****Democratic Party of Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama****

Originally posted by dereks
Care to name the specific lawsuits that Obama "blocked"?

They are ALL over this board.

Your proof of that is what exactly?

Again .. The information about the address' being wrong has been stated here dozens of times.

Your source for that is....

That also is all over this board. Jay McKinnon is the forger.

you can see it here:www.factcheck.org... [

Fact check .. run by annenberg ... which is a major contributor to the Obama campaign and in which Obama was on the board. They are in bed with whoever is in power at the time (Like when Reagan was in power, they were in bed with him). Not a credible source.

ALL of these things have been discussed here over and over.
I think you need to get out and read more threads.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Distract, deflect and misinform. :shk:

:shk: back atchya.
A question was asked. It was answered. The answer went outside the title of the thread.
If the person 'asking' the question wanted to stick to the subject in the title, they shouldn't have asked a long reaching question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But they neglect to mention that his GRANDPARENTS (who most likely put the ad in the paper) DID live there.

It's still the wrong address and therefore can't be used to verify anything in regards to Obama's birth.
It simply can't.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's still the wrong address and therefore can't be used to verify anything in regards to Obama's birth.

It's not the "wrong address". It's the address of Obama's grandparents. If Stanley Ann Dunham was unwed, she most likely lived with her parents. It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure that.

Besides, these newspaper announcements AREN'T being used to verify squat. They are simply additional evidence (not proof) of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

And here we are talking about the freaking newspaper announcements instead of the Hawaii DNC.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


If Obama was adopted (which he never mentions) he COULDN'T have renounced his US citizenship, as a minor cannot do that according to US law.

Like you, I tend to think that his mother was unwed, but that cannot possibly affect his birth on US soil.

Actually, being adopted (at least at that time period) would have changed his whole identity. His birth father, place of birth, and any other 'facts' altered by the adoption could and would have been changed. I know this for absolute personal experience (coming from a very similar situation - very similar) . The only way for him to know different (or to know actual birth parent(s) and/or place, would have been to ask his mother.

His birth certificate would have named Soetoro as father and Indonesia as birth place.

So, given the above reality; how, exactly would he keep his U.S. citizenship? Where on the changed/new birth certificate would it be listed?

You see? That is why this is a HUGE issue!

In fact, if the adoption would have taken place in Hawaii, HI would have had to destroy the original birth certificate (remember that we are talking about what was legal at that time). This is why I brought up the Hawaiian Archive possibility. Since they weren't requited to file, or process the adoption paperwork, they most likely did not destroy the original. (Losing it is a whole other 'thing')

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Actually, being adopted (at least at that time period) would have changed his whole identity. His birth father, place of birth, and any other 'facts' altered by the adoption could and would have been changed.

First of all, you're assuming an adoption where NO evidence of one exists.
Secondly, how does one's place of birth and biological father get "changed" when one is six years old???

His birth certificate would have named Soetoro as father and Indonesia as birth place.

What birth certificate?

So, given the above reality; how, exactly would he keep his U.S. citizenship? Where on the changed/new birth certificate would it be listed?

But the above is NOT reality. It's assumption, suggestion, suspicion and nothing else.

You see? That is why this is a HUGE issue!

No, I do not see that at all.

In fact, if the adoption would have taken place in Hawaii, HI would have had to destroy the original birth certificate (remember that we are talking about what was legal at that time).

Give me SOMETHING that backs this up.

reply to post by SourGrapes


I know someone who was adopted by his step-father after his mother remarried. The father's name was changed on the birth certificate as well as the child's last name, but the birthplace remained the same on the new birth certificate. This was in the US however, so not sure about foreign adoptions.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's not the "wrong address". It's the address of Obama's grandparents. If Stanley Ann Dunham was unwed, she most likely lived with her parents.

1 - It's the wrong address.
2 - Most likely?? More like ... 'possibly'. And again .. 'likely' doesn't cut it for 'evidence'
3 - She was 21 and pregnant. Obama's father (Ann's future husband) lived at 625 11th Ave. in Kaimuki.
4 - Orland Scott Lefforge, and Thelma Young owned the house in question at that time.
5 - Supposedly right after obama was born, his mother went to Washington State to school. Whereever she lived in Hawaii when Obama was born, it was transitory.

It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure that.

Since YOU brought up having a lot of brains' ... It doesnt' take a lot of brains to figure out that Obama is just like every other lousy corrupt politician who lies and doesn't follow through on campaign promises ....

Besides, these newspaper announcements AREN'T being used to verify squat.

They are wrongly being used by some people as 'proof' that Obama was born there.
But they can't be used as proof. It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure that.

They are simply additional evidence (not proof) of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

They aren't evidence. They are just information someone put in a newspaper.

And here we are talking about the freaking newspaper announcements instead of the Hawaii DNC.

Then perhaps you should get back on topic.

Again .. for anyone who cares .... I think he was probably born in Hawaii.
But folks can't use those newspaper 'announcments' as proof. It doesn't work that way.

reply to post by SourGrapes


You are right. Our daughter is from Bolivia. We went down to Bolivia and adopted her when she was 9 months old. Her birth certificate has us listed as her birth parents and that she was an American born overseas. She wasn't 'naturalized' ... she was an American born overseas. Puts a whole different spin on things and it isn't exactly how things happened.

Looks like a case of CYA, Hawaiian style.

Regarding the verbage pertaining to "The Constitution", that sure was an important piece to intentionally omit.
Not only that, someone forgot to spell check the word "though".

They don't read some documents yet they butcher others by cutting and pasting.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
Docket No, 09-724

Kagan, while solicitor general of the U.S. from March 2009 until May, was listed as the government's counsel on the files when the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

urbanlegends.about.com...

Just a truther lie - why do they lie so much?

Not much more needs to be shown on this issue, now does it?

Wrong, the birth certificate that Obama posted on the internet has not been proven a fake - just another birther lie!

you're not a racist scumbag, are you?

I am not the one who hates the fact that a black man is the proper POTUS, you are, as shown by the lies you post about him here!

wasn't the last roman Cesar a black man after many generations of Cesars were white. I find an odd coincidence here.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Wow. TA, I gotta say... This might be big. This is the first piece of evidence that actually puts a question in my mind. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.

BH I give you credit for this comment, I'm glad to see you're not just spewing anti-birther rhetoric. Everybody should have questions and that's the only claim I really make.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not really a birther, in fact I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but I thought something fishy was going on. It seemed odd to me that nobody knows where Obama was born, nobody will mention the hospital, officially (though we have unsubstantiated unofficial declarations), and then we have what seem like oddly worded statements coming from Fukino. Oddly worded because they verify that the certification document is supported by something else, but there are no specifics provided about what that something else is, nor about the veracity of that something else aka "vital records".

An employee of mine and his wife were expecting a baby years ago, but for some reason when her water broke the baby decided it was coming out right then and there and she had the baby in the bathroom of their home even though they had insurance and had fully planned on delivering at the hospital, so home births do happen and this doesn't mean anyone was born outside the country. So that is one possibility for Obama as well.

One thing I have learned is that in some areas, birth records are actually falsified when adoptions are involved, and questions have been raised about a possible adoption in this case with no proof either way but certainly we have no reason to rule out the possibility.

Falsified Birth Certificates-Data and Samples

It's a fact that ALL states allow falsification of birth certificates - they are all guilty of changing the true birth information, issuing an amended birth certificate, and sealing the original... usually 'forever'. However, some states go even a step further, according to reunited triadians:

It's very cleverly engineered the way the certification document says another document exists which proves the birth location, but why so many people don't want to see the source document is beyond my comprehension, it's kind of a case of "the emperor has no clothes".

The second video posted explains it more clearly than the first one in the OP.

Nothing substantial will come of this and it's water under the bridge with Obama, however I do think that we need to clarify the process of how constitutional eligibility is determined for future presidential elections, that's really the only outcome I can hope for at this point. Even if we don't get to personally see the source document for privacy reasons, some investigator should see it and verify it, and Fukino's statement really doesn't do that. For example, let's say that the source document Fukino has says Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital, but Kapiolani has no record of the birth suggesting the source document is not accurate. Nothing that Fukino or anybody else has said seems to rule out this possibility.

So yes, I think Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but I also think something very fishy is going on here, and this expose should raise the eyebrows of anyone to ask questions.