Posted on 05/14/2010 11:02:15 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
U.S. House candidate Chris Nelson earlier this week dismissed “birther” statements attributed to him and said he believes Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen and the legitimately elected president of the United States.
So does Eleanor Nordyke — and according to her, she should know.
Nordyke, 82, of Honolulu, Hawaii, says that on Aug. 4, 1961, she was in labor with her twin daughters Susan and Gretchen at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital — the same place Barack Obama was being born. The hospital has since been renamed Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.
“Birthers” is the term given to those who believe Obama was not born in the United States and does not, therefore, meet a primary qualification for the presidency.
Nordyke, in a Friday telephone interview with The Daily Republic, said the birthers have consistently discounted her testimony. She is certain they are wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at mitchellrepublic.com ...
There’s another reason hospitals would not pre-assign numbers for birth certificates ... you might not have a live birth. In such a case, the baby would not receive a certificate of live birth, but a death certificate. There not going to assign numbers until they know the outcome of the birth.
If anything, the Nordyke certificates call Obama’s certificate further into doubt. No skeptic I know questions her original story. Instead we question Obama’s legitimacy for having a certificate number that obviously belongs to someone else.
Excellent point.
As one who was admitted to the hospital so we could induce labor for our overdue daughter, only to have her die during monitoring, I am keenly aware that not all births are live births. That was 17 years ago but sometimes it feels like yesterday.
As I was looking at newspaper announcements from 1961 I was struck by the number of children who died, including infants. A lot of pain represented in each 2-line announcement.
obumpa
I didn’t suggest that the document contradicted anything Okubo has supposedly confirmed for you. I said it was probably more authoritative than Okubo. Birthers accuse Okubo of lying when it suits them and then cite her statements as definitive when it suits them.
The document was published in 1961. Okubo says that there is no documentation of 1961 procedures or definitions of terms used back then. This document provides some clarification of general data collection in 1961.
Take it for what it is not what you assume I am implying.
People have talked about the earlier BC’s being on the bottom of the pile when it was given to the state registrar, and then being numbered from the top of the pile down so that earlier births may well have had later certificate numbers. That is true, for BC’s processed on the same day. That’s why the little girl who was born on the 4th probably had a number slightly later than the Nordykes’. There was probably one other person born between when she was born and when the Nordyke twins were born.
But a person who received a certificate number on a different DAY wouldn’t have that reverse-order effect. That’s why Obama’s “date filed” is the revealing item. It messes up what would otherwise have been a really handy substitution between Obama and this little girl, since she was born at the time and place where he wanted to claim he was born and had the birth certificate to match that time and place. Too bad (for Obama) that he screwed up the “date filed”. It reveals all.
******
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say above. Maybe it is just me. I have read it over and over, but I still can't seem to grasp what you saying. Sorry.
So to help me, could you please go into more detail and use shorter sentences in your explanation above? Thanks.
I have enjoyed reading most of your other messages. It is just this one message above that is giving me problems. Thanks.
Sorry. Hopefully I can be clearer.
The certificate numbers didn’t necessarily go in numerical order by date of birth, because they were given numbers as they came in to the state registrar’s office. Each hospital was to collect certificates for a week and then take them altogether to the state registrar. The Wahiawa Hospital seems to have delivered theirs on Tuesdays. Kapiolani delivered theirs on Fridays.
Whenever the state registrar received a pile of certificates from the hospital, he had them numbered that same day. Depending on how the piles were sorted (or not sorted) before processing, the earlier births might be on the bottom of the pile and thus get processed later than the other BC’s in the pile for that day.
But all of the BC’s processed that day would have earlier numbers than any of the BC’s that came in the NEXT day.
So the BC’s might be out of chronological order from the BC’s processed on the same day. But whatever was processed on Day 1 would have earlier numbers than whatever was processed on Day 2, 3, or 4.
Obama’s problem is that his BC was processed on Day 1 but had a later number than the Nordyke BC’s which were processed on Day 4.
Does that make any more sense? Sometimes my words get tangled up.
Good point! Very, very interesting.
““She said she was very proud of her grandson who was doing community work in Chicago. She said her daughter had passed away and she helped to raise him.”
This makes it sound like Stanley Ann died during Obama’s childhood and that she raised him for that reason???”
******
This is mirse. Thanks for taking the time to re-write your message. I think I understand your explanation better now. Thanks again.
******
1. How do we know that Obama's birth certificate was processed on Day 1 while the Nordyke twins' certificate was processed 3 days later on Day 4?
2. That is, if Obama and the Nordyke twins were born in the same Kapiolani Hospital just a day apart---Aug. 4 vs. Aug. 5---why couldn't Obama's birth certificate and the Nordyke twins' birth certificate be processed on the same day, say, Day 1 or on Day 4?
3. Day 1: How many days after Obama's birth on Aug. 4 is Day 1? Day 4? That is, what is the actual day of Day 1? Day 4? Thanks.
Excellent questions!
Q: How do we know that Obama’s birth certificate was processed on Day 1 while the Nordyke twins’ certificate was processed 3 days later on Day 4?
A: The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” of Aug 8, 1961, and the Nordyke BC’s have a “date filed” of Aug 11, 1961. Okubo has stated that all Oahu BC’s have always been both received at the state registrar’s office and given a number by the state registrar on the “date filed”. So Obama’s was supposedly given a number 3 days before the Nordykes’.
Q: That is, if Obama and the Nordyke twins were born in the same Kapiolani Hospital just a day apart-—Aug. 4 vs. Aug. 5-—why couldn’t Obama’s birth certificate and the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate be processed on the same day, say, Day 1 or on Day 4?
A: They should have been processed on the same day. Obama was born on Friday evening, too late to be in Kapiolani’s BC batch for that week. So his and the Nordyke’s BC’s should have been delivered to the state registrar and processed the following Friday, on Aug 11th. Because Obama used a Tuesday “date filed” on his forged COLB, he showed that he was not born at Kapiolani AND he showed that the certificate number wasn’t really his, because that number should have belonged to a BC filed with the Kapiolani BC’s on Aug 11th.
Obama almost certainly stole the certificate number from a little girl who was born on Aug 4th and died the next day - probably at Kapiolani after the BC’s had already been delivered for the week. Her BC was probably put on the pile just a couple before the Nordyke twins’ were, so the Nordykes’ were processed just a couple before hers at the HDOH.
Obama could have used on his forged COLB both the certificate number and the “date filed” from the little girl’s non-certified COLB (which the HDOH was authorized to give him. They’re also authorized to give it to me, but they won’t.) If he had done so, there wouldn’t be a discrepancy between his “date filed” and the certificate number.
Either he chose Aug 8th for a “date filed” because he wanted an earlier filing date which would seem (superficially) to match the day earlier birth.... or he may have accidentally left his real filing date on the COLB - the day his grandmother (probably) reported his birth to the local registrar.
But whatever the reason for using a filing date other than the one the little girl actually had, that change sticks out like a sore thumb now that we know how the processing happened back then. If he had kept that little girl’s authentic cert number and her authentic “date filed” there would be no cert # - “date filed” discrepancy on his forged COLB, as extensive research would have eventually shown. He was (quite frankly) hoping that nobody would look that deep into it. He underestimated the love of country that exists out here.
Let me know if that answer isn’t clear.
Q: Day 1: How many days after Obama’s birth on Aug. 4 is Day 1? Day 4? That is, what is the actual day of Day 1? Day 4?
A: Day 1 is Aug 8, 1961 (the “date filed” on the Factcheck COLB). Day 4 is Aug 11, 1961 (the “date filed” on the Nordyke BC’s).
I hope this helps.
White kids get beat up in Hawaii.
A lot of crime doesn’t get reported in the media much. Maybe local media. When I was there last (around 10 years ago) a white youth just moving there with his parents went on a hiking trip on the Big Island, never returned. I s’pose it’s possible he could have fallen or gotten lost - pretty intense terrain on that island, but he was an experinced trekker.
I heard about some pretty serious stuff there. I noticed in the 80s that if I was with a dark skinned local looking person, local people were so much friendlier to me.
Racism stinks.
Q: How do we know that Obama’s birth certificate was processed on Day 1 while the Nordyke twins’ certificate was processed 3 days later on Day 4?
A: The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” of Aug 8, 1961, and the Nordyke BC’s have a “date filed” of Aug 11, 1961. Okubo has stated that all Oahu BC’s have always been both received at the state registrar’s office and given a number by the state registrar on the “date filed”. So Obama’s was supposedly given a number 3 days before the Nordykes’.
*****
This is mirse. I found your explanations to my questions clear and concise. Thanks.
I hope that you are correct when you say that the filing date on the Obama short form certificate that we see on the internet could be a very serious problem for Obama in this Obama birth certificate controversy.
Fascinating.
I wonder if the family of the little girl knows about the stolen certificate number.
:)
The father is dead. We don’t know if the mother is alive or not, because people have been putting false information about names associated with the COLB and birth anouncements on places such as ancestry.com. We’ve found 2 instances of false information regarding names distantly associated with the birth announcements.
When people say it’s far-fetched to think that people would do this much covering up, and then I see instances like this, or instances where web pages disappear shortly after somebody mentions them to somebody else (even in private communications), I know there are people doing damage control. And I know they are listening in. I’ve seen it first-hand.
Makes it hard to decide how much of that stuff to actually document because there’s so much of it.
There is one family that has to know their name has been used falsely, and who agreed to it, most likely because of the Hawaiian sovereignty promises of Obama. He’s bought a lot of people with that - including, I believe, Linda Lingle, Chiyome Fukino, and AG Mark Bennett (all of whom have signed pro-sovereignty petitions and/or engaged in other activism on that issue). Taxpayer money can buy a lot in the hands of crooked, mafia politicians.
Oh, good. I’m glad. Sometimes I type and wonder if anybody can make any sense out of it. It gets very complicated. I really respect people who keep plugging away at it until they understand it. Life is busy and that takes time and energy. Thank God for people who are willing to take that time and energy. Thank you for being one of them. =)
“When people say it’s far-fetched”...
Nothing you’ve reported seems the slightest bit far-fetched with this group. More like par for the course.
Still, great research.
ping
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.