Good points. Couldn’t fly pregnant. 3rd world medicine. Be crazy to go there pregnant at all. What would she even do there? Another wife there. Seattle makes more sense. She was registered for school there.
Birth announcements were automatic in Hawaii from the state vital records. (Law was later repealed.) Was that true in Washington state? Barry was likely born a Dunham as the details of her marriage to Obama Sr. are ‘fishy.’
Here’s the article re Seattle:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=107889
Grades show Obama’s mother was enrolled (and doing well) in the fall semester. The semester began in late September 1961. Obama would be born the following month (if his reported birthdate is accurate). How did Stannie have a baby in Hawaii or Kenya if she’s taking classes in Seattle?
According to the story above, the friend/witness (video disappeared) stated she saw Obama’s mother struggling to change diapers and taught her how seven weeks post birth. Trump find that lady yet?
Note: Obama II could have been born outside of Hawaii and still have a valid birth certificate there. There’s statute that allows children of state citizens born “without the state or territory” to apply and receive a valid birth certificate. Only the long form (which we’ve never seen) would list the birth hospital/location.
Of course, another line of “birthers”/”proofers” says all that doesn’t matter at all. The dad was foreigner and that alone means = Obama not a “natural born citizen.” (See the detailed research posted today on FR by a blogger directly on this legal point.)
I don't know anything at all about Seattle and birth records. Now, I wish I did.
Obama Sr was married and father, when he supposedly "married" Stanley Ann, but as with ALL Barry's documentation, those records are hidden or long gone.
People who went to college with Obama and Stanley Ann can't remember EVER seeing the two of them together and some have stated that they never knew that they were married.
And none of that, should Trump have dug it out, will do anything to get Obama removed from office. His supporters won't care that he was born out of wedlock,nor that he has lied through his teeth to them.
Actually, it’s the other way around. Starfelt had it totally backwards. Back then, the law DID NOT say that the Vital Records Office sent lists to the newspapers, and now the HDOH Administrative Rules say that they do. In 1961 there were lists posted at the HDOH office, but lists to actually send to the newspapers were not added to the Administrative Rules until 1976.
The claims that Starfelt made were based on how things are today. The claim that paid birth announcements were in a different place was “substantiated” by images somebody had of such things in more recent days, and she spoke of today as if that was how it was in 1961. Either somebody at the Advertiser office told her the way it is done today and she applied that to 1961, or else she invented that out of whole cloth.
But even that doesn’t make sense because she claimed that HIPAA means that the HDOH doesn’t report births today in HI, but according to the HDOH Administrative Rules they still do. The CDC (at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HlD6UFaIFb0J:www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/m2e411a1.htm+Does+HIPAA+affect+state+reporting+of+vital+records+lists+in+newspapers%3F&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com ) says of HIPAA:
“The Privacy Rule specifically does not preempt contrary state public health laws that provide for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth or death, or for the conduct of public health surveillance, investigation, or intervention [45 CFR § 160.202]. “
After speaking with the HDOH and with the Advertiser office, Starfelt believed that the HDOH in 1961 printed out a list for the week that was printed in the Sunday paper. That doesn’t match what was actually in the 1961 microfilms, but it does match what was posted at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:99D-gRrL8l8J:archives.starbulletin.com/2005/01/30/vitals.php+Star-Bulletin+birth+announcements,+-Obama&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com , which was after HIPAA went into effect. So even after HIPAA went into effect the HDOH was reporting to the newspapers the birth, marriage, and death certificates that were filed. But it listed only the names of the children and their gender, which is what is required to be released as index data.
Birth announcements in the printed newspapers list the parents, though - or at least they did. Could somebody see if they can see the image at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tPMXkz4nyhEJ:ee98.net/chrisandkristine/our_family/2009/04/08/honolulu-star-bulletin-mia-birth-announcement/+Star-Bulletin+birth+announcements,+-Obama&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com and see what was in the announcements in 2008? Mine is x-ed out.
SNIFF SNIFF