BREAKING NEWS!!!! ARE THE HAWAIIAN NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS OF OBAMA'S BIRTH FORGERIES?

RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ - By jbjd
Posted on August 9th, 2009 by David-Crockett

jbdj published (LINK: http://jbjd.wordpress.com )

Last night, I received this brief comment from jan C.

jbjd: I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals. Is that confirmed anywhere? What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?

I conducted some research to prepare my response, and stumbled across information that blunts another arrow of authenticity in BO’s quiver.

jan C: Welcome.

I generally stay out of discussions as to whether photocopied or scanned documents posted on the web are real. (Your guess is as good as mine.) Instead, I try to find out where the image came from.

I remember BO did not post that newspaper birth announcement image on his FTS web site. (I don’t mean now that the site belongs to the DNC; I mean even before the switch, back when it was still paid for by Obama for America.) I always thought this was odd. He posted the COLB, and the admission that he was a British subject at birth whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. And I can picture the official logo of Annenberg Political FactCheck.org, which linked to APFC’s web site, where more testimonials were printed as to BO’s Constitutional legitimacy. I recall how incredulous I was at the time, that he would publicly tout Annenberg as an “independent” arbiter of his eligibility to be POTUS, since that was his boss when he was Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Doesn’t everyone know that?) I did remember seeing that birth announcement posted on APFC’s web site; so that’s where I went first.

The image of that newspaper birth announcement is still there, with a lead-in consisting of a few lines of text beginning with, “In fact…”

I clicked on the image to trace its origin. But wherever I clicked, I kept getting back to the blog named td, or texas darlin. That is, I got to a screen with a td header and message saying ‘what you want is no longer here.’ Well, I post on td’s blog; in fact, she calls me their “resident lawyer.” (She is on my blog roll.) So the first time this happened, I figured, too many windows open, too many thumbs. Then, it happened again. And now it dawned on me, could it be that td’s site is the source of the picture of the newspaper announcement APFC posts on their site and uses to prove BO is a NBC; and APFC merely copied it?



Just below the image, I found my answer: The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Say what? But APFC must have conducted their own investigation, right? Surely, they contacted the Honolulu Advertiser to check the facts surrounding this birth announcement publication. Of course they viewed the archives and located that same image from microfiche or other medium. Reading just a little further, I was bound to find the record of such comprehensive investigation. But here was APFC’s last word on the subject.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/

In sum, the image of that announcement of BO’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC came from an anonymous poster on the td blog. APFC usurped that image, posted this on its site, and with no further evidence of authentication declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence the image of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC and all over the internet, is fake; BO tried to fool a federal judge into finding this was real, too.

Hollister v. Soetoro et. al is only one of the many unsuccessful lawsuits filed against BO in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether he is a NBC. As in every other case, BO submitted a Motion to Dismiss. (Defendants’ Motion in Hollister argued Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and failed to establish the court had jurisdiction. This was all procedural; the court had not yet reached the substantive merits of the case.) I had read Plaintiff’s Complaint when it was first filed; I knew it was infirm, and the reasons why. So, I would not have read BO’s Motion to Dismiss if someone hadn’t asked my opinion. And there, in footnote 1 on the front page of the Memorandum in support of his Motion, I found this sneaky little gem of propaganda, arguably placed there to reap maximum attention from the public as much as the court. Written quite cleverly so as to disguise its real meaning, the footnote is more easily understood with translation.

1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. (BO left out that by “publicly produced” he meant, he posted the image of a COLB on the internet.) ( You already know the difference between a certification and a certificate, at least before October 2008, when HI began using the terms interchangeably.) See, e.g., (this means, to back up the point I just made, I am going to use a reference that is not directly on point and only kind of related.) Factcheck.org, (He leaves out the Annenberg Political…) “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). (Now, this is a double slight of hand. First, BO says (AP)FC “conclud[ed]” that the BC is real, so as to reaffirm for the court, the statement he made above that he produced a birth certificate must be true. Notice he fails to draw any nexus between his producing the BC and, APFC “concluding” it is real, only implying such nexus exists.) (Look at how cleverly he slipped in a reference to the meaningless newspaper announcement of his birth. He says, APFC “not[ed] a contemporaneous birth announcement. But he does not say they only made this note of it: “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”) (By formatting his cite in this way, he maximizes the likelihood that a quick read would bamboozle a clerk into mistaking this to be a holding of law from a court case instead of merely a reference to the opinion of his former employer expressed in a blog posting.) Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (He is clearly trying to put one over on the court. As I explained in detail in a prior post, ” jbjd BIRTHER,” HI officials did not say that the “original birth certificate” “on record” they are referring to, confirms BO was born in HI; nor did they confirm the COLB he posted saying he was born in HI, is authentic; or that the information contained in that on-line COLB matches the information in their files.) See (This means, the next reference is not directly on point but is kind of related.) “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. (Whoever wrote this is playing fast and loose with the canons of ethics. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice means, the court accepts as true that fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known as true, or it is capable of accurate and ready determination. The process of judicial notice is the easiest way for the parties to get evidence into the record. TECHNICALLY, everything BO alleges here is easily verified as true. Of course, nothing he says here can be understood to mean what he intends the Court to hear. But if the Court took judicial notice of the fact, APFC said, he’s for real, he would spin this into the narrative, the federal court has ruled he is a NBC, much in the same way APFC insists, an image of a newspaper birth announcement stolen from a blogger is “clear” “evidence” BO is a NBC.) See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). (Presumably, these are cites to cases that contain some vague indication that judicial notice could possibly be taken under the set of facts alleged here; and in light of the fact, the case hasn’t even progressed past the Motion to Dismiss stage.)

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/9-1.pdf

Thankfully, the only thing the court granted BO in Hollister was a Dismissal.

Hollister was filed in January 2009. But beginning back in July 2008, I surmised, the strongest piece of evidence BO could produce to verify his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, is that COLB he posted on FTS, which means nothing. By placing that footnote in his Motion to Dismiss in Hollister, he validated my suspicions. If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that. And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS. (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)

In sum, the newspaper announcement of BO’s birth is a sham, making the rest of your questions moot.