Posse leader Mike Zullo said in response to a reporter’s question about Honolulu newspaper birth announcements that list Barack Obama:
I was hoping that one didn’t come up. The birth announcements and that birth registry which is just line items, we have information – not information, we have evidence, and we can prove beyond a doubt, that not only are foreign births registered in those birth announcements, and the line item registrations, we also know and have information – not information, let me correct myself, we have documented evidence of two adopted individuals that were breathing three years prior were listed as newborn infants. It’s not creditable, because it doesn’t tell us anything. We know a birth took place. And, maybe a little homework to clear it up.
The only reasonable way to interpret Mr. Zullo’s words “those birth announcements” is the announcements that appeared in Honolulu newspapers around the time of Barack Obama’s birth – say within a few years when an observation would be relevant. Further the phrase “that birth registry” based on any reasonable standard of relevance would refer to the Department of Health’s birth index from around the time of Barack Obama’s birth in 1961, or a few years around that time.
Now here’s the problem: We know from the testimony of an old-timer Honolulu journalist (CNN interview) that the newspaper announcements, and certainly the birth index (!) came from the Department of Health (or the Health Bureau as it was called back then). The Health Bureau didn’t register foreign births until 1982, see [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. So how could it be true that a foreign-born child appeared among the children listed under Health Bureau Statistics in the newspaper or in the birth registry 20 years before the law allowing it was passed?
Zullo claims that he has evidence that foreign births were listed in the newspaper and in the State’s birth index. However, based on the law that appears to be impossible. Unless the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office discloses what this unspecified evidence is, I think it more likely than not that Zullo lied. I don’t doubt that Zullo believes that such foreign registrations are possible; I think he lied about having any evidence.
Well…let’s see the Lamestream jump all over this little item…then see what it all leads back…sure hope they bite.
nah they won’t bite they couldn’t see fit to have msm of any sort there for the press release and god knows it was out there long enough you would think one of them would have picked up on it.
This gets more confusing by the minute.
The announcement wasn’t listed under the Health Bureau Statistics. It was merely a birth announcement placed in the newspaper by his grandmother.
Check again, I have and put a link to it. Thanks for your comments. I’m J.C. and I run this circus.
Hawaii didn’t register foreign births until 1982, huh? How, then, do you explain the Hawaiian birth certificate of Sun Yat-sen, who was born in China?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii
Excellent question, they kept them on file but didn’t formally register them until then. I’m well aware of Sun-Yatsen’s long form have seen a copy if in fact it is true. Now why are you not asking the obvious question, if Sun had a long form why didn’t Obey? I’m J.C. and I run this circus.
Please read this and get back to me. Thanks Michael.
Sorry forgot to send the link.
VITAL RECORDS INDICATE OBAMA NOT BORN IN HAWAII HOSPITAL (PART 3)
By Penbrook Johannson and Daniel Crosby Of THE DAILY PEN
DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: Historical evidence provided by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Reference Library System now confirms the information appearing within the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” disregards his actual foreign birthplace while, instead, providing a statistically based “geographic allocation” which is a result of a widely misunderstood natality data reporting policy which began in 1950. Stalling for four years since Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007, under mounting political pressures and legal challenges, the White House unveiled a lone scrap of counterfeit information in the form of a desolate internet image which, after a six month criminal investigation, now confirms that Obama’s presidency is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
NEW YORK, NY – Barack Obama has misled millions into believing he is eligible to hold the office of the U.S. presidency by exploiting a little known secret about his Hawaiian-based natal records which were issued in conjunction with a commonly used, but publicly misunderstood, vital statistics reporting anomaly used to allocate birthplace according to residency by the State of Hawaii in 1961.
Following a six month investigation by an Arizona-based law enforcement agency proving that the image of Barack Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally fabricated forgery, it has now been confirmed that the information contained in the document, which claims he was born in the state of Hawaii, is nothing more than the result of a widely misunderstood statistical reporting trick.
As early as 1934, this arbitrary, but necessary method was enacted by the U.S. Census Bureau and later written into law with the passage of the Model State Vital Statistics Act of 1942. It was then fully adopted by all state-level vital records agencies, including those within the then territory of Hawaii, in 1950 in order to improve the collaborative accuracy of data harvested by America’s decadal census and statistics reported annually by state vital records agencies.
Though commonly practiced by vital records data collection agencies of federal and state governments as a means of defining “residency” in birth data reporting, the policy completely disqualifies birth records as the only source of information about a candidate to determine Natural-born eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
The birthplace shown on a birth certificate is entered as the result of the mother’s place of residence, not the location of the occurrence of the birth.
The truth about this information is so damning to Obama’s fraudulent assertions of presidential eligibility, counterfeiters and leftist propagandists operating on behalf the liberal establishment chose to digitally fabricate, conceal and misrepresent these critical facts prior to submitting public information about Obama’s natal history.
CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MISALLOCATION OF BIRTHPLACE
As discussed previously in parts one and two of this report, the combination of Hawaii’s unique culture, isolated geographic characteristics, unfettered immigration policy and municipal development challenges in the 1960s prompted the use of vital records registration protocols by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health which undermine the reliability of birth certificate information as a means of determining the natural-born citizenship of any individual.
However, it is now clear that Obama exploited the existence of a widely misunderstood natal data reporting method implemented by the federal government, 11 years before his birth certificate was issued, based on an arbitrary statistical application which classifies the actual place of birth by allocating it as occurring in the same location as the mother’s “place of residence”. This allocation is made regardless of the actual location of the birth because the data provided about the birth to the Census Bureau is used for calculating the impact of natality on resident population and, therefore, must be recorded by the registrar using the same criteria used to count those defined as residents by the Census.
The allocation of births to “place of residence” protocol was implemented sporadically beginning in 1935 to provide for statistical integrity between decadal Census data collection and more frequently collected natality rates taken from real-time birth registrations. Prior to the implementation of the policy, the accumulative affect of non-resident and foreign birth statistics on U.S. birth volumes caused a skewing of natality rates when compared to Census population rate data. These errors had to be corrected in order to use the data for accurately measuring resources in developing public health services, municipal infrastructure and women’s reproductive health research.
Between 1937 and 1949, the NCHS published the annual version of its statistical reporting manuals containing a section called “Vital Statistics of the U.S., Part II Geographic Classification By Place of Residence” which explains, among many other arbitrary rules, the reasoning and methods used to show natal statistics for foreign-born children of U.S. resident mothers.
The manuals repetitively explain that the tabulation of vital statistics taken from birth certificates, on a “place-of-residence” basis, requires that the information given on the certificate must be allowed “to be interpreted in such a way” as to afford statistical classifications of birth geography used to calculate natality rates which are comparable with statistical classifications of population geography used to account census data.
This means the Hawaiian registrar was/is directed to record the place of birth as being the same as the mother’s place of residence, regardless of where it actually occurred. This explains why Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” states that his birthplace was in Hawaii even though he was not likely born there. His birth affected the population of the community where his mother lived, not where she gave birth to him.