Posted on 03/17/2009 11:50:28 AM PDT by AndrewWalden
A fairly impressive internet industry has sprung up claiming that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia. This is nonsense which distracts from the broadly unexplored story of Obama’s upbringing. This kind of nonsense has emerged because the McCain campaign chose not to raise the many questions about Barack Obama’s numerous hard-left alliances. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu.
(Excerpt) Read more at hawaiifreepress.com ...
I remember your previous screen name (on your profile page) - leftist through and through. You are either abysmally ignorant and in that case need to read up - there tons of info on FR - or you’re just a regular leftist. And I think I know which you are, from your previous comments.
That he was legally adopted. LIke you don’t know what was meant.
They'd face a fine of up to $50,000, up to 1 year in prison, or both. The HIPAA law passed in 1996 makes it illegal for hospitals to give out this information.
Except that according the divorce decree, Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham were married in February, 1961. Or was it a home for unwed mothers that took wedded mothers, too?
OK, now you're arguing fraudulence, but before you were citing the statute. Either way, there has to be evidence. Have you seen any evidence?
What exactly do you think applying for certificate of birth in Hawaii was about? A form was filled out by a parent with details.
I think they required a bit more than someone strolling into the DOH and filling out a form. Things like a doctor or midwife's affidavit, or at least some proof that the baby existed. But "Got baby? Here's a cert!" -- I don't think so.
Until obama shows his stuff, everything you are posting is speculation. So go ahead and continue on.
No, unfortunately, it's the other way around. The courts don't operate on what could have happened, they need some assurance that these things -- such as casual registration of births without proof -- actually did happen, on a regular basis, at the time and place specified. No one has come up with anything that supports your theories.
You have proof obama's mother registered obama before a year old? Let's see the evidence.
Why do I need proof? You referred to that old statute, and I said I didn't think it was relevant. If you think it is, that's your prerogative.
So who gives a s**t what leftists think of conservatives? Until we enslave ourselves to them they’ll think we’re all nutjobs anyway.
Anyone who expresses concern about what leftists think of “us” is another kind of “us”.
The birth announcement in the newspaper (i think it is even archived on microfiche) is convincing for me.
You missed the point. I didn't say I cared what leftists thought of conservatives, I said that they will use the issue to marginalize conservatives.
All I am saying is that currently newspapers print birth and other like notices from info given by actual people as well as from state, city or county departments. People have posted on FR dozens of times how they or their relatives phoned or mailed in birth info and it was posted in the home town or whatever newspaper. To this day it can be done like that in many places.
I lived in HI less than ten years after 0bama was born and the atmosphere was still very laid back and small town. Until proven otherwise, I think it more than likely that people could give the newspaper birth info (or marriage, for that matter) and the papers would print it, as well as offiical info from the HI Heath Dept or whatever it was.
Now I don’t know this for sure, but your assertion that the announcements were without doubt generated solely by the state dept is not proveable one way or another. Maybe, maybe not. And even if that is so, it still doesn’t prove where 0bama was born, just that some kind of birth record had been recorded by (one would assume) his mother.
You are twisting yourself into knots and not fooling anyone with your word jugglery. You need to try another tactic, this one is not working.
From my experience, two reasons.
1. Most docs and nurses don't remember the names or details of deliveries (except for medical details) unless they have an ongoing relationship with the mother or child. I only delivered 20 or 30 babies, and I wouldn't know if I delivered someone famous or not. I can only imagine the difficult remembering for an OB GYN who has done thousands of deliveries.
2. It is illegal to give out any medical information - including identifying someone as a patient - without a release from the patient. Even death doesn't change that, you need a release from the administrator or executor of the estate.
Apprently they were legally married, since we have seen the divorce papers, but it is clear that they did not have a normal wedded life together, so it is not impossible that the official seal of approval of a marriage license did not preclude her giving birth at a home for unwed mothers.
I am not saying I know one way or another, just providing common sense.
I get your point. I read your question too quickly. It doesn't change my opinion, though, unless you believe that both papers that printed the announcement have photoshopped it, and/or the libraries from which some people have obtained stats of the old papers in question have also photoshopped it.
I think the likelihood of that is about zero, so I don't think I made "a blanket statement."
If that convinced you that 0bama was born in HI, then you are either gullible or something else.
This is Obama’s Gramscian strategy designed to redirect the opposition down a blind alley.
“OBOZO!”
“TRUST ME!”
“HONK HONK”
ROTFLMAO!
The fact that you cannot comprehend my point does not constitute "word jugglery" on my part.
The "tons of info" on FR is more like tons of self-referential postings - about like yours ; so- no , I won't go marching in lockstep with you behind your chosen pied piper(s).
Don't talk about tons of postings: show some evidence for a change.
I have a hard time keeping the birther conspiracy theories straight because there are so many of them and they often contradict each other.
So, there were two children in the marriage, little Barack and little Maya. Why would the documents say otherwise? Divorce papers listing the kids always list the kids from the previous marriages. That doesn't prove adoption, only that the kids were part of the household. Lolo was on the hook.
Of course, the whole issue is meaningless, as US law and State Dept policy is explicit on the fact that parents can't renounce a child's citizenship. Adoption wouldn't have changed that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.