Posted on 06/20/2013 2:58:17 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
In other words, you can’t produce anything to back up your claim.
That is a bold deceit, but still just a deceit. You are trying desperately to establish what you want readers to think is ‘the truth’ but it is in fact and by the posted evidence only an agglomeration of your fabrications so it can never be ‘the truth’.
Odd how you can’t name and demonstrate one single “fabrication” I have ever produced.
Unlike the Cold Case Posse, who CLEARLY fabricated their fraudulent evidence. And the PROOF of that is available for all to see.
Thank you for playing.
Jerk.
Stop being a drama queen. You clearly ignored the comments I posted and what I was originally responding too, and you brought up a bunch irrelevant nonsense on your own.
Stanley Armour isn't standing behind any Union Workers, they are in the back row, the coloured men are a Captain, an Officer and THREE CREW IN FRONT.
It doesn't matter. You're trying to arguing irrelevant minutia. Again, the issue I'm addressing is whether the Dunhams felt like there was a stigma involved in any such associations. This picture shows there wasn't.
Who said anything about stigma?
x, who brought it up in posts No. 121 and 176. That's what I've been responding to, before you blundered into the converstaion.
The only stigma anyone might have felt from being called a NEGRO was the man who appears insisted on being classified as AFRICAN.
There's no evidence that Barack Sr. insisted on any such thing.
I'm not interested in what Stanley Armour might have thought. There's no evidence he ever set eyes on the kenyan student, other than the myth of Dreams - and that silly photograph that appears to have been taken on a Dock, does nothing to place them together anytime, anywhere.
And again, it doesn't matter if he set eyes on "the kenyan." The issue was whether the Dunhams would have listed Barack Sr. as African to avoid a stigma, and CLEARLY, from that picture, Stanley Armour Dunham is not concerned about any stigma from associating with anyone.
No, the claim that can't be backed up is that the alleged instruction manual was used to classify births in 1961. The 1961 Natality Report shows otherwise. It's posted at the CDC website. The racial classifications in that report are not the same as the alleged coding manual.
I concede your point, because it isn't the parents of the mother who declare the contents of a birth certificate, it's the parents themselves. We are to take it that (Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama signed the document.
But if you are going to use that 'on the dock' image to show that Stanley Armour had nothing against appearing in the company of 'negro' people, you need to have some idea who those people are.
Some appear to be from the Nachmanoff groups, there's Dave and Robert Robillard, and Marda - and the asian woman is a graduate of the U of HI from class of 1959. There's an unidentified young woman standing very closely to the central character, there's a captain and an officer, three young crew members squatting, and a row of union workers in the background. Plus a couple of unidentified white men and another asian woman who appears to have been added. How you can establish what Stanley Armour felt about coloured people from that collection, escapes me. It only works if the central character was the kenyan student, and that possibility has just about been eliminated.
The captain, the officer and the crew - he would have had no choice over, if he was meeting some asian couple he knew on a dock in the 70's. Must have been someone who warranted a welcome committee.
And btw, don’t bother to reply, I’m sick of being called a drama queen, it’s boring and predictable coming from you.
It says right on the manual that it was for classifying births that took place in 1961, doofus.
As for "alleged," it's obvious that it's the real and correct manual. Aside from which, IT WAS PRODUCED BY A FREEPER.
The 1961 Natality Report shows otherwise. It's posted at the CDC website. The racial classifications in that report are not the same as the alleged coding manual.
A link to the report, Sherlock. And the exact page number on which your alleged conflict is to be found and can be confirmed.
Otherwise, you claim is bulls**t.
The contents are declared by whoever has knowledge of the birth. The mother could have just easily been sedated through the entire birth and signed the certificate after it was filled out. Or it could have been filled out by the grandmother or anyone. The signature is not particularly compelling since part of the signature was parenthetically augmented. There is as much evidence of photoshop on that document as there is on any of the photos.
But if you are going to use that 'on the dock' image to show that Stanley Armour had nothing against appearing in the company of 'negro' people, you need to have some idea who those people are.
It doesn't really matter. A stigma is a stigma, and anyone who really had problems with such "stigmas" would go out his way to avoid being photographed with anyone he was uncomfortable being around. This is a group photo that clearly wasn't carefully posed, but was most likely based on where people were standing at the time someone decided to take the picture, which means Stanley was already near people he should have been trying to avoid. The idea that his feelings can only be established by the "central character" is nonsense.
And I'm telling you one more time, so that it will sink in. The classifications do not jibe with the 1961 natality report. You can bleep and blurt all you want, but this is a problem you cannot explain away.
No, it isn't.
It's COMPLETE AND UTTER BULL****.
You can't produce ANY CONFLICT WHATSOEVER with a 1961 natality report.
Just because you make some BULL**** claim: (”The classifications do not jibe with the 1961 natality report”) doesn’t make it true.
Have you never heard of a little thing called SHOW ME THE DAMN EVIDENCE?
If you make a statement, you need to BACK IT UP. Just as I’ve done.
Doofus.
The Birth Certificate was part of their divorce decree and there were witnesses that saw it.
“...there were witnesses that saw it.”
Do tell.
Names? Affidavits?
Hmm…An AP story from 2004 entitled Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate has been discovered on archive.org by many sites (and twitter where I got this). Does this mean now that the AP is nothing but a bunch of birthers?
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. ...
See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):
I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.
I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.
I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he’d run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, hes still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obamas past hidden from the American people.
This missing page page 11 very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.
The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable “8″ on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 almost as if it were an undocumented Exhibit B.
Heres a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:
Jan 20 (Mon) divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers
In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the Republic of Kenya came into existence as a republic have been un-bunked. Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate theyve been un-bunked as well.
Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and its chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if its real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form Certification of Live Birth that has appeared on Obamas Fight the Smears or FactCheck.org websites.
No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obamas Certification of Live Birth that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obamas true, 1961, original long-form(s) Certificate of Live Birth and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obamas online COLBs.
Also an outstanding video to watch,
Case CLOSED!!!
So, there you go.
LOL, you make a post fabricating your own fabrication. What a maroon, an obamaroid maroon at that!
The three posting in defense of little barry bastard boy are all 2010 sign ons, and not that far apart for sign on dates. Their feverish efforts here are a strong hint their little barry bastard boy is scared that his fraudulent life is about to be exposed.
Revealing that you try to twist what I posted and obliquely accuse me of not posting any of your deceptive posts ... I'm not in the business of repeating your lies, asshat. Your post is an open exhibit of your fabricating, your twisted deception techniques!
In any case, grandma may not have thought the same way as grandpa.
Satan aways eats his own.
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.