order to receive a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ the recipient was required to show an “acceptable” set of support documentation and/or witness testimony “proving” that they were indeed born in Hawaii during this time. Throughout Hawaii’s history, the standards used to determine what is “acceptable” support documentation vary greatly.

Notice that the ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ does not contain the word “Live” in its header title, or within the body of the document (See Appendix). This is because the ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ may be issued after the occurrence of birth without the eyewitness of the medical professional qualified to determine a live birth. The ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ is considered by the State of Hawaii, under the umbrella term ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, to be a genuinely original birth record. It affords the applicant an opportunity to prove birth information through testimony and secondary documents, rather than a traditional Hospital birth or other officially witnessed birth, and it is recognized by the state of Hawaii as proof of native citizenship. However, it is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Health as proof of natural born citizenship by the standards of federal election law. Copies of the set of testimony records and documents used to establish a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ may also be requested to allow a reviewer to assess the evidence used to issue the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.5

Hawaii is the only state in U.S. history to offer an alternative form of an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ which does not require an eyewitness to the birth, or natal history attributable to any location other than the State of issuance.

There is a chronological overlap between 1959 and 1972 in the official time of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program during which the State of Hawaii issued both a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ and a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, both under the umbrella title of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, but under completely different circumstances. The documentation used to validate one’s birth decided which certificate was issued. The distinction between the two documents was determined by whether a person’s birth was attended firsthand in the State of Hawaii by a witness defined in Hawaii Revised Statute 338-5 and 338-6, or whether it was determined by an official of the state of Hawaii through secondary sources showing that a person was born in the state of Hawaii sometime in the past. Therefore, the difference between the two documents is that one is issued as a result of an eyewitness to the birth, the other is issued by the decision of an administrator or judge.

“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”5
For information, call (808) 586-4540 during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. HST).”5

In the description above, the Department of Health doesn’t include that judges and administrators can and do make decisions to grant ‘Certificates of Hawaiian Birth’ based on information provided through secondary identification documents, personal testimony and support records from later in the applicant’s life, long after the birth took place. When the courts make the final decision, they declare the decision irrefutable and correct.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was implemented to improve birth accountability and include indigenous population in United States citizenry. The interest was not as much in verifying the history of citizenship for the applicant as it was to establish the beginning of statehood under U.S. jurisdiction. It is not unreasonable to suggest that, from the perspective the U.S. Department of Health, the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands were more vigorously and accurately accounted when they became potential federal tax payers. Even today, many activists groups in Hawaii still protest against statehood while supporting the independent sovereignty of the Hawaiian nation.

Compared with the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, the ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ issued by the state of Hawaii lacks appropriate and essential information required to determine natural born citizenship for an American presidential candidate.


Part one of the “Hawaii State Public Health Statistics Act” HRS 338-1 defines a “Live Birth” as:

“..the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception that did, after complete expulsion or extraction from the mother, breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or movement of voluntary muscle, whether or not the umbilical cord was cut or the placenta attached.”50

The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is a document named and used in accordance with all similar Acts in every state because it is designed and published through the Federal agency of the U.S. Department of Health to record the occurrence of a “Live” birth as attested by a medically qualified eyewitness. But, most importantly, since natural born citizenship is defined by where one is born “live” and to whom one is born “live”, this document serves as the only current form of credible documentation for adequately fulfilling this purpose in the state of Hawaii, and the rest of the United States. In fact, the 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume 1 – Natality states:

“Standard Certificate
The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this vital event. It has been modified in each State to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State vital statistics law. However, the certificates of most states conform closely in content and arrangement of the standard certificate.”

It is an irrefutable fact that the standard U.S. Department of Health ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, was designed to include the most important information about births in the U.S. for the purposes of establishing the legal citizenship and demography of our population. The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ can be a photo copy of this form of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ in the image of the document with a header title as such. It is also informally called the ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’ because it may contain around 50 or more input boxes for specific information about the birth. It is not a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’, nor is it a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. It is not a ‘Certificate of Foreign Birth’, either.

We have no way of knowing for sure the proportion of documents held by the state of Hawaii which are header titled ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. It is plausible that the majority of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificates’ around the time of statehood are documents with header titles other than ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, especially around the time of Barack Obama’s birth.

Hawaii became a state in 1959. This is when the Hawaiian Department of Health defined the use of the term “Live Birth” and began issuing certificates for new births with the header title ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. The certificate was titled from the general form provided by the U.S. Department of Health in coordination with the National Vital Statistic Division. The intended form and content of the document was designed to provide information about the birth of a living child as determined by a licensed professional qualified to make such an assessment when questions of life, or fleeting signs of it, are ambiguous in rare birth cases.

In the state of Hawaii, a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ may be issued as a certified copy made from the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, with a header title of ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, held on file at the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records. It is the only document form available which allows the public to corroborate, to an irrefutable degree of certainty that an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ actually exists, and showing that an individual was actually born in the United States. It is not a genuinely original document, but it is an irrefutable copy if the information can be confirmed against actual facts listed on the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ matching the events of the birth. The reason it is irrefutable is because it provides a sufficient amount of detail and specific biographical information which allow the reviewer to verify on several collaborative, connectable sources the personal data of the individual named on the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.

On this document should be the header title and type of original document from which the information appears in this document. For example, it is not lawful for officials to use the information in a ‘Certificate of Foreign Birth’ to create a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. The word “Live” defines the vitality of this document. If the birth was not witnessed ‘Live’ by the person creating the document, then this document cannot be used to record the birth.

Since the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records began to officially using the document with the header title ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ in 1959, as prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health, any photocopies made from that form of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ would obviously also have the header title ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. A photocopy is not an originally published document like a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ or a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’. Since government agencies do not allow general or public access to Vital Records like an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, except by reasons listed previously, a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is created through a copy process, usually photocopy, photostatic or photogammetric (digital photo scanning), and then affixed with an original ink seal and wet signed by the registrar of the Office of Vital Records. This signature is not in substitution of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ signatures which will also appear on a photocopy of the document. If the copy is not attested by an official of the Vital Statistics office, it is not a valid document for proving one’s identification.

The standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ will provide the individual’s given name at birth. It will provide the name of the parents at the time of birth. It will show an official signature of a witness or attending physician and their full name. It will show the location of the birth including the facility or hospital. It will show the age of the parents, their birth and their occupations. And, in eras past, it shows their marital status through terms used to describe the birth as ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’. It will show the date and time of birth, and most importantly, it will show the date the registration was accepted by the registrar of the Office of Vital Records. These pieces of information allow a viewer to verify citizenship status, identity, parents’ identity, parent’s citizenship and the witnesses of one’s birth.

Understandably, birth records are just one piece of an individual’s over all lifelong biographical record. Of publically available birth records, the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the most vital in providing the most information possible confirming an individual’s natal history.


Never has three letters confused more people in the history of American politics. Simply substituting ‘ion’ for ‘ate’ and, viola! Obama was given a “legitimate” birth record…at least, it was legitimate in the minds of those promoting his enthronement.

However, there is a difference between one’s identification and their citizenship status. A person’s identification exists independently from their citizenship. Many other states and federal agencies, both within and outside the State of Hawaii recognize the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as an authentic document for determining an individual’s identification, but not for determining citizenship. This document is accepted when obtaining a Driver’s License or getting a passport.5 Certainly, it is not acceptable for determining one’s natural born citizenship and certainly not the constitutional eligibility of a candidate to assume the highest elected office, which is arguably, the most powerful position in the world. It does not show the birthplace of the parents or their citizenship status, nor does it allow for the verification of the place of birth of the individual by way of providing a facility and/or an eyewitness to the birth.

Around the time of statehood, Hawaii began issuing a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ to those requesting a copy of their ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. The State’s Department of Health continued this policy until sometime around the Y2K (Year 2000) changeover when indexing and computer file systems required a revised dating format. At this time, Hawaii began to issue ‘Certifications of Live Birth’ and eventually stopped issuing ‘Certificates of Live Birth’ under the guise of preventing identity theft.

Comparison of Hawaiian Birth Document Types

Boxes Available on Normal U.S. Certificate Of Live Birth Application

1 Typical Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
2 Barack Obama's Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’
3 Your Typical Certificate of Live Birth

Hospital or Facility of Birth?
1 Not Provided
2 Not Provided
3 Provided

Address of Facility of Birth?
Not Provided
Not Provided

Inside Corporate Limits of City?
Not Provided
Not Provided

City or Town of Birth?
By Testimony

County of Birth?
By Testimony

Maiden Name of Mother (first)?
Not Provided

Maiden Name of Mother (last)
Not Provided

Maiden Name of Mother (middle)
Not Provided

Married Name of Mother (Last)
Not Provided
Not Provided

Birthplace of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Age of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Social Security Number of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Race or Color of Mother
Not Provided

Street Address of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Mother's birth inside Corporate limits?
Not Provided
Not Provided

Resident City or Town of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Resident County of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Resident State of Mother
Not Provided
Not Provided

Name of Father (first)
Not Provided

Name of Father (last)
Not Provided

Name of Father (middle)
Not Provided

Birthplace of Father (State, Country)
Not Provided
Not Provided

Age of Father
Not Provided
Not Provided

Social Security Number of Father
Not Provided
Not Provided

Race or Color of Father
Not Provided

Occupation of Father
Not Provided
Not Provided

Type of Industry or business
Not Provided
Not Provided

Signature of Parent or Informant
Not Provided
Provided (Required)

Date of Parent or Informant Signature
Not Provided

Signature M.D. or Medical Attendant
Not Provided
Not Provided

Date of Signature of M.D. or M.A.
Not Provided
Not Provided

Residence of Physician
Not Provided
Not Provided

Physician License Number
Not Provided
Not Provided

Name of State/Provincial Registrar
Not Provided

Signature or Stamp of State Official
Not Provided

Date of Recording by State Official

Name of Local Registrar
Not Provided
Not Provided

Date of Reg. Credential Expiration
Not Provided
Not Provided

First Name of Child

Middle Name of Child

Last Name of Child

Sex of Child

Plural or Single Birth Check Box
Not Provided
Not Provided

If Plural, Which Child Is This?
Not Provided
Not Provided

Date of Birth (month, day, year)
By Testimony

Hour of Birth
By Testimony

Not Provided
Not Provided

Photo Image of Bearer
Not Provided

There was an indeterminable period of time during which a requester could get both forms. The state of Hawaii’s Department of Health refuses to cooperate with inquiry asking for details about its evolving file management system and the possible assistance it provided for the ‘processing’ of Obama’s birth records. But, most importantly, we are left to conclude that there are covert reasons why the state of Hawaii and its municipalities found it unimportant, unnecessary or insecure to provide the names of the facility and the names of the eyewitnesses of Obama’s birth. Complicating the matter, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is also issued for every other form of ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ previously mentioned, including a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ which also does not provide the names of the eyewitnesses or the facility of birth.
According to a report released by Western Journalism the state of Hawaii has now even attempted to camouflage the history of its “Certification of Live Birth” document’s identity by changing it to the exact same name as the federal document:

On June 12, 2008 the title for this form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?

The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

Above all, it must be noted, and remembered, that in the state of Hawaii, the Certificate form and the Certification form were vastly different in title, quantity of information, presentation, content and source. The most troubling and divisive fact about the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is that it can be issued by the State of Hawaii without the disclosure of the source documentation from which is was published. Even its name is insidious as a publicly recognized document. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ omits important biographical information which prevents the viewer of the document from accurately determining the natural born citizenship of the bearer.

As it pertains to citizenship, whereas the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’’ provides a recognized date of birth, a name of the bearer along with the testimonial location of birth, as they are recognized and provided on the application form according to the statutes of the State of Hawaii, under the authority of the Director of the Department of Health, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not provide corroborated biographical information such as social security numbers, addresses, facility of birth, parent’s birth place, parents occupations, name’s and signatures of attending officials, birth weight, birth length, or race of the child.

The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’’ does not provide the type, origin or manner by which the original documentation from which the information in the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was published. It does not indicate whether the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ is a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or a ‘Certificate of Foreign Birth’. And, it certainly does not indicate if the ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ it could be published from was issued by the State of Hawaii through the statutory authority of the Director of the Department of Health, by way of legal hearing or by way of Hawaii’s Late Birth Registration policy. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not actually and conclusively provide fact-based information about the location of the bearer’s birth. For most agencies and services requiring a legal form of identification, the omission of this particular personal information is acceptable.
The more we learn about the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, how it is produced, and the variable circumstances and standards under which it is provided by the State of Hawaii, the more apparent it becomes that this document is simply inadequate for determining the depth of identity required to confirm or disqualify a candidate for the U.S. presidency.

A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is not an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, nor is it a copy, of it. It is different than a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ because it is not produced in the same way. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published document summarizing the information on an ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ in a “short form” format. This means that a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is not the result of a copy from the original document. It is created by an individual working in the Department of Health’s Office of Vital Records office after accessing the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’, transcribing a limited amount of information from it, and then manually typing that information into the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ computer form. It is then printed and released to the requester.

A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ contains fewer details and less information about the birth than a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’.5 As an independently published record, the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is a document authenticated only by the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records personnel as opposed to a hospital that publishes the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, or a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ issuable by the authority of the Director of the Health Department.

Whenever possible the attending physician, midwife, nurse or deliverer of the child, not the mother, authenticates the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’. It is important to emphasize that the personnel at the State of Hawaii’s Office of Vital Records are only applying information from documents they are transcribing, they do not witness the vital event or verify the validity or the source information used for the contents of Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, and they should never make judgments regarding citizenship by the contents of these vital records. This includes making conclusions about the relevance, affirmation or preponderance of evidence in the document’s ability to determine citizenship or the document’s capacity to determine eligibility to serve as an elected official. The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ document does not legally do this, therefore, those creating or handling such documents shouldn’t either.

Theoretically, there is a valid justification to challenge the State of Hawaii’s use of the word “Live” in the header title of the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ document for two reasons. The state of Hawaii is not allowed by the U.S. Department of Health to represent the evidence of a live birth with an original document without the witness of the birth by a medical professional who actually delivered the live child. Hawaii not only issues the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ in the place of an original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (births witnessed by medical professional as live), it also issues it in place of ‘Certificates of Hawaiian birth’ which are not attested by any eyewitnesses to the live birth. The other reason is that no physician or medical professional qualified to determine a live birth has affixed a signature or professional identification such as a medical license number, on the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’.

Since the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published document with substantially less information than a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, it does not provide the viewer with an accurate visual concurrence with the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s more detailed information. A ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ will give a better understanding of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ than a ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is merely a surrogate conveyance of truncated information provided through the Department of Health, Office of Vital Records in lieu of allowing public access or release of the ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’ or a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a ‘Certificate of Hawaiian Birth’ or any support documentation.

Hawaii’s Secret Agency

The state of Hawaii has endowed an extraordinary amount of federal power to the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. Every birth record, every process, every official involved, and every piece of personal information is impregnated and hidden within the authority, but never revealed, through this document. Never in the history of vital statistics has one document been so ambiguously empowered to conceal the natural born identity of its bearer. Statements from the State of Hawaii about their records processes and systems desperately beg for further clarification. If the State of Hawaii authenticates both the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and the federal U.S. ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, why was there a necessity to add the option for recipients to get a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’? And, when did the inception of this document occur in relation to Barack Obama’s need for it?

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands agency also advises against using the Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a primary source of identification for those applying for native land rights. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands website states the following:

“The ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ (federal U.S. version) has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (state Hawaiian version), which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth.”
“Although ‘Original (Vault) Birth Certificate’s (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a ‘Certification of Live Birth’’.”43

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands describes the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a document that “provides specific details of a person’s birth.” This is an underwhelming endorsement of the document which Obama has pushed, and an indication that it actually does not provide details at all, but rather general information in far less detail than what is actually presented in the Certificate of Live Birth on record. Apparently, the government of the State of Hawaii feels a stronger priority to establish Hawaiian’s genealogical right to purchase native lands than it feels about all of America’s genealogical right to elect a constitutionally eligible President.

If the decision to issue ‘Certifications of Live Birth’ is for the enhancement of identity protection, an explanation is warranted in Obama’s case. By what standards does the State of Hawaii determine which personal data is vulnerable to identity theft, and which is not? Most importantly, with regard to the establishment of authority in this matter, just because the State Of Hawaii issues both documents, this does not obligate the U.S. Constitutional standard to agree. The President belongs to all American’s not just those in Hawaii. The people of America, not the government of Hawaii, determine the standard of birth record acceptable for determining a candidate’s eligibility to be President.

The Hawaii State Department does not make clear whether the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ is equal proof of birth provided by the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, but according to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:

"In order to process your application for identification as a native Hawaiian, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands utilizes information that is found only on the Original (Long Form) Vault Birth Certificate (‘Certificate of Live Birth’, not ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’), which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of birth than the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Long Form Birth Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ requires additional verification…"58

In the state of Hawaii, as in most states, the ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is irrefutable and is never rejected when applying for jobs, passports, Hawaiian land purchase, citizenship or registration as a student, as long as the information provided in the “Certificate of Live Birth” is attested to by three licensed professionals which, in virtually all cases, is a licensed medical professional qualified to the determine the characteristics of a “live birth” under the state’s revised statutes; a licensed profession given oversight responsibility for the creation, maintenance and storage of vital records within the state’s Department of Health and a licensed professional qualified to prepare and issue such records to the public. This is always true except in cases when identity theft is suspected. The ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ on the other hand, requires more extensive verification and other forms of back up identification for completing these applications.

Therefore, in terms of defining constitutional eligibility for a candidate to be elected as President of the United States, there is no other document more important than an official, authenticated Original (Vault) Certificate of Live Birth issued in the form prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division through the medical verification of an attending licensed medical or natalogical professional who witnessed the birth, or who examined the records of the birth at the time of the vital event. Any other form of birth documentation is insufficient for resolving the essential questions which have been constitutionally determined as the qualifications needed to be President.

To date, Barack Obama has failed to meet this standard. Not only has he failed to produce proper documentation supporting his eligibility, the State of Hawaii has never actually confirmed that they issued the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ to him, which he has posted to his website and displayed to members of the press. These are just more reasons to doubt the natal history and natural born identity of Obama. By this reason alone, his eligibility to be President of the United States is suspect and egregiously disreputable, if not outright illegitimate.

Obama is hiding something about his natal information as it applies to his presidential identity. This is obvious and undeniable. But, what exactly is he hiding? Regardless of the facts he is concealing, one truth remains steadfastly undeniable. He will never attain the level of legitimacy required to be recognized by history as a formidable leader, within the roster of Presidents who came before him, until he comes clean with the American people. Under the weight of this ambiguous authenticity, Barack Obama will only be remembered as a pretend, shadow figure in the history of American politics. Nothing he accomplishes can be actual. Nothing he says can be believed and nothing he becomes can be considered real.

No comments:

Post a Comment