Wednesday, July 18, 2012
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.
(Editors 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.)
(Editors 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
(Updated 7/23/2012)
(Updated 7/23/2012)
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.
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.
Based on procedures defined in Britain’s Births & Deaths Registration Act of 1953, The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office states the following:
Based on procedures defined in Britain’s Births & Deaths Registration Act of 1953, The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office states the following:
“Registering A Birth
If your child is born outside the United Kingdom you can register the birth with the nearest consulate (Local British Foreign & Commonwealth Regional Registrar Office), or with our consular department in London if you’ve returned to the United Kingdom...
The standard of birth registration in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Africa and Overseas Territories is similar to the standard of birth registration of the UK.”
The British Registration Service Act of 1953 (UK Revised Statutes) states that the Queen appoints one Registrar General for the registration of vital records. His or her name would appear the same on all birth certificates of children born under British common law in 1961 until the end of their service. Article 1 of the Registration Service Act of 1953 states:
“1 Registrar General…Her Majesty may from time to time under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom appoint a Registrar General…and any person so appointed shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by or under any enactment on the Registrar General, whether described by that title alone or with any additional description, and shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure.”
The specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files:
General Register Office
SERIES RG36
Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia
|
Legal status: Public Record(s)
|
Language: English
|
Creator names: General Register Office, 1836-1970
|
Covering Birth Registration dates: 1895-1965
|
Physical description: 15 volume(s)
|
Access conditions: Available in microform only
|
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
|
Scope and content: Notifications
forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under
administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda,
Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and
British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates.
|
Publication note: Geoffrey
Yeo 'The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births,
Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United
Kingdom', London, 2nd edn, 1988.
|
Related material: Some
earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during
which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular
registers retained in the custody of the registrar general.
|
Place: Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 - 1963
|
Subjects: Birth: registration
|
Recall, on August 1, 2009, Dr. Alan Keyes, Pamela Barnett and 42 other plaintiffs filed evidence in a lawsuit challenging Obama eligibility which included a copy of an image of an alleged Kenyan Copy of Certification of Registration of Birth (CCRB). In the hours after the image appeared on the internet, MSNBC and other liberal mainstream, pro-Obama networks went ballistic attempting to debunk the idea that such a document exists.
The liberal media went out of its way to discredit the image, protesting too much, going as far as to claim that the Kenyan CCRB image was forged based on an Australian birth certificate which was miraculously discovered by an unnamed blogger for a man named Bomford.
On August 2, Keith Olbermann led the deranged effort on his now defunct "Countdown" show to lie and propagandize the CCRB using insults and baseless criticism of unknown "birthers" who he claimed "attempted and failed to pass off a forgery."
Strangely, however, no one in the mainstream liberal media would address the question now answered by the recent discovery at the BNA. The Bomford document and the Kenyan CCRB would indeed appear the same under British birth registration processes and documentation formats because both municipalities in Kenya and Australia, in 1961, operated under the Registrar General of the British government.
It is now supported by the evidence discovered in the BNA that the Bomford document image from Australia was accessed and used by pro-Obama operatives as a template to alter the image of the Kenyan CCRB image in order to make it appear that "birthers" had created a bad counterfeit of a Kenyan birth record for Obama. This was done by Obama's forgers to create "shell game" confusion among the public and misdirect media attention from the truth that an original, unaltered Kenyan CCRB, which was never allowed to be publicly seen in its original form before Obama's forgers were able to access and change it, was actually an image of a legitimate document posted by unknown individuals who were known by Obama to possess the document before hand.
Essentially, the Bomford affair was just another coverup to hide Obama's foreign birth records.
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.
However,
evidence shows these records were available for public access before
August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in
Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
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.
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.
