. . . #155, 156, 157.
[Thanks, David.]
Posted on 01/14/2010 4:25:15 PM PST by curiosity
“Inspector” Lucas Smith claimed in comments on YouTube to have examined all newspaper birth announcements from August through December of 1961, not finding the birth announcement of the Nordyke twins (born at the same hospital as President Obama, one day later). Whether not finding was through oversight or fraud, the birth announcement is there in the newspaper on August 16 (Obama’s announcement was on August 13).
Birthers have attempted to discredit the Obama birth announcement claiming, against testimony of the newspaper and the Hawaii Department of Health that such announcements came from the department, that anyone could place such an “ad”. The very newspaper heading does not say “Birth Announcements” but rather “Health Bureau Statistics” if anyone needed further confirmation of what the announcements are. If a contemporary birth were omitted, then one would ask how, if the Health Department submitted the announcements, could one be omitted. It turns out that the objection is a fake, because the announcement is there just as it should be according to official policy. This announcement, just as the original Obama announcement, was found and published by an industrious blogger.
The Nordyke announcement is at the bottom of the column.
Was the airport in Mombassa where Stanley Ann was denied boarding? Not clear if she went to Nairobi first, then went back to Mombassa? Thanks for posts.
Go check what the tobacco lawsuit lawyers got sometime. $27K/case is cheap if it keeps one in the chair next to the football.
Recall, if you will, that to those people the Constitution of the United States is not a document limiting and delegating such Federal Authority as the people will allow and safeguarding the rights of all citizens, but an impediment to be obfusticated, distorted, worked around, and if all else fails ignored.
This has been shown to curiosity numerous times with reference to BNA and more. However, it will never “sink” in, but should not be surprising for someone living in a liberal State equal to Mass.!!!
He himself already has a copy that he could show, according to his "own" (?) book!!
However, who cares, his blood line make him a Kenyan/British/E.U. citizen and most likely still an Indonesian citizen as well, making him NOT to be a NBC!!!
Bongs were not popular at that time!!!
Yes I'm sure. I can find dozens of sites claiming that travel was forbidden but not a single one can produce the State Department statement forbidding such travel. That's because it doesn't exist.
BTW, any ideas about who paid for his trip?
Not a clue.
If your posting false information trying to make your point then where are you any less deceptive than he is?
I guess I'll have to check everything I read here with Snopes! Maybe we all should do that!
The claim that travel was forbidden to Pakistan by U.S. citizens has been shown to be wrong several times. The claim that Obama held Indonesian citizenship appears to be impossible given the laws in place at the time.
My initial point was that we know very little about Barrack Obama/Barry Soetoro and I don't know any more now than I didn't know before!
I came to this thread because I had never heard of the Nordyke twins!
The only thing I've learned from this is that I've thought that I'm somewhat informed on current events and issues beacause of FR and now I'm hit with the reality that I might be mis-informed by what I read on FR.
NO, I have no idea what passport he used and I have a feeling he wasn’t there to visit folks either. While the “Americans couldn’t travel to Pakistan” isn’t true, there is a very suspicious reason he would be going IMO. All conjecture though.
I'm not saying $27K is a ridiculous amount to spend on any lawsuit. I'm saying that it shouldn't cost anything close to that to deal with these lawsuits, which haven't even gotten to discovery, much less testimony. How much can it cost to have your lawyer draft a motion to dismiss, especially once they're doing it for the 20th time?
It's one of the reasons I find the "he's spent 1.5 million to hide his BC" argument unpersuasive.
I don't recall. My best recollection is Nairobi but I am unsure.
The primary route back from East Africa is from Nairobi to Glasgow, Scotland--then to North America, through Vancouver BC to the West Coast and New York to the East Coast.
There was a feeder from Mombassa. But I don't think Stanley Ann went to Mombassa until she went there because the hospital was staffed with British doctors--I think that was after she was denied boarding to return to the US to deliver.
Actually, I think Hawaii has at least two statutes and maybe three that would effectively permit that--or at least where the affiant parent or grandparent was not required to say or describe how the baby was born or delivered in Hawaii as a condition to obtaining a Hawaii birth certificate.
Somewhere, there is an extensive discussion of the fact that there was a fundamental underlying political objective that was the reason why Hawaii law provided for certificates for individuals who were born somewhere else.
And we all also understand that many if not most states have comparable statutes applicable in many cases to specific situations--such as adoption by an instate parent of a child born elsewhere.
Absolute nonsense. Hawaii was registering out of state births as a matter of practice from shortly after WWII for purposes of affecting the statehood debate.
If there is a certificate, and so far no real certificate of anything has ever been made readily accessible for examination, it isn't evidence of anything regarding his place of birth for the reason that certificates in the form of the photoshoped documents they have published were being routinely issued pursuant to a state statute that provided for such certificates without any support for the proposition that the individual was in fact born in Hawaii.
While I am at your topics, I note looking at your home page here a bunch of other nonsense that I hope you don't believe is real.
He produced a certification of live birth, photographs of which were posted on the internet. If authentic, that document resolves the question, as it clearly indicates he was born in Hawaii. The photographs show clearly that the certification has all the requirements to be accepted as proof of birthplace by the State Department: a raised seal, registrar's signature, and the date filed is less than a year after the date of birth (the two are only 4 days appart). If authentic, this document proves conclusively he was born in Hawaii. But one might object that the photographs could have been photoshopped. Only a hard copy can be authenticated, and no document examinar has, to date, examined the physical hard copy. Fair enough. I'll grant that if this were the only piece of evidence, there would be some reasonable doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. But it's not the only piece of evidence. 2) The head of the Hawaii Department of Health officially and explicitly affirmed that "Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii." That is a direct quote. So it's pretty clear that Hawaii's vital records show a birth in Hawaii. But this isn't disposative either. It's possible Obama's vital records show a Birth in Hawaii, but are based on a birth certificate that was filed more than a year after birth. The state department doesn't accept birth certificates that were filed one year or more after birth, so why should we? So there is still some room for reasonable doubt. The last piece of evidence, however, lays that to rest. 3)Birth announcements in the papers. Contrary to birther myths, the papers in Hawaii based their announcements on information receieved directly from the Department of Health. This is clear if you look at the top of the page where the announcements appear. It's also been confirmed by one of the newspaper's spokesman. Since the birth announcements were within one week of Bambi's brith, his birth must have been registered within a few days.
As to your point #1, first place, there is absolutely no reason to believe that anything they have posted in the nature of a certificate is not fraudulent. As a matter of fact, their continuing failure to file the fake with some kind of evidenciary certificate under oath in any of their court proceedings is pretty good evidence that this piece of paper is a fake.
Further, the most credible real certificate of his birth in existence which is filed under oath in a court proceeding certifies his birth in Coast General Hospital in Mombassa. It too has seals and real signatures of real people who were serving in a capacity which would have had them issuing such certificates. And it has the provinance of having been issued in response to a request for evidence in his mother's divorce proceeding long before the question became a political issue.
#2 is just not true.
And much of #3 isn't true either--there is still room for doubt about the publication; given the amount of fraudulent documentation the Obama supporters have produced on this question, you would need to produce real evidence to prove much of anything about the announcement.
However as I have said often, I assume that in fact a filing was made in Hawaii on August 8, 1961 and I believe Obama was in Hawaii when that happened. However that filing was acceptable without regard to where he was born under Hawaii statutes (as in the case of statutory law in other states with respect to specific circumstances such as adoption). That filing doesn't certify to anything.
In fact, whatever was filed on August 8, 1961, the continuing Obama effort to obstruct legitimate inquiry as to what that filing looks like and says clearly implies that it also includes some specific information such as a copy of the real birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Mombassa.
Could it be that "the laws in place at the time" didn't apply to "the won"--even back then!
Since you know so much, what do you think Obama is hiding? My point is---they are hiding a lot about his questionable past and it started long before the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers dis-assosiations.
I am curious how Obama/Soetoro got to be POTUS with so little experience or success and can't string three sentences together without TOTUS.
What are they hiding?
. . . #155, 156, 157.
[Thanks, David.]
That would be very convenient for you, but like so many other Birther claims there is nothing in the way of evidence to support it.
Since you know so much, what do you think Obama is hiding?
Beats me.
I am curious how Obama/Soetoro got to be POTUS with so little experience or success and can't string three sentences together without TOTUS.
Because he got 69.5 million popular votes and 365 electoral votes in November 2008. Because he ran against a ticket so weak that even John Kerry could have beaten it, in a country that was so sick of 8 years of Bush that Obama didn't need much of a resume. That's how.
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.