Obama's Birth Notice
Infidel Granny in the comment section wrote :
A research librarian at the Hawaii State Library just told me she will email me a copy of BOH's birth announcement. She stated someone else had asked for that info recently and still had it readily available in her folder. It appeared in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961. It said that Mr. and Mrs. BHO had a son on Aug. 4, 1961. Gives their address as 605 Kalaninole Highway. It does not give the name of a hospital were the birth occurred or the name of the son.
So, to me, the question remains- Was BHO Jr. actually born on US soil? BHO needs to provide verifiable proof of the exact location (Hawaiian hospital) where he was born.
I asked her to send me a copy of the Obama's birth notice. (See below) And while I never thought he was born in Kenya (President Kibaki would have released it just to undermine his nemesis, Obama's pal, Odinga). This proves nothing. I still want to see a copy of Obama's COLB. This does not prove the COLB released by the Obama campaign is genuine.
Just release his birth certificate. This does not address the forgery. I still say, why the fake?
Jim Quinn of the "Quinn & Rose Warroom" had an extensive mention of Tech
Dude's work on the Obama COLB and mentioned Atlas on the radio
show this morning (thanks to Bill for leting me know and sending me the clip) listen here: Download qr_obama_colb_072208_h1.mp3
UPDATE: Just one minute! Another opinion (hat tip J Bean)









Sorry for the e-mail I just sent you about this, your website wouldn't load for me till now.
Posted by: abinitioadinfinitum | Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 07:18 PM
Pamela,
I agree with you - while the announcement in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser may resolve the issue of the birth it does NOT negate the work TechDude did in proving the COLB posted on the DailyKOS site is bogus.
That COLB is STILL bogus! Time for Mr. Obama to produce the genuine article.
Posted by: BillBowen | Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Pamela,
Is there anyone else verifying and substantiating Techdue's excellent work? That would help establish even more credability for his report. I attempted to find someone to do it for me but no one would volunteer. I have to pay a minimum fee of $15,000 and costs will keep adding up after that. It will be 2 years before I can save that much money. With only 100 or so days until the election that won't work.
I do find it rather surprising that others in Techdude's field of research have not stepped up to the plate to cooberate or refute his claims. Polarik is a big help but I think Rush, Laura, Glenn and Michelle are waiting for more proof before they run with this. I don't blame them. Pamela, you're the bravest of the whole bunch!
Won't someone else out there grow a set and have at this, please?
Posted by: Infidel Granny | Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Now we are told we should never have questioned the Obama COLB image placed on line. What was the purpose of putting it on-line if not for people to examine it and discuss it? Was only one opinion allowed?
Posted by: Old Atlantic | Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Off topic sidemash:
Ol' Atlantic -- which lighthouse are you anyway? (Just tell us the striping pattern and let us figure it out.) Anyway, your blog essays are very erudite, and a wonderful gifting to the rest of us, at least speaking for myself.
Posted by: bvw | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Pam,
Glad to see you got the clip. I was listening to Jim's show this morning and he is taking the same stance that you are - that Obama STILL needs to produce the genuine article. The HA piece really proves nothing other than an announcement was submitted to the newspaper.
Posted by: BillBowen | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Tom Maguire over at Just One Minute blog isn't buying this as the final word, either, Pamela.
Better Rebuttals, Please
Posted by: JBean | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 03:08 PM
I checked out the address 605 Kalanianaole Hwy, HI and 6095 Kalanianaole Hwy, HI and it look residential to me. No hospital at either site.
Posted by: John D. Infidel | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 07:17 PM
^^ I used Google Maps with satellite image
Posted by: John D. Infidel | Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 07:18 PM
bvw,
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
Birth notices are not valid for anything, anyone can post them as there is no validation required in most cases.
Posted by: Bailenforcer | Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I called two newspapers today and they didn't even ask fro proof of a birth notice and back in 1961 they were far less security concerned than today. So they could have made the phone call to have it posted in the paper while still in Kenya, or have someone do it in Hawaii for them, all it takes is a telephone call.
I may not know much, I was only an investigator for 21 years... But I am not fooled by some local news paper ad.
Posted by: Bailenforcer | Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The first post says: Gives their address as 605 Kalaninole Highway.
That is not correct, it is 6035 Kalaninole Highway, Hawaii as the newspaper image shows. If you put that into Google satelite it is a very expensive looking house. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&resnum=0&q=6035%20Kalanianaole%20Highway&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl
Is that where two students would live? Does anyone know if they did live there?
Posted by: ScamFix | Friday, October 24, 2008 at 05:00 PM
This is a joke, especially considering the so-called investigators commenting on this. Really? BHO's family was so sure that their newborn son would run for president that they called the Hawaiian newspapers to have his announcement included as a possible secondary resource to prove US Citizenzhip, really? Dude, those people are f'in brilliant. I wonder why they didn't know enough not to name him Barack Huessein Obama, instead Barry Steven Smith or some other non-muslim, terrorist, dictator related name! This is a good laugh!
Posted by: Mike Z | Monday, October 27, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Yes, because it's absolutely impossible that anything could have been torn down/renovated/rebuilt/rezoned at that address in the 47 years since this announcement was published. What Google maps shows right now is definitely exactly what was there in 1961.
Posted by: mojica | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Barack Obama is a closet Muslim hiding behind Christianity. He was not born in Hawaii and the United States. He was born in Africa, Kenya to be exact. That is fine, except for that is against the Constitution as it is written currently. Legally, he should not be President at all. Change the law with an Amendment to the Constitution. I would not have any problem with the change had it been done before the fact and not after the act. He lied his way in to the highest power in the world. Good luck, Hussein.
Posted by: Phil | Wednesday, January 21, 2009 at 05:28 PM
Mr. Berg,
Your foolish websites, blogs, lawsuits, etc. about the issue of the President’s citizenship is nothing more than a thin veil to make a mockery on the citizen of the Untied States.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law – the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
Perhaps, you should post this good law and statutory language on your website so that the people will grasp a clear understanding about what the law says about what constitutes “citizens of the United States at birth”. But, as expected, you won’t even bother post this law on your websites, blogs or elsewhere, because you know your position regarding the Constitution is patently frivolous; indeed, a fact found by all Courts you have filed papers with.
Posted by: Primo | Friday, June 05, 2009 at 07:56 AM