Monthly Archives: May 2012

Soros Threats to the Media Re: Eligibility

George Soros Threats to the Media to Silence Them on Eligibility


“Verification” Verifies – if anything – that Obama’s Record is Legally Non-valid

Bennett told TheCipher (a Freeper) he DID ask for the birth date – which was only on the request form, so he must not have withdrawn the form request. If that’s the case, then this verification is the official response to that form.

The “verification” references HRS 338-14.3 and calls itself a “verification of birth”. HRS 338-14.3 says, in part:

“(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”

By responding at all the HDOH acknowledged Bennett’s eligibility to receive a verification. By referencing HRS 338-14.3 they are acknowledging that what they disclose is governed by that. They are REQUIRED to verify the existence of a certificate, and they did that. They did not claim that the place of birth was Honolulu, HI – only that the birth certificate “indicates” (not verifies) a Honolulu, HI birth.

The procedure for verifying the facts of birth is that the person applying for a verification gives the facts in question and the HDOH repeats back to them anything that they got right and verifies that it is correct. Anything they don’t verify as correct is not correct – either because there is something else in that field on the birth record, or because the facts about the birth cannot be certified as accurate (because the certificate is not legally valid).

When filling out that form, Bennett presumably gave the HDOH the following guesses for facts:

Gender: male
Date of birth: Aug 4, 1961
City and island of birth: Honolulu, HI/ Oahu
Father’s name: Barack Hussein Obama
Mother’s name: Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama

The HDOH did not verify any of those facts, so they are either not what is claimed on the BC or the BC they’re on is not a legally valid record.

But the HDOH verified that the information on Obama’s posted long-form matches the information on the original record. So that can’t be the reason.

That leaves a legally non-valid record as the only reason for their refusal to verify those “facts of birth”.

This “verification” – if it legally verifies anything, given the initials by the certification on it – actually verifies that Obama’s birth record is not legally valid.

That being the case, the other items to be verified “from the record” are clearly being verified only as being ON that record – not being the true facts of his birth. If they couldn’t verify the true date and place of birth or parents’ names because the record was legally invalid, then they can’t verify ANYTHING from that BC as being true. All they can verify is what is on it, not that what is on it is true. Which is actually what is implied in the certifying statement.

Again – if the HDOH has verified anything with this “verification”, it is that Obama’s birth record is legally non-valid.

Sorting Before Numbering BC’s?

Sorting Before Numbering BC’s?

Geographic Codes and Sorting Before Numbering BC’s

I want to briefly respond to the claims made in an article at – specifically the claims that

1. The 50% sampling that the CDC used in their Natality Report mandates that state registrars’ offices first sort birth certificates by location, then put them in sequential order, and then number them – in order to make sure that outlying areas didn’t get missed altogether in the reporting because all their BC#’s just happened to receive odd rather than even BC numbers; and

2. That the birth announcements in the newspapers are in order of birth certificate number.


Short answer: No; the BC’s were ALREADY in geographical batches by location of birth because the local registrars submitted all the BC’s for that registration district together.

The 1961 Natality Report justifies the accuracy of the 50% sampling in this way:

Final birth data for 1951-54 and 1956-61 have been
derived from 5O-percent samples which consist of only
even-numbered birth records. l4 Statistics for these years
were obtained by multiplying the sample figures by 2,
Prior to 1951 and for 1955, annual birth statistics were
based on the total file of birth records.

The sample data represent estimates which differ
somewhat from figures that would have been derived by
processing all the records. However, the manner in which
records are numbered greatly reduces the sampling variability
of totals for geographic areas. With few exceptions,
records are numbered in the State offices of vital statistics
as they are received from the local offices. The assignment
of the last digit in the number is not selective, and the
systematic sample of even-numbered records may be
assumed to be unbiased. Furthermore, because the records
are almost always in geographic order before numbering,
twice the sample count of births occurring in the great
majority of counties in table 3-1 in Section 3 is virtually
the same as the corresponding figure based on all records

Several points made there are confirmed by Hawaii’s own records and statements. HDOH Communications Director, Janice Okubo, has confirmed that the birth certificates have always been numbered by the state registrar and that for Oahu birth certificates they are almost always numbered on the same day as they are received by the local registrar.

The HDOH Administrative Rules in effect in 1962 – which are apparently the first state codification of the rules in effect during the Territorial Period – say that Oahu registrars were to collect birth certificates for a week and then submit them to the state registrar. Non-Oahu birth certificates were to be collected in the local registration offices for a month and then all the birth certificates in that office on the 4th of the month were to be air-mailed to the state HDOH office. So when the HDOH office got the BC’s they would either come in a pile from the Oahu registrars or else actually be in packages from each separate island – IOW, sorted by geography, as the quote above notes..

So a whole month’s worth of BC’s from Big Island, for instance, would come in one package. They would be numbered one after the other – and there would be no risk of those BC’s all being numbered with odd numbers, or even being disproportionately numbered with odd numbers, as Johannsen asserts would be the case.

The whole point of the CDC’s quote above is that the state registrar received the BC’s in batches from a particular geographic location (the local registrar for that area) and numbered them as he got them in his office, WITHOUT ANY SORTING BASED ON OTHER CRITERIA– and that is why 50% sampling could be trusted. The outlying birth certificates would NOT” get lost” amongst the Honolulu BC’s because the outlying BC’s would all come in together and be numbered one right after the other. If those BC’s had first been alphabetized, sorted by birth date or “date received by local registrar”, or sorted in any other way there would be the risk of the outlying BC’s being buried among the Honolulu BC’s, but the point of the above quote is that those kinds of sorting DIDN’T happen. The BC’s were received in batches from local areas and were numbered as they were received in the state registrar’s office. The BC’s from a particular area were numbered in sequence and were just as likely to be numbered with an even as with an odd number.

So what about the geographical coding? Short answer: The coding was done at the national offices; the state offices had nothing to do with geographical coding.

A general description of the vital records process and duties at local, state, and national levels is found at , with the summary chart on p. 69 of the PDF. To know the specifics about a particular state you have to look at the laws and rules for that state.

In Hawaii, the 1955 Territorial Public Health Statistics Act (which was added to in 1962 to convert to a state system) said that the National Office of Vital Statistics could either pay the real cost for their own copy of the state’s birth certificate microfilms, or they could pay the local registrars a standard fee/certificate to transcribe the data from the certificate. The CDC’s 1961 Natality Report says (on p 227 of the PDF) that with the exception of California, Georgia, Michigan, and New York City:

tabulations for 1961 are based on information obtained
from microfilm copies of the original certificates. These
copies were received from the registration offices of all
States, certain cities, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands. The statistical information on these
records was edited, classified, placed on punchcards, and
tabulated in the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD).

So in 1961 the National Vital Statistics Division got a copy of Hawaii’s microfilmed birth certificates. Page 232 of the 1961 Natality Report says NVSD workers codified and punched onto punchcards the data from all even-numbered certificates, and then tabulated the statistics using the coded punchcards. The geographic codes that Pen Johannsen refers to were codes that were entered at the NATIONAL office, based on the information found on the raw birth certificates. The instructions for coding were used by the employees in the NATIONAL office and are irrelevant to what the states actually did.


No. Some names are listed in only one paper, some in both, and some in neither, based on actual copies of the birth announcements (from all of August and September in both papers) and on the August births reported in the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report. The names above and below a given name in a list aren’t always the same in the Advertiser as in the Star-Bulletin. Some names appear in one paper weeks before they appear in the other paper.

To be truthful, the announcements themselves refute the idea that the HDOH even put out a list of births that the newspapers published. There are too many inconsistencies.

Take, for instance, the Nordyke twins. There is one birth announcement for both girls, and it only appears in the Advertiser. It appears on a different day than both Obama and Stig Waidelich, who supposedly were born at the same hospital within one day of each other and the Nordykes. By geography/local registrar all 4 of those children should have their birth announced in the same day’s list, if what Johannsen is saying is correct – and yet they appear 3 days apart in the Advertiser, and the Nordykes not at all in the Star-Bulletin. And yet Waidelich (who appears in the Advertiser 3 days before the Nordykes) supposedly has a number several hundred higher than the Nordykes. Obama, who appears in the same announcement as Waidelich, has a BC# several hundred lower than Waidelich – and there are nowhere near a couple hundred births announced on that same day.

Neither the announcements nor the alleged BC#’s make sense with Johannsen’s theory, with the theory that the birth announcements even CAME from a single list put out by the HDOH, or with any theory of how birth certificates were numbered. Either the BC#’s were issued totally randomly, or else the HDOH has been messing with their BC#’s.

The claim that the announcements surrounding Obama’s were identical in the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin is simply not true. As I’ve published in another post here, the Star-Bulletin had 28 more announcements on Aug 14th than were included in the Advertiser’s Aug 13 list. The Advertiser’s Will Hoover claimed to look in the microfilms and claims that the names right above and below Obama’s name were the same and so that proves the list was from the HDOH – but if he really looked at that microfilm he saw that the Star-Bulletin had a LOT MORE names than the Advertiser had – which doesn’t fit the story that both papers copied from a single HDOH list. He chose not to report that. The images of the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin – WHICH BOTH CAME FROM SOMEBODY AT THE ADVERTISER OFFICE – were conveniently cropped and magnified at just the right level so that the lists APPEARED to be identical. But anybody who has looked at the actual microfilm copies would have immediately noticed that discrepancy.

An Aside – Quilts

My computer isn’t letting me edit these so I can’t rotate them. These are quilts, except the “Home Free” banner. The one with the black background was a quilt I made for a friend, to remind her that when all around is dark, the grace of God and His promises shine all the more brightly. The inside of each star had one of the Lord’s promises on it. I tied it rather than quilting it because I wanted to give it to her very quickly. It was one of the first quilts I made. I made one for my husband just like it except on a white background and quilted instead of tied. It’s very worn now. If I can get it repaired I’ll add a photo of it. We’re warmed and comforted ourselves, wrapped in the promises of God for a long time now. The quilt wears out from use, but God’s promises only get stronger in our hearts as we see them carry us through, time after time after time.

We may be in for some tough times soon. No matter what happens, never forget – the Lord keeps His promises, and He loves and forgives you. He will take care of all of us, and in His promises we can sleep sound at night and live with confidence no matter how dark the world around us gets.




Hawaii’s Non-Verification

HI Non Verification (1)

Here are some additional links to support that Bennett had to “re-word” his request in order to get a response:

Wisch claiming Bennett hadn’t provided proof that he is eligible to receive verification: 
Bennett quoted as saying, ” I’m happy that we got what we asked for and that’s what I was expecting all along ” :

Important Updates



I’m heading out the door to work but wanted my readers to be able to access some posts I’ve put up at Free Republic, dealing with content related to recent stories. This stuff all ties together. Hopefully I’ll eventually get the content posted here too but it’ll have to be when I’ve got my work done so in the meantime, there’s a lot of stuff to digest:



What’s wrong with the COLB – and why it seems clear that Obama is using Virginia Sunahara’s BC#


More on how we know that the HDOH altered their database – apparently to change the name on BC# 341 from Sunahara to Obama:


Clarification of what “legally non-valid” means, how they would manipulate the BC#’s, and why they had to alter the 1960-64 birth index in order to get Sunahara and Obama to show at the same time:



The games the HDOH is playing with AZ SOS Ken Bennett: (and read follow-up posts where I diagram the statute so it can be seen that Bennett is entitled to receive a verification)


Why the HDOH has to play games rather than simply verify the facts (hint: they can’t LEGALLY verify Obama’s facts because his BC is late and amended): .


Arizona election statutes and why Ken Bennett is doing the right thing:


Why Ken Bennett needs to audit all the vital records and citizenship records even if the HDOH does (illegally) verify Obama’s birth facts: And here’s the active link for the OIG report referenced: A very short synopsis of it here:



Two posts, one by Ladysforest (at ) and one by me (at which tie the suspicious circumstances of Lori Starfelt’s reported death with what has been reported by Bettina Viviano and Michele Thomas about how Bill and Hillary Clinton were scared out of their plans to challenge Obama’s eligibility at the Denver Convention after good Clinton friend (and Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman) Bill Gwatney was shot to death and Stephanie Tubbs died of a supposed aneurysm after each in turn had agreed to present the challenge at the convention – both deaths occurring within a couple weeks of the convention. Some links about that – WND interview of Michele Thomas


Bettina Viviano interview and more about 2008 primary: This link alludes to some articles on Ulsterman Report with details that seem to pan out, particularly about big problems amongst democratic insiders:







What needs to be added to my “Attention Bill O’Reilly” post here – showing what happened with the ADVERTISER images (the first appearance of the full-page version was posted for a very brief time through Wikileaks by Jeena Paradies – and was in OCR format, since I found it by searching for “Norman Asing”. OCR format allows content in a document to be altered. That version was given to Michael Rivero at by somebody at the Advertiser office, claiming it was from the Advertiser’s microfilm and then the Wikileaks posting was taken down. Later the Advertiser posted an article with the full page deliberately blurred and only a small segment clear enough to read – BUT that segment lacked some of the supposed “scratches” (C&P marks) which were supposedly on that microfilm just weeks earlier when somebody at the Advertiser gave the image to Michael Rivero):




Why Obama’s “born in Kenya” claim in his bio was not just a lie to make him more intriguing:


WHY THE MEDIA IS COVERING FOR OBAMA (on both the Arpaio presser and on the 1991 bio):

More links at



Okay. That should keep y’all busy while I get my work done. Lol. Blessings!