Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
So do all the biographers you listed. Can you name one person who has purported to investigate this who identifies some OTHER woman as Obama's mother? If there were a woman (or any of her family members) who could credibly claim she gave birth to a U.S. President, don't you think SOMEBODY would be out peddling the story? If true, it would be worth a fortune. But instead it's crickets.
The fact that NO ONE remembers her blows your theory to smithereens.
Dr. David Sinclair signed the birth certificate attesting to Obama's birth and that Stanley Ann is his mother. My theory is fully intact.
Again, in this country we customarily prove birth circumstances by having the relevant state certify to that. We don't demand state verification PLUS a photo of the "birth home." But being the true Birther you are, you insist on moving the goalposts till you find some point you think you can question.
So you cannot explain the bogus address on the bogus birth announcements,
Even supposing that address is incorrect, I have no need to explain it. The birth announcement (like Obama, Sr.'s INS file, the Indonesian school application, Stanley Ann's State Dept file, the 1990 newspaper interviews, and some other items along the way) simply corroborate what Hawaii has officially declared. Even if the newspaper birth announcements didn't exist, the evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth would still overwhelms any alleged evidence of birth elsewhere.
The total failure of the Washington establishment to react to, and expel, a fraud in the White House is just confirmation of the corruption that has been spreading and deepening for decades. Obama is an opportunistic infection. An opportunistic infection requires a suppressed immune system.
So you missed the entire point of my post.
Now what? I’m supposed to break it down into smaller, simpler pieces so you might grasp it?
You neutered your brain when you became an Obot Troll anti-birther. You no longer remember how to think.
Here you LIE again. There is not a single post you've made to me on this thread that even so much as acknowledges the Hawaiian verifications (and their significance under the Full Faith & Credit clause), let alone attempts to explain why such don't establish Obama's eligibility.
If you wish to claim otherwise, cite the post (by number) and show where your "answer" even mentions these things.
You will fail here, because you never addressed them.
‘Here you LIE again. There is not a single post you’ve made to me on this thread that even so much as acknowledges the Hawaiian verifications (and their significance under the Full Faith & Credit clause), let alone attempts to explain why such don’t establish Obama’s eligibility.’
Are you drinking? I actually did answer your question. You responded to my answer, so I know you read it.
Yet you have ignored at least half a dozen questions I have asked you. So it’s okay for you to call me a liar for answering a question you claim I didn’t answer, but at the same time it’s perfectly okay for you to ignore one legitimate question I ask you after another.
You should claim you’re drinking even if you’re not. That’s a more honorable explanation that is likely the real one.
Not at all. I showed how your post delves into irrelevancies and tangents that ignore the primary proof of Obama's eligibility. I have no need or desire to chase down every rabbit hole you can think to find in your effort to dodge my main point.
If the Obama narrative is as stated: that Stanley Ann lived with Obama Sr. as his wife on HI, and bore his child there, someone would remember.
You on the one hand acknowledge this, by pointing out that a white woman married to a black man, pregnant with his child, would attract attention in HI in the early 60s.
On the other hand, you say these two people plus baby could have lived invisibly, and of course no one would have any idea where they lived, whether Stanley Ann worked (at least in the early mos of her pregnancy), what it was like to bring the new baby home, etc.
You think it’s perfectly understandable that no one on earth has any idea what house Obama, as a newborn, came home to.
You think you proved something by mentioning Janny Scott, when she is just like all the rest. She passes over a Black Hole that spans 9 mos of Stanley Ann’s life. It is a black hole no biographer, no matter how friendly to Obama, has been able to crack.
To you it makes sense that the birth house of every other POTUS is known, but that Obama’s is the deepest, darkest mystery. The fact that a bogus address was listed on his fake birth announcements makes total sense to you.
Iow, you are a hopeless Obot Troll.
Which Post (by number) are you contending contains your "answer" to my point that the Hawaiian verifications establish Obama's eligibility?
I'm going to keep calling you out on your vagueness and avoidance. If you claim to have addressed it, citing the post number isn't all that difficult. I've looked; it's not there.
I’ll give you the exact number.
Just as soon as you answer the many questions I have put to you, which you have totally avoided.
Oh, and they have to be intelligent answers, too. Not just, ‘Hey, doesn’t ***everyone*** list on their birth announcement an address at which they never lived? Since everyone does it, why shouldn’t Obama’s parents have done it too?’
That won’t cut it.
Some persons did remember. Like Stanley Ann herself, who acknowledged Obama as her son throughout her life. Like the Dunhams, who acknowledged Obama as their daughter's child. Like Dr. Sinclair, who signed the birth certificate. Like Obama, Sr, who told the INS he had a son born in Hawaii.
But, you're a Birther, and you can't accept this under any circumstance, so you have to keep asking for more and more corroboration by other persons (persons who wouldn't be as close to the scene as these others). 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. (While making it happen that Obama, Jr., ended up looking a lot like Stanley Ann, despite the supposed lack of biological connection).
And your hang-up is you can't for sure identify a "birth house."
As it's said, you strain at gnats while swallowing a camel.
‘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.’
Link?
‘And your hang-up is you can’t for sure identify a “birth house.”’
If I were the only one who couldn’t identify a birth house, so what? I didn’t live in HI at the time. I don’t live there now, so I’m not in the habit of cruising by Obama’s birth house & snapping a photo.
The problem is, ***nobody*** has the foggiest idea where he was born. We know the address given on the ‘birth announcements’ is false. Neither Stanley Ann nor Obama Sr. ever lived there. What ***nobody*** knows is where, supposedly, they did live.
The fact that you find this normal is a symptom of your Obot Trollery. You have been conditioned to think that no matter how unbelievable a thing is, if it concerns Obama it is normal. So to you it is normal that no one on the face of the earth has the slightest inkling where Obama was born: i.e.: what house his parents, or simply mother, brought him home to. We know the birth houses of all the other presidents for a reason. I.e.: they were born there. There is an equally good reason why no one on earth has even a wild guess as to where Obama’s birth house is.
When you can figure out the problem with this scenario, you will have taken the first step out of your Obot Troll daze.
Are you still on the birth announcement address? If so, I already answer that. In post #361 (see how easy it is to actually identify one's specific post by number?):
"Even supposing that address is incorrect, I have no need to explain it. The birth announcement (like Obama, Sr.'s INS file, the Indonesian school application, Stanley Ann's State Dept file, the 1990 newspaper interviews, and some other items along the way) simply corroborate what Hawaii has officially declared. Even if the newspaper birth announcements didn't exist, the evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth would still overwhelms any alleged evidence of birth elsewhere."
The birth announcement isn't what I hinge my argument on in the first place. Maybe something got lost in communication from the Dunhams to the hospital to the newspapers. I don't know. Nor do I really care as the birth announcement is of lesser significance than the birth certificate and verifications. Again, in this nation, when it's time to prove the date and place of one's birth, we don't go pulling out newspaper announcements. We get the state to verify what the birth records indicate.
There. Now what post are you claiming contains your answer to my point that the verification by Hawaii (under the Full Faith & Credit clause) establish Obama's eligibility beyond question?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17003563/
Or you could read those biographies.
I have an idea. He was born in Kapiolani Hospital. And, guess what? The State of Hawaii confirms that.
This really is easy for anyone who is not a Birther.
And you know what else? There is no claim, let alone evidence, than anyone but Stanley Ann is his mother. And guess what? The State of Hawaii confirms she was his mother.
Again, this is easy for anyone who is not a Birther.
Now, in those earliest weeks and months, perhaps Stanley Ann and child resided with the Duhhams (who without question lived in Hawaii). Perhaps she lived elsewhere. But it wasn't all that long after Stanley Ann was in Washington State so it's not like there was some singular place that was Obama's childhood home that needs to be enshrined.
Are you suggesting that the NY Times and all 4 biographies discussed my particular birther theory? I had no idea I was so notorious. Wow; I really made some ink, huh?
Now provide the link I asked for. Namely, the one where I say I believe the following:
‘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.’
“I’ll give you the exact number.
Just as soon as you answer the many questions I have put to you, which you have totally avoided.”
‘Are you still on the birth announcement address? If so, I already answer that. In post #361 (see how easy it is to actually identify one’s specific post by number?):
“Even supposing that address is incorrect, I have no need to explain it. The birth announcement (like Obama, Sr.’s INS file, the Indonesian school application, Stanley Ann’s State Dept file, the 1990 newspaper interviews, and some other items along the way) simply corroborate what Hawaii has officially declared. Even if the newspaper birth announcements didn’t exist, the evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth would still overwhelms any alleged evidence of birth elsewhere.”’
That’s no answer. That is a complete dodge.
& oh btw, that is just one of many questions you have refused to answer. This is a two-way street, Hook. You don’t get to demand that I (1) answer a question a second time that I’ve already answered once, or (2) provide you a link you ought to be able to find for yourself *prior* to your answering some of my questions first. All you do is avoid the questions. Why not, for something entirely different, try actually answering one sometime?
On second thought, you did answer at least one question. I remember it now. I rated the answer ‘Extremely Stupid’ and asked that you try again.
So far, nothing.
“The problem is, ***nobody*** has the foggiest idea where he was born.”
‘I have an idea. He was born in Kapiolani Hospital.’
Now you are just being obnoxiously dishonest. I told you I have just looked at the birth houses of five presidents, starting with Bush, going back to Reagan, and including George Washington. I asked why no one on earth has any idea where Obama’s mother was living when she had him.
So as usual you dodge. This is getting disgusting. You can’t answer a single one of my questions. & you are becoming increasingly either stupid or untruthful about it.
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???
It's a sufficient answer. But at a minimum it takes your question about the birth announcement address, highlights that, and then discusses my views on it. And I give the specific post number.
Now, what post (by number) are you contending provides you reply to my point about the significance of the Hawaii verifications? Or your discussion of my point about the Full Faith & Credit clause?
You don’t get to demand that I (1) answer a question a second time that I’ve already answered once,
I'm not demanding that. I'm merely asking you to give the number of the post you contend provided your answer the first time. Now, you and I both know no post you've made even mentions the Hawaii verifications or the FF&C clause. So all this posturing and delay you're trying to pull here is just further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.
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.