Yes, I am well aware that you made several nasty, false assumptions about me on the other thread. Anti-birthers do that to birthers a lot. It’s like Obama & his famous straw-men. He can’t answer his opponents’ real objections, so he sets up flimsy falsehoods that no one believes, and then expects praise when he knocks them down. He’s a sad, pathetic but extremely, extremely destructive person.
It is just an amazing ‘coincidence’, isn’t it, that at the very time when some—certainly not all—but some birthers believe Stanley Ann was in Kenya, there is no trace of her in HI. As they say in the literary world, “coincidence, coincidence—WHAT a coincidence!”.
Hook, are you capable of noting the STRANGENESS of this coincidence? It would be one thing if anti-birthers could produce both witnesses and evidence for the period in question—not for the prior or succeeding period, but for the mos in between—and birthers simply disputed the validity of the evidence. But the striking feature is that anti-birthers have no evidence at all. None. They simply assume Stanley Ann was there. That assumption is necessary to their narrative.
But what if the assumption is wrong? Lacking any & all evidence...it well could be.
A reminder that you began this whole foray by butting into my post to Ray, accusing me of "mind-numbing stupidity." You set the stage here; don't complain when the spotlight on you gets a bit heated.
The primary accusation against you is you lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to answer to this, my primary point on the topic, which was "eligibility."
But, come now, Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth facts is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the question of Obama's birth; so relevant, in fact, that it moots your inquiry into things like "photos of the birth home" or "persons who witnessed Stanley Ann pregnant" (though Dr. Sinclair obviously was one such person).
So, yeah, I assert you have the debating skills of a grade-schooler.
You don't like that? Tough. Grow a skin.
It is just an amazing ‘coincidence’, isn’t it, that at the very time when some—certainly not all—but some birthers believe Stanley Ann was in Kenya, there is no trace of her in HI.
I don't consider that strange; I consider it just another example of Birther inconsistency. If the supposed absence of "pregnancy witnesses" or "birth home photos" or "witnesses to the father-mother relationship" is an argument against the claim Obama was born in Hawaii, then all the more so it's an argument that negates the claim of a Kenyan birth, because there is no such evidence pointing to a pregnant Stanley Ann being there.
But, of course, Birthers can't see this.
They simply assume Stanley Ann was there. That assumption is necessary to their narrative.
But that belief is supported by other things: like the birth announcements, like Obama, Sr's INS file records, like the Indonesian school application submitted by Lola and S.A., like S.A.'s state department/passport file. And above all, it's supported by the affirmation by the State of Hawaii, which, after all, is the thing (state certification) which every other American uses when they need to prove birth facts for things like drivers' license, passport application, marriage license, etc.
So anti-Birthers have a lot of evidence. And that 800-pound gorilla is now up to about 825 due to sitting around eating while you figure out how to answer.