How Steve Dunham Became Barack Hussein Obama II
It looks increasingly like no one was born with the name Barack Hussein Obama II. ~ Videos
An intrepid citizen-researcher has confirmed that the man who goes by the name “Barack Hussein Obama II,” has an original vital record kept by the Hawaii Department of Health, which bears the name “Steve Dunham.”
The citizen researcher began her quest, following two lines of research: 1) the fact that the name Steve Dunham appears in records associated with Obama’s alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham; and 2) the fact that Obama himself is said to have quipped that he could have chosen between the names “Barack Hussein Obama” or “Steve Dunham” (as some of whose followers know cf. YYouhan’s comment).
The quip is recorded to have taken place during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, on Oct. 16, 2009, and reported by Real Clear Politics in the 4th video segment at their site, at the 1:37 mark.. The video at youtube can be viewed thorugh this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBQf4FJi-o&feature=player_embedded or at 1:31 in another version of the video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkFjTCscM4 . Here is the second version, look for it at 1:30 ff..
[Editor's note: The previous video here was of the 3d segment from Real Clear Politics' report, and for that reason it sparked a number of comments, since it does not contain the quip at all.]
Based on this admission, the citizen-researcher requested from Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Hawaiian Department of Health, the index data for all the Steve Dunham’s in their registry, born born on Aug. 4, 1961 (the actual request included the variants also, “Steven” and “Stephen”). The request was made on Oct. 29, 2009. The answer came on Nov. 10th.
Like most requests for such information, since the end of September when the Department began releasing such — following the threat of a lawsuit from another citizen-researcher — Okubo responds rather quickly with a denial that the information requested.
In this case, Okubo was responded that she needed more time to respond.! The response of Okubo contains an obvious evasion. Because it takes less that 5 minutes to type “Steve Dunham” into their database and pull up the index data for such record.
The response that she needed more time indicates what kind of response she had decided to craft.
Guess how long it took her to respond to a 5 minute work assignment?
You guessed it; she responded yesterday, January 11th; but only after being prodded by another email from the same citizen-researcher.
Why it took so long to respond…
Obviously if Obama was born with the name “Steve Dunham,” he could not lawfully bear that name unless his original vital records were amended OR unless he submitted a change of name through the Hawaiian Courts.
As The Post & Email reported on Sunday, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii, has denied any name change requests, made through the courts, exist.
Therefore, if there was a name change it had to be by an amendment of the original vital record.
Therefore, if such a name change was found, the vital record for Obama would technically no longer exist under the name Steve Dunham.
So Okubo, under this scenario, would have a legally perplex problem to solve; if she denied the request for Index data, she could be accused of lying or violating the law; if she admitted a record for a “Steve Dunahm” existed for that date, Obama would be exposed, and might retaliate against the Department through withholding funding; a possible threat, which is seemingly indicated by Attorney Joesting, in her letter to Okubo regarding the non-answer to my own UIPA request made at the end of September.
So what did she say in her response, yesterday?
In her official response received by email last night, Okubo denied that there is any index data for a vital record of a birth on Aug. 4, 1961 for a “Steve Dunham.” It took her 90 days to figure how to respond. And that in itself, lets you the reader know, what she meant to say: his name is “Steve Dunham”!
As for those who do not believe that this interpretation is correct, they must hold Obama was lying, in the above video, when he said his name was “Steve.” To doubters, therefore, I ask, “So was he lying when he said his name was “Barack Obama,” or when he said his name was ‘Steve’ “?
I hold that he is not lying in either case, because I believe that the name change was filed by his mother Stanley Ann Dunham, after she returned from Kenya. The name Steve Dunham was, in my estimation, the name of the child on the birth certificate in the Mombasa General Coast Hospital.
Here are my reasons for this latter assertion:
Being that Ann was in Mombassa (that’s how it was spelled in 1961) without her husband, and being that Obama Sr., would have committed the crime of bigamy in Kenya, if he married a white woman as his second wife — since his first marriage was under tribal law for non-Christians, he could not marry multiple times except under tribal law, which excluded wives of European descent — Ann would have had to put her own surname down on the original Kenyan birth certificate.
This would also have enabled her to get Steve on her passport, as the child of an unwed mother; and also be able to get Steve U.S. Citizenship status at birth, on account of the U.S. Nationality laws at the time, which granted such, to children of U.S. Citizens, born out of wedlock, overseas.
While in Mombassa, she telephoned her mother Madelyn Dunham, who filed a birth at home record with the Hawaii Department of Health, listing the birth as taking place at her own home, with the name “Steve Dunham” on the filing.
Upon returning to Hawaii, however, Ann files an amendment to the original filing on the basis of the Hawaiian law which allowed amendments within the first 6 months. Whether in her filing she claimed a birth at home, and therefore a birth in Hawaii, or a foreign birth, is not yet known. In the latter case, then, there probably has been a second amendment made, this time by Obama, and sometime after 2004, when he stopped claiming to be Kenyan-born.
And Okubo’s response does not regard what appears on the original vital records, but what appears in the registry after the amendments were made. And if Obama did make an amendment, as appears to be the case (cf. Nellie Esquire’s, Red Flags Overlooked), then it must have been for something more substantial than the name of the attending doctor or hospital. Therefore it was for either the parents names or the place of birth. But as The Post & Email has confirmed (researcher 1, researcher 2), the father’s name and date of birth are corroborated from newspaper reports of the period. Therefore it must mean that the original vital record, had by Hawaii, shows a different place of birth.
Accordingly, even Dr. Fukino’s statement of July 27, 2009, that Obama was born in Hawaii might be based only on the records after all the amendments.
That Obama was born in Kenya, he himself admitted to in 1980. Numerous news agencies, including the Associated Press also semingly confirmed this for years, without being corrected by Obama’s campaigns.
In any event, Obama would not be a natural born citizen (according to the US Supreme Court), because his father was not a U.S. Citizen. If he was born in Kenya, he also would not be a natural born citizen on account of not being born on U.S. soil.
In fact Obama admits that he is not a natural born citizen, as two separate witnesses testify (witness 1, witness 2), probably because in the course of his own studies in law, he has read up on the issue. However, upon deciding to run for President, he conveniently forgot all about his inconvenient past.
Finally, if all this is true, it means that none of the alleged Birth Certificates or Certifications of Live Birth, heretofore released, are authentic original vital records.
John Charlton - January 12, 2010 - source ThePost&Email