OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH RECORDS DISCOVERED IN BRITISH
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
WHERE LIES GO TO DIE – Evidence discovered shows British
Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent
returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch
of British National Archives.
Editor’s note: The records alluded to in this story were
discovered through a May, 2012 search through BMD Registers, a BNA partner
site, using the search term “Obama”. Corroborating evidence through public
sources only implicates the identity of those involved but does not explicitly
prove their identity in the absence of the availability of original documents.) ~ By Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen
KEW, SURREY, GB – The last place anyone would think to
look for a birth record of someone claiming to be a “natural born” U.S. citizen
is Great Britain. The very inclusion of the Article II eligibility mandate in
the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended by the founding fathers of
America to prevent a then British-born enemy usurper from attaining the office
of the U.S. presidency and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the newly
formed nation.
In the absence of honor, courage and justice on the part
of those serving in the U.S. Congress and Federal Judiciary, Arizona Sheriff
Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigative group has concluded the only law
enforcement analysis of the image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live
Birth” posted to a government website in April, 2011 and found it to be the
product of criminal fraud and document forgery.
The seeming endless evidence against Obama has now taken
investigators to the foreign archives of Great Britain wherein it has been
discovered that vital events occurring under the jurisdiction of the British
Colony in the Protectorate of East Africa prior to 1965 were recorded and held
in the main office of the British Registrar in England until 1995 before being
archived in the BNA.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for
Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by
Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya. Prior
to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also
stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative
assembly. Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by
government officials as the Obama administration has coincidently paid nearly
$4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, cannot
be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to
Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she
allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington. Theories
about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift
America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many
recent highschool graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan
independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s
family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s
birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital
events attributed to Obama are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records
section in the Kew branch of the BNA. The hand written line records first
discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack
Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in
1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license
registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961. Barack Obama is said to have died in
1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more
child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according
to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved
independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of
Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official
in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the
specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs
indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health
offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the
National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to
20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or names of
the children, only gender. However, the line records are associated with index
numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration
applications filed in the archives. According to researchers, Obama’s line
records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books. Not surprisingly, when
researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the
Obama birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held
under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied
access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of
1958.
Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the
British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial
protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early
August of 2009. African news agency expressed surprise at Clintons arrival
since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before
embarking on her two week trip to Africa.
OBAMA’S FATHER FAILED TO INCLUDE BIRTH OF “SON” ON INS
APPLICATION
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s
difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the
elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend
his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama,
unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However,
INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat
herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was
allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department,
Obama the elder neglected to name is newborn son on an application for
extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and
illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have
fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more
willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S.,
especially when the other parent is an American citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams
From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the
biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the
father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”
which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The
document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement
investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe
software.
THE UGLY TRUTH
However, the sad and pathetic truth about Obama’s covert
natal history and his illegitimacy lies at the bottom of a sordid pit of lies
surrounding the paternity of his birth. Doubts about his identity, his
eligibility, his intentions, his honesty and his honorability as a man stem
from what appears to be an ugly truth about his mother’s probable sexual
involvement with multiple men associated with the radical socialist movement in
1960’s Hawaii.
Obama and his horde of abettors defend an improbable
narrative about his identity. The veracity of this narrative has been damaged
under the weight of a steady stream of crushing evidence demonstrating more
than 180 disparities and contradictions to Obama’s claims of natal legitimacy
as president.
If Obama’s cause as a usurper of power is to avenge his
father’s culture, he made the worst possible error in lying about who he is.
Vintage America is on to him. Their instincts are slowly turning Obama’s
fantasy of a socialist utopia for those he believes are humanity’s offended
into a laughingstock. By building his vision for America on clay feet of lies
about his who he is, he has undermined any intention of doing something good
and right. He is not to be trusted.
Moreover, Obama is learning the painful lesson that a
message of “Hope and Change” means something vastly different to vintage
America, the most powerful and affluent culture in human history, when that
message has been proven to come from someone as audaciously dishonest and
deceptively calculating as this son of otherness.
Recall, in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after
an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols
and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the
birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality
rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when
the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed
paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may not
contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or
it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under
HRS 571. In some cases, the biological father may not even know he is the
father if the mother has had more than one sexual partner prior to the
pregnancy. There was no DNA test in 1961, however the 1961 Vital Statistics of
the U.S. Report shows there were more than 1000 such “illegitimate” births
reported in the state of Hawaii during that year, about 1 in 17.
Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time
of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as
the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive
father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law
is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape,
incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the
paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made
accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
However, notations indicating that a certificate contains
updated paternal information would be typed or printed in the lower margin of
the new certificate, below the signature section. This lower margin of the
image of Obama’s certificate has been shown by computer experts to be concealed
by forgers using a “clipping mask”. A clipping mask is a feature available in
Adobe software which limits the viewable area on a document image through which
only selected information can be seen. In the case of Obama’s forged
certificate, the information we have been allowed to see within the frame of the
clipping mask may merely reflect an amended birth record while concealing
notations of the amendments which exists in the lower margin outside the frame
of the clipping mask.
Regardless of any level of truth about any individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the product of criminals and liars.
Regardless of any level of truth about any individual piece of information in the image, overall, the final image is the product of criminals and liars.
If Obama is not the biological father, or if paternal
information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of
Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be
released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far,
courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the
greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their
hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama,
denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of
grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal
crisis such a revelation would cause.
Cowardly judges refuse to allow any exposure Obama’s
actual natural born identity and, in their dereliction, have conjured a legal
fantasy filled with pressurizing wrath in which a candidate’s eligibility for
president is not only declared legally uncontestable but is also automatically
preeminent. In allowing this, judges have allowed a dangerous precedent in
which any foreign invader can covertly usurp the power of the U.S. government
simply by lying about their citizenship status and hiding documentation with
the help of the American media and a complicit legal system.
THE MARRIAGE SHAM
On his application, when asked the name and address of
his spouse, it appears Obama may have first written the name of his actual wife
in Kenya before blacking it out and writing “Ann S. Dunham”.
Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously
married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to
Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is
no evidence or testimony that Obama ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever
been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and
there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal
marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the
marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964.
However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no
original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama
was the father of Dunham’s child. A review of the court documents shows that at
least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was
missing from the numbering sequence.
THE INS’ PERSPECTIVE
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a
benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no
marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to
indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama had even
divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact
supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed
doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning
the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing
visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.
From the perspective of an INS agent, the circumstances
surrounding Obama’s relationship with Dunham would have raised suspicions.
Immigration fraud was rampant during Hawaii’s foreign birth accommodation era
in the 1960’s.
Since Obama was a foreigner wanting to extend his
temporary visa, the INS certainly understood that by claiming a marriage to
Dunham, it would promote INS approval of an extension, but in Dunham’s case
there was an added risk to the relationship for Obama…she was pregnant.
It appears, from the contents of documents in Obama’s INS
file, when pressed by INS agents and school officials on the actual validity of
his relationship to Dunham and baby Obama, having certainly been advised of
legal ramifications for lying, he refused to name Obama as his child but
maintained that he was married to Dunham. This indicates that Obama was either
not certain if he was the biological father, or that he knew he wasn’t.
Under child protection laws in many states, including
Hawaii, when the biological father is deceased or unidentified by the mother,
the man who is married to the mother at the time she gives birth automatically
becomes the father named on the official birth certificate until it is proven
in court that he is not the biological father. “Mandatory Legitimacy” applies
even if the birth is the result of adultery, when the mother is married at the
time of birth, until paternity is successfully contested. Today, DNA testing
allows for conclusive determinations about paternity, but in 1961, it was more
difficult to determine paternity. Hawaii’s child welfare statutes indicate the
“statutory” father’s name on the certificate may be removed by court order, if
paternity is successfully contested, after a judge has decided the case in the
interest of the child’s welfare. This law is intended to protect the child if
the mother dies.
DELUSIONS OF LEGITIMACY
Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil
Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official,
Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s
alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify
his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent
that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008,
refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the
office of president when he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination
of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then
Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned
suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his
relationship with the commission.
Ignorance, lies and lack of understanding about the
difference between a medically verified birth and a legal registration of birth
has confused the public about Obama’s natal history and eligibility.
Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on
behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule
of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be
legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.
The elder Obama’s name appears as the father of a newborn
son in images of two birth announcements appearing in two Honolulu newspapers
on August 13th and 14th, 1961. Birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 were
published automatically from a birth registration list provided directly to the
papers by the Hawaiian Department of Health. The notifications of births
provided to the Health Department, however, were not only the product of
information provided by hospitals and doctors, alone.
The distinction between the information used by the hospital
to create a “Certificate of Live Birth” and the information used by the
Department of Health to create a birth registration is that information used to
create birth registrations were allowed to be submitted from anyone possessing
credible information about the birth, including family members, witnesses or
attendants, regardless of the actual location of the birth. Contrarily, the
information on a “Live Birth” record must be verified and attested by a
licensed medical doctor qualified to determine the characteristics of a live
birth event. This is important in cases when a distinction was needed between a
“still birth” and a baby that may have been born alive but then died upon
delivery. In the latter case, both a birth certificate and a death certificate
are required while a still birth requires only a death certificate because of
the definition of a live birth under HRS 338-1.
Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to
the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of
the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National
Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births
with decadal Census figures. Unfortunately, these vital statistics reporting
guidelines are not conducive with determining the natural born status of the
child.
For example, the Bureau of Census in 1961 counted all
residents by county regardless of their temporary absence at the time of the
Census when the Census worker was able to identify residents of a county
through the information provided by others. This applies even today.
Therefore, beginning in as early as 1933, it was
determined that births must be accounted the same way for all usual residents
regardless of the mother’s location at the time of the event when that resident
mother intended to return to that county. In Hawaii, if a child did not have an
official certificate prior to the mother’s return, the local Health Department
was obligated to provide one under the Model State Vital Statistics Act of
1942, Section 8 of Hawaii’s Public Health Regulations and HRS 338.
The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy
and agency resources was very significant in 1961. The accuracy of the Census
takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S.
Vital statistics are reported annually, but the Census only occurs every ten
years which means there is large volume of population which goes untracked
between Census years. If births and deaths were not allocated to the residents
of each county, regardless of the location of the vital event, the results
would cause large disparities when compared with the Census data.
