🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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:

�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
Courtesy: British National Archives


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.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/07/obamas-kenyan-birth-
records-discovered.html















�





.#e6