OUT OF ORDER: Obama’s Certificate Number Is Based On Geography, Not Chronological Birth Order!
by Penbrook One
REPORT REVEALS SHOCKING PROOF: Contrary to recent implications, new evidence supports that Barack Obama was not actually delivered in Kapi’olani hospital, as records suggest, but, rather, he was merely examined there by a private practitioner in the days following his birth, which triggered the validation of an administratively issued “Certificate of Live Birth” registration, not a hospital generated birth certificate representing an actual delivery which was later numbered due to an 'externally registered' birth.

By Pen Johannson and Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

The one thing we've come to realize about Obama's covert identity is that if there suddenly appears information alleging to confirm it, it is highly probable that the information is unintentionally wrong or intentionally misleading. As Obama recently said, "We don't have time for this silliness."

The evidence herein is somewhat belaboring and intensive, but necessary to understand in order to place Obama’s recently revealed, highly questionable Health Department-issued “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration in its accurate context. Forget for a moment that the document is probably forged or that it confirms or denies anything. Just look at the data and measure it against the facts and what we know.

If you can ignore the fact that the name of the attesting local registrar who signed Obama's Certificate of Live Birth appears to be a possible forger's play on the word for a Hawaiian musical instrument, "UKULELE" (U. K. L. Lee), we will begin this report under the auspices that this alleged "Certificate of Live Birth" document image is an authentic record and that no conspiracy was required in order to create it, even though we know better.



Odd named local registrar signature on Obama's alleged certificate appears to be a forger's play on the Hawaiian word, "UKULELE" (U.K.L. Lee)
Remember the constroversy in August of 2009, when alleged, unnamed hackers affixed the name E.F. Lavender to a document purported to be an Obama Kenyan Birth Registration? It appears what's forged for the goose is also faked for the gander.

It makes one wonder when one of these brilliant document-smiths will create convincing documentation which finally reveals that Obama's father was actually a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth. The only way to make Obama eligible is to convince the world his father was a U.S. citizen. What? No takers? We must come to accept that Obama's eligibility is that far from being valid.

However, regardless of its authenticity, we can also conclude it was not released by Kapi’olani hospital because it remains undocumented by that facility that Obama was actually born there. Rather, this document would have been released by the Hawaiian Department of Health based on that state's long-standing municipal vital records laws which mandate the creation of such an official birth record based, not only upon indigenous birth occurrences, but also residential circumstances of the parents preceding the birth.

TRICKY NUMBERS

Let's assume this "Certificate of Live Birth" document image is an authentic representation of an official record for a moment. It doesn't change the essential questions which remain about Obama's natural born identity. Was he born to parents who were U.S. citizens? Was he actually delivered in a U.S. Hospital at birth, not just examined there post-delivery by an attending physician? Did he lose his natural born status as an adopted resident of Indonesia?

Since the 2008 disclosure of Obama’s previously “only official” Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” just days before being ensconced to the Oval Office, many continue to wonder why Obama’s birth registration number is out of sequence with at least two other registration numbers issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health in the days after Obama’s birth.

The answer to this question may have been answered in the 1961 Vital Statistics of United States Report in which it clarifies the manner in which birth records are assigned registration numbers. The guidelines in the report declare that registration numbers are assigned and stamped in the upper right margin of the certificates by the main office of each state's Health department office in geographic order of their reception in the main office from the multiple local offices around each state. The certificates are not assigned numbers according to chronological birth order or alphabetic order.

Why is this significant in relation to Obama's Certificate of Live Birth? Here's why.

This number ordering process was put in place by federal standards because the birth statistics from each state in 1961 were reported from each state to the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Office, based a 50-percent sampling method, FROM EVEN-NUMBERED RECORDS ONLY! (Section 5-8 Natality).

This means that, since the NVSD counted only those statistics from even-numbered certificates, in order to ensure a level of accuracy representing actual regional natality statistics for the whole geography of the United States, birth registration numbers had to be assigned geographically, not chronologically, because there was no way to ensure that all the EVEN-NUMBERED samples from births occurring in a given yearly time frame would not result from only densely populated regions, like large cities.

The listing of birth registrations below illustrates how regional ordering of registration numbers affects the chronological order. Notice that the first three birth registrations occuring in Regions 1,2 & 3 are assigned lower numbers than the first birth registration in Region 4 for a birth which occurred one day earlier. This is because the birth registration for Region 4 was the first one received by the main office which is 189 miles from the local registration office in Region 4. The main office of this State's Health Department is in Region 1. The registration numbers are assigned in their order of reception by the main office, not the chronological occurrence of the birth.
However, depending on the location of the newspaper in relationship to the local registration office in each region, the birth announcements might be printed in entire batches from just one region or a culmination of several small regions, which ever effectively filled the allocated space in the paper while announcing births as soon as possible without mixing the regions too much.

In Obama's case, his birth was registered in a regional office which was covered by the same newspapers as the main office of the Health Department. Therefore, his announcement would have been published as one of a batch of registrations from one or just a few regional registrations. The larger the batch, the more space required in the paper to cover an entire region. So, smaller batches and smaller regions were published first.

Therefore, because walk-in registrations and non-hospital births were more rare than the thousands of traditional hospital or facility births, they had to be isolated by regional offices in order make sure they were represented in the national vital statistics report. If birth registration numbers were assigned only based on chronological order, these rural births, walk-in registrations or non-hospital births might inadvertently all fall on odd-numbered records among the thousands of other births in the reporting year, state-wide. This would present inaccurate data about rural birth rates, birth health and rural demographics.

For example, let's say there were 10,000 births which were registered within the city of Honolulu in 1961 and there were another 1000 births which occurred in the sparsely populated rural areas outside of Honolulu during that same time for a total of 11,000 births in 1961.


If all 11,000 births were simply collected by the main office of the Health Department and assigned numbers based on their chronological occurence, the 1,000 rural birth might risk being registered with odd-numbers among the other 10,000 conventional hospital births. This would create inaccurate data about the non-hospital birth rate, which tends to be a measurement of births among lower income rural communities, remote indigenous populations, foreign immigrants and home deliveries, when it was reported to the U.S. Department of Health's National Vital Statistics Division for its annual report, which was based on a 50-percent reporting method of even-numbered certificates only. Obama's birth registration was allegedly assigned an odd-number among the other birth registrations for his regional office.


REGIONAL BIRTH REGISTRATION NUMBERS VS. CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH REGISTRATION NUMBERS...ILLUSTRATED

The tables below illustrate the difference in accuracy between reporting natal statistics based on a CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH NUMBERING ORDER and report natal statistics based on REGIONAL BIRTH NUMBERING ORDER.

In Table 1, we have listed the births which took place the same week as Obama's in chronological order and assigned them numbers based their order of occurrence. The birth registrations in grey occurred as a result of unattended, non-hospital or "walk-in" registration births which may not have occurred in Hawaii but which were registered as native births under Hawaiian laws or administrative procedures which do not align with the U.S. Constitution's "evidence for eligibility" mandate. These births were assigned numbers in chronological order along with all the other births occuring this week in hospitals around the state.
Given that the state of Hawaii was obligated to report only those natal statistics from even-numbered registrations, it would report only one (Obama's birth) of the six "walk-in" registrations, because only one had an even numbered registration. Therefore, only two of these unconventional births would be reported in the NVSD Report for Hawaii for this week, which is completely inaccurate for these rare birth rates.


However, Table 2 reflects the same births occurring the week of Obama's, only this time, the births are shown in their order of announcement in the newspapers based on REGIONAL ORDER and are assigned registration numbers base on their order of regional birth registration in local offices, not chronological order state-wide.
Notice that the same six "non-hospital" births are shown here, regionally, but are assigned different numbers than they would have been assigned if they were ordered chronologically. The same six "walk-in" registration births are now numbered based on their regional occurence and are now accounted for accurately even with the 50% - Even-Number reporting method used by the U.S. Department of Health in 1961, based on their regional order, not their chronological order. Although Obama's birth would not be reported based on his ODD-Numbered registration, the NVSD report would show a total of six "rural" or "non-hospital" total births for the state, which is an accurate accounting.

If the Hawaiian Department of Health assigned registration numbers based only on chronological order, the six rural births risk being underrepresented when the U.S. Department of Health requests Hawaii's EVEN-NUMBERED natal statistics for 1961 because those rural births might happen to occur in chronological order in which they are numbered with too many ODD NUMBERS and, therefore, be lost among the massive quantity of city births and, thus, the rural birth rate would be under-reported to the U.S. Department of Health.

Therefore, in order for the U.S. Department of Health to maximize accuracy and present the U.S. Natal Statistics report for as many geographic birth regions as possible, the numbers assigned by the main office in each state had to maximize sets of EVEN-NUMBERED certificates from as many geographic regions in the state as possible, regardless of the time of birth. Otherwise, if the numbers were only assigned based on chronological birth order, the records of births taking place in a large city might be represented by thousands of even numbers, whereas none or an "undercounted" number of rural births might be innaccurately represented if, by chance, they just happened fall on the remaining odd-numbered records.

The birth announcements shown here were those actually published with Barack Obama's announcement. They have been re-arranged from their original publishing order to demonstrate the results of chronological numbering over regional numbering. If the births in red happended to be walk-in registrations from a remote region of the state, those births would only have one birth assigned with an even-numbered registration qualified to be reported by the state to the U.S. Department of Health's NVSD. Therefore, since only one registration is even-numbered (out of six) the Natal Statistics Report would inaccurately reflect a birth rate 67% lower than it actually was for this region (2 births instead 6 births) based on counting only even-numbers. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Health enacted regional number sequences which would account for all six births in this situation.


Because rural births occur at a lower and slower rate than city births, rural births have a higher probability of being under-reported if they were only included in a chronological reporting order, rather than a geographic "regional batch" reporting order. What is the probability of one rural birth falling on a chronologically ordered ODD NUMBER among hundreds of traditional hospital births which would be more accurately represented by a 50-percent sampling of EVEN NUMBERS? Statistics for non-city or non-hospital births might not be reported at all if they were included in a chronological numbering order.

Therefore, the main offices of the state health departments were instructed to assign the numbering of certificates in the order of reception from each geographic registration location, not chronological sequence, in order to maximize report sampling and to ensure the best possible reporting accuracy from as many regions as possible, not just where populations were dense and where birth quantities were high.

This is a probable explanation for Obama's non-sequential birth registration number which is sequentially higher than registration numbers for births occurring after his. His number was assigned based on a registration which originated in a regional office or location not used to register births occurring at Kapi'olani. Obama's birth registration may have been a "walk-in" registration which relied upon a doctor's signature after examination of a newborn Obama, but not a birthing physician's signature present at the time of birth.


Since the birth announcements were published based on the order in which they were received from the main office of the health department, which assigned registration numbers based on the order they were received from regional local registration offices, it is reasonable to think that Obama's birth registration number was part of a smaller batch of registrations in that particular region. This is why the Nordyke twins birth were reported a week later. Their registration numbers, although lower in the sequence, came from largest region and the largest batch which required they be "carried over" into the following weeks column space in the paper.


THE REGIONAL BIRTH REGISTRATION PROCESS



Diagram showing "walk-in" and rural non-hospital birth registration process. The accuracy for reporting regional birth registrations is higher than reporting chronological order registrations because because births occurring in low population centers tend to be under-reported by the U.S. Department of Health's 50% method. These unconventional births had to be independently numbered by their reception based on regional or local office origins of the state's Health Department because chronological birth registrations did not accurately account for small numbers of these registrations which might fall on ODD-Numbered registrations. Natal statistics reveal that more 17,000 births occured in Hawaii in 1961. That is an average of 330 births per week from various islands and regions which had to be accounted for and reported to the NVSD. Of these births, nearly 17% were non-hospital births among citizen population and around 40% for non-residential, rural, non-citizen and remote indigenous population. However, Hawaii was unique because of its remote location, indigenous culture and permeable migration. Many births occurred in Hawaii which were never recorded in the NVSD report due to under-registration. Non-conventional birth registrations and walk-in registrations occurred at a much lower rate in other states which increased the need for isolating walk-in registrations and non-hospital registrations.


This evidence reveals that Obama’s non-sequential birth registration number is the result of his registration being isolated because it was not a traditional hospital birth. His number was assigned based on the birth being registered in a regional office not used by the hospital which Obama claims to have been born in, rendering the possibility that his “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration issued by the Hawaiian Vital Records office is merely a record of birth registration legally created by the Health Department under HRS 338-17.8, after baby Obama was examined by a doctor, at Kapi’olani hospital, who could attest to his live birth, post-delivery.
These recently discovered sources show that Obama’s birth registration number was assigned by the state’s main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health after his birth registration originated in a regional office not used by the hospital to register births actually occurring within its facility.

Documentation provided by Volume 1 of the “1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States” further supports the factual plausibility that Obama’s birth occurred in a geographic location other than Hawaii and was not registered in the traditional manner as other children born in the hospital, locally. This evidence supports the claim that his non-sequential birth registration number is indeed the result of his birth being registered in an alternative local office, not the typical office used by the hospital.

OBAMA'S KAPI'OLANI BIRTHMATES?

Recall, according to copies of birth records released by the hospital, the Nordyke’s twin girls were delivered just 19 hours after Obama was born, supposedly just down the hall from where Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham was allegedly staying in Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital on Saturday afternoon of August 5th, 1961. The Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, were issued sequential birth registration numbers, 151-61-10637 and 151-61-10638, respectively.

The Nordyke's released two photostatic copies of their hospital generated "Certificates of Live Birth" in 2009. Contrarily, Obama released a Health Department generated version of a same titled document last week. The differences are significant and in need of investigation because the Nordyke's document an actual delivery within the hospital while Obama's documents only a birth registration by the HDOH after he was examined by a doctor from the named hospital.

With the revelation of a belated image of an alleged, original 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” registration record, released by the Hawaiian Department of Health, not the hospital, it is now unanimously accepted that Obama’s birth registration number is 151-61-10641, which is also confirmed by its updated version of 151-1961-10641 on the previously exalted “Certification of Live Birth” and, most importantly, which is a number larger than both the twins even though he was born chronologically before them.

Even number assigned for Gretchen Nordyke which would have been reported to the U.S. NVSD Natal Statistics office.
Obama's alleged original 1961 Department of Health issued Certificate of Live Birth shown here to omit the critical "amendment section" containing entry spaces for medical information, change of parentage by adoption, signatures of the Health director and Deputy Registrar, and birth weight and height.

Before we buy in to the strange document signed by Registrar Ukulele, we need to recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 states the following:

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
As we all have become familiar, the statute explicitly states that the Director of Health in 1961 was obligated to issue a birth certificate “provided that proof had been submitted to the Director of Health that the parents had declared Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth…or adoption of such child”, regardless of the location of that birth.

We know Obama’s parents lived in Hawaii for at least one year preceding his birth or adoption. Therefore, this law would have applied if he were born elsewhere or adopted and was taken to Hawaii where the birth was registered.

Notice the dates of the signatures on the newly released Certificate of Live Birth registration issued by the Health Department. The alleged signature of Obama’s mother was documented on Monday, August 7, 1961, the earliest day available to sign the registration. Obama was born the evening of Friday, August 4th, which means government offices were closed on Saturday the 5th, and Sunday the 6th, but the hospital was not.

The documents also reveal that they were signed by an attending physician and received by a local registrar, in different offices, three days apart, despite being signed on the same day by the parent.


Therefore, the Nordyke's Kapi'olani generated birth certificates were signed on August 11th by the registrar, three days later than Obama's registration, because the Nordyke's certificates were two of more than 100 which occurred in that registration office during that week. Obama's was signed on August 8th and recorded three days earlier because his Certificate was merely one of four registration records occurring in that local office. The process moved faster for Obama's registration because there were fewer certificates for that local registrar to process than the quantity of registrations processed in the office used by the city's main hospital where the Nordyke's registered. This occurred because of the 50-percent sampling and geographic number order process required by the U.S. Department and its effect on Obama's "externally" registered birth in another registration office not used by the hospital.


This evidence suggests the possibility that baby Obama was examined at Kapi’olani within days after his birth by a physician able to legally attest an original birth record issued, not by the hospital, but by the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDOH).Kapi’olani hospital has never issued or confirmed an original record for the birth of Barack Obama within its facility to date. However, the HDOH is able to legally name the hospital in its original "Certificate of Live Birth" Regisration based on the legal fact that, if it is the location of the first examination of a newborn child by a physician there, the signature of the doctor triggers the birth location in absence of any other birth location information.

Simply put, the evidence suggests that Obama was not born in Kapi'olani, but he may have been examined for the first time there.

REVELATIONS

This week, as Obama released a long-form version of a Health Department issued “Certificate of Live Birth” document we find it adds merely three more pieces of information about his natal biography than we previously knew before from the fallow “Certification of Live Birth” heavily lauded by his defenders as the 'holy grail' of his eligibility.

Now, with this new and improved ‘Holier Grail”, historical information from the U.S. Department of Health shows that this document only detracts from Obama’s effort to confirm his eligibility and that it would best be described as a state-issued, non-standard ‘Long-form Certificate of Live Birth Registration’ created by administrative procedure as a result of legal confirmation, not a hospital as a result of an actual delivery. We are already accustomed to the fact that the Hawaiian Department of Health revises in document header titles willy-nilly, whenever it seems convenient to Obama.

The information provided in Obama's recently revealed HDOH "Certificate of Live Birth" Registration document, when combined with an understanding of Hawaiian vital statistics records laws, municipal reporting procedures, and federal Natality reporting guidelines, shows that this “Certificate of Live Birth” registration could have been legally produced by the HDOH without Obama necessarily actually being delivered in the hospital named within it, and that the doctor, by affixing his signature, was only required to attest an original record based on his examination of the newborn Obama Jr., not necessarily as an attending (birthing) physician present during the actual delivery, but rather as the first physician to actually examine the child alive and in good health.

This evidence supports the fact that the on-going, original questions of Obama's actual birth location remain decisively unanswered and that this document could actually be an elaborate hoax by brazened forgers.The Nordyke twins were born on Saturday, August 5th, but their “Certificates of Live Birth” were not attested by the attending physician of record, assigned numbers and registered by the Department of Health until Thursday, August 11th. Obama’s birth was registered on Tuesday, August 8th even though it occurred just hours before the Nordyke’s. However, both documents for all three births were signed by the parents on the same day, Monday, August 7th.

Keep in mind, Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the Department of Health, not the alleged hospital of record. Although the Health Department was obligated to provide him with a “Certificate of Live Birth” in 1961, via the administrative process mandated by HRS 338-17.8, his birth would not actually have to occur in the Hospital stated on the record in order for this record to be created. However, as provided by HRS 338-5, after baby Obama had been examined by an “attending” physician sometime between August 5th and August 8th at the hospital, the Department of Health was able to create the official record of birth after the doctor’s signed approval, containing the name of the hospital where the examination took place.

Essentially, the Hawaiian Department of Health does not issue an official birth certificate under the provision of HRS 338-17.8 until a board certified physician has examined the child in an official medical facility of record.

So, how was Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” assigned a larger number than his birth-mates?

As mentioned, Section 5-8 of the ‘Vital Statistics of the United States: Volume 1 – Natality” report states:

Sampling of Birth Records

The manner in which records are numbered greatly reduces the sampling variability of totals for geographic areas. Records are numbered in the primary 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 systematic sampling of even-numbered records may be assumed to be unbiased. Furthermore, because the records are always in geographic order BEFORE numbering, twice the same count of births occurring in the great majority of counties is the same as the corresponding figure based on all records.

The key words are, "records are numbered in the primary state offices as they are received and are always in geographic order before numbering." Essentially, this means that Obama's birth registration, which was received by the main office before the Nordyke twins', was assigned a higher number because it was received by the main office in geographic order, not chronological order. Obama's birth was not registered in the same office as the Nordyke twins' birth.

This confirms that, in 1961, the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health assigned registration numbers based on the order of reception of birth registrations from various local registration offices, not from the hospitals of the births. Therefore, if Obama’s birth registration was included with the Nordyke twins and other births occurring at Kapiolani in same HDOH birth registration office, we should expect the Nordyke's numbers to be assigned in order of reception at the same time as Obama's!!

However, since it is likely that Obama's birth was not registered in the same office as the Nordyke twins, who were actually born in Kapi’olani hospital, Obama’s birth registration was assigned a number based on its "geographic order", not its chronological order, of registration.

If Obama was actually born in Kapi’olani hospital on August 4th, 1961, why was his birth registered in a different geographic location as indicated by the non-sequential number, on August 8th, which would therefore trigger a registration number out of order with the Nordyke twins' birth of August 5th who were registered with all the other births in Kapi’olani?

DIFFERENT LOCAL REGISTRARS

Aside from the fact that Obama’s 'Certificate of Live Birth' Registration released by the Hawaiian Department of Health appears to be affixed with a signature which appears to play on the Hawaiian word, "UKULELE" (U.K.L. Lee), it is also represented by different local registrar than is shown on the Nordyke’s Hospital version of the Certificate of Live Birth. A different local registrar worked in each of the four branch offices in which births were registered in Hawaii. Obama's birth was registered in an office which is not the office use by Kapi’olani to register births occurring in its facility.

The name of a local registrar is not associated with other birth certificates for births which actually occurred at Kapi’olani and which were attested by physicians who actually delivered those births. This registrar worked in a branch office not used by Kapi’olani to register births. This is why Obama’s birth registration number is out of sequence with other births at the same time as his.

OUT OF ORDER TOO: THE NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS

Last month, The Daily Pen’s Dan Crosby, published the results of his investigation of the procedures used to publish birth announcements in Hawaii. He found historical evidence which supports that fact that Obama’s birth did not occur in Kapi’olani, but which was registered in a different local office after he was examined by a doctor at Kapi’olani on August 7th, 1961.

Crosby went to Hawaii to research and investigate the cavalcade of ambiguous information related to Obama’s covert natal history including the origins and protocols used to publish the birth announcements in 1961. He focused on the manner in which the Hawaiian Department of Health and local hospitals coordinated vital statistics information and how the chain of information from the Hospital to the Hawaiian Department of Health resulted in “Weekly Health Bureau Statistics” announcements published in the local papers.

Crosby found evidence that the order in which the announcements were published was not random or chronological. In fact, he discovered they were published by the order of birth registration numbers assigned by the main Office of Vital Records which, in turn, were based on reception from various local registration branches. He discovered that, regardless of when the birth may have occurred, the registration number, assigned by the geographic order of the registration offices, determined the order of the announcements.

This is why Obama’s birth announcements occur near the bottom of each column in each newspaper even though there are births which occurred before and after his but which are published above his in the papers. This is because the births published above his all occurred in the same place and were registered in the same office and then passed to the central main office. The numbers were, therefore, ordered by the main office of the Health department in reference to their geographic registration order, not their chronological occurrence.

An investigation of the addresses of the birth registrations reveals that they migrate proximally to either a medical facility or to a local registration office. This is logical because most pregnant women would desire a hospital in close proximity once contractions began.

The birth announcements and ordering based on geographic registration location are shown below as they appear in the two versions of the newspapers.

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel K. Haas Sr. 849-A 11th Ave. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Staley 1319 Anapa St. 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Richard R. Kitson Apt. 11, 1635 Clark St. 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. George P. Ayau Sr. 87-143 Lillana St., Malll 7/31/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus J. Raymond 1371 Haloa Drive 7/30/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Robert I. Arakawa 935-B Hausten St., 8/1/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Y. Takahashi 56 Nanea Ave, Wahiawa 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Allington K. Brown Maunawill Road, Kallua 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Cirillo V. Caperto 918 Puuhale Road 8/3/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Samuel L. M. Mokuahi Sr 732 Laukea St. 8/2/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Peter C. Kamealoha Jr. 441 McNeill St. 8/3/1961
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Clifford Sr. 2624 Maunawai Place 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Walker 1660 S. King St., 8/7/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace M. Durkin 3813 Radford Drive 8/7/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Mike M. Nagaishi 2687 Gardenia 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Glenn E. Earnest 1258 Wilhelmina Rise 8/6/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Edward S. H. Chun 45-440 Akimala St., Kaheohe 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Waidelich 937 18th Ave. 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Emmett P. Simpson 2752 Kahiti St. 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Melvin K. F. Liu 45-548 Keaahala Road, Kaheohe 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Wright 91-939 Kalapu St., Ewa Beach, Ewa 8/5/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Andrew A. M. Hatchle 2420 Kaululaau St. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs Harry Y.W. Wong 463 Lawelwe St. 8/4/1961
Mr. and Mrs. Ernesto Kim

Note that the announcements are in the exact same order in both papers. Also, notice Obama’s birth registration announcement nearer the bottom of the order in the last group while the birth dates appear to be grouped rather than ordered from the top of the column to the bottom. This indicates they are indeed grouped by geographic registration occurrence as they are received in batches from each branch location by the main Health Department office, as prescribed by the guidelines described in the NVSD report. Otherwise, the birth order would be published based on either alphabetical or chronological order, which they are not, as obviously shown here. This is an indication that Obama’s birth registration was received by the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health from a location other than the office used to register births occurring in Kapi’olani.

Obama's announcement was published on August 12th and 13th of the editions of the Star and Sunday Advertiser in 1961. The Nordyke's announcement was publish the following week. Obama's announcement was published earlier than his alleged "birthmates" because his registration was among fewer which were processed as part of a batch of "walk-in" registrations from another local office. His record was processed faster and earlier and was able to be fit within the space provided by the newspaper for that batch of registration records that week. The larger overall quantity of registrations containing the Nordyke's records had to be carried over to the following week because their large batch required three more days to process and be allocated space in the papers.

Obama’s DOH “Certificate of Live Birth” Registration omits the “Amendment section” from its lower margin which is present on the hospital generated version and contains space available for amendments, dates of examinations and medical information. It is also used to show the signatures of the Director of Health and the Deputy Registrar. This is absent from Obama’s HDOH document because it was not generated by the hospital and this doctor was not present at his birth and did not preside over later amendments, such as Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

CONCLUSIONS

Obama’s birth was not registered in the same Health Department office as the Nordyke twins and hundreds of other births occurring the week of July 30 – August 5th at Kapi’olani hospital. Birth numbering order was established by federal standards according to geography not chronological order of births, in order to maximize accuracy of natal statistics reporting over as wide as possible a registration area throughout the entire U.S. Chronological ordering alone presented a highly disproportionate risk of under-reported rural, non-hospital and non-resident births due to the U.S. Department of Health's 50%-reporting method based only on even-numbered certificates.

If state's reported only even-numbered births from all births in chronological order, and the walk-in registrations from a particular region all happened to fall on "odd-numbered" birth schedules, they would not be reported accurately for that region. This is why regional reporting was enacted over chronological reporting. However, regional reporting also created non-sequential numbering with respect to birth date and time.

The publication of Obama’s birth announcement near the bottom of the columns of the two newspapers, printed lower than announcements for births which occurred after his, indicates that his birth registration document was received and ordered in accordance with geographic location, not chronological order or alphabetic order. This, therefore, indicates that Obama's birth actually occurred in a location other than Kapi'olani hospital.

Dr. David Sinclair was not present during the delivery of Barack Obama. However, since he was the first physician to examine baby Obama and his mother at Kapi’olani on August 7th or 8th, he is legally bound to record his signature as the attending physician of record at that time. Per HRS 338, the naming of the hospital is subsequent to the naming of the doctor where the examination, not the birth, took place.

Since Dr. Sinclair was not the birthing physician, he could not officially attest to Obama’s birth weight, which is absent from the HDOH Certificate of Live Birth Registration.

The name of local registrar is different on Obama’s HDOH Certificate of Live Birth Registration because Obama’s birth was not registered in the same branch office of the Vital Statistics office as births occurring at Kapi’olani.

As testified by the 1961 Vital Statistics of the United States Report, Obama’s birth registration number is non-sequential with other births at the same time because it was assigned by the main office of the HDOH after it was received from one of multiple registration offices in Hawaii. The HDOH assigned Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth a registration number based on its geographic registration location, not chronological occurrence in a hospital.

Obama’s recently revealed Certificate of Live Birth was created and issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health through administrative procedures based on HRS 338 and Administrative Rules. It was not generated by any hospital and was only attested by an attending physician after an examination of the newborn Obama qualified the HDOH to issue an original birth certificate provided by HRS 338-17.8.

Therefore, the geographic location of Obama’s actual emergence from his mother’s womb remains a mystery.

Regardless, the identity of Obama’s foreign father is confirmed in this suspicious but newly released Certificate of Live Birth Registration, which disqualifies Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency even if he was shown by a hospital generated birth certificate to have been born in Hawaii.

Apparently, even a document forger can agree on that.