Skip to comments.Obama’s Birth Announcement in 1961 confirmed
Posted on 12/11/2009 1:04:21 AM PST by Electric Graffiti
STAR BULLETIN EDITION OF AUG. 14TH, ON FILE AT BERKLEY IDENTICAL TO PUBLISHED IMAGES by John Charlton
The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You assume grandma might have had sufficient legal knowledge of immigration law to make it seem unnecessary to her to make any false report of a foreign birth as an HI home birth. People panic!
There was one report (from my questionable memory) I think from a friend of Stanley Ann's (before the friend clammed up) that Madelyn was scared to death of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya and wanted to protect little Barry.
If there were to be custody issues resulting from a fall-out between Stanley Ann and BHO Sr, especially if there was a Kenya birth, BHO Sr might have had a stronger claim for Kenya jurisdiction of custody if Barry was not a US citizen. We know there was a big fall-out in the marriage because one month after the birth SADO was living in Seattle! Madelyn might have filed US birth papers for Barry and sent SADO to Seattle for protection from BHO Sr who was reportedly a beast.
The point might have been not to just confirm citizenship for Barry after a Kenya birth, but to actually _negate_ the Kenya birth to disarm Kenya claims on Barry.
While I appreciated your thoughtful reply, none of your arguments address the fact that the “proof” he’s submitted (COLB) has been analyzed and proven to be a forgery:
What I'm saying is actually very simple. If Obama produced a fake document that doesn't conform to the records that Hawaii has, an unbelievably risky thing to do, there is no legal privacy protection for that. The state of Hawaii can legally say that the information on that document does not conform to its records. Indeed, it is more or less compelled to do so if it is aware of a misrepresentation of official state records in a matter of legal consequence. That it has not done so, that it has indeed pretty much confirmed the information, is far more significant and telling than some guy's “analysis” of an image on the Internet.
Either the information on that certificate is false and Hawaii would so state, or it's not. If the latter, why would Obama bother to fake something that looks exactly like what he would get from the state if he asked? The link has been posted that COLBs are the standard document Hawaii issues upon request.
That's all very simple logic. Indeed, it's common sense.
Actually, I would contest as a matter of fact, your statement that an image on the internet cannot be used as proof of fraud. I felt Polarik’s breakdown quite compelling, especially the last portion of his analysis, in which Factcheck’s photographs clearly show the text of the “COLB” not following the same angles as they should be. Also, pixelation issues/distortions, detailed color analysis... None of these discrepancies are explainable, thus far, except for an electronic manipulation of the data.
I agree with you on one point, however - Document fraud is a risky move to take.
I recommend reading this freeper post, for an answer to the “why would he do this question:”
Long story short- the docs he likely posesses, shows his COLB was applied for in a manner that doesn’t prove birthplace.
Common sense gave up the ghost long ago, in terms of Barry’s refusal to release his Birth Certifcate.
And again, here is what most people see as common sense.
(1) When you request a standard birth certificate request, Hawaii issues a COLB.
(2) The COLB is an electronic printout of database information populated by the original source documentation.
(3) The data on a COLB printed out says whatever it says because that's what the original documentation said.
(4) The certificate Obama produced looks like what Hawaii issues.
(5) Hawaii isn't disputing it.
So from a common sense perspective, Obama produced a legal record of birth. A small segment of the population has gone over the top theorizing every answer but the obvious one staring them in the face, most likely because they emotionally will not accept the proposition that Obama can be President. So why should he waste any time on that? Nothing he produces will ever satisfy the people who want to see his baptism records.
I prefer my version:
So from a common sense perspective, Obama has suspiciously withheld his original vital records of birth inviting speculation that he has something to hide, most likely a clue to something that would disqualify him from being President such a foreign birth. A huge segment of the MSM and political elite has gone over the top theorizing every answer but the obvious one staring them in the face, most likely because they emotionally will not accept the proposition that Obama might be ineligible to be President.
I’d appreciate it if you could provide a link which explains away the “perspective problems” (re: the Factcheck photo session with the COLB), which Polarik detailed. I found that particular segment to be the most damning, because no type of doctorate’s degree is necessary in order to believe a legal document’s text should follow roughly the same trajectory.
As a close follower of this mystery, I am quite familiar with what Hawaii issues to requestors of BC information (your bullet point #1).
#2: Yes, this isn’t disputed.
#3: This is being disputed, quite specifically, in detail.
#4: “looks like,” doesn’t cut it.
#5: There “legaleze” response hedges their words quite carefully. Makes one wonder why they do so.