Sunday, May 15, 2011
By Joe E. Sheldon
As I recalled this little poem the other night it set me to wondering if we in America might have a “Little Man Who Wasn’t There” in the person of a man in the Oval Office who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold that office. I saw the April 27, 2011 birth certificate posted on the White House website and wondered what it might show if it were real so I decided to find out. For starters, let’s pretend that the document posted on the WH site April 27, 2011 (hereafter WHBC) is on the up and up as the man now occupying the Oval Office pretends. Let’s also pretend that the missing birth vitals (height, weight, etc.) attested to by the physician who in fact delivered the infant are not required to show an actual birth (which of course is nonsense) and/or that any adoption or other information is of no interest - even though there is ample evidence that the individual WAS adopted in Indonesia. We’ll also ignore all of the gross and obvious signs of forgery ... we’re pretending it’s honest, ok???
What, then, does the WHBC REALLY show??? Let’s stick only to facts already known and point to definitive sources in analyzing the document. Note that we are not commenting on whether the WHBC is real or forged but merely stipulating for the purpose of this analysis that IF it is real then what does it actually tell us???1
Q. First of all why does it mostly have the same information as the 3 or 4 differing COLBs put up on the web back in 2008/9?? A good example of something like this is an item that even though incorrect and most probably indicating fraud would be the use of “African” for race rather that the term “negro” specified in the controlling definitive document, the 1961 Vital Statistics of the United States - Natality [See page 231] (hereafter called VSUS since it was under the auspices of the National Vital Statistics Division). The VSUS rigorously controls most aspects of birth certificates and the birth recording process in the US for 1961. A. It actually HAD to closely match and track the first fraudulent COLBs since to suddenly differ much at all would be an open admission that they were, indeed, committing felonious criminal document fraud in the earlier time frame. Hoist on their own petard as it were.
Q. Who determines and controls the assignment of birth certificate numbers? A. According to both Jerome Corsi in his April 28, 2011 blog on the matter and the VSUS document, only the main DOH office in the city of Honolulu does that. Corsi states the DOH Main office actually stamps the number on the certificates and he believes that numbering is done when the certificate is returned to the DOH Main office after being completed. The controlling VSUS document says that as well but also states " With few exceptions, records are numbered in the State offices of vital statistics as they are received from the local offices ..." and "... Furthermore, because the records are almost always in geographic order before numbering ..." [See page 232] and since there is only the single Main DOH office in the state, we can be assured that the numbering is as specified. This means that the Kapiolani registrations with the Nordyke Twins (10637 & 10638) were received and numbered in a different manner from the registration of the one numbered 10641. This seems a clear indicator that 10641 certificate was one of the remote office registrations (an administrative registration) used by the Dunhams and was not an in-hospital live birth (since it would then have gone with the Nordyke certificates to the Main DOH for numbering). An excellent discussion of this by Dan Crosby (who was in HI 2 months working on the material) is here and it also has a good discussion of the sequencing of the “announcement” ads for both families. The 10641 certificate also agrees with the information others have unearthed about the mother and father not living together since the VSUS document says that the street address to be used is the one that is the mother’s usual residence at the time of birth [See page 235]. There’s no requirement for the father’s address here or in the newspaper announcement of the birth (where by custom “Mr. & Mrs.” was used). So nothing here proves the couple lived together ... or even that they were married as no marriage license has ever been unearthed.
Q. Why does BC number (61 10641) have a doctor signing the block which states the child was “born alive” at the date and time indicated. A. See just above and both of the girls’ BC numbers (61 10637 and 61 10738) are in the sequence one would expect and are certified copies of actual attended birth documents with the doctor’s signature actually asserting he was the attending physician at the birth. The other document (1064) has hidden the entire section of the form entitled “For Medical and Health Use Only” which has the data blocks for height and weight and legitimacy plus is the area used for other vital record information such as adoption status, legal name changes, etc. The fact that this is not shown (in the Nordykes’ the data is not shown but is purposefully hidden) despite being required to be filled in by VSUS [See page 228; Figure 5-1] is a clear indication that the doctor is just examining an already-born infant which is allowed by HI law at the time and requires the examining physician to use the hospital where the exam was done to be the “birth location” even though no actual birth took place there. We know the birth did not happen in Kapiolani in addition due to the remote registration number indicated by the aberrant numbers when viewing 10638 & 10638. The filled-in certificates are different in nature due to the girls’ certs being attestations to actual births and the other really only stating an existing live infant was being checked - a “medical registration” vs. an “administrative registration” respectively.
Q. OK, got the picture ... the BCs are describing quite different events with the girls’ (61 10637 & 38) being real live certified in-hospital attended births and the other (61 10641) attesting to not a live birth by the attending physician but an inspection of the kid hauled into the hospital by the mother supposedly on a Monday (Aug 7) after supposedly being born on a Fri (Aug 4) presumably since no DOH Registrar doctor was available on Friday. Right?? A. Almost, but not quite. The mother filled out and signed/dated the paperwork on Aug 7, a Mon. But the doctor did the exam of the kid on Tue, Aug. 8 meaning that he surely was not the attending physician. Had the birth actually been on the 4th with the doctor in attendance almost undoubtedly he would have checked the vital signs of both mother and child, “signed off” the attendance witnessing statement with the weight, etc. in the early evening hours of that date, and then gone home. In fact HI laws even allowed that the child COULD have been born weeks or even several months earlier legally and the doctor as a registrar of the “birth” could still make the same type of attestation so it tells us nothing about the actual birth incident. Keep in mind that we also know there is NO real birth-doctor-attending birth certificate in Kapiolani as attested to by Kapiolani themselves, by several investigators, the HI governor, and the HI election official Tim Adams in addition to that same fact that Corsi’s and the Daily Pen’s investigations have shown. Those discoveries are in accord with what the out-of-order certificate numbers tell us. HI nativity laws involve some strange nomenclature such as calling an “attending” MD someone who merely examined the child rather than actually attended the birth. Aloha, y’all!!
Q. Does the WHBC show the birth to be at Kapiolani Hospital in HI as it says?? A. No. In fact it shows just the opposite - that he was NOT born there. Dr. Sinclair signing in block 19a is not attesting to his delivery of the child but rather of examining in Kapiolani Hospital a live child that is apparently reasonably healthy (though we can’t tell since that is hidden on the WHBC as mentioned above). The information on the BC such as the birth date and time, father’s name, etc. is ALL supplied by the mother (Stanley Ann Dunham Obama) as stated by her in block 18a because of the unattended, out of hospital birth. In the case of the Nordyke Twins at least some of the information on the BC would have been taken from the hospital’s admission/medical records rather than just by interviewing the mother. All of the birth information, therefore, is only as good as the word of the mother and we know this since there is no record she was ever admitted as an in-patient to the hospital as the above investigators also learned.
Q. OK - but why aren’t the BC numbers in consecutive order with Barry’s being something like 61 10633, for example, meaning a few births before the girls? A. The girls received the next available numbers from the set of numbers assigned to Kapiolani when received by the Main DOH for newborns which was following the statistical requirements of the VSUS “bible” [See page 232]. To ensure statistical accuracy the VSUS uses well-recognized and sound techniques. To prevent these vital statistics on birth being skewed by assigning BC numbers chronologically to large hospitals and not to have under-counting of “walk-in” or “remotely reported births” (which must also be counted correctly), the DOH of the state is required by the VSUS statistical methodology to assign blocks of numbers to various remote DOH offices in addition to just large hospitals so that someone walking in to one of those DOH remote offices with a newborn in tow after being recently born, perhaps, in a pineapple field (or in Kenya, say) to “register” the infant so the State of HI is aware of it and that process then requires “examination” of the recent newborn by a licensed medical doctor. This is why WHBC number is greater than that of the Nordyke girls and why it is out of sequence with them; because it was a number assigned to the particular remote office by the VSUS statistical rigor. A great explanation of this in detail can be found on the excellent writeup done by an investigator spending two months doing so.
Q. So that means he wasn’t born in Kapiolani? A. Correctamundo!! The import of this is that there was not only no Kapiolani birth but that he wasn’t even born in ANY hospital in HI since if he were he would have had the much more rigorous type of BC/attending birth physician/with the doctor certifying he delivered the infant and listing his birth metrics (height, etc.) and a BC number within the range assigned to that hospital would be used. In the case of the remote office BC number (61 10641) the infant certainly was not born on the filing cabinet in that office as he had already been registered there for a later exam. The BC number/USVS requirements tells us this was not a hospital birth. This also means that it is almost impossible the man was born in the USA since THERE IS NO RECORD OF LIVE BIRTH FROM ANY USA HOSPITAL and the registration of the child in the remote office is not a record of live birth in the USA in any respect even though HI has allowed some nonsense throughout its history. I fully expect that Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book will tell us the same story basically. There is no record of birth in the USA (period).
Q. So what can we conclude from looking at the WHBC on the Federal government’s own website and what the various politicians from the Oval Office on down (including the MSM/TV/Radio pundits) that have been swearing this image of a supposed document is “the real thing” and shows the guy to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies - being born in HI and being a US citizen and all??? A. Haven’t you been listening?? We have conclusively shown using the WNBC that the man was not only not born in the HI hospital he claims but that he was not born in ANY HI hospital but merely had his birth (with an unknown birth date that could easily have been weeks or months before the claimed date) registered so HI would know he existed and with a bit of fudging he could pretend to be an “American” and HI could obtain Federal $$$ for the kid ... your tax dollars at work. The man is not only not of HI birth as he has been claiming by birth in Kapiolani Hospital, he was almost undoubtedly born in some other country and may even have been smuggled in to HI. Keep in mind that his whole family (including the man himself) has a long track record of being a bunch of serial scofflaws. In fact, we can’t be sure of his real birth date or his name, either, which probably leads to the title “El Presidente Wetback”!
His WHBC shows (and this is setting aside the felonious criminal document fraud committed in forging the various generations of it) him to be not eligible to hold the office he now occupies but it also shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt not only his political brown-nosers are but also how brutally stupid the supposedly bright people like (you can name hundreds here) Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olberman, Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Bill Scheifer and zillions of others are; they have been completely conned, bamboozled, and defrauded by this ne’er-do-well. This really isn’t rocket science and I can only suppose they also were hoping to destroy our country just as the man himself apparently is intent on doing. Just to be aboveboard about it, all of the Congress in session when the 2008 election took place and all of the Supreme Court members have chosen to look the other way and not even think there might be a tad bit of conclusive information as to this man’s lack of eligibility to hold the office he now occupies but instead turned away! What a bunch of wimps and sycophants that, as cowards do, put their own fears and financial interests above the needs of our country!!!
What would happen were our military men and women to do that on a large scale??? In fact, almost every single one of the above are either criminally stupid, are working to help this usurper, or just never bothered to consider that anyone knew anything but they themselves - and that was to hang onto whatever they had and not rock the boat and be ridiculed!!! The ones who should be ridiculed - it will turn out - are those very ones listed above as being either criminally culpable or criminally stupid. You choose!!
In reality, the WHBC (or the several others from 2008/9) isn’t needed to show the man is ineligible which is the saddest thing of all since he told EVERYONE before the election that his father was an alien - a Brit - and that made him a Brit also at birth no matter where he was born (including even the Lincoln Bedroom). God knows what he is now, but it is certainly not an American citizen since his mother was too young to make him one and his father was an alien. He’s perhaps an Indonesian or (my bet) an illegal alien named Barry Soetoro. But the SOB is NOT an American citizen ... not even a naturalized one ... nor has he shown himself to be.
For several years now (with the willing compliance of most of the big box media types) he has been trying to make everyone believe that his eligibility is just a matter of being an American citizen and showing a BC that presents him that way. That isn’t the requisite point, but as we have shown he has failed in that even using his own WHBC. The real requirement is - and always has been - whether he meets the three Constitutional requirements and he clearly does not even with his “custom-made” WHBC.
Many people these days do not realize that some of those who have preceded us had more sense that we like to admit. For example this situation is aptly described by a gent even before we became a country:
Getting back to more modern times, perhaps the Little Man description here from Mad Magazine is more apt:
In any event, it’s time to attend to seeing about the Little Man Who Wasn’t There (and his myrmidons) while we still have a country.
By Joe E. Sheldon, citizen