Replies

"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."

Here is the birth announcement story.

In the spring of 2008, we asked several Hawaii posters to check with the historical archives of the newspapers to see if a birth announcement could be found. The answer we got is that there had been mergers and the archives were disposed of and not available in any format.

We then suggested to all researchers nationally to go to their local libraries and attempt to locate microfiche copies of the Hawaii papers. One microfiche announcement was located; later a second microfiche announcement was located. Two and two only.

There is nothing about the announcement that is probative. It says exactly what it would say if he were born in Kenya which he was. No hospital, no doctor, no one remembers or knows anything about it; today, no hospital identified.

Although the address seems inappropriate, there was a second residence on the back of the property and there is some evidence that Stanley Ann's mother and father lived there. The evidence is thin but not refuted.

The micro fiche copy is capable of being viewed as altered--there is a line just above the Obama notice; the type face size changes; the Nordyke twins should have appeared in that location. Maybe the announcement is valid--maybe it is not.

My own thesis is that there was a filing with vital statistics on August 8, 1991--under the statute, Madeline could have gone to Public Health and filed out the form stating that Stanley Ann had been a Hawaii resident for over a year and it would have been accepted and a COLB showing Hawaii would have been issued even though everyone knew he was born in Mombasa. And the announcement would have been published in exactly the form we have it.

So my attitude about the announcement has been "who cares"--it doesn't address the issue of where he was born. A real legal inquiry would ignore the announcement on the question of birth location.

This issue about whether or not it makes a difference where he was born has been addressed. I know that many disagree with my view. I have argued Appellate cases; I know the DC Constitutional Law Bar; I am directly involved in the politics--I can tell you that the ultimate bottom line is that if he gets by the Born in Hawaii issue, he wins. If the Court concludes he was born in Hawaii, he wins. Simple as that.

I love all these locker room lawyer arguments about his parent's citizenship; his Indonesia conversion; whatever. And they have some merit. But in the political environment in which we are operating today, if this argument ever got to the Supreme Court, the Court would hold that subsequent adoption of the 14th Amendment resolved the natural born issue as to anyone who was born in the US.

In fact, as I have pointed out, there is risk in this position--if it gets to the Supreme Court on facts based on his birth in Hawaii, the Court will not only resolve the case against you, the result will probably bind state election officials who might otherwise be able to kick him off the ballot in 2012. You don't want to be before the Court with this argument unless your factual argument is based on his birth in Mombasa--believe it.

I can tell you that the ultimate bottom line is that if he gets by the Born in Hawaii issue, he wins. If the Court concludes he was born in Hawaii, he wins. Simple as that.

Great post.....I'm afraid you're right.

the Court would hold that subsequent adoption of the 14th Amendment resolved the natural born issue as to anyone who was born in the US.

Good, you can represent me when I run for President, so they won't claim my immigrant father makes me ineligible.

But in the political environment in which we are operating today, if this argument ever got to the Supreme Court,

The bottom line...no honor, no courage, and no integrity nothing but tails between their legs.

I have argued Appellate cases; I know the DC Constitutional Law Bar...
A simple question answerable with a simple yes or no answer...

If a person has a British Father and an American Mother is that person a natural born Citizen and qualified to run for POTUS?

If we find that the Hawaii people have lied to us about the birth announcements it means that not only has the Hawaii DOH already been shown to have participated in Obama’s fraud, but both Hawaii newspapers as well.

My biggest concern in all this is that there is huge corruption in the government, law enforcement, and media - and the people seem powerless to MAKE THE LAWS STICK.

I started out being agnostic about the birth announcements like you are. They don’t prove place of birth even if they came from the state DOH. But as I look at the information I can tell you with near certainty that those announcements did NOT come from the state registrar as both Hawaii newspapers have told us. Look for more information to come out about this sooner or later.