Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
From 1957 to 1964 there was one dwelling on the property, as the link KissMy found shows. Therefore the address on the birth record in the newspaper was valid.
The legal definition of file:
to put (a legal document) on public record
As I said earlier, this is just stupidity on your part and I have no doubt if Obama's birth certificate said Accepted you would be arguing out of the other side of your mouth.
What it says on their website now is immaterial to what was done in 1961.
The "guy" said that vital statistics came from the department of health. The column in question is titled "Health Bureau Statistics".
The newspaper no longer publishes a column called "Health Bureau Statistics" in now takes parental announcements with a birth certificate as proof.
To file is not to accept. You file the document with the health depart one day and the document goes through the process until it get to the state registrar to be accepted with his signature.
There are two dates on the long form with the document was submitted meaning fil and one for when it was accepted by the state registrar.
It's quitew clear what was said. Since you have already gave a thanks on the othe post from another thread I will not post the link
The Advertiser's Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama's birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
"If we published it, it came from the state," she said."
"The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, now reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii's Department of Health.
"We don't have an editor who handles birth and marriage announcements; we print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System," a Star-Bulletin newsroom operator explained to WND.
The operator said, "This is how we've always done it.""
But from there web site that would be a lie.
Nor would a government boidy violate there own state Constitution of invation of privacy of a private citizen, by submitting the home address in a newspaper.
So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. The Hawaii state government would not violate the privacy of a private citizen (ignoring for a moment the fact that this is not necessarily any such violation), but that same state government would be involved in a conspiracy to cover up Obama's citizenship status? Is that really how you want to argue this?
Hawaii can't be trusted! Democrat state, the government there are all liars! They are part of the birther conspiracy!
But they would never dream of violating privacy, since they are such an honest, upstanding government!
Do you see the contradiction there?
