Posted on 02/27/2010 5:02:33 PM PST by spacejunkie01
I have been paying fairly close attention to the massive questions surrounding BO's background and origin. One of the main things people cling to, to dispute the assertions that he was not born in the USA, is the newspaper announcement. Glenn Beck for one.
Prior to the election, when this was really bubbling up on FR but not really anywhere else, I seem to recall that some poster(s) checked the newspaper announcements in HI and his birth was NOT announced. Then, 6-8 months later, it appears.
My question is twofold; does anyone else remember any of the details of the early research that was going on to back this up and, is there any way to get a copy of the actual hard copy newspaper(s) from that day (archived in HI?) and cross reference whether his name is there like the microfishe shows. I do not see it unlikely AT ALL that some liberal librarians would falsify the record when things started getting hot on this subject. There also seemed to be some gray area around his certificate being out of sequence with the number and the Nordquist twins were NOT announced in the paper, possibly leading one to believe theirs was removed and replaced with his.
What if those announcements didn’t come from the state registrar at all? What if they came from the person?
And actually the place a person resides is irrelevant to where they were born. A person could reside in Hawaii and still give birth anywhere in the world.
The only thing Fukino confirmed in her July 27, 2009 statement was that Obama has multiple records for the one vital event they have records on (birth) and after looking at ALL those records, Fukino found something that said Obama was born in Hawaii.
That’s all she said. It actually confirms that Obama was not born in a hospital and that his birth account is not prima facie evidence of anything - which should have made it impossible for her to vouch for anything on those records.
Before we go any farther, have you read my post at
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ ?
It will save us all a lot of time if you read that before we converse.
How do you know that’s what his COLB says?
That’s what it says on the Factcheck and Fight the Smears documents, but we already know those are forgeries so anything on them is suspect.
We also know that the State of Hawaii has nothing on Obama that serves as prima facie evidence. So the Kenyan birth certificates have just as much legal credibility as the best Hawaii can offer.
But this issue will probably not be settled in a civil court. It will be settled in criminal court.
It may not matter to you that the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican and so is the Attorney General, but it obviously matters to all the judges and justices who have dismissed or denied 63 different Obama eligibility lawsuits.
Those are the people who really matter on this issue because they are the people who could take actions to do something about it one way or the other.
The Hawaii DOH (cross-checked by the OIP)has confirmed that there are supplementary documents to support the claims on Obama’s original or amended birth certificate.
If the supplementary documents are for the original claims, then Obama was not born in a hospital in Hawaii. If the supplementary documents are for the amended claim, then either the birth wasn’t attended by a doctor and more information had to be added, or Obama 40+ years after the birth contradicted the doctor’s eyewitness testimony.
Either way it results in a birth certificate that doesn’t count as prima facie evidence of anything.
My gut belief is that Madelyn did register Obama’s birth shortly after he was born so the origination date for his records is Aug 8, 1961. But I don’t believe that the birth announcements came from the state registrar. If Obama’s birth announcement was in the original paper (and that I don’t know yet) it was most certainly put there by Madelyn Dunham, or perhaps a local registrar. But probably Madelyn.
I have serious questions about whether they were originally there though. We’ll see where the data takes us.
The judges haven’t even considered the meat of the case. They’ve all denied even looking at the merits of the case because none of this is supposed to be any of our business. Remember?
I went with the Obama COLB used by the St. Petersburg, Florida Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning investigative unit “Politifact.” They sent a copy of the COLB that Obama mailed to them to the Hawaii Department of Health for authentification. I like the fact that they were that thorough in their investigation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
By the way, Politifact’s “Obameter” is a great way of tracking every lie and distortion that Obama tells.
Well there is a difference in the law between “not any of our business” and lacking legal standing to sue. Lawsuits have been thrown out for lack of legal standing meaning plaintiffs did not demonstrate DIRECT harm.
There are two people who COULD demonstrate DIRECT harm. They are the only two people who received votes from the Electoral College other than Barack Hussein Obama. Those two people are John McCain and Sarah Palin but they have chosen not to sue Obama, not to join any of the existing lawsuits and not even to submit friend of the court briefs (amicus briefs) in support of any of the 63 lawsuits.
Note also that Allan Keyes is the only nationally known political figure to file suit against Obama. Not one single Congressman or Senator has joined any lawsuit.
The only thing Fukino confirmed in her July 27, 2009 statement was that Obama has multiple records for the one vital event they have records on (birth) and after looking at ALL those records, Fukino found something that said Obama was born in Hawaii.
That’s all she said. It actually confirms that Obama was not born in a hospital and that his birth account is not prima facie evidence of anything - which should have made it impossible for her to vouch for anything on those records.
Before we go any farther, have you read my post at
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ ?
It will save us all a lot of time if you read that before we converse.
The Dunhams had only been in Hawaii for a short time when Barry 0 was born. While it is fair to label Madelyn Dunham as “influential” in later years as her career progressed there, at the time she would have been a relative newcomer, just a year or so into her bank job.
And newspaper announcements don’t carry the doctor’s name, ever. Hospital, sure, but not the doc.
Fair points. Madelyn had been there a couple of years--three by the time Obama would have needed her assistance on the birth certificate. She wasn't a work your way up type--she was a forceful woman. But, on the other hand, she didn't get the whole loaf either--if she had, they would have been producing it. But my point was they would have been able to get quality help at a quality hospital for delivery of their grandchild which if the news announcement were true, they did not get.
Lots of places, the doctors name was in the announcement in those days--I guess not any more.
Can you post some links to this opinion?
Thanks for your note.
Please send me the CDC link, I'd like to read it.
I didn't write “Unattended.”
I wrote “Home Births.”
Most home births, even in 1961, I assume were attended by midwifes or nurses or even doctors.
The 40% number came from World Net Daily.
I grew up in the South during the 1950’s.
40% sounded like a completely plausible number based on my experience there, so I didn't check further.
WND got their number from the Hawaii DOH, as I recall, not the CDC.
I don't really understand your question about what I would expect to see re: the birth announcements.
The newspaper that is still publishing (The Advertiser?) told WND that everything they published about births in 1961 came straight from the DOH.
My interest is solely in Obama’s Long Form birth certificate.
Was Obama born at home? Did an Obama relative report his birth to the DOH? Did the DOH do more than a cursory investigation? Was there an amendment to the place of birth or the birth witness?
The guy is hiding something.
I don't have an opinion on what he's hiding.
I'm just speculating on the possibilities.
Where did you see that COLB?
It is clear from Okubo’s statement (that she saw some bleed-through from the back) that she was not looking at a piece of paper but at a scanned image of one side of something.
What makes you think what Politifact had was anything besides the Factcheck COLB image?
Here’s the link to the CDC Vital Stats Report for 1961:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
Could you let me know if you have any trouble with it? Someone else was having some troubles with it earlier today.
Yeah, this report talks about home births and said that they were more prevalent in the south.
And yes, according to the report most of the births were attended by a doctor in some way even if they were at home. One of the charts (on page 205) has a column for births attended by a physician in a hospital, a physician outside a hospital, and a midwife.
If you do the math you find 2 births not attended by a doctor or midwife in Honolulu. But this is done by a 50% sample, so somebody with an even-numbered record was an unattended birth and they took it times 2 (assuming that what was true for even-numbered records would be true for odd-numbered records also).
An unattended birth would have a birth record at the DOH because the parents reported the birth themselves (in which case I believe a doctor’s visit after the birth is required so all the information can be filled out) OR somebody (like Madelyn) filed an affidavit.
We do know that what Obama’s got on his birth certificate now is supported by at least one document of some kind. We know that an amendment would have to be supported by separate documents, but we don’t know if the original claims were supported by affidavits.
David did a great job in laying out the reasoning for his opinion...
I didn't ask his opinion. I asked him to answer a question and he didn't or couldn't.
You're just as long winded as David and you probably won't answer such a simple question either. You'll simply give an opinion, which isn't what I want.
An opinion isn't an answer. Not knowing the answer to a question isn't shameful, but hiding behind an opinion is.
That’s because there was no answer, no one can know and could only offer an opinion.
Seems to me that the good old "Woodwards/Bernsteins" out there are hiding and mum on this case???
Had that kind of true investigative journalists surfaced, Barry Soetoro would have been out of office faster than Nixon!!!
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.