Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now, thanks to Informed Consent, we know how the Gov actually saw the baby in Hawaii. The time period limits it to soon after his birth or at least before his first birthday...
Thanks IC for helping strengthening the already unimpeachable facts. You are doing quite fine.
Remember that Stanley Ann showed up in Seattle to start classes there, within weeks after birth? We also know that she brought the baby with her.
Quote:
Shortly after his birth on August 4, 1961, Barack Obama and his mother, 18-year-old Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, move to Seattle and rent an apartment in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. She attends classes at the University of Washington during the 1961-1962 school year while simultaneously raising her infant son. They will remain in Seattle for about a year; later in 1962 they will return to Hawaii.
Now let me also correct you on your understanding of US v WKA.
Question: Have you read the two rulings, the dissenting opinion and the briefs submitted by the appellants and appellees?
I do not want to have you be disadvantaged by not having fully read and understood this case. It's a fascinating one in which the Court explicitly rejected the Vattel hypothesis... Did you know that? Would it surprise you, given the rumors by some to the contrary?
Note that I have no intention in shocking you too much with all these new facts. Take your time. I will be looking forward to your responses.
Last edited by native born citizen; 06-29-2013 at 03:35 PM..
Both images show a hint of the raised seal. Scans typically do not capture the seal very well. Of course the photographs of both documents show the raised seal.
Now what?
Another myth busted? See how fear and hatred can lead to a very unsupportable position?
Which btw is why registers have a black stamp that they can highlight notary seals before scanning an original document. This won't be used on an older document however.
So now, thanks to Informed Consent, we know how the Gov actually saw the baby in Hawaii. The time period limits it to soon after his birth or at least before his first birthday...
Abercrombie claims he saw Obama's parents bring baby Obama to social events.
Quote:
Mr. Abercrombie, 72, said that although he did not see the elder Obamas at the hospital with their newborn son, he did remember the couple bringing the baby to social events.
The myriad inconsistencies in Obama's birth narrative are getting to you.
Really? So far I have seen nothing to support that.
I have shown how for all practical purposes, Obama was raised by his 'single mother' and the father played no role.
Funny how you refuse to look at the hard evidence of President Obama's birth though. But I do understand your position. I will wait until you have had some time digesting the facts.
Quote:
So... clearly we have DIRECT evidence of a Hawaiian state official LYING
You do understand that Obama was raised by a single mother, the father was mostly out of the picture.
No lies, just simple comprehension.
Perhaps you are not too familiar with he early time line of our President? It would lay to rest so many foolish claims. Starting with the one that he was not born on US soil... That's a real funny one as it is so trivial to debunk...
I love to see the effects of confirmation bias in action... Never been so close to someone that desperate.
Abercrombie says exactly nothing about where either of them were living.
Obama's supposed birth certificates list both parents with the same last name. AND Governor Abercrombie specifically states the Senior Obamas attended social events as a couple with baby Obama.
Meanwhile, Obama insists he was born to a single mother...
1) A few Hawaiian state officials are lying for Obama.
2) Obama is lying about being born to a single mother.
He was raised by a single mother, from birth onward.
If you call that lying, well then you have a low standard which I assume you won't mind being applied in reverse as well?
All the evidence continue to support Obama's birth on soil. Now what? Claiming our President lies... What a wonderful response...
I guess no real evidence... I find it hilarious how people focus on these minor inconsistencies which disappear when properly understood, and fail to focus on real evidence that disproves their narratives.
1. When President Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital on Aug 4, 1961, his birth was witnessed by an attending physician named Dr Sinclair.
2. The birth certificate was filed promptly
3. The birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers
4. At the time the mother lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway and
5. At the time the father lived first lived on campus at U of Hawaii; his 1961 address is officially recorded and acknowledged by family and friends as 625 11th Ave.
6. Stanley Ann left Hawaii for Seattle soon thereafter, taking her baby son with her.
Simple facts. Undeniably so.
Last edited by native born citizen; 06-29-2013 at 04:19 PM..
1. When President Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital on Aug 4, 1961, his birth was witnessed by an attending physician named Dr Sinclair.
2. The birth certificate was filed promptly
3. The birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers
4. At the time the mother lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
5. At the time the father lived first lived on campus at U of Hawaii; his 1961 address is officially recorded and acknowledged by family and friends as 625 11th Ave.
6. Stanley Ann left Hawaii for Seattle soon thereafter, taking her baby son with her.
On the contrary, I fully understand what he is saying.
But I also understand that this, what you call a 'lie', is nothing much relevant, in light of the known facts.
Again, why am I arguing facts while the birthers refuse to present much relevant data?
The fact of President Obama's birth has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, his once argued to be fraudulent, highly compressed PDF scan, has found to be the artifact of a scanner in use at the WH, and US v WKA does not support the born to citizen parents theory, all lead to one simple conclusion:
Our president is/was eligible by virtue of his birth on soil.
Nothing else matters... Legally speaking at least... I understand that to those who hate our president, fear and ignorance remain powerful motivators fueling their confirmation bias, which I believe has been quite well documented by some volunteers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and 
