But if the birth was in Hawaii and if medical care was such a concern, then why is there a need for affidavits and/or supplementary documents for his BC? She had 3 months to have the baby seen and any missing medical information added to the BC without there being any note of there being an amendment or a delayed certificate.
In Hawaii in 1961 there is exactly ONE non-white baby in Honolulu that for sure had a birth certificate with no birth weight listed. There were other babies who had unattended births but they had birth weights listed because the normal procedure was for a baby to receive medical care soon after birth even if the birth was unattended. In such a case no amendments would be needed.
Why wasn’t that the case for Obama? He can’t have had a birth attended by a Hawaii doctor and can’t have received an examination from a Hawaii doctor for the first 3 months of life.
What story works, given that scenario?
You poo-pooh the evidence we have, but only because you are too lazy to consider what it means, given the requirements at the time.
Now their argument/s boils down to “no controlling legal authority”, more or less.
You tell me. It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.
For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.
It would be like saying “Obama is lying being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”
Now look at my statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.
Now suppose you put it this way.
1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)
2. At that time, the Stanleys and Obama purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)
3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”. (evidence)
4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named X Stanley.(evidence)
5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to an Ann Stanley registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.
5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.
You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.
WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!
parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear