Team Arpaio: We Have Two 1961 Hawaiian Birth Certificates That List Negro Not African

Mike Zullo ^ | 6-20-2013

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Sheriff Arpaio's lead investigator Mike Zullo just concluded a new interview this afternoon at 3:30pm central time and revealed that he will get Congressional movement on Obama's fraudulent documents after their summer break. He also revealed that they have in possession two Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 that reveal that the term 'Negro' was used for black babies instead of the term 'African'.

[4Zoltan]

First, let’s answer the question would Obama Sr. put down the word “African”.

From the 1962 Kenya census instructions,

“Column 5. Race – Write European, Arab, Somalia or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf

“Might that be because his race was simply NOT STATED?”

That’s hard to answer as the instructions say this - “(7) If the racial entry for either parent is not clearly identifiable as one of the races in the code scheme, consult the supervisor.”

So what would the supervisor decide?

Since the parents race code is used to determine the child’s race code, maybe we can glean something from the instructions for determining the child’s race.

“5) If the racial entry for one parent is omitted or unknown, code race of child as the race of the other parent.”

“6) If the racial entry for both parents is omitted or unknown, code 1 (white).”

Does that mean that if the race of father was left blank, they wouldn’t code it at all?

[Fred Nerks]

If the father is shown as number 9, OTHER NON WHITE and the mother is CAUCASIAN, I have no idea what the supervisor might instruct. Our interest as for as I can see, isn’t how the offspring was classified, our interest is purely to try to make sense of the AFRICAN on the supposed birth certificate, even though it is a forgery...

Assuming he was the father of a child born in Hawaii in 1961, what maybe should appear on that document is AFRICAN-LUO.

As the result of which he still would have ended up with the dreaded NEGRO classification.

Isn’t this discussion centred around the idea that the birth was somehow fraudulently reported by the Dunhams, heaven knows how long after the event?

In fact, that the word AFRICAN was used is more of an indication that it was the Kenyan HIMSELF who refused to use the term NEGRO.

No anti-colonial as he was, would allow that designation to be applied to themselves. It’s a term that connotes SLAVERY. He wasn’t an african-american negro.

HE WAS AN AFRICAN.

[Fred Nerks]

THIS is what the term NEGRO meant to the coloured people according to your very own martyred civil-rights advocate icon, the man whom Jaramogi Oginga Odinga visited in Atlanta in 1960, about whom a song was written...the very same who is the father of the recent Prime Minister of Kenya, the same who is seen in the image below with a famous man in the USSR whom you might remember...historical events don't happen in isolation:

If anyone still believes the kenyan student would have willingly described himself as NEGRO - considering the politics and events of the period, they have a very narrow POV.

[4Zoltan]

“As the result of which he still would have ended up with the dreaded NEGRO classification.”

Maybe, the August 14th, 1961 revised instructions say this

“If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.”

The Cold Case Posse says that the 1960 instruction manual says something different but they have not said what is different or shown the manual. Over at ORYR a poster by the name of Brian Reilly says their is a February, 1961 instruction manual but he says he hasn’t seen it. BTW, Mr. Reilly says he was one of the original Sunshine Tea Party members who petitioned Sheriff Arpaio to conduct an investigation.

“In fact, that the word AFRICAN was used is more of an indication that it was the Kenyan HIMSELF who refused to use the term NEGRO.”

I agree. IMO, the term “African” was put on the original BC back in 1961, not by some forger in 2007.

[Jeff Winston]

In other words, 4Zoltan bothered to go through the 1961 Natality Report mentioned by edge919 and found that, once more, as expected, edge919's stupid birther claim that it contradicted the information in the real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual WAS COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE BULLS***.

Thank you, 4Zoltan, for confirming what I was already confident was going to be the case.

Okay, edge919. You've made a BULLSH** birther claim, and falsely called names on the basis of your BULLSH** birther claim. Are you now going to apologize for that?

[Fred Nerks]

What might have been helpful is if someone who obviously understood the process, and went to the trouble of showing the various layers the document comprises of, had shown, one by one, each of the layers...

...of which I could only find the above two. Which appear to show that the name of the mother was shown on one layer as Ann D....to which it seems unham Obama was added, and Stanley) was added with one bracket, the other having appeared on another layer...which indicates to me that there might have been an original in the system, which acted as the template for the end product.

The name on a public index for 1960-1964 doesn't provide a date of birth. This child might have been born in January 1961, and the mother's name was Ann Obama, but she wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham.

[4Zoltan]

Here are all the layers;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2726467/posts

[Fred Nerks]

Thanks, will study it later, need to take a break, all the shouting and red writing must have contributed to my headache.

[MHGinTN]

Notice how one his toadies shows up, complete with a 2013 sing-on? Someone is scared that the reality might dawn on America and the world that little barry bastard boy is a fraud, a puppet who is extremely dangerous because he is working to end the Republic asap!

[little jeremiah]

Yes, it’s clear that a baby born in Kenya with the last name “Obama” in that time frame could easily refer to another child entirely. And in fact does, since there is nothing indicating that Zero was born in Kenya, especially since his father is not the Kenyan Obama!

[Fred Nerks]

http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com.au/

Krawetz? No thanks.

[Fred Nerks]

Odera, the friend of the Kenyan, told the author Peter Firstbrook that Kezia had a child in her husband’s absence. The name of that child would have been registerd as Obama, and legally, even though he was in Hawaii, that child would have been his.

The name of that child would be what is recorded in the UK archives. There was an investigation conducted by the Kenyans themselves, and they wrote they couldn’t understand why there appeared to be a birth record for October, 1961 for an Obama.

They apparently felt that the family was hiding something.

They were probably trying to hide the identity of the father. There were actually several children of doubtful paternity born after the kenyan left Nairobi and after he returned to Kenya - they sort of hoovered them up - by telling us that Kezia and the old man continued to ‘have relations’

When in fact, Ruth tells Sally Jacobs that Kezia’s first two, Malik and Auma, lived in Nairobi with them and went to a private school there, and Kezia wasn’t allowed to visit them. The kenyan kept her away from his son and daughter.

Trying to create a ‘he was born in Kenya’ story out of that mess would appear to be a total waste of time.

[WildHighlander57]

I Advance Search Googled the exact phrase “take the us to the united nations”

One of the results was this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d2hyvdEzsVYC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=%22take+the+US+to+the+United+Nations%22&source=bl&ots=oJtA3NJCCi&sig=p4-jhOIbGniI3OzD7d0kknnELeg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4vHIUdXdBoPErQGu2oHYAw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

Interesting.

[Fred Nerks]

[Fred Nerks]

Speech to the OAU
The Organization of Afro-American Unity has sent me to attend this historic African Summit Conference as an observer to represent the interests of 22 million African-Americans whose human rights are being violated daily by the racism of American imperialists.

Excerpt:

We beseech independent African states to help us bring our problem before the United Nations, on the grounds that the United States Government is morally incapable of protecting the lives and the property of 22 million African-Americans. And on the grounds that our deteriorating plight is definitely becoming a threat to world peace.

Out of frustration and hopelessness our young people have reached the point of no return. We no longer endorse patience and turning the other cheek. We assert the right of self-defense by whatever means necessary, and reserve the right of maximum retaliation against our racist oppressors, no matter what the odds against us are.

We are well aware that our future efforts to defend ourselves by retaliating- by meeting violence with violence, eye for eye and tooth for tooth-could create the type of racial conflict in America that could easily escalate into a violent, worldwide, bloody race war.

In the interests of world peace and security, we beseech the heads of the independent African states to recommend an immediate investigation into our problem by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

http://www.oopau.org/2.html

[bluecat6]

Notice the name above Obama’s in the index.

‘Duplicate’

Interesting name, eh?

[Fred Nerks]

http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/reparations.html

Malcolm X was very clear about this issue of what’s owed blacks and how they intend to get it:

“...This is a real revolution. Revolution is always based on land. Revolution is never based on begging someone for an integrated cup of coffee. Revolutions are never fought by turning the other cheek. Revolutions are never based upon love your enemy and pray for those who spitefully use you. And revolutions are never waged singing “We Shall Overcome.” Revolutions are based upon bloodshed. Revolutions are never compromising. Revolutions are never based upon negotiation. Revolutions overturn systems and there is no system on earth which has proven itself more corrupt, more criminal than this system ...” (Two Speeches, op. cit.).

[WildHighlander57]

I did another advanced google on “obado duplicate mae” and got this post by butterdezillion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2694698/replies?c=7

To: driftdiver
There are ways of seeing for sure whether a record is authentic, and it’s not just by looking at the physical piece of paper. There has to be the matching computer transaction log.
For instance, right now if the Passport Office coughed up copies of Obama’s passport documents they might look legitimate. But even the Department of State says they cannot guarantee that the documents they would print out are genuine, because they don’t know whether the 3 breaches of Obama’s passport file in 2008 resulted in any of the file being ALTERED. They can find that out. They can look at the computer records and find out not only that the file was accessed but what, if anything, was DONE to the file. That would be very critical to know, if Obama ever wanted to use that passport.
And if anybody wanted to know whether Obama is a US citizen right now it would be important for them to look at his passport as well as any other citizenship records he might have. If there was a court case where a person could get discovery of all of Obama’s birth and citizenship records, including the embedded logs and transaction history, that person would be able to find out what, if anything, was changed in Obama’s passport record, what the history of his citizenship was - when he got his first passport and under what country, etc. Every record that has been entered into a computer system would have a date of origination and a history of what happened to the record since it was created.
If we looked at what has happened to the Hawaii birth record for Mae Obado we would probably find that she had an original record that was entered into the system whenever they converted to electronic database. We would probably find that a duplicate record was created for her sometime maybe in March of 2010. The database immediately marked it as a duplicate so that the entry for that became “Obado, Duplicate Mae” - unbeknownst to whoever created the duplicate. Whoever created the duplicate immediately changed Mae Obado’s name to Barack Hussein Obama II, not realizing that the record he/she had just created was NOT still called “Obado, Mae” in the database but was now “Obado, DUPLICATE Mae” so what was changed to Obama was the ORIGINAL record for Mae Obado, leaving for Mae Obado only the “Obado, DUPLICATE Mae” record. The end result is that a printout would show “Obado, Duplicate Mae”, followed next in line by “Obama, Barack Hussein II” - since the original record for Mae Obado was altered to say Barack Hussein Obama II.
The duplicate record for Mae Obado when there isn’t any original record for Mae Obado gives away that the original record was altered after a duplicate was created for her.
And that’s exactly what the HDOH had in their (supposed) 1960-64 birth index book as of sometime after March, 2010.
(This kind of sloppy work shows up in regards to the alleged birth announcements for Obama as well.)
If we looked up the history for the BC# that Obama has on the Factcheck COLB we would probably find that it originated in 1961 under a different name. We would be able to find out who that BC# originally belonged to. We would be able to find out when the name associated with that BC# was altered and by whom.
See, if a person has access to the embedded records they can find out the truth. That is why Obama NEEDS the courts to say his records are nobody’s business - to keep them from being able to get discovery.
And the Soros thugs were so desperate to make sure that the judges would never allow “standing” in court so discovery could be granted, that they made some kind of threat to at least Judge Surick - as evidenced by the fact that Surick received his “decision” saying Phil Berg had no standing from somebody by fax and he forwarded it to Berg as if it was his own ruling. That is known because when Surick forwarded the “decision” to Berg it still had on it the original date/time stamp from when Surick received the original fax. The automatic features of forwarding a fax revealed what had happened; that stamp is on every page of that forwarded “decision”. See http://james4america.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/judge-surrick-received-the-decision-he-issued/
So we ALREADY have evidence of big-time crimes being committed by government officials to cover up for Obama. The evidence already exists; it’s too late for Obama to put the genie back in the bottle.
We just can’t find anybody in the media, law enforcement, courts, or state or federal legislatures who will do anything about it. And THAT is the real story of Obama’s eligibility issue.
When we find out why Judge Surick allowed somebody else to write his decision for him, we will probably be well on our way to understanding why EVERYBODY within government, media, law enforcement, and the courts has bent over backwards - even to the point of creating forgeries and breaking laws - to cover for Obama. When we know what threat they used on all these judges, etc it will tell us who is holding America’s entire infrastructure hostage today.
7 posted on 03/25/2011 2:50:11 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[WildHighlander57]

Re: #294, #295, #297

VERY interesting.

[bluecat6]

These images are image exports from standard Adobe. ANYONE can do this simple action with Adobe reader. It takes the more advanced software to break down the document further.

What anyone is able to see is that the exported green cross-hatch image shows edges not visible in the image show when viewing normally in Adobe Reader. The dots on the right side of the exported image are not there in the normal view. Because they have been ‘clipped’ by the ‘clipping mask’ function. Clipping mask is like cropping - without cropping. It just hides the ‘cropped/clipped’ area - until someone un-hides it. That alone shows the document is digitally manufactured.

We all how scanners work. This was not a ‘scanned document’ at all. If you export the images of a basic scanned image you get - the same image. There is only 1 in an actual scanned image with no human-induced post manipulation. The fact that even the most basic Adobe product can break this image apart shows it to be fraud.