Obama birth announcements facts, O’Reilly Chris Matthews, Fools or propaganda ministers, Announcements prove nothing
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“Why did Bill O’Reilly use birth announcements as evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii and mislead the American public?”…Citizen Wells
Two documents have been touted as proof of Obama being born in Hawaii. Neither prove anything. The COLB, Certification of Live Birth, put on the internet and never proven to be authentic or having come from the State of Hawaii, could be obtained in 1961 for someone born outside of Hawaii. The birth announcements are just that. Announcement of a birth. Not proof of birth in Hawaii or the date of birth. Common sense should rule this matter.
Sadly, Chris Matthews, defacto Propaganda Minister for Obama, and Bill O’Reilly, pompous know it all on Fox, have used these documents to fool the American public.
As I stated above, common sense should dictate that a birth announcement is not equivalent to a legitimate long form birth certificate that most of us have been required to present. For those such as O’Reilly, Matthews and others without common sense or with an agenda, here is an excellent analysis of the birth announcements.
From the Daily Pen April 2, 2011.
“A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, conclusively, they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified “Live” birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined “vital event” designated by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols.
In August, 1961, two announcements allegedly showing a “native” birth for Barack Obama were published in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers, the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star. For more than three years since Obama engaged his unvetted candidacy for the presidency, many of his supporters have mistakenly lauded these blurbish announcements as the “holy grail” of proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii.
However, a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness, medical authority or hospital representative in the state.
In 1961, the two newspapers shared the same address and facility which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in “vital event” public announcements, including births, deaths, divorces and marriage applications, were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context. No investigation was carried out by the papers’ editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate or, in the case of birth announcements, if the address published and provided by the registrant had any association with the geographic location of the actual birth. More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States.”
“The Daily Pen’s, Dan Crosby, engaged a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint, remote newspapers, to confirm Obama’s eligibility to be president.
Recall, for more than two years, major media personalities, such as Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and recently fired, Keith Olbermann have enjoyed a willful ignorance in support of Obama’s legitimacy while poking fun with these announcements essentially saying to their viewers that the very presence of these announcements means only one of two exclusive options: 1. They are a legitimate and accurate indication of Obama’s geographic birth in Hawaii, or 2. They are the result of some crazy 50-year-long conspiracy concocted by members of Obama’s family and newspaper editors at the time in order to enable Obama to use the announcements some time later as primary evidence that he was born in Hawaii in the event he might run for president some day.
In his investigation, Crosby found confirmed and easily accessible evidence that neither of these choices apply to Obama’s records. In fact, the explanation is far less sensational and simple that it reveals that Mr. Obama (Barry Soetoro) simply benefitted from a commonly used administrative practice in the state of Hawaii which was applied for literally thousands of births which were registered there, but which did not occur there. In doing so, Obama appears to have benefitted from a coincidental set of passive circumstances in which the choice to register his birth in Hawaii also allowed him to engage native U.S. citizenship status, not Natural Born status.
The announcements were a fringe benefit to his eligibility facade which merely occur as a consequence of the non-native birth registration process. However, the primary reason for his family registering his birth in Hawaii was to make sure he was eligible for something far less significant than the presidency.
His grandparents wanted to make sure Obama could receive state financial assistance and medical care as an infant of an unemployed, wayward teenage mother and a foreign dead-beat, alcoholic, bigamist.
“The birth announcements were printed from unconfirmed information provided to the Newspapers by the Department of Health who received the information from Obama’s grandparents, not a hospital,” says Crosby in a phone call from Oahu.
“This information was publish without the DOH or newspaper editors confirming the actual location of the birth in any hospital or location in Hawaii. I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers.”
Crosby says this information can be determined by cross-referencing public records with birth announcements and associating the addresses with a residential directory and the natality data provided by Hawaii to the U.S. Department of Health’s U.S. Vital Records Report.
Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. This law then mandates that the vital records registrar must register the birth with the vital records office in coordination with an official, original Hawaiian birth record. This law originated during Hawaii’s territorial era beginning with births in 1911 and was most recently revised in 1982 to allow the Health Department’s director to assume autonomous authority over the evaluation of applicants.”