Posted on 09/16/2016 1:38:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Two points. Will’s very 1st post was to a thread that had long disappeared from the sidebar. How did a brand new sign-up even find it?
Second, no less a brilliant analyst than Jack Cashill noted that Maraniss’ Obama-biography destroys the claim that Stanley Ann & the baby lived at the birth-announcement address. Yet our newest Obot brushed Cashill’s findings aside with stark witlessness.
Diamond is a troll’s troll; a throwback to the earliest days of Obotism, when facts counted for nothing and Alinkyism was everything.
Dr. Onaka specifically verified that on the original vital record the mother signed the birth certificate on August 7th, 1961, that Dr. Sinclair signed
with the birth certificate on August 8th, 1961 and that the place of birth was Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
How do you image the baby got to Honolulu on those dates?
I know of no such "verification". My recollection is that every statement from Dr. Onaka is dubious and unclear as to the exact meaning. They contain verbal loopholes through which you could drive a bus.
My recollection is that there is nothing concise or explicit from Dr. Onaka that can be regarded as authoritative.
How do you image the baby got to Honolulu on those dates?
I know of no clear evidence that the baby was in Honolulu on those dates. I do know of evidence that the baby was in Seattle during the later part of August 1961.
You forgot to put any words in your response. :)
Doesn’t need words. The image is self-evident.
My mistake.
Here is link to the what I thought was an image. Funny it shows up as one on my ipad.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
If so, your symbolism escapes me.
All that you have shown us is a reiteration of the "official record", not actual proof that the official record is in fact the truth.
The evidence we do have appears to contradict the official record.
Yes, well, SOMEONE with media access needs to ask BARRY hisself why this was published... And was he lying THEN or lying NOW?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It astounds me that apparently no one has ever managed to corner him in a public forum, and asked him this simple question.
In cases of adoption, Hawaii law only allows new BCs to be issued to children born in Hawaii or born in a foreign country.
In both cases the place and date of birth are the actual date and place of birth. They cannot “lie” about those items.
Says who? Hawaii is already weird by issuing Hawaiian birth certificates to children not actually born in Hawaii. I've read numerous articles which assert that in the aftermath of World War II when US citizenship was exceptionally valuable, Hawaii served as a backdoor system of entry into US citizenship for the entire Pacific rim.
The Cold Case posse in Arizona claims to have found several such people but will not release names as a result of an agreement not to do so in exchange for the information.
The fact that Hawaii won't produce a reasonable looking document says more than all of their assertions.
We don't know what to believe of these pronouncements under these circumstances. It is literally a Schrodinger's cat situation.
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.