Wrong, the data is there at your disposal.<quoted text>
If you were able, you could do the same analysis and the conclusion would be the same.
That's the beauty of testable and repeatable results found by scientific inquiry.
#128951 Nov 20, 2012
Wrong, the data is there at your disposal.
If you were able, you could do the same analysis and the conclusion would be the same.
That's the beauty of testable and repeatable results found by scientific inquiry.
#128952 Nov 20, 2012
And looky, "Can't Learn To Read" is still a loser. yada yada yada GFY CLTR!
#128953 Nov 20, 2012
In addition, Starfelt said she "talked" to Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser. She learned that in 1961, hospitals would take their birth records to Vital Records, which would post a sheet at the end of the week for the Honolulu Advertiser to pick up. The Advertiser would then "routinely" print this information in their Sunday edition.
Starfelt calculated that since Obama was born on Friday, August 4, 1961, and since hospitals didn't take birth certificate information for the first few days after a birth, Obama's birth records would then be taken to Vital Records on the following Friday (August 11, 1961). Hence, Obama's birth announcement appeared in the 8/13 Honolulu Sunday Advertiser.
In fact, however, a ten-day sample of birth lists from the August 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, collected by blogger "Ladyforest," shows that births were posted not just on Sunday, but throughout the week.
8/8 Tuesday - 50 births
8/9 Wednesday - 76 births
8/10 Thursday - 82 births
8/11 Friday - 0 births
8/12 Saturday - 0 births
8/13 Sunday - 25 births - Obama's birth announcement
8/14 Monday - 49 births
8/15 Tuesday - 0 (?) births
8/16 Wednesday - 67 births
8/17 Thursday - 203 births
Starfelt's credibility, and thus the credibility of the Advertiser birth announcement, immediately comes into question. Did Starfelt make up the story about births being posted at the end of the week by the Advertiser, or was she misinformed by the Advertiser, the Hawaii Department of Vital Records, or both? There is another confusing detail. The Nordyke twins were born on Saturday, August 5, 1961, in the same hospital Obama was reported to be born in, but their birth announcement appears in the Wednesday, August 16 Advertiser.
Starfelt unfortunately passed away on March 16, 2011, just when the Donald Trump/birth certificate debate was beginning to heat up. Starfelt's memorial service was held in May 2011 at The Unitarian Universalist Church in Studio City, California. Coincidently, Obama's grandparents, Madeline and Stanley Dunham, were members of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Seattle and Madeline Payne-Dunham's memorial service was held in 2008 at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Hawaii.
At about the same time as Starfelt's July 2008 posting, a blogger named "Infidel Granny" posted the same birth announcement image on an AtlasShrugs blog. Infidel Granny claimed to have received her copy in an e-mail from the same nameless research librarian who helped Starfelt from the Hawaii State Library. Infidel Granny briefly resurfaced in 2009 in an AtlasShrugs blog, where she opined, "I sure hope you don't think I had anything to do with a forgery."
The origin of the second birth announcement is even more murky. The best evidence (hat tip: Butterdezillion) is that sometime around August 13, 2008, a Honolulu resident named "Koa" posted the August 14, 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulletin birth announcement on TexasDarlin apparently after she found it herself in the Hawaii State Library. The first twenty-five births in the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin announcements match exactly in the same order as the twenty-five births from the August 13 Advertiser.
Were identical birth lists between the two papers common? Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo confirmed, in fact, that both 1961 newspapers received vital statistics from the Health Department, who in turn had received its "information directly from hospitals."
#128954 Nov 20, 2012
My bad. YOU forgot to add "Rogue tm reg'd".
#128955 Nov 20, 2012
A ten-day sample collected from blogger "Ladyforest" from the August 1961 Honolulu Star-Bulletin shows births posted with no apparent connection to the ten-day sample from August 1961 Honolulu Advertiser shown above. Hence, spokeswoman Okubo is discredited.
8/8 Tuesday - 56 births
8/9 Wednesday - 4 births
8/10 Thursday - 0 births
8/11 Friday - 0 births
8/12 Saturday - 17 births
8/13 Sunday - 21 births
8/14 Monday - 58 births - Obama's birth announcement
8/15 Tuesday - 0(?) births
8/16 Wednesday - 18 births
8/17 Thursday - 129 births
The Honolulu Advertiser added that "birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn's name, weight and time of birth."
Where "elsewhere" is located is a mystery. No samples collected of the August 1961 newspapers show the newborn's name, weight, or time of birth.
PolitiFact's Robert Farley added that a reporter named Will Hoover checked with newspaper officials and "confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health," with Hoover explaining, "That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says,'Hey, can you put this in?'" Farley then pondered, "Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers -- on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."
Just how independent were the two newspapers? On June 1, 1962, less than a year after Obama's birth, joint operations began between the two newspapers under a company called the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, and then, after occupying the same building for almost fifty years, on June 6, 2010, both newspapers merged into one newspaper called the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Farley should take a second and question the "complicity" of the Hawaii Health Department and two vaguely independent newspapers to "phony up" August 1961 microfilms in the summer of 2008.
Samples from the two, at the time, "independent" Hawaii newspapers in August 1961 show that most births announcements fell in an eight-day range about a week behind the date of the papers publication. For example, the Monday, August 7 Honolulu Star-Bulletin births range from July 24 to July 31, August 14 Star-Bulletin births range from July 31 to August 7, and August 16 Advertiser births range from August 3 to 10.
All seventy-four births from the August 13 and 14 Honolulu Advertiser can be found in the seventy-five births from the August 12 and 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and vice versa, in an unbelievably confusing and mishmash manner. For no apparent reason, the identical birth lists were broken up into smaller blocks ranging from two to twenty-five names, and then these smaller blocks of names were randomly jumbled together with the birth names within the smaller blocks, without exception, remaining in the same order:
1. The August 13 Honolulu Advertiser contains 25 births (#22 Obama) matching exactly in order the first 25 births (out of 58) in the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
2. The August 14 Honolulu Advertiser contains 49 births, which can be separated into seven blocks found in the August 12 and August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin:
(1) 1-19 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 3 (35-54)
(2) 20-21 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 4 (16-17)
(3) 22-26 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 3 (11-15)
(4) 27-29 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 1 (1-3)
(5) 30-33 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 4 (55-58)
(6) 34-42 match August 14 Star-Bulletin # 2 (26-34)
(7) 43-49 match August 12 Star-Bulletin # 2 (4-10)
#128956 Nov 20, 2012
3. Conversely, the August 12 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains seventeen births which can be separated into four blocks found in the August 14 Advertiser:
(1) 1-3 match August 14 Advertiser # 4 (27-29)
(2) 4-10 match August 14 Advertiser # 7 (43-49)
(3) 11-15 match August 14 Advertiser # 3 (22-26)
(4) 16-17 match August 14 Advertiser # 2 (20-21)
4. The August 13 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains twenty-one births with no matches to either the August 13 or August 14 Honolulu Advertiser and, curiously, no birth dates after July 31. At least three of the birth announcements can be found in the August 17 Honolulu Advertiser.
5. The August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains 58 births (#22 Obama) which can be separated into 4 blocks found in the August 13 and 14 Advertiser:
(1) 1-25 match August 13 Advertiser # 1 (1-25)
(2) 26-34 match August 14 Advertiser # 6 (34-42)
(3) 35-53 match August 14 Advertiser # 1 (1-19)
(4) 54-58 match August 14 Advertiser # 5 (30-33)
A few questions need to be asked. Why were blocks of identical names between the two newspapers jumbled together in a hodgepodge manner when identical birth lists were given to the newspapers by Hawaii Vital Records? Did someone from the Hawaii Newspaper Agency in the summer of 2008 intentionally cut and paste blocks in a random fashion in order to sow confusion into "phonied up" August 12, 13, 14, 1961 microfilms?
In the August 14 Advertiser (#22 Obama), birth announcements #56 and #57 repeat for "Mr. and Mrs. Robert K. Kamalu Jr., 3427-A McCorriston Street, son. August 6."
A few more questions need to be asked. Why is there a repeating birth announcement? Why does the birth announcement repeat in only one of the birth lists when, once again, identical birth lists were given to the newspapers by Hawaii Vital Records?
As noted, the twenty-five births from the August 13 Advertiser match exactly in the same order the first twenty-five births of the August 14 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
#128957 Nov 20, 2012
Now that you've uttered another platitude, and even if I were from Antartica, "you'd be turned down as landfill" would still ring true.. Come back when you have an intelligent response.
#128958 Nov 20, 2012
In the August 13 Advertiser, the announcements seem to be listed randomly until the thirteenth posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Edward Walker, daughter, Aug 7." From there, the births clump together in descending order by date of birth, all August: 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4. The pattern continues through the twenty-second posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, son, Aug 4" -- and ends with the twenty-fifth and final listing, "Mr. and Mrs. Harry Wong, son, Aug 4."
The August 14 Star-Bulletin (#22 Obama) birth list likewise begins randomly with the descending pattern starting with the thirteenth posting -- "Mr. and Mrs. Edward Walker, daughter, Aug 7" -- but then runs longer to the thirty-fourth posting, "Mr. and Mr. Raymond, son born on Aug 3" -- i.e., August 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3. After #34, the births appear to be randomly listed with a tendency to sometimes be clumped together by date of birth.
Even more questions need to be asked. Why does a descending pattern suddenly appear in a birth list otherwise randomly ordered in both papers? Why does the same descending pattern found in the August 13 Advertiser birth list run from entry #13 to entry # 25 and then from #13 to #34 (out of 58) in the August 14 Star-Bulletin birth list? What are the odds that an orderly descending pattern involving twenty-two names would naturally emerge in an otherwise random list?
Assuming an eight-day range (August 1-8) and a pattern beginning on August 7, the only two dates which continue a descending pattern are 7 and 6. The chances that a 7 or 6 would be picked from the dates (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) is 2/8, or 1/4. If a 6 was picked, then the chances that a 6 or 5 would be picked, continuing the descending pattern, are 2/8, or 1/4, and so on. The odds, then, that a continuous pattern starting on August 7 would run for twelve more dates is (1/4)^12 = 1 in 16,777,216. The odds the pattern would run for another nine dates (for a total of twenty-one) in the second birth announcement is (1/4)^12 x (1/4)^9 =(1/4)^21 = 1 in 4,400,000,000,000.
A comparison of the August 1961 Sunday Advertiser and the corresponding next Monday's Advertiser and Star-Bulletin (i.e., August 6 and 7, August 20 and 21, August 27 and 28) would show if it was a normal occurrence for birth lists (1) to incorporate a jumbled mishmash of blocks of identical names,(2) to contain repeating names, and (3) to contain orderly descending patterns.
A partial list of thirty-nine births from the Monday August 7 Star-Bulletin microfilm contains no repeating names and no continuous descending patterns longer than two births.
Despite the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the two newspaper birth announcements, FOX news anchor Bill O'Reilly stated that although he is "very busy," he has in fact himself "looked into the birth certificate" and "found out there were two separate birth announcements made in Honolulu newspapers on the day Barack Obama was born." Huh?
O'Reilly then estimated off the top of his head the "odds" that someone was "conspiritorializing " the birth of a "little mixed-race baby" and "planted" two newspaper birth announcements in 1961 are about "29 gazillion to one." Someday, when O'Reilly isn't too busy, he might try calculating the odds that, during the summer of 2008, a fake birth certificate was planted on a Saul Alinsky-inspired website, and two fake 1961 newspaper birth announcements were planted on the web by a complicit Hawaii Health Department, two "independent" newspapers, two anonymous bloggers, and by an unknown filmmaker who believed that more Americans were killed in the 1990s by right-wing terrorists than by foreign terrorists.
#128959 Nov 20, 2012
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011
The 50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America
The 50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America
By Chris Field
On Nov. 2, Americans sent a message to the liberals in Washington: Stop it!
After less than two years of watching a far-Left administration and Congress show their contempt for the citizenry and pursue a radical agenda that only hyper-liberal-progressive voters could support, the nation woke up and realized the disaster highlighted by the 2008 election of Barack Obama: Liberals had been given way too much power.
Americans have witnessed with disgust the progressives' efforts to tear at the very fabric of America.
We don't want to "radically transform" the country.
We don't want to reject our founding principles of liberty and limited government.
We love our Constitution and respect it.
The midterms were a rejection of the Left. But that's where we must be careful -- like a wounded animal, liberals are dangerous when exposed and backed into a corner.
The Townhall editorial staff saw the threat radical liberals are to our country and compiled a list of those who pose the greatest danger to the future of the republic. The toughest part was limiting the list to 50, but we did it. We had two requirements: 1) They had to be living, which is one reason Saul Alinsky didn't make the list; and 2) they had to be based in America, thus no Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame.
One thing subscribers have quickly noted: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton made the list. Tells you something about the people who did, doesn't it?
#128960 Nov 20, 2012
Ahhh, the all-male sex game. How obsessed you and your birther ilk have become. Every time you are bested, and that is daily, you come back with vulgarisms, profanity, and lately, more and more, with homosexual secret passions. Well, forget it, "Just sayin", and I'm sorry, but I must reject your gay "come-on" for two reasons, to wit, 1) I'm not gay and 2) if I were, I would be twice as repulsed, no chance, no way, forget it, close that closet door, ugh.
#128961 Nov 20, 2012
You wrote : "Let me fill you in on a little secret. He don't suck back on old wannabe guys." I have to assume you're speaking from personal experience with younger guys. They'd have to be blind and on life support.
#128962 Nov 20, 2012
Excuse me, "the data are there." ^
#128963 Nov 20, 2012
#1 GEORGE SOROS
Businessman and Billionaire Liberal Financier; Founder and Chairman of Open Society Foundations.
George Soros, the main “money bags” of the Left who is responsible for taking down entire economies on his own by betting against weak currencies, has a disturbing personal history. He grew up in a Jewish, yet anti-Semitic, home in Hungary during the Nazi occupation of Europe and calls it the happiest time of his life.
Soros, now an atheist, is a naturalized U.S, citizen with an estimated net worth of more than $14 billion, according to Forbes, making him one of the wealthiest men in the world. He has made his billions by collapsing currencies, ruining lives and crushing economies, all while portraying himself as the god of a new world order.
Soros is responsible for the collapse of four currencies in Britain, Russia, Thailand, and Malaysia. He is known as the man who “broke the Bank of England” and has called an economic war criminal by the Thailand prime minister. When Soros collapsed the British sterling in 1993, he raked in $1 billion through a single transaction while destroying investments and draining savings of millions of hard-working British citizens. After collapsing the Russian ruble, Soros called the former Russian empire the “Soros Empire,” and now, he appears set on collapsing the dollar. With the U.S. government flooding the market with trillions in new money, the dollar is in a particularly vulnerable position. He has been successful in betting against currencies in the past, resulting in economic chaos, which is all part of his open society agenda for the world.
If Soros is successful in manipulating that agenda, we could see a new world order with countries like China controlling much of the globe’s economic and financial decisions.
Soros believes in open borders, doing away with nationalities, legalized drugs and is highly dissatisfied with the dominant position of the United States in the global economy. Soros has said the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States and that his open society is endangered by the current government system in America. He has focused his attention on bringing a steady decline to the dollar in order to burst what he calls the “bubble of American supremacy.”
Soros has been able to mask his progressive agenda for years by portraying his donations as “humanitarian aid,” while funneling hundreds of millions of dollars through his Open Society Foundations and the Tides Foundation to far-Left groups, including Democracy Alliance, MoveOn.org , the Center for American Progress, La Raza and Media Matters.
George Soros is the man behind the curtain. To read more information about this blatant psychopath, click here.
#128964 Nov 20, 2012
#2 ERIC HOLDER
Attorney General of the United States
Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to acknowledge the United States is at war with radical Islam and seems more concerned about giving terrorists constitutional protections rather than protecting the rights of American citizens. Holder believes that “the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.” The most dangerous failure of Holder to date came with the recent acquittal of terrorist and Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani.
Ghailani was acquitted of more than 280 counts after openly admitting – twice – to bombing the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and wounding thousands more. Ghailani was convicted in Federal District Court in Manhattan by a jury on just one count, conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. Holder’s law enforcement approach to prosecuting terrorists, essentially giving them the same constitutional rights as American citizens, has failed in the Ghailani case and will fail in the future. Holder’s continuing push to hold trials for enemy combatants and terrorists in civilian court after declaring Justice Department satisfaction with the Ghailani verdict is disturbing and dangerous for the security of America.
#128965 Nov 20, 2012
You already sued me once. Gonna do it again? Oh, oops, that's right, you bluffed and lied that you would. No cork could hold back the amount of bullsh*t that you spew out on this thread and among your friends if you had any or your family if they hadn't gotten the hell outa there.
#128966 Nov 20, 2012
#3 BARACK OBAMA
President of the United States
"Organizer in Chief," "Radical in Chief," "Commander in Chief " -- all titles given Barack Obama by the American people. In light of the first two, the third is probably the most frightening.
Tomes have been written of the progressive ideology of the president -- and tomes more are yet to be published -- but it's not simply the ideology that makes this man so dangerous. If he hadn't been successfully groomed to be president, he wouldn't even be a blip on our radar -- the community organizer and agitator who was friends with some shady characters in Chicago might have had some national impact eventually, but he would never have had the power of, say, a George Soros, John Podesta, Cass Sunstein or Andy Stern.
No, what makes Barack Obama dangerous is that he surrounds himself with crazy (and very dangerous) people who have his ear and have been placed in positions of power, thanks to the president's ability to nominate federal judges (most importantly Supreme Court justices), appoint unaccountable czars and fill the Cabinet with radicals. Add on top of that his ability to negotiate treaties, conduct diplomacy, make back-room deals and implement harmful regulations, and you have a truly dangerous liberal.
To read more about the plans of this extreme radical, click here.
Next read this one.
#128968 Nov 20, 2012
Careful there CMor. ToolTime and his paintball buddies may come gunning for you
#128969 Nov 20, 2012
#4 CASS SUNSTEIN
White House Regulation Czar
Cass Sunstein is Obama's regulation czar, affectionately known to conservatives as the "nudge" czar. As the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ("the cockpit for the modern administrative state"), Sunstein oversees federal regulations at other agencies. According to the Washington Post's WhoRunsGov.com , his position has become more powerful under President Obama.
His theory, "libertarian paternalism," is light on libertarianism and heavy on paternalism and essentially means incentivizing the masses to do what he deems is best for them. What does this entail? A default to organ donation, First Amendment "reform" (read: Fairness Doctrine), celebrating taxes and giving animals rights.
In 2008, Sunstein wrote an article proposing that covert government agents infiltrate activist organizations that "conspire" to undermine its good deeds. These agents would be charged with infiltrating "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups," trying to look independent and credible while augmenting the pro-government message. The purpose of this exercise would be to undermine the activists and restore faith in the government. What do you think he wants to do to the tea party?
This is the man who oversees financial, health care, housing, environmental and privacy policies, to name a few.
#128970 Nov 20, 2012
They really tried that 4 years ago? I didn't know. Tried it despite the fact that Obama had no record yet as president and therefore impossible to criticize? Does this not prove that it is in fact a racist thing? That to have that black man in the WHITE House is intolerable, unless he's a janitor or a waiter? I never would've believed it. What crass.
#128971 Nov 20, 2012
#5 CECILE RICHARDS
President of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Cecile Richards directs the largest abortion provider in the country: Planned Parenthood of America. Her taxpayer-funded organization has been exposed for being on the wrong side of the law countless times through undercover investigations by pro-life activist Lila Rose and her organization Live Action. Richards joined Planned Parenthood in 2006, and a recent Government Accountability Office report showed Planned Parenthood performed 306,310 abortions the following year while spending $97.6 million of federal funds. A National Right to Life fact sheet reports Richards’ organization made upwards of $1 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ending in June 2008. Richards herself makes about $400,000 annually (including compensation and benefits) according to LifeNews.com .
Richards also worked to influence the laws and regulations you live under. Planned Parenthood’s website lauds her “yearlong, tireless leadership” on the 2010 health care legislation Congress passed, and Americans didn’t want, with polling showing a majority of Americans were against taxpayer-funded abortions.
Richards least disgusting accomplishment may be outshining her former boss on this list of dangerous liberals – Richards previously served as Nancy Pelosi’s deputy chief-of-staff and “played a key role in her election as the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives,” according to the Planned Parenthood website. So she is a leading baby-killer.
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||3 min||woodtick57||1,206,609|
|Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10)||5 min||Graham Cracker||51,864|
|Abby 3-28-15||7 min||boundary painter||3|
|Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09)||8 min||scirocco||69,307|
|Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10)||14 min||boundary painter||7,992|
|Aldi's is the Worst Supermarket Chain (Jun '12)||17 min||boundary painter||342|
|Ask Amy 3-29-15||19 min||boundary painter||4|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC
Enter your email to get updates on this discussion.