Posted on 08/03/2016 7:12:27 PM PDT by Elderberry
It seems obvious to me given the birth certificate, given what his family told him, given the newspaper records, etc. You really think that from the evidence I should conclude that he was born in Kenya? C’mon
Am I speaking to a rational, logical person? If so, where did Kenya come from? I never mentioned it. In fact, Obama only ***claimed*** to be born in Kenya, but that TOO was a lie.
I want to believe what is true. Therefore, I cannot believe Obama was born in HI. Simple as that.
Both the newspaper announcements and the alleged birth certificate list as Stanley Ann’s home address a house in which she and baby Obama never resided.
Why is that?
Now, the judge has before him evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii - no matter what you think of the rules. The existing evidence all points to Hawaii.
If you want to prove that he was born somewhere else and specifically if you want to prove that he was born outside of the United States, then please identify your witness and have him tell the court what he witnessed regarding the birth.
It really is that simple. And, that's why Obama will win that simple case 10 times out of 10.
Please see post 220.
‘The existing evidence all points to Hawaii.’
If you exclude all the evidence that doesn’t back your theory, you’d be right.
To mention but one of hundreds of items that don’t point to HI. Obama’s official website first listed the other HI hospital as Obama’s birthplace. His sister confirmed he was born there.
Later, without fanfare, his official site switched his birth hospital to Kapiolani.
When there are only two hospitals to choose from, guessing the ‘right,’ one can be so difficult...
For the vast majority of people, it really is that simple. In order for a person to conclude otherwise requires that that person desperately want to believe otherwise for some extraneous reason. And most of us know what the extraneous reason is - there are people who didn't want to accept the results of the election of 2008 and they felt a need to find a way to alter the results of that election. We understand why some people believed that nonsense. That's as obvious as the birthplace of these presidents.
And, a lot of us feel badly that some people took money from other people while pretending to chase that unicorn. That wasn't fair.
It's because there is no evidence other than the evidence pointing to Hawaii that it's such a simple case.
This is why Kellyanne Conway is the campaign manager. Obama’s policies are the issue in the context that Clinton has pledged to continue them.
‘In order for a person to conclude otherwise requires that that person desperately want to believe otherwise for some extraneous reason. And most of us know what the extraneous reason is - there are people who didn’t want to accept the results of the election of 2008 and they felt a need to find a way to alter the results of that election. We understand why some people believed that nonsense. That’s as obvious as the birthplace of these presidents.’
I’d be more than happy to believe Obama was born in HI if a shred of evidence confirmed it. But all the evidence points the other way.
For instance, you said Bush was born in Connecticut. Well, he was. There is a house in CT in which Bush’s mother was living while she was pregnant. They had neighbors that knew them; she had a gynecologist...the list goes on and on.
There is no house in HI where Stanley Ann lived while she was pregnant. There is no house to which she brought the newborn home to after being discharged. No neighbors remember her. There is no evidence she was even in the state, much less that she had a gynecologist, etc.
Think about it. Why can you NOT buy a postcard in HI depicting the house Stanley Ann lived in while pregnant? Why?
‘In fact, as I understand what you are saying, you don’t even have an opinion as to some other state or country.’
When you substitute assumptions for facts, you undercut your original case.
In any event, I hope that you now see why the country dealt with this issue as it did. Soon there will be a new president and maybe you can find some new issues.
There's always something to think about. ;-)
I don’t decline to state where Obama was born. My posting history demonstrates that I’ve readily identified his birth location.
At present, I’m more interested in the fact that you dodge every question I ask. You are so convinced Obama was born in HI, facts and evidence appear to be non-issues.
Here is a minor fact, but one I hope you will address. Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani, thanking them for being the hospital of his birth. They displayed the letter, and used it for fundraising with excellent results.
Then they were informed that fundraising off the claim Obama was born there was fraud, UNLESS Obama in fact was born there.
Immediately the letter was removed from display, literally locked up beyond the public’s purview, and never again did Kapiolani fundraise off the claim of being Obama’s birth hospital.
My question to you is, why? Why, if Obama was born there, should they not use that fact to their advantage? Why pretend the letter never happened, the moment they were called on it?
While we’re at it, why did Abercrombie tell a close friend, the same day he searched, that HI had no birth certificate on file for Obama? Why, when called on it, did Abercrombie use the weasel words that ‘something was actually written down,’ as opposed to saying, ‘Of course Obama’s birth certificate is on file, right where it’s supposed to be.’?
Why?
Bonus question: why was the file STOLEN from the National Archives that documented all foreign arrivals, via airline, to HI for the week including Aug 4, 1961? Why is that the ONLY file that was stolen?
Optional trivia question: why did Obama say he was born in Asia?
Find a real claim to think about, a claim with evidence to support it.
How many reasonable, pertinent questions have I asked so far, that you have dodged? I wouldn’t have raised this issue with you if I’d thought you were mindlessly committed to your evidence-free narrative. I had imagined you could process information. I’d hate to be completely wrong.
One last question. Stanley Ann had attended university in HI through the fall of ‘60. Contrary to all known facts, some claim she remained in HI, hidden in a remote cave, through Obama’s birth in ‘61.
Then, according to the Obots, she took her newborn on a long flight [these are the same Obots, btw, who claim it would have been against airline policy for SA to have flown out of Africa with a newborn in ‘61] to Seattle. She then attended one semester at the U of WA, and then flew back to HI to continue at the university there.
Why? Why leave her parents and her school of choice, for one semester in Seattle?
And let’s not have imaginary theories, either. Please give a plausible, fact-based reason for this bizarre behavior.
That's the way it works.
You have lots of additional questions, but as your legal experience develops, you will learn that with every piece of evidence, more questions can always be asked and you can always make things just as convoluted and confusing for yourself as you wish.
The rules of evidence are designed to force the parties to present evidence rather than more questions. The purpose of these rules is to enable a finder of fact to rationally separate what is true from what is false (or conjecture) in an orderly, disciplined way.
I think you should try to reconcile yourself to the truth. If your desires are impeding you from accepting the truth, then just try to quit thinking about this issue. It's already been resolved by other people and there is nothing left for you to actually do. In other words, if you cannot accept the truth, then at least accept that it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it. It's over.
Btw, in addition to bring bizarre, Stanley Ann’s behavior was very expensive. A one way ticket from HI to Seattle wouldn’t have been cheap. Plus, according to Obots, she was living rent free with her parents. At Washington State, she had to pay room and board. Then there was the one way ticket back to HI after her lone semester in Seattle concluded. SA didn’t have money to burn. So why two ling, expensive, and totally unnecessary airline flights?
You’re like a frightened child. You had no idea how little actual evidence supports one of lying Obama’s many claims about his birth location. When you see even the tip of the iceberg, you run back to the safe confines of your happy judge and courtroom. If you can just confine this discussion to legalities, you won’t have to confront reality. After all, the courtroom is safe, and reality is scary.
SMH.
When you buy your next Almanac or history book, just scratch out the part that says Obama was born in Hawaii. That should solve the problem.
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.