Posted on 01/05/2011 11:13:52 AM PST by Beckwith
Obots are always pointing to the two "birth announcements" from Honolulu newspapers (images here) as evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth.
As anyone who has ever had a birth, wedding, or death in the family, knows, the information in those announcements are sent to newspapers by the family, or agents of the family. They do not originate from government agencies, hospitals, churches or synagogues, although they may originate with political campaigns.
Beyond questions about the source of the Obama birth announcements being his family, probably grandmother Madelyn, there is a question about the law to consider. Could those microfilm/fiche copies (nobody has ever seen the original newsprint copies) from 50-year old newspapers be allowed as evidence in a court of law?
So, as a civilian, I asked an attorney (actually two), if one must posses and present the original newsprint copy of those "birth announcements" for them to be admitted into evidence.
This attorney, practicing in a mid-western state, and in the federal courts, pointed to the Federal Rules of Evidence 1002 -- Requirement of Original:
"To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress."
"If I was a judge, I would not rule on anything in this matter, because I could be held as a co-conspirator when the truth comes out. This is worse than Chester Arthur's cover-up and is more documented."
If the Honolulu birth announcement was not the result of a practice of the hospital notifying the papers (and would that not make it likely that the hospital would be identified in such announcement?), then the answer to your question is painfully obvious and answered with another question.
If your mother gave birth to you while on vacation in Europe, would your family send an announcement of your birth to the paper in the town where you were born, but where nobody knows you or cares, or would they send one to the hometown paper, read by close family and friends?
The notion that if Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu, therefore the appearance of the announcement was part of some conspiratorial and prescient plan to run him for president someday is a straw man argument (unfortunately, John Gibson is one who embraces it).
That Obama's father wasn't a citizen was no secret. It is in his autobiographies; everyone knew it. Yet no one claimed before his election that this disqualified him from being a Natural Born Citizen: none of his primary opponents raised this issue; McCain and Palin disn't raise the issue in the general election; not one member of the Electoral College objected; not one member of Congress raised any objection when they certified the electoral votes; Chief Justice Roberts didn't object to swearing Obama into office. During the entire primary and general election campaign, not one lawyer or law professor wrote an op-ed or a letter to the editor claiming that Obama wasn't a Natural Born Citizen. Not one conservative legal organization (American Center for Law and Justice, Pacific Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, etc.) ever said this was an issue. No conservative media person ever said that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to be elected. The only court to have addressed the merits of the eligibility issue (the Arkeny case) said that two citizen parents are not necessary to be a Natural Born Citizen. I would therefore put the odds of any court ever agreeing with your definition at exactly zero.
Are you saying that every person who places a birth announcement in their or their parents' hometown newspaper even though the baby wasn't born there, has presidential ambitions for the baby?
Incorrect. The Hawaii DOH would send them to both Hawaii newspapers, who would then print the birth announcements. This is old news. Try to keep up.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/editing/
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/
For starters. There is also the fact, somewhere on that blog, that each newspaper - the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, had different lists of birth announcements. They were not the same. And, the total number of birth announcements was fewer than the actual number of births.
As a Star-Bulletin employee explained to WorldNetDaily, the editors “print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,” and did so in 1961. And the Advertiser worked the same way.
Please note my comment above.
We can argue this on both sides, to cut to the chase, we need to see Obama’s original long form birth certificate and any amendments, adoption records, his school records, his and his mothers travel records, his social security card application,his voter registration applications and records, his I-9 (who authorized his employment for US govt, did he fill one out?), etc and also have the Supreme Court decide the definition of Natural Born Citizen for Constitutional Presidential/VP eligibility purposes...the rest is all an exercise in futility.
There are reasons they might do it, if only so they could put something in a scrapbook.
But apparently Granny Dunham wasn’t a scrapbooker, because those birth announcements were forged. Hopefully I’ll be able to do a large post about it soon, but I can say that a supposed large “scratch” on the online Star-Bulletin images don’t appear in the microfilms now, so we know the images that were posted can’t be from the microfilms that are there now. Conversely, the Advertiser image is nearly pristine even though the Hawaii State Librarian has been recommending (rightly) that people look for copies from somewhere else because their microfilms are almost unreadable because of scratch lines. So the pristine online Advertiser images didn’t come from the HSL microfilms as claimed either.
And in several libraries we were able to copies from the microfilms on 2 different dates, and even between the times we checked, the microfilms were changed out because “scratches” that were in the earlier copies are gone in the later copies. There are a bunch of similar anomalies.
So suffice it to say that the microfilms that are in the libraries now show that there has been monkey business with the microfilms and what has been posted online did not come from the actual microfilms in the libraries.
You need to stop posting links to lamestream media propaganda. The left would like to thank you for your help.
If the HDOH sent the announcements to both papers, then why do the papers have different lists? Some names appear in only one. Judging by the number of announcements compared to the number of births reported in the CDC, some names don’t appear in either. Some names appear 2-3 weeks after they appeared in the other paper.
And the HDOH was only authorized to release lists for the newspapers in 1976.
The “full faith and credit clause” also means that if Hawaii statute says that an amended and/or late birth certificate is not probative, other states have to abide by that as well. And that is precisely what HRS 338-17 says - which is inconvenient for Obama, because the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006. It is not legally valid. BEcause that amendment is not noted on the Factcheck or Fight the Smears COLB’s, those are known to be forgeries. The HDOH has also made other statements which indirectly confirm in 2 other ways that the Factcheck COLB is forged.
So what do we have? Forged birth announcements (see my last post) that wouldn’t even have come from the HDOH, online images of a forged COLB, and an amended (and most probably also late), and thus legally invalid, birth certificate at the HDOH.
It’s no wonder Obama doesn’t want a judge to look at this issue in earnest.
Do you have any idea when or why the originals were destroyed, and by whom? Either of the paper copies or of the original, untampered microfilms?
Who changed the call number on the Aug 1-15 Honolulu Advertiser microfilm box at the Library of Congress so that the microfilm would be temporarily “lost” until the microfilm could be changed out and the call number changed back to what it was supposed to be? When did they do it, and why?
But what is absolutely untrue is that there was no connection between any government agency and these newspaper announcements, as was stated.
The Hawaii DOH says they send the information to the papers. The Papers say they get the information through the Hawaii DOH.
While I never discounted there being other mechanisms to get listed (and even suggested that filing for a COLB for a baby NOT born in Hawaii (they issued them) might trigger the same DOH notice to the newspapers); what the article said was ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE about there being NO connection between any government agency and these birth announcements.
Easily dismissed untruths of this sort serve to discredit the cause, even worse is when the wagons are circled around the untruth and fire is directed at those who dared to point out that what was said was untrue.
Typical M.O. unfortunately.
But what is absolutely untrue is that there was no connection between any government agency and these newspaper announcements, as was stated.
The Hawaii DOH says they send the information to the papers. The Papers say they get the information through the Hawaii DOH.
While I never discounted there being other mechanisms to get listed (and even suggested that filing for a COLB for a baby NOT born in Hawaii (they issued them) might trigger the same DOH notice to the newspapers); what the article said was ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE about there being NO connection between any government agency and these birth announcements.
Easily dismissed untruths of this sort serve to discredit the cause, even worse is when the wagons are circled around the untruth and fire is directed at those who dared to point out that what was said was untrue.
Typical M.O. unfortunately.
The HDOH was only authorized to send announcements to the papers in 1976.
And the source cited in a Honolulu Advertiser article as saying that they got the birth announcements from the HDOH gave conflicting information from what Lori Starfelt said the HDOH told her. Starfelt was under the impression that there were only birth announcements in the Sunday paper because the HDOH told her they printed out a list at the end of the week. But the source for the Advertiser story said he went every day and picked up the lists.
Unfortunately for both those sources, there are birth announcements every day of the week, and the announcements that show up in one paper sometimes don’t show up in the other paper at all and sometimes show up 2-3 weeks later than in the other paper. 26% of registered births went unreported in the Star-Bulletin, for instance, according to an analysis of the August 1961 births reported in the Star-Bulletin compared to the number of Oahu births in August 1961 as reported in the 1961 CDC Natality Report.
The online images “conveniently” included exactly the same borders, hiding the fact that the Star-Bulletin which had Obama’s announcement actually included 28 other announcements which had not been included in the Advertiser page which had Obama’s announcement.
I say “conveniently” because not only did those online images have the same borders, the three different images of the Advertiser were the SAME SCAN even though the people who presented them said they got the copies independently. And the 2 Star-Bulletin images were the SAME SCAN even though one came from the Honolulu Advertiser office and the other came from someone who claimed to get it from the Hawaii State Library microfilms. Not only the borders match, but the scanning edges (waviness, etc) match.
So we’ve been fed a bunch of baloney on how the birth announcements got into the newspapers.
And if you read my recent posts you will see that Obama’s announcements did not appear in the papers in 1961 at all. They first appeared on paper forgeries which were scanned into digital form and posted online with a statement that they had come from the library microfilms. Some time after that, the library microfilms were changed out - inaccurately, since the resulting microfilms don’t match the online images.
Actually, the first newspaper employee who was contacted about 2 1/2 years ago said that he didn’t know how they did it in 1961.
The person now is lying. If you read the links I posted, or even just contemplate the fact that in Aug. 1961, each paper not exactly the same lists or numbers of babies, and not all the babies born were announced in the papers, you’d realize that the announcements in the papers at that time could not possibly have come from the the state Dept of Vital Statistics.
If they did, both newspapers would have had the exact same list, which they did not, and every birth would be in the papers, which they were not.
What are you getting at?
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post.
No, it was simply planted evidence to facilitate getting him a Hawaiin birth certificate so that he could be an American citizen.
From what I can see in my quick search of your posts it appears that you have done quite a bit of looking into this. But I cannot see anything that puts your ideas all together. In particular I'm interested in images you think are important and why they are important. I'm interested in some speculation about how replacement of library microfilms might be accomplished, and also whether you think ALL original microfilms have been replaced.
ML/NJ
Yeah, I know, but can I have the "over?"
This is a problem. I would say that perhaps 35% of my fellow citizens flat out agree with my position, i.e., that "Natural Born Citizen," status requires both parents to be citizens.
At the very least, I would "hope" that 1 state will make this an issue. It is a valid Constitutional question that must be answered.
What next? The offspring of two illegal aliens running for POTUS?
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.