Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newspapers' birth announcements: So what ?
WorldNetDaily ^ | January 07, 2010 | Jerome R. Corsi

Posted on 01/06/2010 5:41:28 PM PST by RobinMasters

Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.

As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.

Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beck; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; corsi; eligibility; glennbeck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
To: RobinMasters

I never understood why the existence of the birth announcements somehow proved Zero was born there. In addition to the WND explanation it seems a simple concept that the grandparents would want people to know of the birth of the grandson.


151 posted on 01/07/2010 5:22:36 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

The glaring error that proves that document to be a rather clumsy fraud is that it cites Hawaiian law HRS 338-18.8, which wasn’t enacted until 1982.


152 posted on 01/07/2010 5:31:03 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Good find!


153 posted on 01/07/2010 6:03:11 PM PST by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

You are incorrect. The 14th amendment DOES NOT mention Natural Born Citizenship at all. It is clear that the founding fathers relied upon the only available definition of Natural Born Citizen at the time, which was from Vattel’s Law of Nations. That definition states that both parents had to be citizens to confer Natural Born Status.


The 14th Amendment doesn’t have to mention Natural Born Citizenship because it states clearly “ALL PERSONS born or naturalized...” There are no exceptions for presidential candidates.
There is recent (November, 2009) case law that reaffirms the 14th Amendment as the deciding law of the land in all citizenship cases with two types of citizenship for all Americans: Citizen at birth (synonymous with natural born citizen) and naturalized citizens.
The case is Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana. See the section of the Appeals Court’s decision entitled “Natural Born Citizenship”.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


154 posted on 01/07/2010 6:05:54 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

I never understood why the existence of the birth announcements somehow proved Zero was born there. In addition to the WND explanation it seems a simple concept that the grandparents would want people to know of the birth of the grandson.


However both Honolulu newspapers have confirmed that they have never accepted birth or death notice information from family or friends. They get their birth and death notices directly from the state Bureau of Vital Statistics.


155 posted on 01/07/2010 6:09:31 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

The glaring error that proves that document to be a rather clumsy fraud is that it cites Hawaiian law HRS 338-18.8, which wasn’t enacted until 1982.


However the state of Hawaii has confirmed the Obama birth information. This throws a wrench in any attempts to discredit it. Dr. Fukino can provide expert testimony.
http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/07/dr-chiyome-fukino-confirms-president-obamas-natural-citizenship/


156 posted on 01/07/2010 6:12:42 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Oh. Duh.

But the other concept about registering the birth that occurred out of state as WND still stands...right?


157 posted on 01/07/2010 6:12:55 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Oh. Duh.

But the other concept about registering the birth that occurred out of state as WND still stands...right?


Wrong.
Obama’s Certification of Live Birth states that he was born at 7:24p.m. on August 4, 1961 and that he was born in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.
Unless and until someone proves that information to be forged or fraudulent in a court of law, it stands and it has been confirmed as accurate by the Registrar of Vital Records and the Director of the State of Hawaii’s Health Department.
http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/07/dr-chiyome-fukino-confirms-president-obamas-natural-citizenship/
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

In the more than two years that questions about Obama’s birthplace have been raised, not one city attorney, county attorney, district attorney, state Attorney General or US Attorney in the entire nation has bothered to simply seek a subpoena for Obama’s original birth records which is allowable under Hawaii statutes.


158 posted on 01/07/2010 6:21:16 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
This throws a wrench in any attempts to discredit it.

In what way?

159 posted on 01/07/2010 6:29:22 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The Indiana attorney general used flawed logic. He assumes wrongly that Natural Born Citizen = Natural Born Subject. The founding fathers meant what they wrote. They Specifically wrote Natural Born CITIZEN as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations.


160 posted on 01/07/2010 6:30:06 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Please show me where in any case law between 1868 and 2006 (uncolored by any opinion of Obama’s citizenship) where any court draws a distinction between an “born citizen” and a natural born citizen”.

I had reason to look citizenship law back in 2000-2001 and the only categories of US citizen I ever encountered were:

Natural born citizen - has citizenship from birth

Naturalized citizen - has citizenship by naturalization

US national - all persons owing allegiance to the United States (Citizens of the United States and non-Citizen nationals (Citizens of American Samoa are the only people left in this category))


161 posted on 01/07/2010 6:33:00 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I’m calling BS on that one. AS the article says, “But the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii.”

As grandparents, you don’t have to be conspiring to pull off a fast one on the government in hopes of one day stealing the presidency. It would simply be a matter of recognizing that life as American citizen for your grandson would be much better than as an African, Englishman or whatever.


162 posted on 01/07/2010 6:35:24 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
"Please show me where in any case law between 1868 and 2006 (uncolored by any opinion of Obama’s citizenship) where any court draws a distinction between an “born citizen” and a natural born citizen”.

The Constitution has the answer. Natural Born Citizen means exactly what it did when the founding fathers wrote it. The only definition of such a term at the time was from Vattel's Law of Nations, which I have shown the founders were well acquainted with.

163 posted on 01/07/2010 6:42:55 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

The Indiana attorney general used flawed logic. He assumes wrongly that Natural Born Citizen = Natural Born Subject. The founding fathers meant what they wrote. They Specifically wrote Natural Born CITIZEN as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations.


The case was decided unanimously by a three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges discredited Vattel as having relevance to US law. Thus far there has been no appeal filed of their decision.


164 posted on 01/07/2010 6:50:48 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

I’m calling BS on that one. AS the article says, “But the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii.”

As grandparents, you don’t have to be conspiring to pull off a fast one on the government in hopes of one day stealing the presidency. It would simply be a matter of recognizing that life as American citizen for your grandson would be much better than as an African, Englishman or whatever.


If and when a birth certificate showing birth somewhere other than Hawaii is verified, you’ll have a valid point.
Until then, the state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth there.


165 posted on 01/07/2010 6:53:45 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

BS. Whether or not another BC exists is irrelevant to my point. Hawai’i allowed residents out of state to register births. They did not check to see if other BCs existed.


166 posted on 01/07/2010 7:00:41 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Please stop pinging me. Thank you.


167 posted on 01/07/2010 7:01:03 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
"The case was decided unanimously by a three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals. The judges discredited Vattel as having relevance to US law. "

They discredited Vattel? More like they ignored him completely. How can he have no relevance to US law when the Law of Nations is specifically spelled out in Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America?

168 posted on 01/07/2010 7:28:43 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
They Specifically wrote Natural Born CITIZEN as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations.

I don't recall seeing the "as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations" following "Natural Born Citizen".

169 posted on 01/07/2010 7:37:13 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

But can you show me where Vattel’s definition has ever been used in an actual case, particularly one since the 14th Amendment was adopted?


170 posted on 01/07/2010 7:50:29 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

As I stated earlier....the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizenship.


171 posted on 01/07/2010 7:54:26 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"I don't recall seeing the "as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations" following "Natural Born Citizen"

I'm not surprised. What do you recall following it?

172 posted on 01/07/2010 7:57:27 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

I can name two

New London v Kelo

Lawrence v Texas


173 posted on 01/07/2010 8:03:48 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Well deserved bump! ;-)


174 posted on 01/07/2010 8:12:57 PM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
And you have no proof she ever left the country since she was a minor at the time (or barely 18) when Obama was born.

It doesn't matter.

If she was 18, she had not lived five years past the age of majority and could not confer natural born citizenship upon her son by birth in the US alone if the father was a foreign citizen.

175 posted on 01/07/2010 8:13:25 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Under the Constitution, he is a natural born citizen

Actually, it is precisely that point which is in question. If not, then join us in demanding that that proof be presented, and the supporting documents which should confirm that your statement is correct so we can quit calling you an idiot troll.

Glenn Beck has pegged the birthers nicely. They are a waste of time.

LOL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THEN???

We are the ones who put the first cracks of doubt in the grand and media-polished facade of "Hope and Change".

Why won't he produce the documents?

What does he have to hide if he isn't doing anything wrong?

And what in the Hell is the government doing taking over car companies, banks, and the healthcare system?

People want to know, by what Constitutional authority does this man have the arrogance to say "America is the greatest nation on Earth. Now join me as we set out to change it."?

And just what did he mean by that, anyway?

Where are we going to go from being the greatest?

176 posted on 01/07/2010 8:26:03 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Under the Constitution, he is a natural born citizen

Actually, it is precisely that point which is in question.

If you have proof (come on, now, not altered document images from the Daily Kos, but something real), please provide it.

If not, then join us in demanding that that proof be presented, and the supporting documents which should confirm that your statement is correct so we can quit calling you an idiot troll.

Glenn Beck has pegged the birthers nicely. They are a waste of time.

LOL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THEN???

We are the ones who put the first cracks of doubt in the grand and media-polished facade of "Hope and Change".

Why won't he produce the documents?

What does he have to hide if he isn't doing anything wrong?

And what in the Hell is the government doing taking over car companies, banks, and the healthcare system?

People want to know, by what Constitutional authority does this man have the arrogance to say "America is the greatest nation on Earth. Now join me as we set out to change it."?

And just what did he mean by that, anyway?

Where are we going to go from being the greatest?

177 posted on 01/07/2010 8:26:55 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162. Decided: March 29, 1875, written by Chief Justice Waite:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

And the doubts remain today.

Chief Justice Waite, author of the opinion, it is safe to say, was familiar with the adoption of the 14th Amendment. He and the majority of the Court obviously didn’t see the ‘natural born citizen’ question resolved by that Amendment 7 years after its adoption.

But these threads are littered with Keyboard Kommandos who KNOW that the 14th Amendment resolved ‘natural born’ citizenship. Simply amazing.


178 posted on 01/07/2010 8:43:58 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I see 338-17.8 .. where are you seeing 338-18.8?


179 posted on 01/07/2010 8:49:53 PM PST by STARWISE (.They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
Please show me where in any case law between 1868 and 2006 (uncolored by any opinion of Obama’s citizenship) where any court draws a distinction between an “born citizen” and a natural born citizen”.

.Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Grey (quoting Binny from "Alienigenae of the United States", printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853):

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

They have the same rights, but they are not the same. Becoming President is not a right, otherwise how could it be denied to those adults under 35, or those who had not lived 14 years in the US. They too are still citizens, just not eligible to the officer of President. But, eligibility for the office of President is the only time where the distinction matters.

180 posted on 01/07/2010 10:26:07 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59

Don’t you see it was addressed to cowgirl???


181 posted on 01/07/2010 11:05:01 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

According to that rule previously posted, it’s 5 years from the 14th birthday, not 5 years from the age of majority. Which one is it?!

Can’t have it both ways!


182 posted on 01/07/2010 11:37:45 PM PST by Tamar1973 (Freedom of the Press?! I need Freedom FROM THE PRESS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
She says: "and is a natural-born American citizen," see the strange wording and hyphen.!!!

natural-born AMERICAN (?) citizen???

183 posted on 01/07/2010 11:41:36 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Godebert; jamese777; LucyT
They Specifically wrote Natural Born CITIZEN as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations.

But Fukino writes: "natural-born AMERICAN citizen!!!

Never heard or seen that before???

184 posted on 01/07/2010 11:46:25 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
" BS. Whether or not another BC exists is irrelevant to my point. Hawai’i allowed residents out of state to register births. They did not check to see if other BCs existed. "

Out of state, or out of country also....



Ohhh, Good day ladies and Gentlemen, this is Uncle Maowie , hope your doing fine.
Ohh yes, those Freepers are so smart and very well informed, and the Obots, and the Main Fringe Media useful idiots are so so dumb.
Ohh yes, so true, the Hawaii polices back in 1961 were so lax that even a caveman and Uncle Maowie could get a Regirstered Birth Certificate from the state of Hawaii...
Ohh yes, your very own Uncle Maowie, ohh so true, even I , Uncle Maowie could have had people go to Hawaii with some people, show them bogus documents, show a really really sad face, swore false statements, and BINGO !! I , Uncle Maowie is even a Natural Born US Citizen .....
Go Yankies,
Eat Apple Pie and Rice !

185 posted on 01/07/2010 11:50:14 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

According to the law back in 1961, she would have to have been a US citizen for 10 years, 5 after the age of 14, so ? she would have to have been 19 years.


186 posted on 01/07/2010 11:54:40 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Correction :
According to the law back in 1961, she would have to have been a resident for 10 years in the US, 5 after the age of 14, so ? she would have to have been 19 years.
187 posted on 01/07/2010 11:56:58 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

So those 14 year olds who are legally allowed to get married in some of the southern states, can’t confirm US citizenship status for their own children until they are 19 (and the child is 5 years old)?!


188 posted on 01/07/2010 11:58:49 PM PST by Tamar1973 (Freedom of the Press?! I need Freedom FROM THE PRESS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

Wow! That was a real Southernphobic thing to say. Been hating people from the South long?

In the United States, all but two states require a couple be age 18 in order to marry without parental consent. Nebraska sets the age at 19 and Mississippi at 21 at the time of this writing (May 2003). A few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy involved, but the couple may still have to have court approval.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm


189 posted on 01/08/2010 7:05:29 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Hahaha... So it WAS a conspiracy to fake his birth place so he could become president 40+ years later.

Actually, that’s what the lib idiots and Beck would say to your comment — and keep saying it. It really chaps my @ss that they don’t get it. Stanley and her parents just wanted Zero to be an American citizen, not a Kenyan, or whatever. That’s why it was registered despite the fact he wasn’t truly born here, IMO.

I approach this logically. If Zero WAS born in an Hawai’ian hospital, wouldn’t that hospital NOW claim to be the birthplace of Oshithead? (Well, maybe not now that even libs see he’s a fascist, but certainly right after the election.) And IF it was a HIPAA/privacy issue, wouldn’t they just ask permission to state such a fact? And wouldn’t he give it, not caring that anyone knew?

That’s a simple, logical analysis — not of the documents — but based on the way people view and recognize historic events, such as the birthplace of a president. It makes perfect sense.

I have said before, it would add a lot of meat to the speculation — or answer it once and for all — if an Hawai’ian historical society/group announced that they wanted to put up an historical marker where Zero was born and asked Zero to give the place of his birth and permission to the hospital to confirm. Both perfectly logical things to do.

But that’s not happening, is it. So, according to Glen Beck and stupid liberals — and apparently Jamese777 — I’m a conspiracy nut simply because I can add 2 + 2 and balk because I keep being told the answer is 666.


190 posted on 01/08/2010 7:29:23 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I see 338-17.8 .. where are you seeing 338-18.8?

Typo on my part. The point remains the same, though. It's a law passed in 1982.

191 posted on 01/08/2010 8:00:59 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
If she was 18, she had not lived five years past the age of majority and could not confer natural born citizenship upon her son by birth in the US alone if the father was a foreign citizen.

Wrong. That rule only applies to births overseas.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Title III, Chapter 1. Sec. 301

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizen of the United States at birth:

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totallying not less than ten years, at least five of which was after attaining the age of fourteen years.

link


192 posted on 01/08/2010 8:19:59 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2423634/posts


193 posted on 01/08/2010 9:14:40 AM PST by STARWISE (.They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
It really chaps my @ss that they don’t get it. Stanley and her parents just wanted Zero to be an American citizen, not a Kenyan, or whatever. That’s why it was registered despite the fact he wasn’t truly born here, IMO.

So if Stanley Ann was so desperate to have her son registered as having been born in America, to the point where she and her parents conspired to defraud the Hawaiian government, then why exactly would she travel halfway around the world to give birth in a third-world country in the first place?

Seems to me, if she *really* wanted to have her son born in America, she simply would have, y'know, stayed in America.

I have said before, it would add a lot of meat to the speculation — or answer it once and for all — if an Hawai’ian historical society/group announced that they wanted to put up an historical marker where Zero was born and asked Zero to give the place of his birth and permission to the hospital to confirm. Both perfectly logical things to do.

But that’s not happening, is it.

Last time I checked, there's no historical marker at Yale New Haven Hospital either. And they've had nine years to put one up. Is that suspicious too?

194 posted on 01/08/2010 10:07:03 AM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: LorenC

“Seems to me, if she *really* wanted to have her son born in America, she simply would have, y’know, stayed in America.”

Unless maybe she delivered sooner than she expected. Or figured out late that her husband was scum. Or perhaps was unable to get travel plans. Didn’t get money in time.

Feel free to continue the list...there’s probably more than, y’know, a hundred reasons.

“Last time I checked, there’s no historical marker at Yale New Haven Hospital either. And they’ve had nine years to put one up. Is that suspicious too?”

Well, the question is, have you ever checked? I rather doubt that you have.


195 posted on 01/08/2010 1:13:02 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Unless maybe she delivered sooner than she expected. Or figured out late that her husband was scum. Or perhaps was unable to get travel plans. Didn’t get money in time.

None of those explain why a woman in her third trimester would go to a third-world country she'd never even visited before, when she simultaneously *desperately* wanted her child to be born in the United States. So your notion is that she married Barack Sr., got pregnant, decided to travel to Kenya while pregnant intending to come back before the baby was born, got stuck in Kenya, gave birth in Kenya, and then had her parents fraudulently report a Hawaiian birth to Hawaiian officials so as to protect the baby's future Presidential eligibility? Oh, and somehow coasting through U.S. Customs with a baby that she didn't have when she left the country?

Your theory of her behavior is utterly irrational. You're so desperate to place her in Kenya that you're willing to ignore that the simplest explanation for all the evidence is the straightforward: he was born in Hawaii. No secret international flights, no baby-smuggling through customs, no fraudulent vital records. Just an ordinary birth in an ordinary hospital.

Well, the question is, have you ever checked? I rather doubt that you have

You obviously have never checked, as your doubts are misplaced. Per WorldNetDaily, just five months ago:

"The third president born in a medical facility, George W. Bush, was welcomed into the world in 1946 at the Grace–New Haven Community Hospital – later renamed the Yale–New Haven Hospital – in New Haven, Conn. No plaques or monuments mark the hospital as Bush's birthplace"

196 posted on 01/08/2010 1:37:44 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

That might be the case now but it wasn’t back when I was a teenager. When I was a teenager, many states had provisions for 14 yo girls (and even younger) to get married w/ a judge’s consent. There’s nothing “Southernphobic” about stating that.

Getting a little sensitive and thin-skinned, aren’t we? It seems to be a common trait among “birthers”.


197 posted on 01/08/2010 1:42:47 PM PST by Tamar1973 (Freedom of the Press?! I need Freedom FROM THE PRESS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Hahaha... So it WAS a conspiracy to fake his birth place so he could become president 40+ years later.

Actually, that’s what the lib idiots and Beck would say to your comment — and keep saying it. It really chaps my @ss that they don’t get it. Stanley and her parents just wanted Zero to be an American citizen, not a Kenyan, or whatever. That’s why it was registered despite the fact he wasn’t truly born here, IMO.

I approach this logically. If Zero WAS born in an Hawai’ian hospital, wouldn’t that hospital NOW claim to be the birthplace of Oshithead? (Well, maybe not now that even libs see he’s a fascist, but certainly right after the election.) And IF it was a HIPAA/privacy issue, wouldn’t they just ask permission to state such a fact? And wouldn’t he give it, not caring that anyone knew?

That’s a simple, logical analysis — not of the documents — but based on the way people view and recognize historic events, such as the birthplace of a president. It makes perfect sense.

I have said before, it would add a lot of meat to the speculation — or answer it once and for all — if an Hawai’ian historical society/group announced that they wanted to put up an historical marker where Zero was born and asked Zero to give the place of his birth and permission to the hospital to confirm. Both perfectly logical things to do.

But that’s not happening, is it. So, according to Glen Beck and stupid liberals — and apparently Jamese777 — I’m a conspiracy nut simply because I can add 2 + 2 and balk because I keep being told the answer is 666.


I do not believe that people are “conspiracy nuts” simply because they take a different position on an issue from me. I am fascinated with the legal issues involved in the Obama eligibility challenges and I have researched the issues carefully in order to try to separate fact from fiction.

Obama does not have to have been born in a hospital in order to be a natural born citizen. Many US presidents were not born in hospitals. If Obama had been delivered by a midwife on a beach in Oahu, he would still be a citizen-at-birth.

Furthermore since the passage of The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)a hospital would be in violation of federal law if it released any information on the birth of a child in that facility without the consent of the person who was allegedly born there.

From a political point of view, every unsubstantiated rumor, every bit of unproven gossip and every poorly written and weakly argued lawsuit that is dismissed or denied a full hearing benefits Obama and makes his opposition look pathetic and desperate.

Thus far there have been more than 60 legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility including six at the US Supreme Court. Obama has won in every one of those legal challenges including going 6 for 6 in rulings at the US Supreme Court.

“The defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”—Albert Einstein

My solution to this issue is via the criminal courts not the civil courts. Any prosecuting attorney in the nation could launch a forgery/fraud investigation concerning Obama’s internet posted Certification of Live Birth and then that prosecutor could subpoena the original birth documents from Hawaii for examination by experts in front of a Grand Jury. If everything is on the up and up, no harm, no foul. If there is fraud or forgery, Obama would be impeached faster than you can say “Rod Blagojevich.”
To date, no prosecutor in the nation has been willing to take that step.
“If you hit the King, you have to kill him.”


198 posted on 01/08/2010 2:30:33 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
" Hahaha... So it WAS a conspiracy to fake his birth place so he could become president 40+ years later. "

Whether that is a stretch of the imagination or the truth is to be shorted out while people are in search of the truth...
Glenn Beck and others seem to be at a brain freeze in a state of being naive to think that all people are pure and innocent as the wind driven snow and think that people could not devise such shenanigans...
To think and say and mock those who are birthers and say that it's a coast to coast kook conspiracy to think that someone got in a time machine to promote this conspiracy and placed those 2 news paper adds back in 1961... that is the wrong angle or perspective to look at it... got to look outside the box to find answers.
It's not beyond the stretch of the truth or imagination to think that some relatives of a baby ( any baby ) born, could live in another state or country and called the news paper and give them the information.
199 posted on 01/08/2010 2:32:39 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Don’t you see it was addressed to cowgirl???

Look at it again. You addressed both of us on that message.

- Traveler

200 posted on 01/08/2010 3:02:11 PM PST by Traveler59 (Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson