But...what about the announcements in two local Hawaiian news papers in the ‘births’ section which announce Obama’s birth?
For me, that killed the ‘birther’ issue.
The focus should be on defeating his ‘bigger’ gov’t agenda and then making him a one termer.
Do these announcements say what the baby's name is or where it was born??
An ad in a paper does not turn his father American.
His father was a British subject.
As has been stated many times here before, anyone can call the paper and get an announcement placed therein, good luck using a birth announcement to get a passport.
I had friends in the military whose folks back home would call in stuff to the hometown papers (marriages, births, promotions, etc...).
For me, that killed the ‘birther’ issue.
You really need to catch up. Go here:
WTF???....If that's sarcasm....you need practice....
Keep your mind open about those announcements, OK? Hopefully it won’t be long before that whole story pops wide open, and then you will be very angry at what was done to this country, by whom, and how. Hold tight; it’s just a matter of time.
In the meantime, think about the fact that the DOH indirectly confirmed, in 2 different ways through official communications, that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
Documentation is at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Somebody mentioned that the news papers automatically print birth notices when COLB’s are issued.
For me, that killed the ‘birther’ issue.
The focus should be on defeating his ‘bigger’ gov’t agenda and then making him a one termer.
The two announcements don't matter - in fact, I give Obama a Mulligan on that one ...
What is of importance is whether he qualifies as a "natural born citizen" ...
Reference the article where it states:
" ... The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens ..."
Obama was not born to two [2] US citizens - and his father's nation [Great Britain] laid claim to him as a "natural born subject" under the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Obama is a citizen, by virtue of having been born on US soil [14th Amendment], but he is NOT a "natural born citizen".
Announcements in the paper are not legal proof of birth. Just cuz O’Reilly says so doesn’t make it so. And it doesn’t mean they had to know 47 years ago that he would run for president. It just means that the mother was trying to get him natural born status.
Are you actually serious?
The Hawaiian records dept. places the ads in the papers of any child who’s birth is registered in Hawaii. In 1961 a child was not required to be born in Hawaii to be registered there. Regardless of place of birth “Natural Born citizenship “ requires that both parents be U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. A “birther” needs a CERTIFIED COPY of obama’s birth records to prove that his father was a kenyan national and makes him ineligible to be President. Don’t allow yourself to be confused by thinking that the issue is his place of birth, obama is in violation of Article 2 (natural born citizen ) clause of the U.S. Constitution
You are kidding, right? Besides, it doesn’t matter where he was born. He could have been born IN the White House and it still would NOT make him eligible. He was born a subject of the British Crown. End of story.
So I guess you do not understand, what is a “Natural Born Citizen”? Translation = Both Parents are U.S. Citizens. Obama’s Dad was NEVER a U.S. Citizen?
Perhaps you never had to get a U.S. Passport too? It requires a “Birth Certificate”. You know that has the Doctor’s name, the height and weight of the baby, time, etc.... Thus, “certificate of live Birth”, that does not have the above info (Doctor’s name, time, height, weight, etc) does not give you a U.S. passport. Obama cannot produce this and has spent over 2 million dollars fighting it in court?
Gee go figure?
The announcement did not mention the baby’s name, it only mentioned the father’s name and the address of the family. An investigator went to the address and found a neighbor who lived there from before the birth announcement, the neighbor had no memory of a birth there and stated that it would be known to neighbors that a baby had been at that address.
Neighbors in Hawaii are much closer than in other places in the USA. They stay in their homes and seldom move around. They know their neighbors very well.
There are two problems with Obama and his eligibility. Either:
1. He was not born in the USA, or
2. His parents were not both citizens at the time of his birth.
Many so-called ‘birthers’ do not take sides on the above two issues. They simply ask for evidence to disprove both. Such request for evidence is not ‘crazy’ or ‘conspiracy driven’.
Your position is that birth announcements in a newspaper suffice for proving citizenship. But there are major holes in that argument. Each hole is well-documented with proof citing actual local laws, definitions and intentions.
One problemm is that Hawaii allowed anyone having a child to report the birth within a year and without official witness but by affidavit. This was a law in effect to allow for the transition to statehood and for those with infants to report them. Once the Hawaii department recorded a birth, a list of births would be made public for local media to report. Thus, the two newspapers announcing the birth to the father Barack Sr. would have taken the announcement from the same source and they would have known if the child had been born in the islands or not. The system was loose.
The motivation for announcing, actually for reporting the birth to the state would have been simply to claim citizenship. Obama may have been born in Kenya, may have been born some other place or may have been adopted, but the motive of claiming citizenship would have been strong at the time because US citizenship was very valuable to have. The Obama family was very aware of how to game the system. If indeed Obama was born in say Kenya, his mother, whether she was the adopting mother or the birth mother, would have faced a mountain of burden to get him into the country. If she had birth documentation from Kenya, she would have faced problems with proving he was indeed born to her and if she had adopted him the burden would have been greater. It would have been far easier to call realtives in Hawaii and coordinate a scheme to slip him in under the radar.
There is also the curious and strange fact that Obama showed up to sponsor Senate Resolution 511 to render permission for John McCain to run for POTUSA. The original wording was “naturalized citizen”, not “natural born citizen” so it is believed that Obambi knew exactly what he was trying to do.
The issue of why the Constitution calls out for a president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ meaning born in the United States from TWO US CITIZENS goes to the issue of allegiance. Indians and children of ambassadors would be excluded.
The original long form birth certificate would have the names of the parents and their CITIZENSHIP. So even if Obama had been born in Hawaii, he still has eligibility problems to be president because of the allegiance of his parents.
That Obama covers up for the real birth certificate, that he mysteriously sponsors a resolution that is unconstitutional in regards to natural born status and that he has his compliant media smear anyone that questions his legitimacy is a prime example of coverup.
“But...what about the announcements in two local Hawaiian news papers in the ‘births’ section which announce Obama’s birth?”
What of them? They mean nothing of significance. Why are you in this discussion, if you do not grasp the factual basis?
The listings in the paper were simply triggered by a filing at the state - which reported them to the paper - or by a relative wanting to announce. We still have no idea if the record HI has on record even shows him born in HI. Nor how it was reported. Only the original BC shows that. Until then, his birth circumstances are merely a matter of speculation and not much else.
But...what about the announcements in two local Hawaiian news papers in the ‘births’ section which announce Obama’s birth?
For me, that killed the ‘birther’ issue.
The focus should be on defeating his ‘bigger’ gov’t agenda and then making him a one termer.
******************************************
You have a basic misunderstanding of the situation.
1. - The law is the law. If you, as President, are not willing to abide by the law then you should not be in office. Barak Obama has shown NO INCLINATION WHATSOEVER to show that he is compliant with the law. In fact, he is fighting to be forced to prove his eligibility.
2. By his own words (his autobiography), a VERY compelling legal case can be made that he is NOT qualified to be president.
You’re an idiot. It doesn’t matter where he was born. Both of his parents were not citizens.