Honolulu Article On Duckworth Mentioning Obama Being Born In Indonesia Edited!

I don't remember the article ever being different. You guys are losing it!


I guess you didn't take a look at the screenshots in the OP?? Take a look...totally different. I saw it myself earlier when it was first posted. Went to the site myself and read exactly what it said.

Now it's different.

Well, they probably went back and corrected it because some nuts from here kept emailing the editor asking him to come out in defense of the birther movement.

Either way, it's a moot point. Obama was born in Hawaii, that's all there is to it. Now, let's be mature adults and move on to the real issues!

Not a shill. But call me crazy, isn't it possible the newspaper realized their mistake and corrected the article? I know that sounds bizarre because newspapers especially online editions never make mistakes. Its pretty obvious that Obama was not born in Indonesia, as there is ZERO evidence that his mother was in Indonesia when she was 18 as she was married to an African guy, going to the university of Hawaii, and living in Hawaii. Uh yeah.


The original article is the real deal. This article makes liars out of the Hawaiian officials who are saying that we have to take their word for the BC, while they refuse to allow access to a public record if it exists. The only reason to do that is because it doesn't exist.
Be sure the person who scrubbed this was well paid.

Obama's mother attended the University of Hawaii after his birth. She lived out of the country prior to that with Obama's father, in Kenya. Obama's grandmother, as well as other Kenyan relatives who were there at the time, have publicly stated that he was born in Kenya and that they were there.

I don't remember the article ever being different. You guys are losing it!


I guess you didn't take a look at the screenshots in the OP?? Take a look...totally different. I saw it myself earlier when it was first posted. Went to the site myself and read exactly what it said.

Now it's different.

You found this V?

You gonna remember me when you're famous? :)

Be kinda ironic if Farah at WND wound up featuring your find in a story since you use them as a source so much. :)

Might get some GLP mileage out of it as well........


I didn't find and post the pinned article earlier. After getting home earlier this evening, I went back to the article to take a screenshot and noticed that it was different. Thought I needed glasses there for a sec, but nope...it had clearly been edited. Soooo...took my screenshot and uploaded it here.

forget the AP
save this link while you can, according to the staff writer for the Honolulu Advertiser back in 2006 OB was born in Indonesia, not Kenya.

[link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com]

"Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have "a kama'aina connection."

Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively
"

[link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com]

Take a close look at the original article here Thread: Someone (an AV) take a screen shot this and post it, NOW More Evidence of Obama Foreign Birth

Now take a look at this one.

//... reminded me as to how carefully people like us here at GLP really are watched!! Kinda scary actually!

I don't remember the article ever being different. You guys are losing it!


I guess you didn't take a look at the screenshots in the OP?? Take a look...totally different. I saw it myself earlier when it was first posted. Went to the site myself and read exactly what it said.

Now it's different.

Well, they probably went back and corrected it because some nuts from here kept emailing the editor asking him to come out in defense of the birther movement.

Either way, it's a moot point. Obama was born in Hawaii, that's all there is to it. Now, let's be mature adults and move on to the real issues!


Were you there holding Ann's hand? No offense, but how do you know this for sure?

Not a shill. But call me crazy, isn't it possible the newspaper realized their mistake and corrected the article? I know that sounds bizarre because newspapers especially online editions never make mistakes. Its pretty obvious that Obama was not born in Indonesia, as there is ZERO evidence that his mother was in Indonesia when she was 18 as she was married to an African guy, going to the university of Hawaii, and living in Hawaii. Uh yeah.


The original article is the real deal. This article makes liars out of the Hawaiian officials who are saying that we have to take their word for the BC, while they refuse to allow access to a public record if it exists. The only reason to do that is because it doesn't exist.
Be sure the person who scrubbed this was well paid.

Obama's mother attended the University of Hawaii after his birth. She lived out of the country prior to that with Obama's father, in Kenya. Obama's grandmother, as well as other Kenyan relatives who were there at the time, have publicly stated that he was born in Kenya and that they were there.


Didn't Obama's Grandmother suddenly die?

This is another hoax and the proof is the URL for the article.

<!-- [link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com] -->

The newspapers real website is at

[link to www.honoluluadvertiser.com]

There is no "the" in the real URL.

So, who owns <!-- the.honoluluadvertiser.com -->

There are some very clever fakes being floated around to "prove" Obama is not legally eligible to be President.

But does it make any sense?

For this article to be real and for Obama to be born in Indonesia (or Kenya or Mars) means that the entire Democratic National Committee has to be in on the fraud, and that neither Hillary nor McCain's inevitable investigations of Obama found any of this "evidence."

Hillary certainly would have used it to get Obama out of the primaries, and McCain would have used it to win the White House.

And without question the DNC would not have gone along with such a fraud because Hillary would have easily beaten McCain.

The whole idea is just absurd, but someone seems very intent on promoting this hoax.

posters here who believe this BS are either RETARDED or have
something to gain by perpetuating the hoax

"It's best to just let this go. It's just another never ending conspiracy that won't lead anywhere.

Focus on Obama's weaknesses politically, that is how we will defeat him next election."


I-D-I-O-T

"It's best to just let this go. It's just another never ending conspiracy that won't lead anywhere.

Focus on Obama's weaknesses politically, that is how we will defeat him next election."


I-D-I-O-T

Next election? LOL By that time his AMNESTY will happen and the 56% of Mexicans polled in Mexico said THAT would make them come to the USA. Just think, around fifty or so MILLION more uneducated, unskilled social service seeking non AMERICANS will come here and vote for obama. THAT IS THE PLAN.

This is another hoax and the proof is the URL for the article.

<!-- [link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com] -->

The newspapers real website is at

[link to www.honoluluadvertiser.com]

There is no "the" in the real URL.

So, who owns <!-- the.honoluluadvertiser.com -->

Yes, the article has been edited. Moreover, the article is in an "archive" on their web site, and is over three years old. I would have to question the integrity of the editor to make a change to material that was published that long ago. Coming from a web programming standpoint, when you have archived data, you do not change it, ever. Everything exists in a revision control system. I would expect a newspaper using an electronic medium would employ such a system as well, rather than going back and changing the original copy. It's shameful if this is indeed what has been done, as opposed to serving the change as an addendum or errata.

This is another hoax and the proof is the URL for the article.

<!-- [link to the.honoluluadvertiser.com] -->

The newspapers real website is at

[link to www.honoluluadvertiser.com]

There is no "the" in the real URL.

So, who owns <!-- the.honoluluadvertiser.com -->




The record for the.honoluluadvertiser.com is controlled by the same entity that controls the entire domain.

Simply, the same people that own the domain honoluluadvertiser.com. The records for the., www., and just plain honoluluadvertiser.com are stored in the same physical file. The same administrator would manage both.

Doing some simple detective work (for a network administration/web server guy) it's pretty easy to deduce what's going on here.

the.honoluluadvertiser.com and honoluluadvertiser.com both have the same IP address: 207.26.209.180. This IP address reverses to the.honoluluadvertiser.com. This is the same physical machine, and the same web server software. The web server software is configured to shunt you over to www.honoluluadvertiser.com. The people on GLP have been using a deep link to content on the "the." site which would be excluded from this redirection, which is why we can view it from their home server.

www.honoluluadvertiser.com has the IP address 24.143.192.80. This IP address reverses to a1279.g.akamai.net (at least for me - your mileage may vary, and I'll explain).

Akamai is a company that caches copies of web sites or specific files on servers. This is to alleviate the bandwidth needs of the master server. The mirrored data is served from servers which are closer to you (fewer network hops) and from places which may have more available speed. Depending on the content and configuration of the web server and your location you may get a different IP address and hostname for the www. site. The goal is to get you the same data as quickly as possible from mirror sites, rather than tying up the home site.

You say the difference in the hostname "the." versus "www." proves the owners different and we've seen a hoax. I say you are naive about how the Internet and specifically the domain name system works. The same corporate entity has control over both.

Yes, the article has been edited. Moreover, the article is in an "archive" on their web site, and is over three years old. I would have to question the integrity of the editor to make a change to material that was published that long ago. Coming from a web programming standpoint, when you have archived data, you do not change it, ever. Everything exists in a revision control system. I would expect a newspaper using an electronic medium would employ such a system as well, rather than going back and changing the original copy. It's shameful if this is indeed what has been done, as opposed to serving the change as an addendum or errata.

I posted the original link to my FB page. It has been edited. For what it's worth.

Now, if the unbirfers wanted to correct their two-year-old "journalistic error," why not simply print a retraction, or at least an addendum, noting that the writer didn't have his facts straight? Why sweep it under the rug, thereby raising more suspicion as to their motives???

Not a shill. But call me crazy, isn't it possible the newspaper realized their mistake and corrected the article? I know that sounds bizarre because newspapers especially online editions never make mistakes. Its pretty obvious that Obama was not born in Indonesia, as there is ZERO evidence that his mother was in Indonesia when she was 18 as she was married to an African guy, going to the university of Hawaii, and living in Hawaii. Uh yeah.


The original article is the real deal. This article makes liars out of the Hawaiian officials who are saying that we have to take their word for the BC, while they refuse to allow access to a public record if it exists. The only reason to do that is because it doesn't exist.
Be sure the person who scrubbed this was well paid.

Obama's mother attended the University of Hawaii after his birth. She lived out of the country prior to that with Obama's father, in Kenya. Obama's grandmother, as well as other Kenyan relatives who were there at the time, have publicly stated that he was born in Kenya and that they were there.


Didn't Obama's Grandmother suddenly die?

Yes, announced the day before the election.



How convenient.....

I posted the original link to my FB page. It has been edited. For what it's worth.

Now, if the unbirfers wanted to correct their two-year-old "journalistic error," why not simply print a retraction, or at least an addendum, noting that the writer didn't have his facts straight? Why sweep it under the rug, thereby raising more suspicion as to their motives???



EXACTLY. In the other thread, with the original article, I asked for anyone to please take screenshots because I KNOW the WH is working overtime to scrub everything. Sure enough, it happened - within 24 hours!

I also linked the site where the author of the original article tried to blame his mistake on "Googling an anti Obama site", but there were NO ANTI OBAMA SITES OR BIRTH LOCATION ISSUES WHEN THE ORGINAL ARTCILE WAS WRITTEN. So, he's a liar.

Yes, announced the day before the election.



How convenient.....

I posted the original link to my FB page. It has been edited. For what it's worth.

Now, if the unbirfers wanted to correct their two-year-old "journalistic error," why not simply print a retraction, or at least an addendum, noting that the writer didn't have his facts straight? Why sweep it under the rug, thereby raising more suspicion as to their motives???



EXACTLY. In the other thread, with the original article, I asked for anyone to please take screenshots because I KNOW the WH is working overtime to scrub everything. Sure enough, it happened - within 24 hours!

I also linked the site where the author of the original article tried to blame his mistake on "Googling an anti Obama site", but there were NO ANTI OBAMA SITES OR BIRTH LOCATION ISSUES WHEN THE ORGINAL ARTCILE WAS WRITTEN. So, he's a liar.

asking to take a screenshot was part of the hoax... the original article is a paid article!!!! please prove me wrong!!!

Yes, announced the day before the election.



How convenient.....

Another domino falling into place to precipitate his rise...

I posted the original link to my FB page. It has been edited. For what it's worth.

Now, if the unbirfers wanted to correct their two-year-old "journalistic error," why not simply print a retraction, or at least an addendum, noting that the writer didn't have his facts straight? Why sweep it under the rug, thereby raising more suspicion as to their motives???



EXACTLY. In the other thread, with the original article, I asked for anyone to please take screenshots because I KNOW the WH is working overtime to scrub everything. Sure enough, it happened - within 24 hours!

I also linked the site where the author of the original article tried to blame his mistake on "Googling an anti Obama site", but there were NO ANTI OBAMA SITES OR BIRTH LOCATION ISSUES WHEN THE ORGINAL ARTCILE WAS WRITTEN. So, he's a liar.

asking to take a screenshot was part of the hoax... the original article is a paid article!!!! please prove me wrong!!!

Good catch on the hoax site ;)