Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
No. Obama was in fact born in Kapiolani Hospital. The State of Hawaii affirms that from its birth records. But clearly that is a fact that you have to assiduously avoid mentioning, let alone explaining.
I asked why no one on earth has any idea where Obama’s mother was living when she had him.
And I've posited an explanation -- it's well possible that given the scandalous nature of the pregnancy (viewed in 1961 America) that Stanley Ann was kept largely out of view, and in any event, those closest to the matter were all dead by the time these biographers got around to inquiring. You don't like that answer. Tough. But neither can you give an explanation for why there's no allegation nor evidence of Stanley Ann being anywhere other than Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth nor evidence that anyone but she is Obama's mother.
It's easy to pick apart the other person's explanations while offering none of your own.
Stanley Ann lived somewhere for the 9 mos of her pregnancy. Why, out of four biographers, does not one of them have one single solitary bit of info on that 9 mo period???
Hmmm. How about: 1) because in the absence of any credible assertion she is not Obama's mother, that detail wasn't considered all that important, so they didn't invest that much time on it or 2) even if somewhat a curiosity, those closet to the matter were all dead?
No. I'm saying those articles affirm that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams exhibited a life-long association with Obama, which is the point I was making. That is a bit hard to explain if one is contending Stanley Ann is not Obama's mother.
“That’s no answer. That is a complete dodge.”
‘It’s a sufficient answer.’
If you can’t admit, or don’t even know, that you’re dodging my questions, we’ll never get anywhere.
All the answers boil down to, ‘it’s all different with Obama’.
I.e.: we know where all the other president’s families were living when they were born. A photo of the birth house is available after just a couple of online clicks. But ‘only with Obama’ it’s different. Never once, in all the years after he was born, did anyone find out where his mother was living. Her parents didn’t mention it to anyone. They didn’t even tell Obama. They didn’t mention it to Obama’s sister.
Neither Stanley Ann’s landlord nor any relative of the landlord has ever said a word. [No one, not even the most Obama-friendly biographers, suggest she spent the entire 9 mos—or even any of the nine mos—living with her parents.] No next door neighbors or children of next door neighbors ever said a peep.
The whole nine mos, she never had a friend. Not one friend in all of HI who knew where she was living when Obama was born. At least not one who gave the secret away. According to you, they’re all dead, and they took the secret to the grave.
Long past the time the mixed race marriage could have been a stigma to anyone, the secret was well guarded. Like everything else about Obama. It is under lock & key.
To you this seems reasonable/normal.
There are no words.
‘That is a bit hard to explain if one is contending Stanley Ann is not Obama’s mother.’
Stop screwing around and provide the link. Where did I say this? Come on, Hook, stop with the slime & smear and show me the quote.
I'm not dodging. You believe it significant that no one since 2008 looking into Stanley Ann's life has identified the particular house Stanley Ann lived in prior to (or after) giving birth to Obama. I don't find that significant given that Hawaii has affirmed Obama's Hawaiian birth. That affirmation settles the eligibility question. Obama's eligibility does NOT hinge on identification of a "birth house." Nor does it hinge on some newspaper anmouncement having the correct address. Hawaii's verifications render such lines of inquiry irrelevant as to eligibility.
Clear enough?
So it seems in dealing with Birthers. For everyone else, it is customary and sufficient for the appropriate state agency to affirm a person's birth record. Birthers don't expect or demand that in addition to state verification a person should have to supplement that with a photo of his/her "birth home" or witness statement from persons having seen the mother pregnant.
But when it comes to Obama, that same state verification isn't enough. Even though this has been provided for Obama (whereas such is not the case with any prior President), Birthers have insisted on a series of changing goal lines.
This particular part of the discussion seems way off track. I'm not sure what you're asking.
You were making the point that no one interviewed claims to have seen Stanley Ann pregnant. I took from that you were questioning her maternity, since if the point is not to question whether she was his mother, then I don't know why you brought up that point. Thus, my statement about the biographers (who without question accept her motherhood) and my point about the lifelong relationships among Obama, S.A., and the Dunhams. If you're not doubting she's his mother, then disregard my follow-ups.
‘You were making the point that no one interviewed claims to have seen Stanley Ann pregnant. I took from that you were questioning her maternity, since if the point is not to question whether she was his mother, then I don’t know why you brought up that point.’
I plan to return to this discussion as time permits. In the meanwhile, I will point out the staggering stupidity of the above comment. The fact is that no one, not one solitary soul, on HI saw Stanley Ann pregnant. That is a fact, & one that no anti-birther ever deals w in a rational, realistic fashion.
But your above conclusion is just pathetic. It reminds me of the liberal who told me the only possible reason anyone would question Obama’s birth certificate is racism. That person may have once possessed a functioning brain. Liberalism reduced it to the intellectual wattage of a cabbage.
So too your above remark. Either you are unable & unwilling to deal with the fact that a pregnant Stanley Ann living on HI would have been seen by ***someone***, hence the misdirection, or you are just so full of canned anti-birther idiocy that the stuff pops out at random, with no discernible connection to the issues/discussion at hand.
Oh, and one more thing for now. Research this for me, will you? Are all of Stanley Ann’s classmates from high school dead? Since you insist that everyone who could/would have known her in her early college days is dead, one supposes the even older people who knew her at Mercer Island are all croaked as well.
Right, O brilliant, rational, logical, wise Hook?
Right???
Oh, and one more quick item. I am not through, Hook, with your snotty, arrogant, lying, vile & jerkish characterization of what I “have” to believe. What I wrote above is the tip of the iceberg. Expect to hear more on the same topic, as time & opportunity permits.
Not true, as I've already pointed out to you. Dr. David Sinclair saw her pregnant. He delivered the baby and signed the birth certificate. Now, if there's any one person you can say had a pretty good view of Stanley Ann pregnant, he rather tops the list, right?
And, it's fair to say, that her parents saw her pregnant. and Barack Sr. no doubt saw her pregnant.
How's that for dealing with your question in a calm, rational, intelligent manner?
Oh, and when you return to this topic, be sure to identify by number the post you are claiming provided your answer to my points abut the Hawaii birth verifications and the signifance of those under the Full, Faith and Credit clause of our Constitution.
No doubt this is posing a dilemma for you. When you don't answer that, I just keep flogging you at your obvious delay and posturing. But if you ever give a specific post number, you know full well I'll go to that post, copy it in its entirety, and repost in a reply noting that nothing in that post of your mentions one peep about the Hawaii verification or the FF&C clause. Then I'll note again what intellectual dishonesty you exhibit in claiming that you actually answered my questions on those points.
The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those fact, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
At some point, even you will have to contend with these FACTS.
With each post, you sound more shrill and desperate. But I understand why the Hawaii verifications completely destroy the narrative you are frantically trying to sustain. Your reaction isn't surprising.
‘Not true, as I’ve already pointed out to you. Dr. David Sinclair saw her pregnant. He delivered the baby and signed the birth certificate. Now, if there’s any one person you can say had a pretty good view of Stanley Ann pregnant, he rather tops the list, right?
And, it’s fair to say, that her parents saw her pregnant. and Barack Sr. no doubt saw her pregnant.
How’s that for dealing with your question in a calm, rational, intelligent manner?’
It’s sad, pathetic, and as usual totally non-responsive. You cite no one at all from within the actual nine mo black out; instead you jump completely past it & pretend it never happened. Oh, and you do make two complete gueses—total surmises which none of the four biographers document. I.e.: the people who have looked deepest and hardest into Stanley Ann’s 9-mo disappearance do not claim she saw anyone during that period. That is because if they did, it would be fiction, just as your claims are fiction. In order not to be fiction, there would need to be some verification/documentation. But there isn’t. No one claims Stanley Ann lived with or even saw O Sr. during this period. No one claims she lived with or even saw her parents. You’re just making it up. You can’t make facts up. That is your problem. One of them, anyway. You can’t read, you don’t know what a fact is, and you have entirely the wrong view of this site.
First, in terms of inability to read. You claim I HAVE to believe a series of things I don’t believe. You cannot cite a single post I’ve ever made to back up your insultingly idiotic claims. It comes down to your fundamental inability to read a post & understand it. Communicating with you is nearly impossible. Of course part of that is due to the fact that you are a liberal trying not to get banned from a conservative site. But that is the choice you made, so you need to do a better job of it. I.e.: you REALLY need to learn how to read, period.
Re facts, two points. First, this quote:
“And, it’s fair to say, that her parents saw her pregnant. and Barack Sr. no doubt saw her pregnant.”
Not to confuse you with big words, but this is a logical fallacy. The issue here is that, if a pregnant Stanley Ann spent the nine mos leading up to the baby’s birth on HI, someone would have seen her. The logical, rational answer to that question ***cannot*** be, ‘she was there, therefore no doubt people saw her’. I.e.: the question itself is, was she even there??? Your answer, ‘She was there, so people had to see her’, is the most basic logical fallacy possible to commit. You cannot prove a proposition by assuming it is true. Rather, you must supply evidence. But of course, there is none. Four biographers failed to find it—and it wasn’t for lack of looking. So your answer is a steaming pile.
Secondly, you said that Stanley Ann’s 9-mo black hole was indeed documented. For clarity, here are your exact comments:
“There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
“[chuckling sounds] Just as I suspected, if I left it vague, you’d grab for the wrong branch, showing you don’t know the topic as well as you pretend.
Nope. It wasn’t Maraniss. The piece I was referring to was Janny Scott’s A Singular Woman.”
Having thus made a thundering ass of yourself, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back your idiotic claim. Namely, what exactly did Janny Scott dig up that Maraniss failed to find/document? You’ve had your stupid chuckle; now produce an actual quote from Scott’s book that is more informative than the one I produced from Maraniss.
[But of course you won’t/can’t. You are the most dishonest person on this site, constantly making claims you cannot substantiate, and then attempting to weasel out of hole you dug yourself into. You pattern is as predictable as it is embarrassing (to you).]
I’ll save my comments on your apparent misunderstanding of the purpose of this site for another post. I’m really too interested in reading Janny Scott’s unique discoveries re: the missing 9 mos of Stanley Ann’s life to elaborate at the moment. No doubt the quotes you supply will be fascinating.
Did the 9-month period magically end JUST before she went in for delivery? Because Dr. Sinclair was a witness to Stanley Ann's pregnancy - he had a bird's eye view, so to speak.
Here's the Birther goalpost-moving method illustrated again. As, I've pointed out, in Obama's case it's not enough to show the very thing that suffices for all other persons in all other instances (State certification), you demand some further item like pregnancy witnesses. And then when I offer a person who clearly witnessed her pregnancy (her delivery doctor), your respponse is to pretend that wasn't said and quickly jump to "oh, but now I'm demanding that you also identify someone ELSE." Your M.O. is just so demonstrably ridiculous.
I.e.: the people who have looked deepest and hardest into Stanley Ann’s 9-mo disappearance do not claim she saw anyone during that period.
And those inquiries were done WELL AFTER the persons who logically would have had the closet contact with Stanley Ann during this period were dead and gone. Are you seriously trying to claim (while keeping a straight face) that these biographies offer a totally complete picture?
There are occasional news stories about teens giving birth who didn't even know they were pregnant (e.g., http://www.oddee.com/item_98904.aspx). The point is -- not every woman's pregnancy demonstrably shows to others around her. Per a synopsis offered by an Amazon reviewer, Scott's bio notes her high school friends said she dropped out of touch about this period. If Stanley Ann was wearing loose-fitting clothing while quietly attending classes at U. of Hawaii (or otherwise just keeping a very low profile), who the heck other than her immediate family would know?
Your argument depends on you making the case that it's impossible for a young woman to carry pregnancy full term and have none of her friends take note. But you can't make that case.
In any event:
The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those fact, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
At some point, even you will have to contend with these FACTS.
‘If Stanley Ann was wearing loose-fitting clothing while quietly attending classes at U. of Hawaii (or otherwise just keeping a very low profile), who the heck other than her immediate family would know?’
She wasn’t attending classes anywhere. Her transcripts only confirm the Black Hole.
Your comment about moving the goal posts is another outright lie. I asked originally for info on this 9 mo black hole. Not the period before it or the period after; the 9 mo period itself, in which nobody in HI claims to have seen Stanley Ann. No one claims to know where she lived. No one knows if she worked or where, or how she supported herself. It is a Black Hole.
You are doing your usual jig. Insulting me while avoiding the issue. But you don’t have to. You arrogantly, snarkily & stupidly claimed that Janny Scott had turned up pertinent info re: this period of Stanley Ann’s life that Maniss had missed. You did so in the guise of a jerk. Now put jerkishness aside and provide the quotes from Janny Scott to back your claim.
If someone figures out wtf it says please let me know.
You are the most dishonest person on this site, constantly making claims you cannot substantiate, and then attempting to weasel out of hole you dug yourself into.
Identify one claim I've made that I've not been able to substantiate. I'm calling you out on this one. No ducking. No weaseling out by pointing to something that's simply a matter of opinion or probability. It logically has to be a claim that is susceptible of substantiation (i.e., a factual claim).
So try and find one. You will fail.
Now, by contrast, I've highlighted one of yours: the claim you made that you posted a reply to my repeated point that the Hawaii verifications, coupled with the significance of the Constitution's FF&C clause, establish Obama's eligibility. You have failed to substantiate that claim by identifying the post which allegedly provided that answer. You've done nothing but bob, weave, duck, delay.
‘And those inquiries were done WELL AFTER the persons who logically would have had the closet contact with Stanley Ann during this period were dead and gone.’
So in all four biographies, the period preceding the 9 mo Black Hole is a blank also. Because according to you, all the people who would have known about this earlier period were dead by the time of the biographies. So Stanley Ann’s life is depicted as a huge, gaping black hole until...when? When were the biographers able to find living people who actually remembered Stanley Ann?
[Hint: people were located in HI who remembered Stanley Ann PRIOR to the Black Hole. Your entire reply is a steaming pile.]
‘Identify one claim I’ve made that I’ve not been able to substantiate.’
Here are two:
‘You have to subscribe to the BIZARRE theory that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams, despite having no connection to Obama, Sr. or Obama, Jr., nonetheless took this child into their care and continued with that relationship through their lifetimes.’
You made that claim about me, and it is a LIE.
Here’s the second:
‘you said that Stanley Ann’s 9-mo black hole was indeed documented. For clarity, here are your exact comments’:
“There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
“[chuckling sounds] Just as I suspected, if I left it vague, you’d grab for the wrong branch, showing you don’t know the topic as well as you pretend.
Nope. It wasn’t Maraniss. The piece I was referring to was Janny Scott’s A Singular Woman.”
Having thus made a thundering ass of yourself, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back your idiotic claim.
I.e.: this is a claim you’ve made & utterly failed to substantiate. Iow, it is a LIE.
And my response was to note that I consider the "9-month period" to encompass conception to deliver. The ultimate issue here is presidential eligibility. That was the subject of my post to Ray; that's the only thing I'm defending here. Eligibility turns on the question "was Obama born within the U.S.?" So that birth moment is THE critical moment. To define the "9-mo period" to exclude delivery and birth, would be ridiculous as it ignores the only critical moment.
Dr. Sinclair falls within the 9-month period.
You arrogantly, snarkily & stupidly claimed that Janny Scott had turned up pertinent info re: this period of Stanley Ann’s life that Maniss had missed.
I didn't say anything about Scott turning up more than Maraniss. I merely said that Scott had done a lot of interviews with Stanley Ann's friends and family:
There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.
And:
Here's one review found on the Amazon listing:(bolding as in my original post)
“The key to understanding the disciplined and often impassive 44th president is his mother, as Janny Scott, a reporter for the New York Times, decisively demonstrates in her new biography A Singular Woman. . . . Scott [uses] meticulous reporting, archival research and extensive interviews with Dunham’s colleagues, friends and family, including the president and his sister. What emerges is a portrait of a woman who is both disciplined and disorganized, blunt-spoken and empathetic, driven and devoted to her children, even as she ruefully admits her failings and frets over her distance from them.”—The Washington Post
So twice I simply made the point Scott had done a lot of interviews with. S.A.'s friends. You seem not to understand the difference between inclusive and exclusive statements. Saying "there is at least on biographical piece" doesn't exclude that others did interviews, too. In neither post did I purport to compare her to Maraniss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.