Did Maya Soetoro-Ng actually say that Barack was born in Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii?

g{x et|ÇuÉã Xw|à|ÉÇ ^ | November, 2004 | Bennett Guira

[DavidFarrar]

I know it to be common knowledge that Maya Soetoro, Obama’s half-sister, once stated that Barack was born in Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. But recently I have been debating this point with a fellow blogger at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution under at article by Jay Bookman, entitled: Birthers aren’t conservative, they’re just nutty, who maintains that, in fact, Maya Soetoro didn't actual say that. It was actually written by a student, Bennett Guira, who wrote it as part of his Obama bio assay, and the quote was later picked up and erronisously attributed to Maya Soetoro. The source she quotes can be found by clicking here.

[DavidFarrar]

You see, this is why my fellow Freepers at FreeRepublic.com/ are unbeatable. I think your information and experience in this spot is right on and is exactly what I needed. I will of course bring your post to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Thanks. That’s a great job.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[Jude in WV]

I wonder if anyone else was there in February, 2007 and heard him describe his birth at Queen’s or did this reporter get a private interview with him in which he described it?

[El Gato]

his was done in Indonesia and it required that little Barry's previous citizenship be forfeited A child who is a US citizen can't forfeit it under US law. Nor can the parents do it for them. They have to do it for themselves after age 18. If they have it to begin with that is.

What Indonesia thinks is of no import to US law.

[DavidFarrar]

It’s Latin for “Sincerely”.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[Jet Jaguar]

From the heart.

[DavidFarrar]

This is an interesting UPI article I have never seen before. How can I get the whole article?

ex animo
davidfarrar

[El Gato]

Michael Medved claims two Honolulu papers had birth notices for Barry.

At least images were posted purporting to be of their birth announcements which indicate that Mr. & Mrs. Barrack H. Obama had a son on Aug 4, 1961. But, if real, those announcements would both have been triggered by the filing of a birth certificate, any kind of birth certificate. Including a "home birth" filing.

[DavidFarrar]

I just thought you would like to know I have reposted your comment at AJC blog post. It can be found by going to:

David Farrar

September 27th, 2009

10:40 pm

Thanks for your help.

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Pyro7480]

My Dad is from the Philippines. My Mom was born and raised in Delaware. When I was born, he was one year from gaining his citizenship. Does that mean I’m not “naturally born” either?

[DavidFarrar]

Can you give me the URL of this UPI article? I would also like to re-post it to the AJC blog. Thanks.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[VRWCTexan]

Again please read all my posts - before criticizing

An underage child involved in foreign adoption has to go thru a process to reassert their US citizenship starting at age 18 to 21

I know this because I lived it!!!!!!!

__________________________________________

There is evidence suggesting that obama was adopted - and there is also evidence that he operated in his early college years as a “foreign student”

There is also evidence to suggest that he traveled to Pakistan on a passport that was other than US issue

There is no known evidence that he ever went thru the process of reasserting his US citizenship

Think and believe whatever heck you so choose - any way you slice or dice it obama is a fraud and has racked up a million dollars in legal fees to keep the details from the public

[Red Steel]

It’s from theObamafile.com. FReeper Beckwith may have or know where to find the original.

See link here:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090709.htm

[Red Steel]

I wonder if anyone else was there in February, 2007 and heard him describe his birth at Queen’s or did this reporter get a private interview with him in which he described it?

I don't know. But UPI retracted it after I think WND.com had an article about Obama being born in 2 different hospitals.

Beckwith doesn't buy it:

"Until June 7th, even United Press International (UPI) and Snopes.com contained statements that Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu.  Here is a screen capture from Snopes.com that says, "Barack Hussein Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center."   Today, Snopes.com claims that "Barack Hussein Obama, was born on 4 August 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center."  Snopes claims they made the change because Wikipedia made the change.

Here is the UPI screen capture that claims Obama was born at Queens -- but now the UPI claims Kapiolani.  Remember, Obama, himself, told UPI that he was born at Queens."

-end snip-

http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090709.htm

[BP2]

An important aspect of this is competing factions within the Democratic party, particularly the Hillary campaign, knew of these conflicting stories. Maya's November 2004 interview has been known about for years, but it's not been changed. Some news articles HAVE been changed, but most significantly after Inauguration, which is why SO many of us archive data.

The most recent rash of web scrubbings took place June and July, oddly enough, around the same time it was known that Judge Carter would be hearing Orly Taitz case in California.

Here's one of many examples of items wiped off the internet after being in place for years on the Hawaii .gov website (click to see full document):

When I see antagonists and trolls jump on Free Republic, YouTube, Yahoo, etc. with derogatory remarks within minutes of eligibility postings appearing ... it's telling of how orchestrated the campaign is, and how important it is for them to turn off newcomers before they find out about the deception.

The trolls aren't doing it to HELP out so-called “birther nuts”. Some trolls may claim it's for FUN, but they are FAR too regular with their jeering to appear that they are here just for laughs. The simple fact is if the trolls really thought those following Obama eligibility suits were “crazy,” they wouldn't be wasting their time trying to convince everyone else on the thread of it.

I’ll sum this up by asking the following four logical questions:

1) Do you trust the MSM?
2) Do you trust the leadership in Congress?
3) Do you trust this man?

4) If NOT … then WHY on earth would you trust ANY OF THEM for properly and honestly vetting and/or disclosing damaging information about Barack Obama’s background and eligibility?

[El Gato]

This is an interesting UPI article I have never seen before. How can I get the whole article?

The current version, modified 8 July 2008, can be found at:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/04/Sen-Barack-Obama-Democrat-of-Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/

The old version has gone to the great bit bucket in the sky, or possibly the one "down below".

They say the "writer" made the error, but it's not exactly a typical typo. It's also somewhat unlikely the writer would have read the student newspaper were the quote from Maya appeared. Funny it took 8 months to correct the error, and funny also that it was corrected within 90 minutes of World Net Daily publishing an article pointing out that different sources were reporting different birth locations. (Earlier WND article). Snopes and Wikipedia made had the same "corrections" made at about the same time.

The One is phonier than a 3 dollar bill.

I just checked, and even the cached version of the UPI story now has the "correction".

[cynwoody]

My Dad is from the Philippines. My Mom was born and raised in Delaware. When I was born, he was one year from gaining his citizenship. Does that mean I’m not “naturally born” either?

Only if you are a birfer.

You were a citizen at birth. For sure if you were born in the US. 99% sure if not (five years after the age of 14 ... yada yada).

Citizen at birth == natural born citizen.

Unless the birthers persuade the Supreme Court otherwise. There is a theory based on the writings of Emerich de Vattel, an 18th century Swiss legal scholar whose writings the Founding Fathers are known to have read, that both parents had to be citizens, and the birth had to be on US soil. But there is little chance of the Court buying it today. Or yesterday. E.g., there was the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed while a lot of the Founders were still in Congress, which provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". Which pretty much establishes they had a different idea of the meaning of "natural born citizen" than Vattel.

And then there's that "five years after the age of 14" technicality, which supposedly would disqualify Zero if he were shown to be born abroad. However, it only applies if Stanley Ann was legally married. But she wasn't, because BHO, Sr., was a bigamist. So, Zero's eligible even if born in Mombasa. Qualified because he was a little bastard! LOL!

Birtherism is a rabbit hole. It's a waste of time, and its tenets would be inconvenient in the future if a good candidate were to arise whose parents, say, had recently got off the plane from Punjab. It's only use is entertainment and to focus attention on Zero's hinky background.

[El Gato]

Does that mean I’m not “naturally born” either?

Yep, it does you do not fit the definition of "natural born citizen>. Sorry about that. My coworker's daughter, who works in the government office we support, although a different section, is in a similar situation. She was born in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, in Germany, while her father was stationed in Germany as an MP. Both her parents are (were in the case of her father who is deceased) "natural born citizens". She is not, but she is a citizen, having been born to two US citizen parents. Her case comes under the statutes passed by Congress. Presuming you were born in the US, you are native born citizen, and are a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment Even if you'd been born in the Philippines, or elsewhere outside the US, you'd be citizen under statute laws, unless you were born before 1982 (or '86 I'd have to look it up) and your mother had lived in the US for more than 10 years total, 5 of them after her 14th birthday. If after that date, the resident requirement was 5 total, 2 after 14th birthday.

The only difference between the types is eligibility to the office of President. And if one were naturalized there are"time a citizen" requirements for various federal elected offices. Persons born in the US, native or natural born, and those born overseas who were citizens at birth, meet those by default, since they are much less than the age requirements. (There are also residency requirements, but they apply to native born and naturalized alike.)

[El Gato]

E.g., there was the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed while a lot of the Founders were still in Congress, which provided that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be its of the United State born beyond Sea, or out of the limits, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". Which pretty much establishes they had a different idea of the meaning of "natural born citizen" than Vattel.

Actually it means there understanding was either that of Vattel or the strictly "born in the country" version, but they wished to change it, to add children of citizens born outside the country. But five years later, they changed the language, they dropped the "natural born" and changed "beyond Sea, or out of the limits" to "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States". If they understood the Constitutional language to include those born outside the Limits of the US, they would not have needed to pass a law changing it. Then, five years later they may have realized that they couldn't change the original meaning, without a Constitutional amendment. But for whatever reason, they did drop the "natural born" and just made them citizens, and pretty much every immigration/naturalization law since then has kept the same standard for those born outside the country of US Citizen parents, and the "natural born" language has not been included. BTW, the title of both the 1790 and 1795 acts were "An Act to establish an Uniform Naturalization". Although the 1795 and later acts added, ",and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the Subject. Finally they just started amending it rather than passing a whole new act..for a while anyway.

1795 Act

1790 Act

In each case the link is to the second page of the act, which contains the relevant language).

[El Gato]

An underage child involved in foreign adoption has to go thru a process to reassert their US citizenship starting at age 18 to 21

I think you said you were born outside the country. That would be different than someone born inside the country. You would have gotten your citizenship via statute, someone born inside the country would be native born and their citizenship would flow from the 14th amendment, just as, if they were white, it would have flowed from state citizenship requirements prior to the 14th amendment.

[browardchad]

You keep posting that UPI article on various threads, without noting that the reference to Queens Hospital has been corrected:

 Quote from UPI:

(This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer.)

 The liink, which you neglected to post, still works:  Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois

An unattributed statement that the UPI acknowledges was made by the writer -- not the subject of the article. The same applies to the student author who wrote about Maya Soetoro in the Ed School newsletter that's the subject of this thread. The statement is unattributed, so it is the statement of the writer, not the person being interviewed. Any veteran copy editor would get a chuckle out of BP2's assertion that information presented in a published interview is automatically a statement by the subject.  There are ways to reword what a subject says, without using quotation marks, but even if stated in the writer's own words, unless it's attributed -- with qualifiers such as "Maya Soetoro says," "she remembers that," "she recalls," etc. -- it is never assumed to be a statement of the subject. Since Maya didn't say it, she has no need to retract it. And I don't think anyone but the most obsessive are losing any sleep about the publication's lack of retraction. It was a mistake made by a student in an obscure publication almost five years ago.