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.
I love it when logic prevails.
Thanks, David, for your posts.
Thanks, Lucy, for calling my attention to them.
Hawaii desired to increase their population numbers for federal government entitlement programs as Chief Engineer pointed out in his research.
Curiosity is all about nonsense if it can get away with it.
Curiosity is a troll. Period.
Ty for the ping. :) Curiosity’s profile is a joke. It’s full of lies, outright LIES!
But I'm not a birther!
Because he got 69.5 million popular votes and 365 electoral votes in November 2008.
But he had to get the nomination from the Dems first! So, the Dems didn't have anything better to run in the primaries?
I love David’s comments always.
He is doing what dems do best.
Most of legal paperwork is basically a form filled in. The guys who charge by the minute to make phone calls will charge for every case, whether they only had to have the secretary change a couple of lines or not.
How much is it worth to have the authority to loot the United States, anyway? 27K is pocket change compared to the trillions that have been thrown around in DC, and it isn't his money (what did he do to earn it?)
You aren't going to use public defender quality lawyers to defend against accusations of ineligibility, and that means cutting some checks.
Hawaii desired to increase their population numbers for federal government entitlement programs as Chief Engineer pointed out in his research.
As someone once said long ago, in another context, "Follow the money."
Thanks for the ping!
“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. ”
curiosity:
You are correct that "this isn't dispositive," but there is at least one more reason why Fukino's affirmation is not dispositive than the one that you give.
Dr. Fukino and other HI officials can only attest to the final amended vital BC record. If the original long form for Obama is the Blaine document or a similar document and was filed on August 8, 1961 with a Kenya birth location and that long form BC was subsequently amended to show an HI birth based on affidavits from mom and/or grandma, then the attestation of the HI officials would be the same: “Obama was born in Hawaii.”
So the statement by the HI officials is not dispositive of what the birth location is on Obama's pre-amendment long form BC filed on August 8, 1961.
HI officials would be liable to Obama for breach of privacy if they disclosed that the pre-amendment vital record showed a Kenya birth. They would be required to treat the pre-amendment Kenya birth vital record (such as the Blaine BC) as though it didn't exist and declare Obama to be born in HI.
This scenario of a Blaine-like original long form BC with a Kenya birth that is subsequently amended to show an HI birth explains perfectly the behavior of both Obama and the HI officials. This scenario is consistent with the 2007 HI short form COLB, which only has to reflect the amended vital record as of 2007, and makes the statements of Obama and HI officials completely factual, even if knowingly deceptive at the same time.
This Scenario makes the pre-amendment original long form difficult to discover even with a court order (even in a quo warranto hearing in the DC Circuit, I fear) given the fact that a current certified short-form COLB, if genuine, is "self-authenticating" proof of birth under the FRE.
If Lucas Smith's CPGH BC can been authenticated by a Kenya official, that could help sway a judge in Donofrio's quo warranto to spring Obama's full HI vital record including original and all amendments under the "best evidence" rule. Easier said than done.
From your #157:
“…their continuing failure to file the fake with some kind of evidentiary certificate under oath in any of their court proceedings...”
You may have addressed this elsewhere, but let me ask about Footnote #1 in the 1-26-09 Motion to Dismiss in Hollister v. Soetoro which states:
“President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org,…”
This representation to the court was made solely for the purpose of dismissing any claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Of course, the internet document was not a birth certificate but was a Certification which, according to the State of Hawaii, is an inconclusive document. Even if the document was given any weight, there are the opinions of expert document examiners that the internet document was altered.
No mention was made in the opposition reply, but couldn’t it have been argued the Footnote in the Motion constituted a “filing” which then could have led to the defeat of the Motion and perhaps more?
His was supposedly in an earlier edition of the paper. But that itself is odd, since he was born on Friday after regular business hours, and you'd think all the weekend births would get filed together. Or at least most of them. Yet there are lots of Aug. 6 births shown on that image, which was Sunday. The Obama announcement appeared on Aug. 13, while this Nordyke one appears to be from Aug. 16th. The announcements on the 13th include birth dates from the 2nd to the 6th. While the visibile ones from the paper of the 16th show birth dates from the 4th through the 9th. (the one from the 4th is the 3rd from the top, the Fonua daughter)
The two pages seem to be formated differently, and the one from the 13th shows none of the streaks and cracks that the one of the 16th shows.
******
Aug. 13, 1961 birth list: Obama is listed but the Nordyke twins are not. Why is that, even though Obama and the Nordyke twins were born only hours apart, and one day apart?
A few days later, Aug. 16, 1961 birth list: The Nordyke twins are listed, but Obama is not. Why is that, when Obama and the Nordyke twins were born only hours apart, and one day apart in the same Kapiolani Hospital?
1. Is it possible that we are assuming too much when we examine the Obama Aug. 13, 1961 birth list?
2. That is, is it possible that if Obama had really been born at Kapiolani Hospital as he and his supporters claim--- only one day earlier than the Nordyke twins---Obama's Aug. 4 birth should have been on the Aug. 16 birth newspaper list like the Nordyke twins Aug. 5 birth, and not on the Aug. 13 list as we see in the 1961 newspaper list posted on the internet?
3. Think about this about the Obama Aug. 13 list: We assume that the list contains some births that occurred at Kapiolani Hospital.
4. Obviously, not ALL the births listed occurred at Kapiolani Hospital, because there were several other hospitals in Hawaii at the time, and there were births that were listed that may not have occurred at a hospital at all.
5. But what if we assume wrong and NONE of the births listed on the Aug.13 list occurred at Kapiolani Hospital during the time frame of the births listed the Aug. 13 list?
6. That is, suppose the Kapiolani hospital births were listed in the Aug.16 list like the Nordyke twins Aug. 5 births, and not on the Aug.13 list where Obama's name is listed.
7. For example, the Aug. 13 list ranges from July 30 to Aug. 7, if I studied the list correctly.
(The names on the list were sometimes hard to read, so I copied the names the best I could. I don't live in Hawaii, so I am not familiar with Hawaiian names or street addresses. You can check the birth list to make sure I copied the names correctly.)
8. July 30: Mr. and Mrs. Thaddeus J. Raymond, 1371 Haloa Drive, son, July 30.
9. Aug. 7: Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Walker, 1660 S. King st.,daughter, Aug. 7.
10. As you can see, there is a time period range of about 9 days from July 30 to Aug. 7.
11. Obama was born on Aug. 4, according to Obama, while the twins were born on Aug.5. To me, both births are well within the July 30 to Aug. 7 time range.
12. So why aren't the Nordyke twins listed along with Obama, if the Aug. 13 list contains one or more births that occurred at Kapiolani hospital?
13. Again, is it possible that the Aug. 13 list does not contain ANY births that occurred at Kapiolani hospital, because the Kapiolani births were listed on the Aug. 16 list, the list that contains the Nordyke births?
14. Let's look at the Nordyke Aug. 16 list.
15. Aug. 4: Mr. and Mrs. Ofa K. Fonua, yosopa st. Laie, daughter, Aug. 4.
16. Aug. 5: Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Nordyke, 2013 Kakela Drive, twin daughters, Aug. 5.
17. Aug. 9: Mr. and Mrs. Gene H. Gomes, 2043 Iholena St. son, Aug. 9.
18. Aug. 4 to Aug.9: A time period of about 6 days.
19. My point is this about Obama's Aug. 4 birth: If. as Obama claims, he was born at Kapiolani Hospital on that date, then I say that Obama should be on the Aug. 16 list like the Nordyke twins and not on the Aug. 13 list.
20. This is what we need: We need someone here who is a lot smarter than me to try to divide the Aug. 13 and Aug. 16 list into those persons who were born in Kapiolani Hospital and those persons who born in other hospitals or not born in a hospital at all.
21. Many of the babies on the Aug.13 list are probably still alive today, so if we coud find as many persons on the list as possible to tell us whether or not they were or were not born at Kapiolani hospital, it would go a long way to help us better understand why the Obama birth and the Nordyke twins births were not listed on the same day in the Hawaii newspapers.
22. As I see it, we need a skilled researcher to try to contact those persons listed on the Obama Aug. 13 birth list so that we can find out how many on the list were born at Kapiolani Hospital and how many were not.
23. My theory is this: Obama's grandmother or mother went to the Hawaii births department and presented Obama's birth certificate, bypassing the usual step where a hospital sends the birth certificate directly to the Hawaii government birth department.
24. So when the Hawaii birth department got the Obama birth certificate from Obama's grandmother, it merely mixed Obama's birth certificate facts with facts from births that occurred at different hospitals---remember, there is no hospital name listed in the newspapers---and simply sent the mixed list to the newspapers, and that is why, in my opinion, Obama's birth and the Nordyke births are listed on different days in the Hawaii newspapers.
25. Finally, I wonder how many births listed in the Aug. 13 newspaper occurred at Kapiolani Hospital. I hope we can find out.
26. Myself, I have trouble accepting the theory that the Obama and the Nordyke births are listed on different days in the newspapers because a newspaper deadline forced the newspaper to publish the births 3 days apart, when Obama and the Nordyke twins were supposedly born one day apart in the same Kapiolani hospital on Aug. 4 and Aug. 5 respectively.
You will notice it says that Obama Sr is mentioned as being present during the birth, but from all accounts he was NOT present during the birth as relayed by Ann’s friends on Mercer Island, including amongst others Susan Blake and her best friend in high school where she often stayed and did her homework while enjoying chocolate cake her friend’s mother had made. Sorry the friend’s name escapes me at the moment.
So this application filing on Aug 8,
http://s668.photobucket.com/albums/vv47/MissieBessie/?action=view¤t=postandmail-2.jpg
with Obama’s birth certificate copy,
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/possibleBHOKenyanBC—18018714-03118.jpg
provided for the Obama/Dunham Divorce file in 1964 (fitting the timeline) which just so happens to have a missing page 11:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11
is a credible set of circumstances.
Obama’s failure to present a valid document constituting res judicata with Obama v. Berg was also mentioned in the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
Wonder if any Provincial General British medical staff that remember Ann, not in hiding or ‘carjacked’.
You’ve mentioned that besides Perkins Coie, Obama has been represented by Kirkland and Ellis, Williams and Conley, Mayer Brown and Platt. Is there a public record to ascertain Obama has been represented by such firms? Critics have a hard time countering common sense when faced with Obama spending millions in legal fees rather than $10 Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record form.
Didn't the Republicans?
Of course, but I’m not trying to blame that on the Dems. You are laying all the blame on the Repubs that Zero was elected! Are you a Democrat?...you take no responsibility!
Different point.
My argument is that if they thought any one of the fake certificates was real, they would have attached it to a piece of court paper containing an affidavit that it was real on the basis of some testimony (Barack found it somewhere etc.); or that someone reasonably believed it was real.
That would have had some evidentiary weight as opposed to referencing the fake on a web site where no one could look at it.
If I had been counsel in the proceeding, I might have tried to focus the court on the issue by moving to strike the Footnote in the Motion papers.
The obvious reason they didn't do that is because they don't have any piece of paper for which there is any real credible position and they don't want to risk subjecting themselves to a perjury charge with a false affidavit.
Where should the blame lie? The Democrats nominated him but the Republicans countered with a ticket that Jimmy Carter could have come out of retirement and beaten. Can't blame that on the Democrats.
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.
