I’ll still go with the Republican Governor of Hawaii who had her staff actually check what it said on the original Obama birth certificate. You can continue to go with trusting and believing the Obama campaign web site.
“I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.” Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii 2002-2010
There were 226 lawsuits between 2008 and 2014 which challenged the eligibility and natural born citizenship of Obama. Not one of those lawsuits was based on Obama being born at The Queen’s Hospital and not at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
But if it floats your boat to believe that, keep on floating.
‘But if it floats your boat to believe that, keep on floating.’
& that right there sums up much of your problem. Not by any means all of it, but much of it. I’ll get to the rest of your post—replying will be such fun—as (& if) time permits, but first this glaringly half-sad, half-hilarious comment.
One of the major reasons anti-birthers are anti-birthers is because they can neither read with comprehension nor analyze facts and evidence in the context of the larger picture. I’ve seen this with every single one of them. They read—or claim to read—birthers’ comments, and wildly misunderstand them most of the time. As for actual analysis, forget about it. If you can give me the name of one single solitary anti-birther that does even adequate, much less top notch, analysis I will apologize for this generalization. But not unless or until that name is forthcoming.
First, reading comprehension. No where did I say or suggest I believe Obama was born in Queens Medical Center. Think, NG, *think*. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be a birther. Do you actually believe I’ve been just ‘pretending’ to be a birhter all this time? Is that really your idea of analyzing data and extrapolating facts/conclusions?
Please.
Second, did you miss the entire point on purpose, or is this really the best you can do? It’s a serious question. My guess is you missed it for lack of analytical skills. Correct me if you can.
The point is the one no anti-birther can grasp. Namely, why so much *internal* confusion on Obama’s part re: his own birth narrative? It isn’t hard to put together a brief but accurate bio for a website. It isn’t difficult at all to give a similar bio to one’s own literary agent. Yet confusion, contradictions, discrepancies, issues and questions dog every aspect of Obama’s nativity tale. Just as he had no idea how many states are in the US, he had no idea even when he was born. As he approached fifty, he gave a birth date nearly two weeks off the supposed ‘real’ one. No other major political figure is unable to keep his story straight even about the day on which he was supposedly born. Only, only, only, only, only, only, ONLY Obama.
No, birthers did not force Obama to contradict every detail of his supposed nativity. We merely noticed that Obama himself has given multiple, contradictory ‘facts’ re: his birth and every other aspect of his history. When added all together, the multitudinous issues can mean but one thing: Obama is lying about his most basic birth facts.
Why would he lie about something so basic? Why would he *need* to lie? No anti-birther can analyze these questions effectively. Either their brains shut down and they spout rote drivel, or they never had much by way of brainpower to begin which, and thus nothing much to bring to the table. Either way there is no anti-birther in the world who can adequately answer those two questions. If they could, they’d be birthers.