Skip to comments.36% Believe Obama is Hiding Biographical Information
Posted on 01/19/2013 9:23:55 AM PST by ABrit
click here to read article
Palmer, you’re not listening. Verifying that something is on a piece of paper is not the same thing as verifying that what’s on the paper is true.
Especially since the BC#’s given for Obama and at least 3 other people cannot be what were on those BC’s in 1961, if we believe either of the contradictory numbering methods we’ve been told were used at the time. The only way Obama could have #10641, given what we’ve been told, is if that BC# is on a totally fabricated NEW BC created at the request of law enforcement - in which case every item on that BC will say whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder?) says it will say. Including the filing date.
IOW, we have good reason to believe that the HDOH BC that Onaka is talking about here is a complete fabrication.
In any event, Onaka would not verify birth facts he was asked to verify even though he acknowledged that those were the claims on the BC. So at the very least we know that the BC Onaka is looking at is non-valid. That’s all we need to know.
That's possible, but it would have to have been fabricated by someone in HI and placed in the book to look like a 1961 paper. Following that the officials would have to make xeroxes to stamp, sign and seal and send out. Multiple officials (not sure how many) would look at the piece of paper in the book and determine (rather easily) that it was made recently.
A far more coherent explanation is that there was a paper entered in 1961. The number is ok if the numbering was done alpha for the entire month. There could be any sort of info on it because we have not seen the original. Then xeroxes of that paper were stamped, signed and sent out. The WH scanned one that they recieved then did stuff to it on the computer. We don't know what they did.
There is no birth record for Obama in the bound book. That is why Hawaii hid the book in a locked room.
Every time somebody is adopted there is a new BC created by the HDOH - made to look as if it was that way from the time of the child’s birth - and anybody who looks at the paper BC in the book may be able to tell that it is a new document. There has to be a way to put papers in and out of the books in the case of adoptions, and that same way would be available for this kind of thing.
The BC’s cannot be numbered by BOTH time of birth and alphabetical order. Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?
The point still remains: Onaka wouldn’t verify claims that he admitted were on the BC in question. Either that BC is non-valid, or Onaka violated the law. What evidence do we have that Onaka violated the law?
(Keep in mind that we DO have evidence that somebody in the other part of the office broke the law by falsifying the 1960-64 index so that it included non-valid (and sealed, even!) records).
That’s certainly possible but then we have to be able to explain how birth notices got into the Honolulu newspapers for the week after the alleged birth. The birth notices were in the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the two Honolulu newspapers for August 13 & August 14, 1961.
I’m convinced it was the podium debate. I’m also convinced that it was a question from the illegal alien moderator (Rodriguez or Gonzalez?) about immigration to Keyes where Keyes went on about why there is a need for allegiance and loyalty to this country to become a citizen and had expressed many reasons for legal immigration and gave many reasons why our country needed immigration laws and had surmized his point with why we require our Commander and Chief to be a natural born Citizen for our country to be the President of these United States.
Then Oblah-blah retorted with AGAIN how he was not running for president but as senator.
I watched a replay of two debates that were advertised on WJFK during the Don and Mike show in 2007. C-SPAN advertised the double header debate for over two weeks and one of the selling points was about how they were “unedited” recordings. At the time I was more astonished that C-SPAN was actually advertising on the over the radio for a rebroadcast of an old debate between Keyes and Obama but since I was a big Keyes fan, I paid attention.
What I will never forget is how the C-SPAN host read a letter from either the local or national DNC stating that Obamas did not mean he was not eligible. It blows my mind that this has been scrubbed.
Today I am a little concerned that the (Spanish)??? moderator died suddenly. I told my wife at the time that as soon as this gets out they will have to get Hillary back in the race.
I saw Oblah blah give a scared and defensive response to what Keyes stated that wasn’t directed towards him personally. Which said it all.
Keyes stated that he did not remember and without the “Special” unedited tapes, no one knows the difference.
I can’t even find the date C-Span actually played that double header debate.
Scrubidy- scrub - scrub.
When I did see the re-broadcast, the initial COLB forgery had been released. I do remember that much.
Nothing will come of it.
In fact it has already been denied by Justice Kennedy. Chief Justice Roberts could have granted the stay but instead referred it the full Court. This is SOP for an application that has been denied by one Justice and then refiled to a second Justice. Everything in the stay (stop the certification of California’s Electoral College vote and the Inauguration) have already occurred so the application is moot.
BTW, an application for a stay requires 5 Justices to agree to granting it.
“Are you calling Okubo and Verna Lee both liars? If so, on the basis of what evidence?”
Both Okubo and Lee cannot be right. Or can they? Okubo was not at the DOH in the 1960’s so maybe her version is what she remembers from the time she first came to work at the DOH in 80s? 90s? As the system became more automated and computerized, did they change the way numbers were assigned?
Ms Lee was there in the 1960s but we have not heard the recorded phone call with her so we cannot say what she specifically remembers or said.
At the least the BC numbers do appear to have been collected and separated into regions (Ms. Lee according to Zullo) and then stamped with a certification number (were they also alphabetized?).
The first issue is how were numbers assigned at the beginning of the year (was the first certificate # issued in 1960 - 151 61 00001?). From there one can calculate the numbers that would have been assigned in August, 1961 (based on number of births in August).
Maybe Dr. Onaka could tells us.
Okubo and Lee can’t both be right. The only way to know which is right is by looking at the microfilms from multiple randomly-chosen months in different years.
According to Mike Zullo, Verna Lee said the BC’s were sorted within the geographic unit by order of birth. If anything was alphabetized then she lied in her statements to Corsi, and that would also raise questions of why.
No matter how you slice it, the discrepancies demand answers, and those answers will only be known when the above microfilms are examined - and when the records of these anomalous BC’s are fully audited.
“If anything was alphabetized then she lied in her statements to Corsi, and that would also raise questions of why.”
That’s pretty harsh - considering she is 95 years old and this was 40 or 50 years ago. It is possible that the methodology for numbering the BCs changed overtime. Maybe in the early 60s they were alphabetized and later they were not. Who knows what she is remembering.
But if they were separated geographically, it makes sense that Virgina Sunahara’s number would not be in the same position numerically as kids born at Kapiolani. In 1961 the county of Honolulu was divided into two vital statistics geographic regions (Honolulu City and the rest of the county). Virginia was not born within the Honolulu city limits so her BC would not be included with the kids born at Kapiolani.
We already have evidence the records were not alphabetized in 1961. The Nordyke twins’ certificates are in chronological order, not alphabetical order, and the newspaper announcements are NOT in alphabetical order. As for the latter, newspaper editors don’t make more work than they need, so they aren’t just going to randomize a list of births. If the births were alphabetized by the DOH before the list was provided to the newspapers, the lists would have been alphabetical in the newspaper.
The newspaper announcements were published days after the births. The numbers were put on the certificates at the end of the month after a month’s worth of BCs were collected.
For example, Stig Waidelich was born after the Nordykes but his announcement is in the same paper as Obama’s.
They could have been alphabetized by last name.
Annnn (redacted) 09945 August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
Nordyke, Susan 10637 August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Nordyke, Gretchen 10638 August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
Obama, Barack 10641 August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
Waidelich, Stig 10920 August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th
Sunahara, Virginia - 11080 - August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
The first five were born at Kapiolani Hospital, Virgina Sunahara was born at Wahiawa Hospital.
I’ve got an analysis where I showed from the CDC’s numbers why these BC#’s are anomalous. Stig Waidelich’s and Barack Obama’s can easily be seen as anomalous.
And that is true regardless of which of the 2 numbering methods was used.
Another reason to believe that Alvin Onaka is trying to put up red flags so people will realize something is wrong.... is Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate. It’s a State of Hawaii death certificate but it’s got a T.H. (Territory of Hawaii) file number (made out of different fonts, and misaligned) - all those blatant signs of forgery within the same line as the handwritten BC#.
IOW, we know that the HDOH forged at least the line of Sunahara’s death certificate that has the birth certificate and death certificate numbers in it - and blatantly so, as if somebody there wanted us to know they were doing it.
Does your analysis hold true if they started the year off 00001 and run consecutive each month. The first August number would be 09943. IIRC, your analysis has them taking numbers from kids born in July which would not be possible if the numbering system started over each year.
Probably not. A birth ledger was kept in chronological occurrence along with the file or certificate numbers. The idea that they were saved till the end of month is probably a simple misstatement, because it would have required a lot of going back and forth. Spokesbabe Okubo also noted that the numbers were added when the certificates were filed and accepted. Why on Earth would they have a filing date and signature but not add a number until later. It makes no sense.
For example, Stig Waidelich was born after the Nordykes but his announcement is in the same paper as Obamas.
Sorry, but I don't put any stock into Stig's alleged certificate number or the others that magically appeared almost 50 years later. The Nordyke twins birth certificate numbers and the newspaper announcements are enough to show that the certificates were not alphabetized.
No matter how they started the numbers, if they numbered the August births in Honolulu in consecutive order the Nordykes, born on Aug 5th, could not be numbered before Obama, born on Aug 4th.
No matter how they started they could not get hundreds of Honolulu births into the 2 1/2 hour span between Susan Nordyke and Stig Waidelich when, statistically speaking, there should have been about 2 births between - making Stig’s BC# almost certainly the one that Obama has been given.
And if they numbered the BC’s on the “date filed” as Okubo has said, only a very, very rare case (such as Sunahara’s where she was born in one hospital under one name but died in another the next day and given a death certificate under a different name) a BC numbered on Aug 11th (Obama’s) would get an earlier number than a BC numbered on Aug 8th (the Nordykes)
Those are the kinds of inconsistencies that require an audit of the records.
You obviously didn’t listen to Mike Zullo at the July press conference.
BC were collected for an entire month and then processed by regions at one time. That’s when they were numbered.
“No matter how they started they could not get hundreds of Honolulu births into the 2 1/2 hour span between Susan Nordyke and Stig Waidelich”
Unless they were alphabetized. Then an entire months worth of child with last names ending between N and W would be numbered after the Nordykes and before Waidelich.
They can’t be both alphabetized and put in order of birth. We’ve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives - neither of which involves alphabetizing. So where are you getting the alphabetizing from?
In any event, can you agree that the BC#’s don’t jive with the explanations we’ve been given and the only way we’re going to know how they numbered the BC’s is by looking at several randomly-chosen months’ worth of microfilms?
“Weve got two numbering methods that have been publicly stated by HDOH representatives “
Have you heard the tape from Ms. Lee. Until we hear what she actually said it is not “publicly stated”.
I get alphabetizing from the known August, 1961 BCs. The ones from Kapiolani are in both alphabetical (by last name) order and numberical order.
I agree that we do not know the methodology used to number the BCs. Everything you and I have done on this question is just speculation on both of our parts. the difference is that I don’t depend on a department wide swapping of names and numbers over several months.
We will never see the microfilm. But I’ve always been surprised that if CNN could find Stig and WND could find Axxxx that other BCs from August 1961 could not be located. And I still cannot understand why Corsi has refused to publish Axxxx’s and Stig’s certificate numbers as part of the CCPs investigation. Even if only to make a claim that there is number switching going on at the DOH.
You obviously didn't comprehend what I meant when I wrote that this was a simple misstatement.
BC were collected for an entire month and then processed by regions at one time. Thats when they were numbered.
Again, probably not. We're talking about hundreds of documents that would have to sit somewhere until they could be numbered. Maybe they numbered these at the end of a week, not the end of a month, but more likely they were numbered at the time they were signed by the local registrar, at which point the document would be "filed" as is stated by the registrar's signature.
If you look at the analysis at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bc-number-manipulation-analysis.pdf you see that Sunahara’s BC# comes within the Honolulu births, which doesn’t work in ANY respect - with any numbering method, including the alphabetization one.
Waidelich’s BC# is 332 into the Honolulu BC’s; there would be 331 before him and 302 after him. That would mean 331 people with last names from A-V, and 302 people with last names starting with W, X, Y, and Z.
It’s not odd that Aug 1961 BC’s haven’t surfaced, given the threats that have been made to various people over this issue. The people I have spoken with who have ties to Hawaii are scared - even scared of going to the HDOH office to check things out. If I remember correctly, Corsi did not “find” Johanna Ah Nee’s BC; she offered it to him. And it seems like Dr. Conspiracy is very familiar with her details; I wonder if they know each other..
It’s interesting that you mentioned the unreliability of memories in an earlier post. Given the CDC’s statistics, about 30% (434/1,472)of the babies born in Hawaii in August of 1961 were white - not Black, not Asian/Hawaiian. Monika Waidelich remembered there being one Black baby (which she assumed was Obama) and one white baby (her son). Must have been a really weird 4-7 days at Kapiolani, that out of the 100-175 babies born in Honolulu during those 4-7 days, Kapiolani’s nursery only had one white baby and one Black baby, when 30% would equal 30-52 white babies born during those 4-7 days. Granted, that was a short experience for Mrs. Waidelich, and she might not have remembered very clearly.
Verna Lee has a distinct advantage at being able to remember the details she spoke about, because she worked at her job day in and day out for YEARS, following the routine procedures.
Do you acknowledge that the HDOH has been caught altering the 1960-64 birth index to include names from non-valid records? If so, why do you think they did that, and what other falsifying might they have they done with their records?
Here’s how CNN found Stig Waidelich:
Swede provides ‘proof’ in Obama birth debate
The Local; Sweden’s News In English
Published: 29 Apr 11 07:01 CET
A Swedish woman, Monica Danielsson, 78, may have provided the last piece in a the puzzle on where US president Barack Obama was born, when CNN recently went to Hawaii finally lay the matter to rest.
“Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute,” she said to Swedish daily Expressen.
CNN recently sent reporter Gary Tuchman from the show Andersson Cooper 360 to Hawaii to find evidence that president Obama was born there.
While there, he quickly discovered an announcement in the birth columns of the local paper of a Stig Waidelich who was born in the same hospital the day after Obama.
They then tried to track me down to compare my sons birth certificate to the one provided by Obama, Danielsson said.
Monica, who was borh in Traneberg in Stockholm, moved to Hawaii 50 years ago.
Her memories of an African-American baby at the maternity ward further corroborate the story.
Given the number of Black babies born in Hawaii (based on the CDC’s figures), there would have been a Black baby in the nursery on any given day.
However, there should have been somewhere between 30-50 white babies in the Honolulu nurseries (of which Kapiolani is by far the largest) on any given day. Monika said Stig was the only one there.
So either Waidelich’s memories are a bit confused, she’s making it up out of whole cloth, or those 4-7 days surrounding the birth of her son were extremely anomalous.
I wonder when and how Stig “lost” his long-form.
How did CNN get from a birth announcement saying “Mr. and Mrs. John Waidelich” to “Monica Danielsson”?
I don’t know. I assume that they first got ahold of Stig and he put them in touch with his mother?
What she actually said was: “I have no absolute proof of course, but I saw Obama and I have always thought it was Obama,” she told Expressen.
It’s just her belief. But she did give birth at Kapi’olani on August 5, 1961 so there is a possibility.
From the article:
“According to CNN, the document given to Stig from the Department of Health is the same exact document that President Obama has released. “
There you have it. Obama has released Stig’s BC.
Why bring her into it? If what they were after was Stig’s COLB, Stig could have asked the HDOH for it himself. In fact, CNN presented the video footage as Stig picking up the BC he had requested.
But in that article, Monica said they were trying to round HER up to see the birth certificate, to compare it to Obama’s. Not like they were going to have somebody ask for a birth certificate and see what they would get; that wouldn’t require them talking to Stig’s mom.
Could it be that the HDOH pointed CNN to Stig’s mother because THEY wanted to make sure Stig’s mother didn’t have a long-form any more? They told her they wanted to see Stig’s BC to compare it to Obama’s. She didn’t have a BC so they knew the coast was clear, so then they had her ask for a COLB, flew him in to Hawaii, and had the HDOH give him one that showed an altered BC# on it. Then 2 days later Obama could show the world an HDOH-fabricated BC with the BC# that belonged to Stig.
However, there should have been somewhere between 30-50 white babies in the Honolulu nurseries (of which Kapiolani is by far the largest) on any given day. Monika said Stig was the only one there.
No, she didn’t. She said there was one black baby in the nursery and that the black baby was in the bassinet next to her son. She made no comment about the number of non-black babies in the nursery.
Everything you theorize is certainly possible except Stig didn’t need to be flown in, I believe that he lives in Hawai’i, in Honolulu.
When he said that he didn’t have a copy of his birth certificate, it made good visuals for CNN to take him to HDOH to get one and his mother saying that she actually remembered seeing a black baby in the nursery made for an even better story.
Because my situation is similar to his in that I have no idea where my original birth certificate is but I think it is at my parents’ house (I’ve gotten by with a short form print out for the last thirty years), if someone wanted to see my copy of my original long form, I would direct them to my parents.
Also, blacks are currently only 2% of Hawaii’s population. I imagine that it was less than 1% in 1960, so a black child would stand out in a Honolulu nursery.
“302 people with last names starting with W, X, Y, and Z.”
Not if they were divided into geographic regions you would have 302 people some from the other Honolulu County region and others from other islands. In those cases the the letter could be anything from A-Z.
“If I remember correctly, Corsi did not find Johanna Ah Nees BC; she offered it to him.”
She has twice requested its return probably through her friend who asked her if she would loan it but Mr. Corsi has not returned the certificate.
WND could offer a bounty for August 1961 BCs. IIRC, some of the parents listed in the newspaper announcements are still owners of the houses from 1961.
I put her statements in the same category as I put Abercrombie, Mrs. Nordyke, Stanley Ann’s Washington friends. They are interesting but it is impossible to evaluate them as anything than waht they are memories from 40-50 years ago of an event that probable was that memorable to begin with. How much have their stories been influenced by what they read in the news before a reporter showed up at their house. I’m sure their is a certain amount of exaggeration and false memories.
As to Ms. Lee while I agree that she would remember the system she used everyday, is she conflating different systems. In 1961 she would have been 45, 46. Did she work at the DOH until she retired at 65? Is she remembering how things were done in 1961 or 1971 or 1981. Did the system change overtime? If you showed her Axxxx’s BC and cert number and the Nordyes’ and Obama’s and Waidelich’s, would she go “oh yeah we did alphabetize them.”?
“Do you acknowledge that the HDOH has been caught”
Are you telling me some computer programmer misunderstood something and wrote code that encluded BCs that shouldn’t have been there?
When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. Since then more memories of Obama growing up has come back to Danielsson.
"The memories come rushing back to me. Obama was very into sport and my son was good at tennis, although Obama was more into basketball," she said.
Second, the Swedish story says, ""Stig, who no longer has his original birth certificate, can use this document for any court proceedings and any legal purposes", CNN said in a statement." Now consider that CNN could track down Stig's mother who wasn't going by the same last name, but they are completely incurious as to why Obama has NEVER used his alleged birth document in ANY court proceedings or for ANY legal purposes. Hmmm...Stig, who no longer has his original birth certificate, can use this document for any court proceedings and any legal purposes
“Monika told CNN that she remembers visiting the nursery after Stig’s birth and seeing a lot of Asian babies, one white baby which was her son, and one black baby.”
The numbers I gave already accounted for the geographical division. That’s why I said there would be that many HONOLULU births before and after Waidelich’s number.
So Dr. Con does have an “in” with Johanna Ah Nee.
The reason to have the stuff sorted geographically was because the CDC penalized states if too many of their BC’s on the tapes that were sent in were from a different geographic area. They set the geographic location to fill in automatically because the tapes were supposed to have the births in groups by geographic area, and if they had too many that were sprinkled in from other places they had to go to the extra trouble of overriding the automatic setting. So it doesn’t seem like there would be much reason for the system to change over time.
And if the eyewitnesses can’t even remember how they did it then it is ESPECIALLY imperative that we look at the actual microfilms, because that’s the only place we’re going to get answers.
There would have been no need to forge Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate unless something on it was changed. Why would they have to change the information on a dead baby girl’s 50-year-old death certificate? And to put such glaring signs of forgery (Territory of Hawaii reference on a State of Hawaii death certificate and, mismatched, misaligned fonts - all on the same row as a handwritten, anomalous BC#).
I am not saying that any computer person “mistakenly” changed code. Somebody deliberately put into the 1960-64 birth index individual names that were from nonvalid records. Another adopted person did NOT have her birth name in the index, so it wasn’t that they accidentally set the printing to include all BC’s including non-valid, legally sealed records. Individual names were specifically manipulated to be put into that index. Norman and Nathan Asing were 2 of those names, and what Onaka revealed to Ken Bennett indirectly confirms that Obama’s name was another.
Do you acknowledge that the 1960-64 birth index includes legally non-valid records?
BUT if Stig used that short-form at the Department of Hawaiian HOme Lands, he would also have to spend extra money to get the REST of the “contents of his birth certificate” verified by the HDOH. The HDOH’s current policy costs people extra money at the DHHL. Sure, the short-form CAN be used at the DHHL, but it is not legally sufficient by itself. A person has to use a combination of a $10 short-form and a $5 verification in order to legally fulfill the DHHL’s requirements for certification of the “contents” of their birth certificate (which HRS 338-13 requires the HDOH to show upon request).
Why do you think Stig lives in Hawaii? He owns a clothing store in Washington, which upgraded its location around the same time as the breaches to Obama’s passport file.
Lucy and Nully, can you ping the lists on this one? I’ve been so busy with other stuff that I haven’t gone into the Sunahara death certificate forgery much, but it corroborates my belief that somebody at the HDOH is putting red flags in the forgeries that Fuddy is forcing them to create - including Obama’s HDOH-fabricated BC at the request of law enforcement (Eric Holder?).
I meant to say that somebody at the HDOH putting such glaring signs of forgery on Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate strongly suggests that somebody at the HDOH is resisting what they are being forced to do. It would have been no sweat to just leave everything the same except the handwritten number when the forgery was done. To put in the misaligned, mismatched fonts and the T. H. (standing for Territory of Hawaii) took extra effort. Why go to that extra effort to put in blatant signs of forgery, unless it was intended to be a red flag?
A lot of us wondered why Obama’s long-form forgery was so badly done. Well, in the case of Virginia’s death certificate we know that the forgery itself came from somebody at the HDOH who went to extra trouble to put in red flags during the course of the forgery. Apparently they were forced to do the forgery (Loretta Fuddy would be the one capable of forcing somebody to do something like that) and they resisted by putting in red flags.
I believe the same thing happened with Obama’s long-form. Somebody resisted by putting in red flags, and that’s why the Obama people couldn’t just scan or photograph what the HDOH gave them, even though the “information contained in” the image they ended up creating “matched” the “information contained in” what the HDOH gave them.
IOW, somebody put in signs of the document’s non-validity: LATE and/or ALTERED stamps, and possibly a notation in the final box as well - noting what evidence was offered for a late or altered filing. That box could be empty though, if no evidence was offered (which seems characteristic of Obama and his people...) Depends on how Onaka interpreted the word “information” - whether it only meant the information in the boxes, or whether it also included things like LATE and ALTERED stamps.
Whoever stamped the document with LATE and ALTERED presumably did it after Fuddy observed the copies being made, and they presumably also used the stamp with TXE and added the smiley face to Onaka’s signature - more red flags, which the Obama people apparently missed, in their rush to get rid of the LATE and ALTERED stamps and come up with something for the press conference that looked like it was certified.
Edith Coats was born in Hawaii with a U.S. citizen father and Australian mother with Verna K. L. Lee as the registrar accepting the attestation of the of the mother, delivery doctor, and hospital admin for vital statistics.
Barack Obama has a U.S. Citizen mother and African father with Verna K. L. Lee as the registrar accepting the attestation of the mother, delivery doctor, and hospital admin for vital statistics.
I’d venture a guess all OLFBCs in Hawaii in the 60’s with at least one non-citizen parent were accepted by Verna K. L. Lee.
Also, see my post on multiple SSNs issued to non-citizen applicants.
See especially post # 138
Because every newborn looks exactly like their 50 year old selves and his bassinet was bathed with such a beautiful glowing light that his face was burned into her memory all these years.
On the flip side, none, not one, of Sr.'s East West college friends ever knew about little Barry until the election. No, lying Gov. Pothead doesn't count. Sr.'s friends didn't know about SAD, either. In those days, a 17 year old middle class white girl giving birth to a black baby would have been all over campus and half the island within 5 seconds.
Isn't it interesting that we hear from Sr.'s friends but crickets from SAD's friends. Did she not have any friends there at that time or was she simply not anywhere near the island? Where is the newspaper announcement of the engagement, the bridal shower, the wedding announcement (even if the Dunham's weren't too pleased but especially to keep up appearances with the soon to be "premie" grandchild) and the baby shower? My family scrapbook has clippings of all of those events from that time period.
Mike Evans says Gov. Pothead told him the first he saw of Barry was at T-ball age (around 6). That contradicts what he has said publicly. The guy is thus a known liar, since both claims can’t be true.
And Monica Waidelich’s “memories” have very little credibility, since she says she remembers seeing a bunch of Asian babies but only one white child (her son), when the CDC’s statistics show that if babies stayed in the nursery for 4-7 days after the birth there would have been 30-50 white babies in Honolulu nurseries on any given day. On any given day there would have been 1-2 Black babies in Honolulu nurseries, so what she considered so rare (a Black baby in the nursery) was in fact a continuous reality with or without Barack Obama.
Back then (I think) it was still the case in 1961 children born out of wedlock were given the mothers maiden name.
Edith would be a natural-born citizen by the Supreme Court’s definition and Obama ... still not.
My guess is that CNN was referring to what it says on every Hawaii short form COLB: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
There are states whose short forms don’t meet the federal guidelines for issuance of a passport. Hawaii’s short form is not one of those states.
As for the skin color of babies at birth, I have no idea. I don’t know how old he was in that earliest baby picture that has been released.
Here’s that bizarre photo of the English “twins” at birth where one was white and the other black:
So Stig Waidelich could prove that a birth happened.
What does that have to do with Obama? Especially given that Obama had to forge both his short-form and his long-form and now Onaka has revealed why: because the HI record is non-valid. Obama’s Hawaii record is NOT prima facia evidence - of anything.
Did you ever notice that the Coats BC doesn’t have handwritten codes on it? AT least not that I can see...
I look forward to the day when Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo hand over their evidence of forgery to a prosecutor so that allegations of forgery can move to a criminal investigation and indictment for forgery.
Natural born citizenship status is not held in perpetuity when there is a potential expatriating act with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
For example, Vance v. Terrazas; U.S. Supreme Court 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Laurence Terrazas was born in Maryland to a Mexican citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. While a student in Mexico, he applied for and received a Certificate of Mexican nationality. To obtain this certificate, he had to swear an oath of obedience and submission to the Mexican Republic, and expressly renounce his U.S. citizenship to Mexican authorities.
In discussions with an officer of the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, Terrazas admitted he renounced his U.S. citizenship to Mexican authorities, but did so under duress. He repeatedly stated and the State Department acknowledged he never intended to forfeit his U.S. citizenship.
Regardless, the Department of State issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Terrazas filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court against the SoS Vance for a Declaration of his U.S. citizenship. The trial court found that the government had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Terrazas had voluntarily relinquished his US citizenship.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that under Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), that Congress had no power to legislate the evidentiary standard and that the Constitution required clear and convincing evidence.
In 1980, SCOTUS ruled that a person’s intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court held the government must prove “the voluntary commission of an act, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, that ‘is so inherently inconsistent with the continued retention of American citizenship that Congress may accord to it its natural consequences, i. e., loss of nationality.’”
Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1986 to specify, as required by Vance v. Terrazas, that a potentially expatriating act may result in loss of U.S. citizenship only if it was performed with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality by a preponderance of the evidence and not a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
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.