Where's the birth certificate Barry?

Research - Obama Born in Indonesia? Where Are the Facts?

Posted on August 29th, 2009 by David-Crockett

Dear Patriots,

yet anohter angle to the Barack Obama Birth Enigma. Now at this stage I will refrain from reaching any conclusions other than, just like Lisa Mea Norton, saying “Obama Tell Me Where Were You Born?”

David Crockett

Back on July 8, 2008, I had originally reported a story by WND wherein Mr. Obama had referenced Jakarta, Indonesia as “my old home town.” In that posting, I also referenced the following picture by Tatan Syuflana (an Indonesian reporter and photographer) of Mr. Obama’s registration card at Indonesia’s Fransiskus Assisi Catholic school:

To date, the White House has remained silent on the fact that the document shows “Barry Soetoro’s” citizenship as being Indonesian.

Stick with me — this is where things begin to get interesting, and likely not for the reason you’re thinking.

Today, a few concerned citizens forwarded me this link via FreeRepublic.com referencing a HonoluluAdvertiser.com article written by a Mr. Will Hoover dated January 8, 2006 (my link to a screenshot of the complete article). This article contains what appears to be, on first glance, quite the glaring admission (fourth paragraph down from the top of the image):

Specifically:

Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.

Being the concerned citizen reporter that I am, and noticing that Mr. Hoover freely makes his HonoluluAdvertiser email publicly available, I decided to send him an email correspondence asking him if he still stands by his story of nearly four years ago and upon what did he base his belief about Mr. Obama’s alleged birth in Indonesia.

Mr. Hoover provided a response that, while very much appreciated, I will show in just a moment that what he is saying doesn’t align with what this blog and other sites already know to be true:

Phil… The story in question was written on deadline more nearly four years ago. The story was not about Obama, but Tammy Duckworth. I knew little about Obama at the time, other than that he had lived in Honolulu and graduated from High School here. With time running out, I Googled “Obama (and) birthplace,” (or something similar) – and incredibly the first thing I found said Obama was born in Indonesia! Hey, it looked factual (apparently it was from a site trying to discredit Obama’s Hawaiii origins – so much for trusting Google). Anyhow, that’s what wound up in the story. I quickly, and sheepishly, learned otherwise after the story appeared. I believe a correction soon followed.

Apparently this old story, sans correction, is now making the rounds at the speed of electrons. Today I got a phone call from Jerome Corsi welcoming me to the “top of the birthers’ list.” He was kidding, of course. The irony is that after my November 9, 2008 “Obama Slept Here” story appeared – introducing for the first time Obama’s birth announcement that appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and an identical announcement in the Honolulu Star Bulletin the following day, Aug. 14, 1961 (both were public service listings sent over by the state Health Department’s Bureau of Vital Statistics, and were not generated by family members of new-born babies) – I briefly landed at the top of the birthers’ hit list. This is because of one paragraph in the story that read: “Fringe theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya are left to ponder how two independent Honolulu daily newspapers and the state Department of Health could be part of a conspiracy half a century ago to thwart the truth about the future president of the United States.”

I’d like to tell you that ending up at opposite extremes of birther listings is an example of balanced journalism. Alas, it’s nothing more than an example of deadline pressure, fickle fate, and the indelibility of misbegotten “facts” when writing about future presidents of the United States. We live, and we learn. Yours humbly… Will Hoover

First of all, perhaps unknown to Mr. Hoover, he didn’t actually break the story regarding the newspaper announcements on November 9, 2009. Instead, as commenter “Sharon 2″ pointed out back on March 24, 2009, TexasDarlin did:

Sue,

This from Atlas Shrugged:

The original “discovery” of the birth announcements was done by a Hillary supporter, not an “Obot”. Texas Darlin’ posted about these announcement back in July 2008. Here note about the announcement:

*The birth announcement was tracked down by Lori Starfelt, the producer of a documentary that PUMA is working on. READ the comments below for in-depth explanations from Lori about the announcement.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/

Posted by: LadyJez | Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 04:56 PM

Texas Darlin, whom I adore, picked up on my posts dear.

Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 06:40 PM

Pamela,
Infidel Granny here. I am the woman who sent you the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser in July 2008. You gave me a hat tip on July 23, 2008.
I sure hope you don’t think I had anything to do with a forgery.
The woman I spoke to at the Advertiser suggested I contact the Hawaii State Librbary for the info. That’s where I got it from just as it states in the blog on July 23. The librarian stated another woman had asked for the same thing about one week before I did.
You might still have my email and phone number. Feel free to contact me if you like.

Posted by: Infidel Granny | Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 07:35 PM

********************************************************************

WOW- is this prophetic? August 21, the factcheck site released the stills of the birth certificate, after Obama’s trip to Hawaii.

Read comment below:

Thanks. Good question on my striping, but I might be a little coy on that for now.

The publicity value of the Obama campaign showing a video of the paper COLB would be highest in the next week? We are in the doldrums according to Gallup.com (doldrums site:Gallup.com)

They are waiting for Obama to come back to the US and then they will release a video of the paper COLB? I would say if the paper COLB isn’t shown by the end of next week its existence is as much in doubt as ever. They aren’t going to wait to show it during the convention are they?

Posted by: Old Atlantic | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 08:09 PM

me speaking- why didn’t they show a video? It may have satisfied more people (not me I admit).

Sue,

1) Did the Obamas live at the address stated in the newspaper ad?

2) Why did Dan Rather lose his job?

I don’t know enough to make a decision.

Even though TexasDarlin’s blog is apparently down because of a move, it isn’t hard to figure out the date of the above article by her — 07/23/2008 — predates Mr. Hoover’s claim of 11/09/2008.

Furthermore, Politifact.org also references Mr. Hoover’s November 9th article and creates a slightly better abstract for what he was talking about — the birth announcements (sidenote: notice that Politifact never says from which microfilm Mr. Hoover pulled for these abstracts), not necessarily a “correction” over the above-referenced article RE: Indonesia. In fact, another article by Mr. Hoover similarly does not tie back to the above Indonesian article and instead addresses the birth announcements.

Secondly, Mr. Hoover’s article was posted on January 8, 2006. Correct me if I’m wrong, and even though this observation is anecdotal, Mr. Obama was merely an Illinois Senator and his future presidency — much less his eligibility — wasn’t an issue at the time. In fact, as Mr. Hoover pointed out, the article was about Ms. Duckworth, not Mr. Obama, per se. It wouldn’t be until 2007 that the Democratic Convention would be convened to nominate Mr. Obama as a presidential candidate and it was only during mid-late 2007 that Mr. Berg even began considering challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility.

But it gets even better.

First, take a look at a more recent comment by “Sharon 2:”

Will Hoover- He seems to be the point man for the Honolulu Advertiser’s Obama stories.
This has come up before, I think from Sue:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/

We have one more thing. We talked to reporter Will Hoover, who wrote a well-researched story for the Honolulu Advertiser on Nov. 9, 2008, about Obama’s childhood years in the the Aloha State. It ran under the headline “Obama Slept Here.”

[I have found the piece entitled “Obama’s Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers”]

In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found the birth announcement for Obama. Actually, he found two of them, one in his Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day . They both said the same thing: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

***

I said on another thread:

Just doing a little checking around, maybe even being prurient. This from Atlas Shrugs:

Pamela,
Infidel Granny here. I am the woman who sent you the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser in July 2008. You gave me a hat tip on July 23, 2008.
I sure hope you don’t think I had anything to do with a forgery.
The woman I spoke to at the Advertiser suggested I contact the Hawaii State Librbary for the info. That’s where I got it from just as it states in the blog on July 23. The librarian stated another woman had asked for the same thing about one week before I did.
You might still have my email and phone number. Feel free to contact me if you like.

Posted by: Infidel Granny | Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 07:35 PM

I wondered why Granny was sent to the Hawaii State Library where it appeared Hoover went straight to the microfilm available at the paper. “Bystander” rightly said that it doesn’t state which archives Hoover went to. No, it doesn’t, but he very much implied that he went to the Advertiser’s microfilm. He didn’t mention the Hawaii State Library by name. The reporter who does such “excellent” research had this to say in 2006:

Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai’i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have “a kama’aina connection.”

Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

Here is some more reporting from Hoover:

Lum, Obama and current Punahou basketball coach Dan Hale were all “gym rats” or “rat ballers” at Punahou — “someone who practically eats, drinks and sleeps basketball,” as Lum put it.

So, it was basketball — between classes, after school or whenever the opportunity came up. They shot hoops in the park, behind the gym or any place that suited them. Lum, Obama and Hale were all on the championship basketball team of ‘79.

For half an hour, Lum and Hale politely answered reporters’ questions about Obama next to the school lily pond before noon yesterday. He was witty, outgoing, always had that great smile, they said. He was ever the team player, but not the sort to back down if he was convinced he was right. Neither man could recall a negative thought about Obama — never saw him do drugs, or as much as smoke a cigarette. They didn’t recall him dating.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/11/ln/FP702110360.html

Now see this:

http://facts.randomhistory.com/2009/01/02_obama.html

Obama’s high school year book picture inscription thanks “Tut,” “Gramps,” and the “Choom Gang.” Choom is Hawaiian slang for “pot smoking.”g

g Thomas, Garen. 2008. Yes We Can: A Biography of Barack Obama. New York: Feiwel and Friends Book.

I wonder if Lum and Hale were member of the Choom Gang?

Hoover, the point man.

How is all of this so important? Because of connecting the dots. I’ll let “Sharon 2″ explain, quite simply:

Just look at the Hoover connection here. Politifact sites Hoover and Sue sites politifact and on and on. It all comes from Hoover. Also, Texas Darlin’ website was being used as a source for Factcheck regarding the newspaper articles. Everyone sites Factcheck. I know that also goes for “birthers” too, but not for reasons of duplicity or obfuscation.

Specifically, she is referencing to Politifact.org here and FactCheck.org here. And look at the following excerpt from the Politifact.org article:

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.

“Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. “They would send the same thing to both papers.”

“Sharon 2″ observes:

So, a guy who didn’t work at either paper in 1961 remembers how the process worked years later???? Is this the proof that the Dept of Health sent the same thing to both papers? Is this another example of one source that is not confirmed becoming proof that is circulated?

And I think that’s the punchline here:

Not only was the basis of Mr. Hoover’s Obama Indonesian birthplace claim a cursory search via Google but, as Mr. DeLay so aptly put it, a newspaper birth announcement is not an official document certifying anything about anyone.

If you connect the dots, you will see that everyone is ultimately pointing back to the “point man,” Mr. Hoover, who — while I hasten to add that he seems to otherwise be a capable reporter — has effectively based his research on absolutely zero hard, physical evidence (sorry, but images of alleged Hawaii Certifications of Live Birth are just that — images). And, as I’ve just stated, newspaper birth announcements prove absolutely nothing with respect to presidential eligibility.

Unfortunately, we are simply left following circular logic with respect to this President’s eligibility. The only thing that has ever been “released” is an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, and the document upon which the image is based has never been forensically investigated by experts. Further, even Dr. Fukino of the Hawaiian Department of Health only ever states that she has seen “vital documents,” not an actual “birth certificate,” per se.

Again, we are left with nothing but questions.

More may be posted later as this story develops…

Note: I would like to thank commenter “Sharon 2″ for the fantastic, professional-level research that she has done in helping to craft this posting.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
• Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
• Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
• What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a BirthCertificate?
• Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
• Obama Citizenship Facts
• The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
• Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

From NATURALBORNCITIZEN: THE LEFT IS SHREDDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AT BREAKNECK SPEED!!!!!!!!!!

Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.
Posted in Uncategorized on August 7, 2009 by naturalborncitizen


Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth. He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia. Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US.

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site. It further stated:

“In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject.

Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth. His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed. According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

“all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided. And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President. The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government...

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

So many of you are now so very very concerned about our Constitution. Your patriotic fervor has been stoked by Hamilton and Washington just now as you wipe those Constitutional tears away. Your heart burns for the Constitution and the nation, doesn’t it.

But let me take this chance to tell those of you who supported torture, unconstitutional wars and the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians – children, mothers, grandmothers – by the last administration – you don’t deserve the protections of our Constitution.

The Iraq war isn’t Constitutional. There was no declaration of war by Congress. And the war on terror is a myth. “War” is only declared against a foreign state – not an ideology. Terrorism is a crime and 911 should have been handled as a crime scene. But the forensic evidence was shipped out to China. And the case was solved in 24 hours by the same people who allegedly failed to stop it.

I’m not saying 911 was an “inside job” because nobody really knows the whole story. But anyone who denies that elements of the crime have been covered up is lying or just ignorant of basic facts.

And we’re not supposed to do torture. But Scalia would have you believe that torture isn’t a form of punishment. He might just consider it punishment if he were subjected to it. Scalia knows with absolute certainty that torture is punishment. But the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, so Scalia has to play word games to get the desired ruling he seeks. This makes him an enemy of the Constitution too.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places. But you only care about Obama? None of the above bothered so many of you. But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President. But he is President and Commander In Chief. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT [???? IS IT TOO LATE????]

This country does not have the will power to change it. The country sold its soul to Bush, Clinton, Bush… You didn’t care about the Constitution then and you’re gonna get what you got coming to you now.

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.