AUGUST 13TH EDTION OF THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER, LISTS SAME INFORMATION
by John Charlton
(Dec. 16, 2009) — A second citizen-investigator has recovered a copy of a different Hawaii Newspaper from Aug. 1961, which contains the same birth annoucement for Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama.
Page B6 of the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser reports the following birth annoucment:
Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6086 Kalanaianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.
You can download the PDF scan of the copy obtained from the mircofiche through this link.
The citizen-journalist was in search of the birth annoucement for the Nordyke twins, but did not find it. She also reports that of all the boxes of microfiche for the Honolulu Advertiser in that year of 1961, the box containing the weeks of Aug. 1 to Aug. 15th, was the only one showing signs of being opened before her arrival.
The missing annoucement of the Nordyke twins, who were born just hours after the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., is a mystery yet to be resolved. The Honolulu Advertiser page reports births for Aug. 3-7. So the Nordyke twins should be listed, but they are not.
The Honolulu Star Bulletin’s birth annoucments of Aug. 14, 1961, list births from Aug. 3 to Aug. 7, also. The Nordyke twins do not appear in that listing either.
The Post & Email published last week the story of the confirmation/finding of the Star Bulletin’s annoucement by a different citizen-journalist, and can confirm that both citizens are staunch Obama opponents and entirely credible sources.
Common Misconceptions regarding these Annoucments
There are many misconceptions surrounding the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.
First, it is not necessary to find his birth certificate, to prove that he is ineligible and is a usurper. He has already claimed a British subject, as his father (Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr.); that alone is sufficient to disqualify him.
Second, the finding of the birth annoucments do not prove he was born in Hawaii, as they merely state the claimed legal address of the parents in the year of the birth. The child could have been born anywhere; the filing could have been submitted by a relative who was not a witness, for a foreign birth.
Third, the birth annoucments do not confirm the name of the child. Ostensibly, the child could have died soon after, and the parents adopted a foreign born child to replace their loss in their time of grief…while there is no evidence to back such speculation, there is no evidence to discount it until actual documents are released.
Fourth, that Obama’s campaign released an electronic-image of an alleged short form document, proves nothing; and is made all the more dubious by the fact that neither the Hawaii Department of Health will confirm that the image is of a real, authentic document, nor that they ever released the copy which the campaign claims to have put on the Internet. Even Obama’s current White House Counsel, Robert Bauer would not cite the online COLB as evidence in the case Hollister vs. Soetero, so unsure he was to defend its authenticity. Perhaps this is so, because a blank Hawaii Certification of Live Birth appeared on the net just days before the Obama campaign put out his alleged COLB image, from which the famous COLB image was produced or derived, according to several analyses available on line.
Fifth, Dr. Fukino of the Department of Health of Hawaii has withdrawn her statement that her department has Obama’s birth certificate, by affirming on July 28th, 2009, that it possess instead “original vital records” of his birth. Why Obama, unlike nearly everyone else in America, requires more than one document to prove his birth, is the problem that he and his campaign have been running cover for, for the last 5 years.
Hence it is quite accurate to say that Obama has refused to provide documents proving he is a natural born citizen of the U.S.A., or that he is even a citizen of the U.S.A.; let alone who his biological parents are or were.
And despite more than 40 law suits to obtain documents which Obama could acquire for less than $50, he has refused to do so, even though he promised an administration of transparency and openness.
For more reports on these issues, click on the tags at the end of this article.
Maybe someone can check out the other births listed in the paper to see if those parents remember a young white woman in the hospital at the same time who gave birth to a black son ?
I think Frank Marshall Davis is the bio-dad. He was a long time Dunham family friend and he was very light complected. Mr Obama – the alleged father is very very dark complected….the pres is very light complected. I really think the baby-daddy was Davis. Would love to hear any other thoughts on this idea.
Have your citizen journalist look in the microfilms for the next week’s papers (the 20th and 21st). The Nordykes may have been announced the following week because at least one of their birth certificates indicates that the doctor didn’t sign the birth certificate until Friday, the 11th. The DoH supposedly sent their lists to the papers on Fridays, so perhaps the Nordyke birth certificates were put on the list for the following week’s publication.
jcscuba,
the Consitution refers to the law of nations in Article I, Section 8.
Vattel wrote the book the “Law of Nations” (before the Constituion was written) in which he defines a natural born citizen as have two citizen parents.
Another great article, glad to see others engaged in the quest for the truth.
I agree the COLB is not required to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility unless Obama Sr. is not his biological father or SAD is not his biological mother. It is however necessary to determine the veracity of the COLB. In the event it is fraudulent, it may be the only path which to engage the media and citizens who still refuse to believe anything other than Mr. Obama’s claim to the office of POTUS is legitimate, regardless of his father’s nationality or even where he was born.
I encourage everyone that reads this blog to write to the DoH and demand the following:
Pursuant to HRS 338-18 (d) and HRS 92F-12, I hereby request to inspect and copy:
Index data for Barack Hussein Obama II, Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Soetoro
Index data for Stanley Ann Dunham, Stanley Ann Obama, Stanley Ann Soetoro/Sutoro
Index data for Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.)
Index data for Lolo Soetoro
Index data for birth certificate 151 1961-010641
Pursuant to HRS 92F-12, I hereby request to inspect and copy all attorney-client communications between the AG and DoH that was the basis of the July 27, 2009 statement by Dr. Fukino. Communications Director Okubo informed one citizen that “the AG approved the statement”. The DoH cannot selectively withhold attorney-clien commnunications once it releases a portion of that communication.
Pursuant to HRS 91-2 and HRS 92F-12 I hereby request to inspect and copy the rules, regulations, procedures or other phyiscal form that define the circumstances in which “Date Filed By Registrar” is applied to the COLB in lieu of “Date Accepted By Registrar”.
Pursuant to HRS 338-18, I hereby request the DoH to verify the veracity of the online COLB posted at FactCheck, and Fight the Smears.
President Obama waived all rights to privacy when his campaign posted the COLB on Fight the Smears and invited FactCheck to the campaign headquarters to photograph it. It is permissible by law for the DoH to release all of the information I have listed, yet it has only released the index data for Barack Hussein Obama II and the marriage index data for Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama (Sr.) which in itself is no guarantee the two were married to each other, only that they married a person in HI.
Until the DoH releases all of the above information, the general public has no choice but to assume the COLB online is a forgery. If enough people demand the truth, a tipping point will result where public interest far outweighs Mr. Obama’s privacy.
so whats the big deal, his bc could be released, then arrest the SOB
John: I’m a member of the American Grand Jury Movement. This is to me a serious question. I see frequently in articles, yours above the mention of both parents being citizens of the U.S. They quote Article II of the Constitution. I’ve gone there and there is no such requirement. Can you please advise me as to what I’m missing? I’d appreciate this clarification. From the Constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
——————
Mr. Charlton replies: You can find the information you are looking for in the article entitled:
Four Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
This is the article which, when quoted, makes Obots scatter…works every time…like a sort of exorcism…
Also John Bingham, who was the architect of the 14th Amendment was quoted in the Congressional Record:
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
– John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
I look at it mathematically too.
Every permutation for “Citizen” is defined in US Code 1401 via the 14th Amendment.
The term “Natural Born Citizen” is nowhere to be found in US Code 1401 or the 14th Amendment because it’s not defined there.
The only permutation NOT in the 14th is that of jus soli jus sanguinis (both parents), and that is the ONLY possible remaining definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Article II by using the word “OR” makes NBC distinct from mere citizen, they cannot be and are not the same things.
This is backed up by US v Wong Km Ark which states that the native born child of an alien cannot be a natural born citizen and Minor v Happersett which not only defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents but holds that the definition of NBC is not in the 14th amendment. Also, you are either born NBC or not, you cannot be assigned that status at any point after the moment of birth, which is held by Craig v US.
So all-told by precedent and logic and mathematics, there is no escaping that NBC means born in-country and of two US citizen parents.
If you really want to excoriate a bot on this, show them that Barack Obama himself as cosponsor of Senate Resolution 511 (which defines NBC requiring two US citizen parents) agrees with you!!
So to Senators Chertoff, Leahy, etc.
Great reporting as usual especially that the birth notices of the twins Never appeared in the newspapers which everyone was believed to be an automatic procedure for all new borns. When my brothers were born the newspaper advertised the birth to sell the laminated newsclipping to the parents for added revenue.
In fact there has never been made public any legal document proving that Barack Obama Sr. is Barack Obama Jr’s. father.
None what so ever
Barack Hussein Obama’s whole life is a lie and a fraud.
In my opinion, even today he remains a citizen of Indonesia and an American illegal alien.
There is no proof that Obama Sr and/or Stanley Ann Dunham ever lived either separately or together at the address listed in the birth announcements placed in the newspapers.
In fact the evidence, including eye witness accounts indicate that neither one of them ever lived at that address.
So those announcements are just more evidence that Obama’s whole life has been a fraud right from his conception, birth and onward.