Posted on 12/11/2008 8:46:17 AM PST by ckilmer
Paisan,
Excerps from previous articles, citing two separate but entirely viable ways a birth announcement might make it’s way to a newspaper, without their having to be anything conspiratory in that reality, activity or existence:
“’Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack’s parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There’s a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud.’
Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you’re bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768
“Additionally, a birth announcement in a newspaper is certainly not indicative of legally binding precedent. It’s entirely likely that if a birth occurred in a foreign country, and his mother returned home and legally registered the foreign birth with the state of Hawaii, the the release to the paper would still exist.”
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-160646
If you’re looking for more detail on the actual announcement...it was pretty simple: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6805 Kalanlanaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4”. No notation of hospital, or any other corroborating evidence to the place of birth....only that the birth occurred.
Sorry for the repost on the birth announcement piece, ckilmer. I didn’t realize responses went to the bottom of the page; I thought they’d be tucked away and embedded in the post they were responding to. Still learning this thread, though I won’t likely be back frequently enough to help you educate the naysayers. I do think it’s rather telling though, that they so fiercely fight the reality that an outstanding question exists.
Do you think if I were posting comments saying I was an alien, that they’d slow down to refute it? Or, if they were so sure it was untrue...do you think, instead, they’d walk away laughing, not wasting a minute on it, because they were certain any additional evidence that may surface as it relates to my claim, would only further discredit my claim? Do you think they’d be so concerned, that they’d begin creating lies to debunk me? (As we see so many do, when citing the state of Hawaii having verified he was “born there”, when in fact the statement said nothing of the sort.)
They’d likely walk away, if they knew it was baseless. But instead, go figure....HERE THEY ARE!!! Fighting for projection of Obama’s infalibility with everything they’ve got.
“Well Hank, people like you are DANGEROUS passing around so much misinformation.”
Really? What misinformation have I created or cited? Additionally, if this question is so baseless...and so easily disproved...why would you worry that interests in seeing it answered, like those I articulate, would ever net anything but further validation of your own (however uninformed) claims that it already has been, and affirmatively no less?
Jerkoffs. Can I say that here? Sorry...but it’s just funny at this point.
That’s about right....
At least you’re able to laugh at yourself a little bit. That will never be a bad thing.
On a more serious note, don't the newspapers get birth notices straight from the hospitals? I didn't know one could, would, or would want to “file” a birth notice with a newspaper. I know my parents didn't, but I bet there is one nonetheless.
So why do you think Stanley Ann Dunham went to Kenya to give birth?
Again...it is completely viable that the virgin Mary....errrr....Stanley Ann Dunham, had a foreign birth, legally registered it in Hawaii, and then the STATE (who, you correctly cite as being more likely ‘other party’ than the parents - responsible for birth announcements), released that registration, along with many others, to the local print media.
Why did Stanley Ann go to Kenya to give birth? Speculation, and that’s all it is, and I respect and accept that...but speculation suggests she was there visiting, and was either too pregnant to endure travel or incurred labor sooner than expected, while still in Kenya. The last thing she probably ever thought about though, was that Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Dunham Dunham Obama Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Soetoro Dunham Soetoro Obama Obama Obama would ever seek the Presidency. And while that’s just speculation, per neatly tucked away Hawaiian legalities, the proof he’s offered to substantiate natural born citizenship simply isn’t complete or viable. And he could easily, easily provide it. Transparency? Unity? Where....? I don’t see it...and seeing so many debate this, you can’t claim to either. That’s not my doing. Or Berg’s, or Keyes’. That’s Barack Obama’s doing.
People treat this like a conspiracy HAD TO exist 47 years ago for this to be a viable question. It didn’t. And truthfully, I’m less concerned about the merit of the Constitution which made sense when it was carved out, but perhaps makes less sense now...but more concerned with a man who may have willfully and knowingly committed such a gross fraud in his unrelenting pursuit for power. I also believe Dr. Polarik’s research is very valid, however I don’t cling to it or cite it...because I am trying to stick only to fact that passed the litmus of public acceptance, long before this issue came up. And per those facts, the question is outstanding. It shouldn’t be. It doesn’t have to be. It is, though.
And I appreciate, providing I won’t post this only to find “You’re just racist, Hank! ‘Scoreboard! Scoreboard!’” posts with your name attached to them...the grounded inquiries you’re posturing. But, from experience, I am still certain...by the time we’re done, you’ll walk away saying, “No way. He’s eligible and proved it already. Of course he was properly vetted. Right...? Yeah. Of course he was. He must’ve been.” People are firm on this. But neither on either side of the debate, actually have room to be. It’s an objective question, with an objective answer, that many debate subjectively. That is the handy-work of a lack of transparency, on this objective matter, by the same person who claimed committment to uniting us.
The birth announcement was posted 10 days after the birth occurred.
each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected. The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to enforce this qualification.
The clear intention behind the “natural born citizen” in the constitution is that there be no divided loyalties for the highest office in the nation. Obama himself has admitted that he is not a natural born citizen, and in fact, is at best (if we take him at his certification word), a native citizen, who had british citizenship at birth.
He does NOT qualify, he never did. He had to have known this, and yet ran for president in spite of the fact that it was illegal for him to do so. This also implies the secretary of state was remiss in their duties.
If you are to try and argue the intention behind the natural born citizen requirement, to somehow now force it to mean the same as native citizen (if in fact he actually is a native citizen, and not an illegal alien (this is almost comical at times)), despite the obvious and overwhelming historical meaning and legal precedent, saying that a dual citizenship is not natural born, you must do so via the courts. You cannot simply decide it so for yourself whenever it suits you, especially not with the office of the president of the United States. Obama knows this as well I’m sure, given his legal background.
So there you have it. Automatic disqualification insofar as I can see. And yet we have to file lawsuits in the supreme court to even get people to recognize these relatively simple matters.
No matter how much you love or hate the guy, or how great you might think he’d be at the job, it does not matter, he cannot be president.
In the interests of avoiding the ensuing chaos that will result from anyone being able to interpret the law in any way they see fit, the wholesale destruction of the constitution (all martial law at once, or slowly bit by bit), and any of the other nasty implications, perhaps it would be wise for Obama, McCain and whomever ever else isn’t qualified, to go on prime time tv, remove themselves from the presidential election, and make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they are solely responsible for the implications of their wholly irresponsible actions.
It will probably be known eventually that his mother filed for a birth certificate to get him registered as a US citizen as soon as she and baby got off the plane.
Why is it that all the other birth announcements were showing the same range of birth dates? Did all those mothers have to fly in their babies from foreign shores and register them, thus explaining the same time gap for Obama as all the other babies born from Aug 2 to Aug 7 published that day?
Maybe his grandmother placed the announcement in the newspaper. Pardon me for a moment, I have to adjust my aluminium hat.
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.