And you regard that as proof of what?
The problem here is that I know things about how states deal with adoption and you don't. I also know things specific to Hawaii that I think you are unaware of. Or you just don't care about that.
This is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii stating that Obama was born in that state.
And here is the thing I know about Hawaii that you don't. Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people *NOT* born in Hawaii. The only requirement is one of their parents must be a Hawaii resident.
So a piece of paper put out by Hawaii that claims Obama was born in Hawaii is not good evidence at all.
An original, non-fake birth certificate would be reasonable, but because it's Hawaii, that's not even necessarily proof.
I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest it is not authentic.
Then why are you talking about this subject without getting the facts? Have you been hiding under a rock since 2008? The birth certificate Obama released is a ridiculous forgery. There are so many things wrong with it that it is laughable that they thought they should even try that.
Others have attempted to suggest that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery, but not one of those reports ever gained traction.
What does that mean? Do you mean the g*dd@mn media *LIE* machine didn't pick up the story and brainwash all of America with it? Why would they? It goes AGAINST their mission.
Do you know what *DID* gain "traction"? All the f***ing lies they spread about Trump, including the pee pee dossier, "Russian Collusion", and lately "overturning the election and Insurrection!"
So if your standard for believing something is that the nasty, corrupt, media lie machine didn't pick it up and run with it, then you are hopelessly naive about how things really work in this nation, and you are naive about human nature in general.
I've seen the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser, the birth announcement from the Honolulu Star Bulletin, I've read the 2008 statement from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and the 2009 statement from Dr. Fukino. I've seen the letter from Health Director Loretta Fuddy from April 25, 2011. I've seen his U.S. passport. These are all from the state of Hawaii.
Again, it's Hawaii. They have a law that allows them to issue birth certificates to people *NOT BORN THERE.*
You think the birth announcement means anything? As soon as someone files for a birth certificate, those automatically get sent to the newspaper. Madelyn Dunham was still living in Hawaii, and she could have simply filed the paperwork.
Your problem is that Stanley Ann was in Seattle in the latter part of August, and there is no reasonable way for her to get there after his birth. She had to already be in the area.
I am fascinated by the audacity of your posts and your bold assertion that Obama was born in Canada.
I see part of your problem. You don't read well. I never said he was born in Canada. I said the evidence makes it the most likely choice of where he was born.
I have seen not a lick of evidence to support this, just hapless conjecture.
I'm pretty sure you see what you want to see. It's a common human failing, and one which I deal with constantly in discussions on line with people. Your commentary on his fake birth certificate clued me in that you want to believe what you want to believe, and you will simply dismiss any evidence that is not overwhelmingly compelling.
That's why I just had to ask if you found it strange that not one investigator, not one journalist, not one writer, no one, has ever produced any sort of analysis about an Obama birth in Canada.
I actually think Jack Cashill (Author of many books) has written extensively about it, but I didn't expect you to be aware of it because you don't want to look in that direction.
And what sort of evidence do you think anyone could find? Canada won't admit to anything. They will give you the "I can neither confirm nor deny..." routine. Medical records are confidential, Aunt Eleanor is dead, and so is everyone else who might have known the truth, like Madelyn Dunham.
If what you suggest is true, wouldn't someone, by now, have laid it all on the line?
Why would you think it would be so easy? You have a strange way of thinking. You just want to look at everything that happens as confirming what you wish to believe.
Stanley Ann Dunham being in Seattle around August 19th, 1961 is the real hole in the official narrative. You can't explain it either, but you trust the "authorities" to tell you the truth.
Again, you have a different way of viewing the world.
So a piece of paper put out by Hawaii that claims Obama was born in Hawaii is not good evidence at all.
This statement makes no sense at all. Obama's COLB states that he was born in Hawaii. If he were born elsewhere, it would say that. Because Hawaii issues birth certificates to those not born in the state means that the Obama COLB is not authentic? That's just nonsense.
The birth certificate Obama released is a ridiculous forgery. There are so many things wrong with it that it is laughable that they thought they should even try that.
More nonsense. Polarik failed to prove that Obama's COLB was a forgery. No one has published a credible report that Obama's COLB was a forgery. And I'm the one who wants to believe what I want to believe?
... you are hopelessly naive about how things really work in this nation, and you are naive about human nature in general.
This is just a nasty personal attack, which I thought was forbidden here on Free Republic. I can see now why so many other Free Republic posters have a problem with you.
Your problem is that Stanley Ann was in Seattle in the latter part of August, and there is no reasonable way for her to get there after his birth. She had to already be in the area.
Triple nonsense. It would not have been impossible at all for Stanley and the baby to fly from Hawaii to Seattle. Perhaps not advisable, but certainly not impossible. That's your problem, not mine.
I never said he was born in Canada. I said the evidence makes it the most likely choice of where he was born.
Oh for goodness sakes, my apologies. I thought when you stated the evidence suggests he was born in Seattle, that you were stating that he was born in Seattle.
...you will simply dismiss any evidence that is not overwhelmingly compelling.
Yes, that's how it works. It's called substantiation.
You just want to look at everything that happens as confirming what you wish to believe.
Yes, I do.
Boy, you certainly are a nasty poster. Your comments generally make no sense and are only supported by conjecture and nothing more.
Any discussion with you is futile.