RSSDoubt That Obama’s Lived At Address In Published Birth Notice
J.R. | December 18, 2008
A private investigator, Jorge Baro, has released an affidavit to WND that questions whether Barack Obama’s family ever lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961.
The affidavit documents an interview his staff conducted with Beatrice Arakaki, who has lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu since before Obama was born.
WND was able to locate at the Honolulu public library microfilm of a notice placed in the Sunday Advertiser Aug. 13, 1961. The announcement in the “Births, Marriages, Death” section read: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”
Arakaki told investigators she had no recollection of Obama being born or of the family living next door having a black child born to a white mother.
According to the affidavit, Beatrice Arakaki affirmed she was a neighbor of the address listed. She has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.
A team of investigators were sent to Honolulu to explore records regarding current residents of Kalanianaole Highway and to track down residents back to 1961.
Investigators went to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad.
Investigators were unable to locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the announcement.
Investigators was able to determine the previous owners of the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the alleged address of Obama’s parents when he was born – were Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased.
The affidavit also documents that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on his campaign website is not the original “long form” birth certificate issued in 1961 by the obstetrician or physician giving birth and the hospital where the baby was born.
Investigators learned that a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program” established in 1911 during the territorial era and terminated in 1972 during the statehood era allowed Hawaiian residents to apply for a “Late Birth Certificate, ” called a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” which appears identical to the “birth certificate” Obama posted on his campaign website.
“This raised the question in my mind as to whether the ‘Certification of Live Birth,’ which is the only document that has been produced and as previously stated solely handled by the representatives of factcheck.org outside Obama’s campaign, is a certification of a live birth or a late birth,” Baro stated in his affidavit.
“I am left with the conclusion that a simple request from Senator Barack Obama to produce the ‘long form’ (redacted if necessary) would end any speculation or question as to his birthplace,” Baro’s affidavit continued. “His continued denial to do so is suspect, in my professional opinion.”
Contributor's website: http://www.talkshowamerica.com
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
2 Responses to “Doubt That Obama’s Lived At Address In Published Birth Notice”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
EASY WAY TO MAKE SURE OBAMA NEVER GETS INAUGURATED (READ CAREFULLY):–
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
In particular, officers of the Armed Forces of the United States are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States before all other considerations.
They are required to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and the source and authority for all valid laws.
They are required to refuse to obey illegal orders.
They are required to give fealty to the President of the United States, as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, pursuant to the Constitution, but only on the condition that the person occupying that office does so legally; e.g., not in violation of Constitutional requirements for eligibility.
If a Usurper gains the office of President, then the Armed Forces of the United States must choose whether to heed their oath and depose the Usurper, or else be forsworn and counted as traitors by all US citizens whose loyalty remains unblemished.