What would it take to appease some of you Birthers? (last birther thread)

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Our country is circling the drain, but the Number 1 topic is a birth certificate. Same Circus side-show, different day.

Hear hear!!!!

Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't say anything about what the name of that hospital was in the same year. The same thread you link to has sources from the hospital stating explicitly that the name of the hospital was changed to what it reads on Obama's "birth certificate," after the date listed on his same "birth certificate"!

How about this 1960 obstetrics and gynecology paper published in 1960. On the first footnote, on the left side of the page, it says “From the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii.”

Maybe you prefer this obstetrics in Hawaii report, from 1955, that uses the exact same name for the hospital on the very first sentence.

Or maybe you prefer this lawsuit from 1936, “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital v. Ernest H. Wodehouse and James P. Robinson.”

Is that good enough for you? Are you going to admit this hospital name nonsense has been debunked now?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by meeneecat

 

Interesting read. What are your viewpoints on the background going straight across even though the page is curved inwards near the spine? I realize that would be possible if it were straight on, but, the length of the background pattern would also shorten up. It doesn't. Could this also be caused by what you described?

I am on the fence as much as anyone...this is the only item that is causing me problems...explain them away.

The hospital used that name at the time so everyone stop bringing that up. McCain had to show his BC so all the people yelling "racism" please shut up. Just respond to the above quote and shut me up too!

reply to post by bsbray11


Look, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, if the most important thing in your universe is a birth certificate, then have at it. Me, I think there are very real actual issues going on, like while you're all distracted hunting down every possible way to discredit the POTUS Michigan is actually being taken over by UN ELECTED officials being appointed by a Republican Governor. This circus act is distracting people from paying attention to true underhanded plots. Why do you think the RNC doesn't actually have a real candidate yet? Answer, they aren't concerned with the puppet in the White House, the current focus is on individual states, the real reason Barbour has dropped out of the running, he's not going to give up his position as Governor or the head of the Republican Governors, that's why the war drum beat is States Rights, that's why there are over 13 states now with abortion laws that are contrary to the federal laws, they have learned where they can gain a true foothold, who paid attention to Scott Walker in WI before he enacted the law? Who was paying attention when the Emergency Financial Manager law was passed in MI? It's a more discreet way to institute their policies, MSM rarely covers bills in individual states so it goes under the radar.

Where I have a problem is that all the while this is going on there are a number of great minds with some pretty impressive investigative skills here wasting their time over a birth certificate, all the while Corsi is laughin all the way to the bank, as I said in a previous post, even if it is fake and he is illegitimate by the time we got around to hearings it wouldn't f'n matter anymore anyway, new guy could have been elected and the people that might have supported a different choice will have no choice but to vote for the devil you know or the devil you don't, in those instances, the devil you know usually wins, that would be Obama, so if your true purpose is to get rid of the guy then focus on the issues and don't be too distracted by the carnival.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by j2000

 

You start a thread that is nothing but politcal trolling at the very least and then get upset when people respond to this?

You, my friend, have clearly not read one word Iv'e written.

I have not uttered one word about dems or reps, as I am neither

I have stated time and again that I believe this is all a false lead to keep the oligarch system hidden and take heat off of the illegal things Obama is doing.

Can you quote my political trolling? go ahead, try to find it. Next time you accuse me, back it up with something will ya?

IN FACT, HERE IS A QUOTE FROM MYSELF, pg 11

by even saying "Obama's failures" you are already headed away from the true issues.

You are inviting partisan trolling, and I refuse to be a part of it.

The mods have been monitoring this thread, and reading everything. I raise very good points, but people such as yourself keep attempting to derail this thread.

Do you believe Obama was born in this country?

That question is relevant.

Not questions about me, not questions about you, not questions about anything else.

What is your stance on the birther issue?

Yes. Using the term birther to anyone that does not drink Obama kool-aid.
Calling, them Racisist is really bad form.....

Originally posted by Skerrako
Yes I did post this thread, with a very valid question. Trying to figure out why many look away from the mountain of evidence that points to the President being born here. I argue to the birthers to refute the facts, which they cannot do.

I guess it slipped your mind that this same birth certificate is the "mountain of evidence that points to the President (sic) being born here," and this is the problem. It's hardly a "mountain" when criminals on the street can produce more convincing fake forms than this, and many people make money doing just that.

Originally posted by aptness
Is that good enough for you? Are you going to admit this hospital name nonsense has been debunked now?

Sure, I can admit that now I suppose.


I still have not seen the PDF layering issue resolving from the White House PDF file. That was obviously not produced with a simple scan. This whole issue surrounding Obama still stinks to me, and the fact remains that it is not that hard for criminals to fake these documents. It happens all the time. The CIA and FBI do it professionally to create aliases for foreign spies, you know.

Originally posted by Hijaqd
Look, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, if the most important thing in your universe is a birth certificate, then have at it. Me, I think there are very real actual issues going on

There is nothing I have posted here that should lead you to believe this is "the most important thing in (my) universe."

Going by that logic you could say any thread I post on indicates the most important thing in my universe, which obviously cannot be true given the common definition of the word "most."


I know there are much larger issues. Even without worrying about Michigan and all of that, we are in so many illegal wars, financial scandals, false flag operations, you name it.

But if I'm going to complain about any of it, I might as well complain about any form of corruption I see. And I think this is a very legitimate issue for a number of reasons. Not the most important, but still perfectly legitimate.

reply to post by bsbray11


its hilarious watching your posts. Quick edit on that one from" the evidence is right in front of you" to "sure, i can admit that i suppose"


next you will blame obama for you not checking your facts. Then you'll accuse the whitehouse of orchestrating this whole birther thing to gain political points and discredit republicans. ( even though they've denied it from the start). Then what? maybe follow that loon trump and ask for school records?

these birthers just make themselves look petty & spitefull

reply to post by bsbray11

I guess it slipped your mind that this same birth certificate is the "mountain of evidence that points to the President (sic) being born here," and this is the problem. It's hardly a "mountain" when criminals on the street can produce more convincing fake forms than this, and many people make money doing just that.

Yeah.......that's not the evidence I am talking about. How about:

-The governor of Hawaii saw Obama when he was a week old, as he was friends with Obama's mother
-His birth was in a newspaper, that got the information directly from the hospital
-Obama's father was studying at the university of Hawaii on a student visa when Obama was born
-The Federal election committee verified his U.S. birth
-The Hawaii court of appeals verified his U.S. birth
-The U.S. supreme court has upheld his U.S. birth

And what is birther evidence?
-a birth certificate they didn't like
and
- another birth certificate they don't like

Originally posted by Skerrako
Yeah.......that's not the evidence I am talking about. How about:

-The governor of Hawaii saw Obama when he was a week old, as he was friends with Obama's mother

I have friends that would lie on my behalf too, and they're not even politicians.

In a court of law witness testimonies like this are often overturned. Also remember, "I did not have sex with that woman." "Iraq has WMDs, North South East and West somewhat of Baghdad." etc. etc. etc. I guess because a governor says something, it's automatically true?

-His birth was in a newspaper, that got the information directly from the hospital

I have seen this, and there is contention as to why it was in the newspaper and who paid for it. It also came several days after Obama's alleged birth date. I wonder if it's standard procedure to publish all baby births in the newspaper.

-Obama's father was studying at the university of Hawaii on a student visa when Obama was born

I wonder what source this is originally based on. And it doesn't mean anything about where Obama himself was born.

-The Federal election committee verified his U.S. birth
-The Hawaii court of appeals verified his U.S. birth
-The U.S. supreme court has upheld his U.S. birth

And if I took everything the government says for granted, I would not be a member of ATS.

And what is birther evidence?
-a birth certificate they didn't like
and
- another birth certificate they don't like

There is a lot more to the story than that, but I'm sure you already realize this and are just panning for drama.

But the scam goes much deeper. Reviewing only the admissions of Barack Obama, we are told that Obama was born to U.S. citizen Stanley Ann Dunham, legally adopted by a foreign national named Lolo Soetoro, had taken the name Barry SOETORO, and was given Indonesian citizenship. He was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia, and attended a school there that accepted all faiths. At one point, Barry SOETORO moved to Hawaii to reside with his grandparents after Lolo SOETORO and Stanley Ann DUNHAM divorced. Obama completed high school as Barry SOETORO Much is missing from his early years, including a legal name change from Barry SOETORO to Barack Hussein Obama II. Absent of any document to show the legal process of a name change within the U.S., it is likely that the man sitting in the Oval Office is, in fact, Barry SOETORO.

www.canadafreepress.com...

That's just a start.

If you really wanted the whole story you would not be marginalizing all the literature to 2 points, both revolving around birth certificates which the CIA and FBI are known to professionally fake for foreign spies and etc.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have seen this, and there is contention as to why it was in the newspaper and who paid for it.

No one. The announcements came directly from the Department of Health.

“Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, [Health Department spokeswoman Janice] Okubo said.” [Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists]

In this CNN piece, starting at the 05:50 mark, a long-time newspaper employee confirms the same thing — the announcements came directly from the Department of Health, called the Health Bureau at the time.

If you look at the announcement on the newspaper, it is in a section titled “Health Bureau Statistics.” Are you honestly asking us to believe the newspaper would publish announcements from the public under the banner of statistics from the Health Department?

And if I took everything the government says for granted, I would not be a member of ATS

There’s a big difference between taking everything for granted and rejecting facts.

Originally posted by aptness
Are you honestly asking us to believe the newspaper would publish announcements from the public under the banner of statistics from the Health Department?

I'm not asking you to believe anything. There is just a lot I would have to personally take for granted to close the whole issue on that alone, when I know virtually nothing about that newspaper or their policy of publishing every child birth, or even what child or "Mrs. Barack H. Obama" they are referring to. Though I appreciate the sources you have provided, except CNN I guess.

The Honolulu Advertiser only says that a "son" was born to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama," which still leaves a lot of room considering that he was raised by a woman named Ann Dunham and a man named Lolo Soetoro. I also find it interesting that his alleged parents are said to have met through a Russian language class, during the height of the Cold War, though that may or may not be of relevance. What kind of people would be interested in learning Russian during the Cold War? For one, the same group of people who are also very good at forging identities and inventing people on paper.

And if I took everything the government says for granted, I would not be a member of ATS

There’s a big difference between taking everything for granted and rejecting facts.

There is nothing that says "if the government tells you something, then it's automatically a fact." In reference to the three government sources you listed, how would you know if they were lying? You'd have no better idea of it than I do.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is just a lot I would have to personally take for granted to close the whole issue on that alone

Wasn’t there a lot that you took for granted in regards to the eligibility of McCain, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and so on?

Actually, unless you saw their birth certificates, and Department of Health or other government officials vouched for those certificates, as they have in Obama’s case, you took everything for granted in regards to those candidates and Presidents as eligibility is concerned.

Why didn’t those cases bother you?

when I know virtually nothing about that newspaper or their policy of publishing every child birth

Why didn’t you look into that then? I mean, you raised the suspicion that those announcements were sent by the public, but you’re admitting you didn’t even check what the newspaper’s policy was.

Doesn’t sound like what someone who is truly interested in the answers should do.

There is nothing that says "if the government tells you something, then it's automatically a fact."

I’m not asking you to accept whatever the government tells you is a fact, but searching for the answers means not rejecting information because it conflicts with your beliefs or simply because it comes from the government.

The Honolulu Advertiser only says that a "son" was born to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama," which still leaves a lot of room considering that he was raised by a woman named Ann Dunham and a man named Lolo Soetoro.

Yes, he was raised by “a woman named Ann Dunham,” also known as his mother.

I’m honestly baffled by your reluctance to even accept that a birth announcement in two Hawaiian newspapers on August 1961 of a son of a “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” is talking about Barack Obama. But, at least, this position of yours tells me I’m probably wasting my time debating this subject with you.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is just a lot I would have to personally take for granted to close the whole issue on that alone

Wasn’t there a lot that you took for granted in regards to the eligibility of McCain, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and so on?

Yes, that's true. McCain was born at the Panama Canal, so he could have technically been born off base and I wouldn't have known any better, especially without knowing or talking to anyone in the area. Would you?

Actually, unless you saw their birth certificates, and Department of Health or other government officials vouched for those certificates, as they have in Obama’s case, you took everything for granted in regards to those candidates and Presidents as eligibility is concerned.

Actually I would not automatically believe anything the DoH said about any politician, especially on controversial issues.

Why didn’t those cases bother you?

None of this "bothers" me. If your leaders are lying to you, that's par for the course considering the last several hundred years of history, is it not?

when I know virtually nothing about that newspaper or their policy of publishing every child birth

Why didn’t you look into that then? I mean, you raised the suspicion that those announcements were sent by the public, but you’re admitting you didn’t even check what the newspaper’s policy was.

Doesn’t sound like what someone who is truly interested in the answers should do.

Frankly I don't expect to get to the bottom of the issue from online searches, unless I'm looking at spending days on end doing research, and even then I might not get to the bottom of it. The fact remains that if the FBI or CIA really wanted to invent a person on paper, they do it all the time for spies. Anyone with enough money could do it. I could find you people to do it for you, for enough money. And you would not be able to tell the difference, or at least not very easily.

There is nothing that says "if the government tells you something, then it's automatically a fact."

I’m not asking you to accept whatever the government tells you is a fact, but searching for the answers means not rejecting information because it conflicts with your beliefs or simply because it comes from the government.

I said nothing about "rejecting" the information.

The Honolulu Advertiser only says that a "son" was born to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama," which still leaves a lot of room considering that he was raised by a woman named Ann Dunham and a man named Lolo Soetoro.

Yes, he was raised by “a woman named Ann Dunham,” also known as his mother.

But the paper doesn't list a Mrs. Ann Dunham as his mother, it lists "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." Nor does it have anything to do with the two people who raised him even according to Obama himself, neither of which used the surname "Obama." Maybe she still had her different name, and they just called her "Mrs. Barack H. Obama" out of convenience and to save space. Maybe "Mrs. Barack H. Obama" actually had the surname "Obama" at the time, or maybe it was a different woman entirely from Mrs. Dunham. And maybe the "son" they mention was a completely different person from a Barry Soetoro. From the two short newspaper listings, any of those things could be possibilities. This is why you can't jump from those listings, to claiming that it is a fact that the current POTUS was therefore definitively born in the US. It's not evidence to the contrary, either, but it doesn't have to be, for what I just mentioned to still be a jump in reasoning and therefore a fallacy.

I’m honestly baffled by your reluctance to even accept that a birth announcement in two Hawaiian newspapers on August 1961 of a son of a “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” is talking about Barack Obama. But, at least, this position of yours tells me I’m probably wasting my time debating this subject with you.

Yes, you are, because this is not an issue you are going to ever resolve with endless petty bickering on an internet forum.

The fact is this is still an open question that may never be answered, though if you would like to pretend you have proof or some other reason to continue in your faith, you are more than welcome.

Originally posted by bsbray11
But the paper doesn't list a Mrs. Ann Dunham as his mother, it lists "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama."

I can’t believe you’re actually struggling with this. Did you happen to look at the other birth announcements? Didn’t you notice they all follow the same pattern? Did you see the name of the mother in any of them?

Really, it’s not that difficult to understand why it says “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama,” but I guess some people simply don’t want to understand.

Nor does it have anything to do with the two people who raised him even according to Obama himself, neither of which used the surname "Obama." ... And maybe the "son" they mention was a completely different person from a Barry Soetoro.

What does Soetoro even have to do with Obama’s birth in 1961? Soetoro wasn’t even in Hawaii in 1961! And, IIRC, Obama’s mother and Soetoro only met in 1964.

I thought some of your positions were due to lack of information, but clearly, that’s not the case at all. You don’t even think, something as obvious as the birth announcement referring to Barack Obama, is legitimate.

AP 2004 article - "Kenyan-born Obama all set for senate"

See for yourself..

Source

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by bsbray11
But the paper doesn't list a Mrs. Ann Dunham as his mother, it lists "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama."

I can’t believe you’re actually struggling with this. Did you happen to look at the other birth announcements? Didn’t you notice they all follow the same pattern? Did you see the name of the mother in any of them?

You seem to be the one who is struggling. I clearly said they may have just been doing this to save space, and that's fine. However that still leaves you with all of the other possibilities I also mentioned above.

Really, it’s not that difficult to understand why it says “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama,” but I guess some people simply don’t want to understand.

On the contrary, you seem to want to construe this to automatically mean more than it actually says. I take it at face value.

What does Soetoro even have to do with Obama’s birth in 1961?

If Barry Soetoro was his birth name rather than the name he simply adopted when he "moved" to Indonesia, then it would obviously have a lot to do with this man's birth. That is the whole issue, and like I said, you are not going to resolve it, either with those short newspaper blurbs, or with endless bickering with me.

Soetoro wasn’t even in Hawaii in 1961!

Maybe so, and maybe he was in Indonesia with his son Barry the whole time, but what you are saying is according to who? CNN, Fox, and the government?

The only claim I'm making here, is to be no authority to speak on all of these assumptions that you keep throwing around as if you were there personally shaking the baby's hand and kissing his mother on the cheek. There are some things that we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. This is not one of those things. Are you able to understand that, or not? It really is an issue of having faith, and since I don't have that faith, I must be agnostic and so this is still an open issue to me.

And, IIRC, Obama’s mother and Soetoro only met in 1964.

Okay, and since you know this as an absolute fact, can you remember what Mrs. Dunham was wearing?

I thought some of your positions were due to lack of information, but clearly, that’s not the case at all.

What is clear to you is mud to people who are more careful in their reasoning.

reply to post by EternalThought


Interesting, but that has been disputed here, plus in the infowars piece they state

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office.

But that's not in the article at all.

reply to post by Hijaqd


That's interesting. I hadn't heard that one before.

Here's another source about it:

www.thepostemail.com...

WITNESS COMES FORWARD, HISTORY OF INTERNET “RUMOUR” DOCUMENTED

UPDATE: Oct. 21, 2009 — Second Witness Comes forward, gives testimony to The Post & Email

by John Charlton

(October 15, 2009) — It was a moment little noticed and soon forgotten; the import of it was not at that time understood; but the evidence that it did in fact occur is compelling. It occurred during the Obama vs. Alan Keyes debate shoot, when the actual video tape was being recorded by ABC’s Chicago Affiliate in the Fall of 2004. It was never aired in Chicago, because the affiliate only aired the final cut; the raw footage was, as far as The Post & Email knows, aired only twice by C-Span in April and May of 2005.

The content of the short exchange has become legendary. In a quick jab Keyes asserted definitively that Obama was not a natural born citizen, and Obama, manifestly caught off guard, conceded the fact.

This article will first, document the evidence still on the net regarding those individuals who claim to have witnessed the C-Span rebroadcast, and then will publish an email from one such witness, who is willing to swear an affidavit to the effect. Other witnesses, who wish to contact The Post & Email can do so, so that their testimony on these facts can be published also.

Originally posted by aptness
Actually, unless you saw their birth certificates, and Department of Health or other government officials vouched for those certificates, as they have in Obama’s case, you took everything for granted in regards to those candidates and Presidents as eligibility is concerned.

Why didn’t those cases bother you?

The point you are making is a good one. Mr McCain's eligbility should have been questioned and verified.

OH what is that It was

Appears Mr Obama was part of the senate commitee to prove Mr McCain met the requirements of Natural Born citizen. born on American soil to American Parents.
But Mr Obama failed to come clean and admit he failed the very same standard he had set for Mr McCain.

So what is it Americans hold dear? because it obviously isn't anything to do with your founding Fathers.