Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: panthermom

I believe, given all the information I have, that there was one medical item that was required on the Hawaii BC’s that Madelyn Dunham forgot to bring with her when she reported the birth to the local registrar. The normal way they verified that item was by having the baby examined by a Hawaii doctor, who then completed the BC.

Obama’s BC wasn’t completed until he added that item in 2006. His BC and COLB both have note of that amendment, and if people saw it they would immediately realize there was a serious problem with the claim of a Hawaii birth, since Obama was never seen by a Hawaii doctor in the first 30 days after birth. That’s why he has to hide all this stuff. The best Hawaii has for him is an amended late BC which doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and which actually shows that the claim of a Hawaii birth is very, very unlikely to be true.


87 posted on 05/08/2010 8:22:23 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion
Trying to get up speed (although I need to move on this morning to getting some work done). I recalled John Charlton's article where he got a list of the Hawaii Birth Index, showing all those without a standard Hawaiian birth certificate, but who got a Certificate of Hawaii Birth for those born at home. If Madelyn Dunham had registered such a birth, 0bama should have been on this list. Charlton said the index did not contain entries for Dunham, Obama, or Payne, and posted the relevant PDF pages.
89 posted on 05/08/2010 8:36:01 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion
I believe, given all the information I have, that there was one medical item that was required on the Hawaii BC’s that Madelyn Dunham forgot to bring with her when she reported the birth to the local registrar. The normal way they verified that item was by having the baby examined by a Hawaii doctor, who then completed the BC.

The best Hawaii has for him is an amended late BC which doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and which actually shows that the claim of a Hawaii birth is very, very unlikely to be true.

Just out of curiosity, how does one supply a doctor's examine of a newborn baby for birth certificate purposes 45 years late?

Except the statement at the bottom of his CoLB says that it is prima facie evidence.

93 posted on 05/08/2010 8:48:36 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson