FINAL REPORT: Obama's Birth Announcements Fail To Indicate "Natural Born" Status

The Daily Pen ^ | April 2, 2011 | Penbrook Johannson

[Creme Brulee]

A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, conclusively, they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified “Live" birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined "vital event" by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols.

[snowsislander]

This is truly one of the most informative and interesting pieces on Hawaiian natal records that I have seen; I especially applaud the author for taking the time to interview Mr. Hesch and to publish the details of that interview.

The final two paragraphs are all too true:

As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks, we would like to say this:

Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter. Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.

[curiosity]

If you admit that home births did occur and were reported to the Health Department back in 1961, then it seems to me that you are leaving the door open to the possibility that one of those home births could have been the birth of Obama.

Yes, it is extremely unlikely, but possible. What of it?

[curiosity]

So you are saying that ALL workers in the sugar and pineapple fields located in several Hawaii islands in 1961 were born in the United States, specifically in Hawaii, which had only been a state for two years in 1961.

I didn't say all, but most. I'm sure there may have been a handful immigrants among them, but if so, they likely weren't from Asia, as Asian immigration was practically non-existant at that point in time thanks to the extremely low quotas allowed to Asians by the McCarran-Walter act.

You also have to realize that by the 1960's, thanks to mechanization, there just weren't that many pineapple or sugar cane workers. The days in which the plantations required hoards of workers to harvest their crops were long gone.

[curiosity]

I mean, it couldn’t be something simple like the grandparents wanted their grandson to have the advantages of being recognized as an American citizen rather than go through life as a third world citizen. Why, that would be CRAZY!

Yes, it would be crazy, because as the child of a US citizen, their grandson was eligible for naturalized citizenship had he in fact been born abroad. You are alleging his grandparents risked a felony fraud conviction in order to obtain something that could be obtained perfectly legally.

[Lee'sGhost]

That’s not what I’m implying at all.

Get over yourself.

[john mirse]

I didn't say all, but most. I'm sure there may have been a handful immigrants among them, but if so, they likely weren't from Asia, as Asian immigration was practically non-existant at that point in time thanks to the extremely low quotas allowed to Asians by the McCarran-Walter act.

******

Do you think that it is possible these these "handful" of immigrants back in 1961 arrived in Hawaii with children, children who may have been registered as being born in Hawaii when they were not born in Hawaii?

And how do you know that most of the workers in the sugar and pineapple fields in Hawaii in 1961 were born in the United States? Can you point me to a website where I can find such information? Thanks. If, say, the average age of a worker in the sugar and pineapple fields was around 30 years old, then it would mean that he or she was born somewhere around 1930.

And when did you say that the McCarren-Walter Act took effect?

[curiosity]

That’s not what I’m implying at all.

What exactly are you implying?

[curiosity]

Do you think that it is possible these these "handful" of immigrants back in 1961 arrived in Hawaii with children, children who may have been registered as being born in Hawaii when they were not born in Hawaii?

I suppose it is possible in the sense that anything is possible, but it's extremely unlikely.

And how do you know that most of the workers in the sugar and pineapple fields in Hawaii in 1961 were born in the United States?

Because the number of immigrants living in Hawaii in the 1960's was very low.

If, say, the average age of a worker in the sugar and pineapple fields was around 30 years old, then it would mean that he or she was born somewhere around 1930.

Quotas on immigrants from Asia were severely lowered in the 1920's, meaning that there was barely any Asian immigration from 1920 until the quotas were lifted in 1965.

[curiosity]

Here's a little more detail about the laws limiting Asian Immigration between 1920-1961:

First there was the Johnson-Reed act of 1924, which virtually eliminiated all immigration from Asia. You can find it here:

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ImmigrationAct

The above act was effect until the McCarren-Walter Act was passed in 1952, which allowed some Asian immigration, but very little. You can read about it here:

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ImmigrationAct

The 1952 act remained in effect until 1965.

As a result, there was very little Asian immigration (or immigration of any sort) to Hawaii between 1920 and 1965, and hence a very small immigrant population on the islands as of 1961.

[john mirse]

As a result, there was very little Asian immigration (or immigration of any sort) to Hawaii between 1920 and 1965, and hence a very small immigrant population on the islands as of 1961.

*****

Well, how small is "small"? 50 people? 1000 or more people?

Is it possible that this "small" immigrant population you talk about brought children with them who were registered as being born in Hawaii when they were not?

I mean, did the territory of Hawaii have some special procedure or law that allowed this "small" immigration population to register their children as being born in Hawaii without going to jail if the authorities found out?

[curiosity]

Well, how small is "small"? 50 people? 1000 or more people?

I don't know. You could find out by looking at census records, which are available to the public.

Is it possible that this "small" immigrant population you talk about brought children with them who were registered as being born in Hawaii when they were not?

Highly unlikely. If they brought small children with them on immigrant visas, then said children would be eligible for naturalization in a number of years, obviating any need for them to committ birth fraud to secure their citizenship. All laws barring Asians from naturalization had been repealed by this point.

I mean, did the territory of Hawaii have some special procedure or law that allowed this "small" immigration population to register their children as being born in Hawaii without going to jail if the authorities found out?

Not that I am aware of. I've read the territorial laws on vital statistics from the time, and I've seen nothing to indicate any special procedures that would make fraud easy. I also haven't seen any evidence suggesting the territorial authorities were tolerant of such fraud, nor any evidence that such fraud was widespread. Have you got any evidence?

It seems highly unlikely to me. The last thing a territory seeking statehood would want to do is enable and tolerate widespread vital record fraud. Surely Congress would not look upon it favorabily when considering the territory's statehood application.

[curiosity]

Well, how small is "small"? 50 people? 1000 or more people?

FYI, I found the number of foreign-born persons residing in Hawaii as of 1960: 68,900.

That's fewer than in any west coast state save Alaska. You can find it here:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab13.html

[Still Thinking]

So it’s more of a social thing than an official announcement?

[Still Thinking]

Classic False Dilemma argument, a well known propaganda technique

Dude! WTF? I dislike The Won as much as anyone, but his presidency hasn't caused a suspension of my logical faculties. Now, another poster's response gave me more perspective on these announcements and why and how they're filed that helped address my original question, but jeez! "propoganda"? Don't be a dick.

[advertising guy]

the wheels of justice are slow but grind exceedinly fine

Ofraud is busted and WILL be know for what he did

.. the problem, and rightfully so , is standing.

..that was defeated by 2 things
1. Selective service
2. the name Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud..

his selective rigamaro is a federal crime w/ no statute of limitations and the proof is him assuming a not legal to him name

he was and is today legally, Barry soetero (sp)

[rockabyebaby]

Yes, as I said, anyone, anywhere can put a birth announcement in a newspaper anywhere in the world - it does not mean the child was born in the city/state/country where the newspaper is located - unless of course the parents are living in said city/state/country and note that the child was born at a local hospital located in said city/state/country! IN HUSSEIN’s case, IIRC all it said was that he was born on such and such a day - it does not specify where and that is what needs to be questioned.

[Creme Brulee]

Your initial reply to me in post 154:

"So what the hell does that prove? Why would there be birth announcements at all if he wasn’t born there? If he was born in Kenya, how precient of his hippie-dippie anti-American parents to arrange birth announcements half way around the world from where he was born so in forty years he could run for POTUS."

gave me the impression that you had not read the article. Had you read the article, you most likely wouldn't have posted this. Why? Because the article addressed just what you asked. It was only after someone gave you the cliff notes, did you get your answer.

Perhaps Menehune56 thought you did read the article and still waked away with those questions.

[Chunga]

That's fewer than in any west coast state save Alaska.

It's amazing that one person could post so much impertinent information.

You posted the other day that Michelle Bachmann is an "idiot." Who are some other stalwart conservatives in the House or the Senate who are also "idiots?" Thanks in advance.

[snowsislander]

FYI, I found the number of foreign-born persons residing in Hawaii as of 1960: 68,900.

That's fewer than in any west coast state save Alaska.

The population of Hawaii in the 1960 census was only 632,772, and thus 68,900 would be 11% of the population. I believe that percentage is probably higher than virtually any other state at the time, and certainly was higher than most.