The Vancouver Scenario

If Barack Obama has seen, as he says he has, his mother’s birth certificate for him when he was younger, and it stated a place of birth outside the US, then that would give him a very strong reason to never show it to anyone.  It also would explain why he refused for such a long time to authorize the release of his original birth certificate.  He may have gotten around that by capitalizing on the fact that Hawaii digitized their original birth records and by obtaining a digital file of the “abstract” version, it could be easily altered to change vital information, which would be much less difficult than altering a photo or scan of an original paper document.

Barack Obama’s birth record is something that he is unwilling to let anyone see except his lawyers, which gives the impression that there is something to hide.  The only thing conceivable is his place of birth.  Yet his mother was only 18 years old and unlikely to have had a passport, nor the desire or finances to be globe trotting.  So how could she not give birth in Hawaii?  There is only one possibility.  There is impeccable testimony from Barbara Nelson who had a conversation with her friend’s father in a Hawaiian dinner club, a Dr. West, who remarked that “Stanley had a baby” and he name was most remarkable; Barack Hussein Obama, the same first name as her father, to whom she wrote about the coincidence.  The words “had a baby” might have been “has a baby” or “had a baby…[as in -sometime recently]” (A nearly half-century old memory is very unreliable when it comes to the details of words spoken)

So mother and baby Obama were in Hawaii sometime shortly after his birth (if not during), so how could she also have been out of state and country to deliver him outside the United States?  There is only one possibility.  It’s this.

Stanley had moved four times before reaching her teens, so she had no long term roots. But she developed some after the family moved to the Seattle area where she spent all of her formative teen years, until they moved again to Hawaii after her High School graduation.  She enrolled in college in Honolulu and attended the fall/winter and spring semeters.  Then she was free for the summer.  Since she missed her previous life and friends in Seattle, she decided, even though 7 months pregnant, to return for a visit.  So she purchased a two-way ticket and flew to Seattle.  She liked being there so much that she decided to extend her stay somewhat longer, and soon she was so close to her delivery date that it wasn’t acceptable to fly, so she stayed put knowing she would have to find a place for the birth.  For whatever reason, she chose Canada, probably, Vancouver.
After a few days of recovery, she flew back to Hawaii where she had the baby examined and his birth registered with the vital records office by filling out an affidavit that stated the facts.  Those facts did not bar her from obtaining a Hawaiian birth record of some type since she was a Hawaiian resident.  But she had a problem.  She loved Seattle and the school there was much preferable to her (with friends attending?) than the Hawaiian college.  So she decided to return permanently, which, according to undisputed accounts, she did two weeks later, and enrolled in college.
How can this be proven?  Or disproven? I have no idea, but first the focus should be on simply finding a factual error or logic error in it.
Anyone have anything to add or subtract?
yours,  A.R. Nash

Something to add; an adoption scenario.

In 1961, pre-civil rights, pre-women’s liberation, pre-political correctness, pre-African-American penetration of American main-stream culture, pre mixed-race couples, for a  young white woman just one year out of High School to become pregnant outside of marriage would have been a very frowned upon thing, especially if she was only 17 at the time.  Hence a marriage was arranged after a few months of knowing that she was pregnant.  But even marriage would not have smoothed-over the drastic cultural shock of having ones young white daughter pregnant with a black man’s child, and not some successful American black man, but a foreign student.  That turn of events would have been very disturbing to Stanley’s parents, just as would the opposite be if the parents were black Africans and their daughter was pregnant with a white Scandanavian’s child.  Def-Con 5!
So the subject of adoption would naturally come up, though it might have just as likely been raised by Ann herself since she was a young and adventurous, free-thinking and acting person.  It could be assumed that she had plans for her future and being a prisoner to the chores of motherhood at such a young age was not likely to have been viewed favorably.  With her own serious reservatrions, and the resistance of her parents to having and keeping any child at that point, much less a black child, it would be almost inevitable in 1961 to want to seriously consider adoption as the best solution.
I don’t know how well or poorly blacks were treated in Hawaii in 1961, nor how many of them were living there, but I’ll wager that it was very few.  And adding to Ann’s dilema was the absense of a close relationship with the Obama Sr.’s mother since she lived in Kenya.  So it was just Ann and her parents in the barrel for a wild ride leading to “who knows where?”.  So they might have agreed to pay for her home-sick assuaging return to Seattle if she agreed to put the baby up for adoption while there, after delivery in a location she would have to arrange.  She may have learned that there was one or more significant benefits to giving birth, and possibly arranging a quick adoption in Canada, and for that reason may have gone there for those benefits, whatever they might have been.  But, typically, after seeing, holding, and perhaps nursing the baby she found she was instantly bonded to it and couldn’t let him go.  So she cancelled the adoption, returned to Hawaii with the baby, to everyone’s shock, and then, not “feeling the love” packed-up and moved back to Seattle where she felt more at home among her own peer group where she enrolled in college.

 

What we are made curious by is what we don’t know, what we haven’t seen, answers that haven’t been given, such as “why did the President not show the original birth certificate that he inherited from his mother?”  “We know from “Dreams…,” that Obama has a birth certificate.  He tells us so (Pg. 26 last paragraph):
“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”  He must still have it.  But, by not showing it, he is seen as not wanting to show it for some unknown reason, a reason that may have to do with his eligibility to be the President.  Or “Why doesn’t he allow the public, including experts, to view the hard-copies that Hawaii states they provided him?” He doesn’t appear to care that such questions remain unanswered.  But I wouldn’t assumed that he doesn’t care, when the suspicion remains that he deliberately wants to hide some fact from the American people.  I don’t care what it is,  I just want reasonable curiosity to be satisfied.  And it isn’t being.

Has anyone heard an explanation from the White House as to the origin of, or any details at all about, the PDF?  I’m under the impression that nothing has been explained about it.  It’s purpose was to clear the air, yet too much “unclearness” remains.  Why?  Because their tactic was to end the suspicions and questions on the day that it was released and never refer to it ever again.  So far that tactic has been totally successful.  And that might never change, at least as long as he wears the mantle of the Presidency.