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.
Yes I wonder why he is spending so much money hiding the “certificate of live birth”, when displaying it would put all of this so call conspiracy to rest?
That is what I have always thought---and it wouldn't matter where he was born. I believe he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. There is also the question about his registering with the draft board that all American males were supposed to do at the age of 18--or whatever.
Because theirs is an original, produced at the time of their birth, and his is certified abstract printed in 2007. Both are equally good for the purposes of proving US birth.
Why doesn't it make sense to you? What leads you to believe that birth certificate numbers coincided exactly with the order of birth? FYI, bureaucracies are rarely that precise.
Also, his number has “1961” where theirs has “61”.
Y2K.
And what, exactly, are you basing that belief on?
Because at the time Americans couldn’t travel to Pakistan!
Because theirs is an original, produced at the time of their birth, and his is certified abstract printed in 2007. Both are equally good for the purposes of proving US birth.
******
So, please tell me why Obama, the President of the United States, won't show us his Hawaii long form birth certificate?
Obama obviously has one if the Nordyke twins have one.
The Nordyke twins seem to have no problem voluntarily showing us their long form birth certificates.
Again, Obama obviously has a Hawaii long form birth certificate like the Nordyke twins have theirs, if, indeed, he was born in Hawaii and in a Hawaii hospital as Obama claims.
So why won't Obama let us see it? It looks suspicious to me.
What pic? What scar? I missed that one.
That’s not true.
Travel by U.S. citizens to Pakistan has never been banned at any time, not by the U.S. government and not by the Pakistani government.
Why anyone would believe your crap is beyond me.
I’m reading through this thread one comment at a time, so if you already pointed this out TSoL, or if you commented on this point later curiosity, please forgive my intrusion in your discussion...
Curiosity — You omitted a rather important section when you copied TSoL’s post and replied with your statements...
The section you omitted is;
“or if dual citizenship qualifies as “natural born” “
I’m hoping this was merely an “oops”, but I think not as it would’ve distracted from your retorts.
Obama — even if he WAS born in Hawaii - was born with British Citizenship through his father. He is a self-admitted and confirmed by laws of the time British Subject BY BIRTH according to the UK’s laws. Can one be a “natural born citizen” and also be a British Subject? Was this not SPECIFICALLY the case with those our Founding Fathers sought to exclude from holding the Presidency? Was this not the EXACT situation the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent in writing the clause regarding the requirements for office? The way I read the Constitution since Barack was born a British Subject he would have to be more than 250+ years old in order to qualify.
No matter ALL the other questions, and all the other arguments out there — this particular point stands out to me as perhaps the most obvious cause for disqualification of Barack Obama from holding the Office of President of the United States.
I’m curious myself to know what your response is Curiosity, to the above FACT. IS a British Subject by BIRTH allowed to hold the office of the President even IF he also holds US Citizenship through his mother (which is questionable as well due to the laws in place at the time of his birth)?
0bama doesn't want to risk finding out.
I suspect, though, that even if the SCOTUS were to review the case, they would let the usurper continue, because they would fear the backlash and riots if he were removed. Laws and The Constitution would really play no part in the decision. I haven't seen the kind of courage out of the court that would make me think otherwise.
******
I am confused by the following information I see above:
1. Obama supposedly was born in a Hawaii hospital on Aug.4,1961.
2. The Nordyke twins were also born in the same Hawaii hospital on the next day, Aug.5, according to the newspaper birth list presented in this thread, which means that Obama and the twins were born one day apart.
3. However, according to the statement at the beginning of this message above, the Obama birth list appeared on Aug.13 while the twins birth listing appeared on Aug.16, which is 3 days apart.
4. So can someone help me and explain why the two births appeared 3 days apart in the newspaper birth list, when Obama's birth and the twins' births occurred only 1 day apart in the same hospital?
5. Myself, I want to see the ENTIRE birth list in the newspaper and not just the part where the Nordyke name is lised, because the birth listing I see is cut off at the bottom at one name past the Nordyke name.
6. That is, there is the Nordyke name and then one other name past it that I see, and then the list suddenly ends.
7. In fact, birth information about the last name is cut off so that we can't even see what date the child was born.
8. So if someone here can find the entire birth list in that newspaper dated August 16, 1961 and post it here, I would appreciate it.
ah ha! rule # 3 - ridicule him! Alinsky rocks when used against THEM...
“Simple he was born with ambiguous genitalia”
Thanks for the ping, LucyT.
So the Nordyke twins birth announcement has been found. How exciting! (/sarc) I’m more curious as to why BO’s long form hasn’t *been found*.
[Ping to Brytani for subject matter - adoption/amendment of BC’s & question for you at the end of this post... :) Ping to Lucy just because it may be of interest to the list...]
First — I have SERIOUS questions as to whether Obama is indeed qualified, and the preponderance of the evidence definitely shows Obama is hiding SOMETHING, for what reason, I can’t even guess at this point (other than it would’ve cost him the election were it to have been answered beforehand...). I’m a supporter of the work Polarik did to debunk the scanned COLB. SO... with that said, I will post the following (I just don’t want to be accused of being an Obama supporter or being accused of defending that Communist Pig in any way shape or form)...
I’m going to sound like a devil’s advocate here, but Obama may not be ABLE to legally produce his ORIGINAL birth certificate if his adoption by Soetero was recorded here in the US. Upon adoption those records are then sealed — even Obama himself cannot unseal it in that case without a court order that he himself seeks.
Which would then, of course, beg the question of how the short copy has his name listed as Obama and not Soetero, and why Obama didn’t list the name Barry Soetero on his IL Bar Admission paperwork. However, I just wanted to point out something that a lot of people seem to overlook:
When you are an adoptee (in the vast majority of states) you cannot get even a NON-Certified copy of the original certificate. (An exception might be an older child who is adopted by a step-parent who already had a copy of the original, but even then it would not be legal to use after the adoption, or after any other amendment to the record).
Now, even in the states where you are allowed to access those records upon the age of majority, (or if your petition to the court is granted in other states) the original, non-amended, records are NOT legally admissible as proof of id, citizenship, etc... (Kind of like an expired license is invalid - or a married woman who has had her name legally changed cannot use an old social security card with her maiden name on it as proof of ID — I’m sure there’s a better example, but those are off the top of my head.)
I base the above on the fact that I am adopted myself, and I also worked with quite a few people in several states to try to overturn these laws, so I’m pretty familiar with these particular statutes even though I admit I’m not completely current with any changes over say the last 8 years or so...
The State of Hawaii has confirmed that his BC has been AMENDED, but there is no confirmation of when the amendment took place, nor what information was changed... [IIRC this confirmation was just received a couple weeks ago - if that - and was due to proceedings along the lines of FOIA requests in Hawaii.
The Hawaii Dept. of Vital Statistics confirmed that records of an amendment to the certificate do exist, but not what the records themselves show as that would be “sealed” information in most cases - if not all. And, it definitely wouldn’t be information that anyone other than the subject of the records could request to have released barring a court order, and even THEN the chances of getting the records are usually VERY slim at best — more than a few pleas in cases to open these records have been denied even when a person or persons’ LIVES were at stake due to genetic medical problems.
This is not to say that the records could not be requested by a judge, just that Obama himself could not simply write away for a copy of his ORIGINAL “long-form” for $10.00 as people like to mention. Also, it would not be up to Obama to seal those records himself, so when I hear people talk about Obama requesting the records sealed I am puzzled, frankly. They would be sealed by law if they were amended immediately.
I just think this is very important information for people discussing this issue to take into account. I have yet to hear Obama’s lawyers bring this up, but they may be holding it as an “ace up the sleeve” where as soon as a judge requested the originals they would pull that out and try to argue against the release citing these laws. One would hope national security would trump a right to “privacy”, but I don’t have a lot of faith in our judiciary system just in seeing how these cases have all been handled so far.
Incidentally, closed birth records are a MAJOR source of contention among many varied people of all political ideology. I have wondered for a while if some of the Conservative “anti-Birthers” see the connection and rail against our questions due to the fact that they do not WANT these records accessible to even the adoptee themselves...
Adoption is a major source of income for a great many in political circles (in some states like Missouri it was INCREDIBLY closely tied to major politicians in decades past - just to name one state - Texas is another). Closed records facilitate deception and fraud within the adoption industry which should come as no surprise to those who have contemplated some of the issues regarding Obama’s birth records and his alleged adoption in Indonesia.
Sorry this was such a long post. I just think it would do all of us birthers well to know how these laws may factor in the future of some of the current court cases.
Brytani:
Do you remember the name of the other FReeper we were discussing this point with on that thread a few days back? I can’t and my daily pings take up a few pages a piece! LOL Thanks in advance if you can remember off the top of your head, or have anything to add on this particular point.
And for good reason.
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.