Thursday, October 31

Part 4 Series: Who Is Barack Hussein Obama, II? UPDATED




Part 4 in a series to delve deeper into who Obama is by learning who the people are that shaped his life. Who were the people that raised and mentored him? And just WHO is Barack Hussein Obama, II?


Stanley Ann Dunham


It would seem that the controversy begins early for Barack Obama. Not only are there questions surrounding his birth, but his mother’s as well. Wikipedia has Ann Dunham listed as being born on November 29, 1942 in Wichita, Kansas, yet Biography.com has her listed as being born on the same day in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. There are 200 miles between these two places. Where exactly she was born may not be immediately clear, but she was, in fact, born an only child to Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Lee Payne.

Ann Dunham spent her early years in Kansas and then to Mercer Island, Washington and then later to Hawaii. During her time in Washington, classmates have described her as a “full-fledged radical leftist”. Classmate Susan Blake has stated that Ann was someone who “never dated white boys”. This is obvious. She liked not only dark skinned men, but men of Muslim faith.

In the book written by Frank Davis, “Sex Rebel: Black”, Davis tracked his own life and stated that even though the names were changed; the incidences were from actual experiences. He knew the Dunham’s in Kansas, and in Washington, and then again in Hawaii. He describes in his book events concerning “swinging” with a couple from Seattle. Mercer Island is a suburb of Seattle. He also writes about having sex with a 13 year old girl named “Anne”. Ann Dunham still went by Stanley at this time. She didn’t go by Ann until she turned 18. The Dunham’s moved to Mercer Island in 1956. Since Ann was born in 1942, that would make her still 13 when school started as she wouldn’t turn 14 until November. This alludes to her being the 13 year old girl in Frank Marshall Davis’ book concerning sex with a 13 year old girl.

There are also photos of Ann posing in Davis’ home in nude and semi-nude poses in 1960. One of the sofas that Ann is posing on has been matched as the same room and sofa seen in a different photo of Davis sitting on that same sofa. 1960 is also the same year that Obama was conceived. The family then moved with their daughter to Hawaii. Davis soon followed.

Ann purportedly met Obama, Sr. in a Russian class while enrolled at the University of Hawaii and the two “fell in love”, conceived little Barry and then lived happily ever after…separately? That’s right, the “happy” couple never lived together. Obama, Sr. had a wife and a couple of kids back in Kenya. He was also looking to get his doctorates degree in America. Ann also had her sights focused on education.

According to Obama’s “official” biography, Ann became pregnant with him in November of 1960, the same time period she was posing for pornographic pictures for Davis, and then married Sr. in February of 1961, when she was about 3 months along. And here the dates and birth of Obama, Jr. again become fuddled.
“Official” records show that Ann gave birth to Obama in Honolulu in August of 1961 but official records from the University of Washington show her to be enrolled in classes there; some 2,680 miles away. See, on September 26, 1960, Ann started classes at the University of Hawaii, some six weeks late. One month later in October of 1960, she conceived. Two months later, she dropped out of the University of Hawaii. In February of 1961, she supposedly married Obama, Sr. and then in August of 1961, she was back in Washington attending classes at the University of Washington. The dates are off according to what we have been told by the media and by Obama himself. But the actual school records of Ann tell a different story.
Most likely, Ann became pregnant in 1960 in Seattle, Washington by black liberal activist, Frank Marshall Davis. In 1960, pregnant unmarried girls and their children suffered penalties. Yes, penalties that ranged from confinement in isolated maternity homes to parental rejection and certainly there was disapproval in the community. Being illegitimate meant you were going to be shamed and pretty much shunned. The unwed mothers were labeled as immoral and loose. Also, segregation did not end in America until 1965. 4 years after Obama’s birth. A mixed race child would have faced these issues. Laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed in several US States until a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

However, in Hawaii, white people were the minority in the ‘60’s. A mixed race child would be accepted. Even Obama, Sr. acknowledged the absence of racial prejudice in Hawaii. In a 1959 interview with the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, he described Hawaii as “unique”.

“No one seems to be conscious of color.” He thought it “rather strange … even rather amusing, to see Caucasians discriminated against here.”

In the early 1960’s, there were very few black people in Honolulu and Obama, Sr. was the only black man from Africa there. Obama, Sr., it is known through his records for applications for foreign monetary aid, did not have much money. It is plausible to think that he was paid to become the bastard child’s father in name only. That would explain how he was able to then leave for Cambridge, Massachusetts to begin studies at Harvard. Also, in the Kenyan community, being polygamous enhanced ones status and symbolized a wealthy man. His name on the birth certificate would legitimize the birth as well as conceal the name of the true father, Frank Marshall Davis, who was already married in the states.

Ann then left her days old newborn son in the care of her parents while she went off into the world to get her education. She helped stir tensions with socialists, communists, civil rights and defense organizations including the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party, all of which were beginning to boil over in Seattle during that time.

Ann returned to Hawaii in April of 1963, after Obama, Sr. had already departed for Harvard. She again enrolled at the University of Hawaii where she earned a degree in anthropology. She met her second “husband”, Lolo Soetoro in yet another Russian class and married the Indonesian in 1967. I find it interesting that although there is no marriage certificate available for the 1961 marriage to Obama, Sr., there is a divorce decree. Yet, there is a document that the left has been using to prove that she was indeed married to Sr. An entry in the Hawaii Department of Health public marriage index shows her two marriages. You can see clearly that Stanley Ann Dunham is listed twice with both Obama, Sr. and Lolo Soetoro. But look at the date. It is the marriage index between 1960 and 1965. How could Lolo Soetoro be listed here is they were not married until 1967? If part of the document is false, then how can you trust the entire thing?


But a divorce was filed in 1964 from Sr. Perhaps she didn’t want anything to hinder her marriage and subsequent trip to Indonesia as a married woman, so she got a “divorce”.

Later in the year, Ann, Jr. and Lolo moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. In 1970, Ann gave birth to Maya. In 1974, Ann, Jr. and Maya returned to Hawaii where she again enrolled in classes at the University there. Three years later in 1977, she returned to Indonesia with Maya but left Jr. behind with her parents once again. She divorced Soetoro in 1980.


Ann died of ovarian cancer in 1995. She was an atheist and a communist, Marxist socialist, just as her parents had been and just as the men she chose to be in her life had been. How could her son be anything but?

Part 1 is here: http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/2013/10/part-1-series-who-is-barack-hussein.html

Part 2 is here: http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/2013/10/part-2-series-who-is-barack-hussein.html

Part 3 is here: http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/2013/10/part-3-series-who-is-barack-hussein.html

UPDATE:

A commentor on this post brought it to my attention that Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro were married in 1965 and not 1967. This prompted me to dig deeper to see what I could find on that as I do not want to give false or misleading information. I did find Dunham and Obama, Sr's. divorce decree. There is a page missing from the file that I believe concerns the custody of Barry. The date Ann filed for divorce is January 20, 1964 and the divorce was final on March 20, 1964. It is important that I note here, that even Obama, Jr. himself raises the question as to the bona-fide of the marriage. On page 22 of his book, "Dreams from My Father" Obama states:

"In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."
Also, the court documents show that Ann lied when she filed for this divorce. Look at this page:


It says, the Libellant, being Ann, is now and for more than 2 years past has been a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii. This is not true. Ann had been living in Seattle, Washington and only returned to Hawaii in January of 1963. That is not the 2 year requirement. My source for this is Wikipedia. 
I figured that since all of this debate came about with the commentor using Wikipedia as their reference, then I would, too. See, I argued that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information as it can be changed by anyone. This person insisted so I am now using their own rope to tie all this together. (I have found other sources that confirm this date) So Ann could not have been a resident of Hawaii for the 2 years required to file for this divorce. 

Also, I have found a very interesting document. It is an application for a passport filed by Ann Dunham. It clearly shows the date of her marriage to Lolo Soetoro. That date is March 5, 1964. So I was wrong about 1967. Here is that document:
You can see where it asks about the date of last marriage in the middle of the document to the right of Ann's picture. That date is, March 5, 1964. So how could Ann have married Soetoro on March 5, 1964 and yet not have a finalized divorce from Obama, Sr. until March 20, 1964?

Here is the link to the documents in full: 

http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/p/obama-documents.html

I am still researching this. If Ann married Soetoro before she was legally divorced from Obama, then she is a bigamist and the marriage would have been illegal. But perhaps her so called marriage to Obama wasn't even legal, either as he already had a wife and 2 kids back in Kenya.

This is an ever on-going investigation and I am sure I will have to update several times. I apologize for this but with such a corrupt and deceitful president, what can one expect?

46 comments:

neil schnurr said...

Holy cow. I had not read your series up until now because i figured that it would just be a recount of the movie "Obama 2016" , and I had already seen that, but since you stuck up for me I figured I owed you a look.


I was surprised how much I learned, and now know why he has had so much trouble producing his birth certificate. All this time I thought it was because he was born in Kenya. Also the descriptions of his parents and the things they did, are no less than shocking. I don't know many people who would even let people like that inside their homes, let alone vote for their son for president of the US.


I think the world would be a very different place today if this information was available to the general public, six or so years ago. The thing that worries me is that so far, as soon as I figure that I know all there is to know about Obama, I find out more that is even worse. I fear what I might learn in the future.

The Conservative Wife said...

Very disgusting people. Have you read part three comments on here? I got in another fight today at CBC.... :)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "How could Lolo Soetoro be listed here is they were not married until 1967?"

Because, duh, they were not married in 1967. They were really married in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham


They were married in 1965, as the register says, so it is right both for Dunham's marriage to Obama senior and Dunham's marriage to Soetoro.

smrstrauss said...

So far it is has led you to state that Obama's mother married Soetoro in 1967, when she actually married him in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

The Conservative Wife said...

Don't rely on Wikipedia. It can be changed by anyone. I am doing further research on this and if I am wrong, I will say so and even offer you an apology, smrstrauss. So far I have found 1965, 1966 and 1967 as the dates of the marriage. I only want the truth. Give me a little time and I will find it.

neil schnurr said...

Oh my God, when are you going to just let it go? When you have to resort to starting your comments with the word "nevertheless", and are using Wikipedia as your source of information, you know that you are running to the bottom of the barrel.


From what I've seen, it is unlikely that anyone's going to end up winning an argument with CW, and even if you could, is it really worth your time, doing the research to be able to do it?

smrstrauss said...

Sure you will. BOTH the official Hawaii register and Wikipedia say 1965, and you say "don't believe Wikipedia." And you also say that the official Hawaii register is wrong based on nothing at all except your having remembered some other site (a birther site?????) having said 1967.


Moreover, the fact that Obama's parents were legally married is proved by their DIVORCE. And then you went through a round of speculation that maybe a divorce could have been granted even though they were only "common law" married. But then we found out that common law marriage is not available in Hawaii.


Got anything else?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "I...now know why he has had so much trouble producing his birth certificate."

Obama has shown both Web images and the actual physical copies to the press (with the raised state seals of Hawaii visible and able to be felt) of both the short form birth certificate (which actually is the official Hawaii birth certificate, used by thousands of people every year) and the long form birth certificate to the press. The officials of Hawaii of BOTH parties have
repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and they have repeatedly confirmed that the facts on the copies that Obama has had put online are EXACTLY
the same as on what they sent to him.

smrstrauss said...

CW has claimed (and what is her motive pray tell???) that Obama's parent were not married, despite the fact that they got divorced. Why is it worth her time to tell lies and not my time to show that they are lies?
Both the divorce of Obama's parents and the Hawaii register of marriages 1960-1965 (which CW has not disproven) show that Obama's parents were married.

The Conservative Wife said...

I could give a damn if the stupid whore married him ten times. That is all you seem to be worried about. Who gives a shit? I care about WHO the motherf***er is that is running this country into the ground as fast as he possibly can. Just wait till I get started on mooch! I'm quite certain you're head will spin around completely. Probably does anyway. And these are MY blogs and I will write whatever I choose.

smrstrauss said...

First you CLAIMED that Obama's parents were not married. Now, after you have seen proof that they were, you say that you dont't care. The answer that they were married was simply to show your lack of accuracy. NOW you are revealing your motives in making your claims.

The Conservative Wife said...

Are you stupid? I have seen no proof. And that birth certificate is a joke. They called him black. If it were accurate, he would have been listed as negro in that time. That is a FACT. I am revealing nothing. My intention has always been clear and as I said, if I find PROOF otherwise, I will say so. I don't care if the bitch married the Kenyan. But I do care about the fact that the president who works FOR THE PEOPLE has sealed up all his records. He is a liar and corrupt as hell. He makes jimmy carter look good. I am actually asserting that he maybe WAS born in America unlike the birthers. And if it isn't good enough for you that I said I will change it if I am wrong and even offer you an apology is not good enough for you, then you, dear Strauss can go rot in hell! I do not care about you or any other person who works so hard to further an evil mans agenda. God put enmity between us for a reason.

neil schnurr said...

Nevertheless, Obama's official birth certificate provided by the National Records and Archives Dept. of Kenya, clearly indicates that... ha, ha, ha. You have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck.

The issue is not, and never has been the validity of the birth certificate that he finally produced. Anyone could have a snafu with a birth certificate, including me.
http://goldengeesenews.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-day-in-my-life-how-government-affects.html



The issue is the pattern of irregularities, flimsy initial explanations, and contradicting subsequent explanations.


The birth certificate was just the beginning Then we had:
-his college records
-how he was able to purchase his home in Illinois.
-the people who he has associated with,
-and of course, the many scandals and failures of his presidency which are too numerous to list here.


My point here is that trying to prove or disprove anything with any "evidence" or records is an exercise in futility. He's already been elected twice and the damage is done, and I'm sure we both agree that no type of official investigation is ever going to be done after he is gone.


The simple fact is, that people who want to hang Obama on ineligibility or previous misdeeds have nothing, EXCEPT for this, and it can actually be more powerful than any amount of physical evidence or records. I'm talking about common sense.


As I mentioned before, anyone can have an irregularity in their past, and we owe it to people to give them the benefit of the doubt. Up until a certain point. Once you notice a pattern of irregularities such as:


- resistance to providing information that anyone else would freely offer,
- explanations that you have never heard anyone else attempt to use before, raise more questions than answers, and then change over time,
-the most desperate attempt to explain away wrongdoing of all, blaming it on your incompetence of the incompetence of your staff and.
-the sheer volume and variety of a person's irregularities compared to any of their predecessors,


that's when you should be suspicious. I can't think of anyone who raised all the red flags mentioned above. and has not been corrupt. Neither can you, or anyone else.


Like I said there is never going to be any official investigations, or hearings, or trials after Obama is gone, so all we are left with is our suspicions and common sense. Our suspicions and common sense guide us in all other matters in life, and it would be foolish not to apply them when evaluating Obama.


Now you cannot convict someone with suspicion and common sense alone, and I don't even care to Obama is pretty much, water over the dam at this point.


My concern is killing off the evil disease called liberalism that produced him, and suspicion and common sense are it's worst enemies.


My only question for you is, what is your motivation to defend this man?

smrstrauss said...

First you claimed that Obama's parents were not married. YOU said it. Now you say that you do not care. But obviously you must have cared when you said it. And you said it without any proof to support it, and in fact you said it despite the fact that Obama's parents were divorced---which is an obvious proof of them being married.

Re: "They called him black. If it were accurate, he would have been listed as negro in that time. That is a FACT."


Answer: No it isn't a fact. It is simply a combination of your not checking (The word was "African," not black.) and your not knowing the law in Hawaii. The law in Hawaii was simple: You could use any word that you wanted to describe your race. No one stood over you and told you what to write, and there was no checklist of races. So you could use any word that you wanted. And what, pray tell, was the word that AFRICAN exchange students normally used to describe their race in the 1960s?


Answer: "African." And what was the word that the colonial government in Kenya (which by the way did exist in 1961; it was known as "the Kenya Colony"--Kenya for short) used to describe the black residents of the colony? Answer: Africans. So Obama's father could use any word, and the word that he chose was AFRICAN.



Re "sealed the records." That is another birther myth. Obama has not sealed any of his personal records. They are covered under the normal privacy laws that apply to every person, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and George Bush and Bill Clinton and other presidents and presidential candidates did not show their school or college records either.

Re "maybe born in America."

Big deal, even that is far less than what a logical person would say. A logical person would say: "The evidence is overwhelming that Obama really was born in America, in Hawaii." And the same logical person would make note of the fact that birther sites have not even shown that Obama's mother had a PASSPORT in 1961. Nor have they told their readers how extremely rare it was for pregnant women to travel abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the high risk of stillbirths. AND the same birther sites LIED when they said that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya. (She never said any such thing. In fact, the transcript shows that she said repeatedly that Obama was born IN HAWAII. Birther sites simply did not quote her and cut off the tape recording on their sites just BEFORE she as asked "where was he born?" [I wonder why they did that?])

Re corrupt etc. If you can convince a majority of members of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the US Senate that Obama was corrupt or for that matter committed any crime or misdemeanor, then he would be impeached. If not, then your views are simply YOUR opinions

smrstrauss said...

For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and
they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank,
and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb
enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign
country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior
stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite
(as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got
the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the
woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have
found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign
country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

neil schnurr said...

First of all CW is not “telling lies”. How can I prove that? I can’t. But I can make some reasonable, logical statements that will lead reasonable, logical people to believe that she is not. 1) She has a record of being factual, and can always quickly provide the source from where she got her information. 2) She knows that if she willfully says something that is untrue, it destroy her credibility, and it will be impossible for her to defend herself. 3) While it is possible for anyone to quote a source that turns out to be inaccurate, that in and of itself, is not a lie unless you know that the source is inaccurate. If we held the MSM to the same standard as you hold CW, they would have been out of business decades ago. 4) Since we are dealing with decades old information and obviously lax record keeping, you have not proven your case that she is lying.

While these statements I have made which would indicate to reasonable, logical people that she is not lying, are enough to point out why you are wasting your time, you further reinforce my contention that you are, by attacking a rather minor detail of her story while ignoring the rest of it which is much more damning.

smrstrauss said...

Re "a minor point." I have answered that in another posting. The short answer for here is that I did not answer all of her points because it would take too much space and time. My offer to you is that you pick one of her points that you think there is evidence for and that you believe is important, and I will answer it.


As for CW's statement that Obama's parents were not married not being a lie on her part but only a mistake. Well, the motive was clearly to attack Obama by claiming (without proof) that his parents were immoral and that he is illegitimate.



And, in addition to that motive there is also the fact that CW claimed that Obama's parents were not married despite knowing that they were DIVORCED.



As for her not wanting to lie because it would "destroy her credibility." Well, yes, it has.

neil schnurr said...

No, the short answer is, because that was the item where you had the most confidence that you would not end up looking stupid. If there were other points where you wouldn't have had to go so far out on a limb to dispute, you would have started with them.

I think I have already covered the lying issue to satisfy any reasonable, logical people and those are the only people that I am concerned with. CW’s credibility grows only stronger with them, as you post each comment.

The Conservative Wife said...

First of all, thank you Neil. I appreciate the support. Secondly, I have not had a good day as I have spent most of it taking care of a sick loved one. Strauss, I told you that if I found proof, I would say so and apologize. Well, I am a woman of my word. I did find the divorce decree for Ann and Obama, Sr. Ann filed for divorce on January 20, 1964 and the divorce was final on March 20, 1964. Here is the link for those documents.

http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/p/obama-documents.html

I also located a passport for Ann in which the date listed for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro is March 5, 1964. These are official documents. Please tell me how she could have divorced Sr on March 20, 1964 and yet be married to Soetoro on March 5, 1964. The dates do not add up. This would make her a bigamist. I still contend that there are no documents available as to the actual marriage to Obama, Sr. In fact, Obama stated in his book, "Dreams from My Father" on page 22:

"In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains
a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."



Even Obama himself acknowledges that there is no record of a marriage. I don't care, honestly, if she married him or not. I just find it odd that there are no records available to anyone. He has lied about so many things that this one thing is inconsequential to me. I only made a point that there is no record whatsoever of this marriage.


You are also correct about Obama being listed as African on the birth certificate. I was not at home and just tried to fire off a quick response. That was my mistake. And I do not know yet about being allowed to just put anything you wanted to on a birth certificate but I will check. Not tonight, I am tired.
For now, here is the proof I have found. Official documents that show the dates. And they don't jive. Nothing about the SOB does. And his parents WERE immoral and that has nothing to do with a matrimonial ceremony.

smrstrauss said...

So there are no documents available. That does not mean that they were not married, which is what you claimed. The divorce AND the Hawaii register both show that they were married. There is nothing wrong with: "Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace." Millions of people are married that way.

Re: "Bigamist." Please show the alleged item on the passport that you claim. Considering what you did so far, I am suspicious.

Re documents "don't jibe." You are a cockeyed optimist to think that documents must always jibe. You are not a very good conservative. Remember that conservatives believe, often rightly, that government bureaucrats are lazy and sloppy and make mistakes. Well, that is often true.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/03/obamas-typos/

As for Obama's parents being "immoral." Now you are changing the subject. You said that they were not married. There is a difference, you know. Lots of people's ancestors were not moral. For example, Alexander Hamilton was a bastard. His parents were never married at all. And Churchill was born seven months after his parents married, and he was not a premature baby.

The point was that (1) you had a strong motive to say something nasty about Obama's parents in hopes that it would stick to Obama, and (2) were wrong. And, since you continued to claim that they were not married even after you were told that they were divorced, you lied.

That's not unusual among the people who hate Obama very strongly. For example there were many birther sites that claimed that Obama's Kenyan grandmother had said that he was born in Kenya---when the tape recording shows that she said repeatedly that he was born IN HAWAII (they simply cut off the tape recording on their sites just before she was asked "where was he born?" They did not quote her answer, which was: "in Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.") Their motive in not quoting her accurately and in hiding what she actually said is the same as your motive in saying that Obama's parents were not married.

Re: "You are also correct about Obama being listed as African on the birth certificate. "

Answer: NO, once again, look more closely. There is no listing for the race of a child on a Hawaii birth certificate. Only the races of the parents are listed, and Obama's mother put down "Caucasian," and his father put down "African."

Re: "And I do not know yet about being allowed to just put anything you wanted to on a birth certificate..."

That refers to a HAWAII birth certificate. Other states may be different.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/the-african-race-the-final-chapter/


(Notice the image of the birth certificate that shows the race of the mother as: "Hawaiian Fil (meaning Filippino) Port (Portugese) Sp (Spanish).")


There are others that I have bookmarked that I cannot find at the moment that list the race of a parent as "American."

smrstrauss said...

Re: "No, the short answer is, because that was the item where you had the most confidence that you would not end up looking stupid.."


No the short answer is that I did not want to spend a lot of time answering ALL of her nutty claims. I simply wanted to show how nutty one of them was. And I have. Obama's parents were married, as their divorce shows.



I have offered to answer any other one point you desire, but you haven't picked any. Well, that certainly does not mean that I have to answer every nutty thing that she claims.

The Conservative Wife said...

Oh my goodness. Call me a liar. I don't care. You are so fixated on this. ALL I have said is that THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE MARRIAGE EVER TOOK PLACE! That is ALL I said. No one cares if they were married or not. That is a small, minor detail and I only pointed out, quite factually, that there is no RECORD of it. I will get to the birth certificate in another post. Obama's parents could be the salt of the freaking earth... he is STILL a POS! THAT is my opinion and one that I share with MANY others. If you want to live your life with your head up his stink ass, then feel free. Because of our Constitution, you have that right. I also have the right to state my opinion and back it up with FACT, which I have done. It is not my problem that you can't read. The date is clearly stated on the passport document. I have not claimed they were not married, stupid. Read it all again. I said clearly that there is NO RECORD of the marriage! So now, when it suits you, government bureaucrats are lazy and sloppy but if it backs up your end, then it is spot on correct. You are a hypocrite.

smrstrauss said...

The Register of Hawaii is a document, and a divorce document is also a document. Both show that Obama's parents were married. By claiming that no documents existed, you were claiming that both of them did not exist, and yet they do exist, and they are documents. Moerover, your assertion that documents did not exist comes from your motive, which was to throw dirt at Obama through his parents.

Re: "She liked not only dark skinned men, but men of Muslim faith."
Obama's father was an atheist.

smrstrauss said...

The Register of Hawaii is a document, and a divorce document is also a document. Both show that Obama's parents were married. By claiming that no documents existed, you were claiming that both of them did not exist, and yet they do exist, and they are documents. Moerover, your assertion that documents did not exist comes from your motive, which was to throw dirt at Obama through his parents.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "It says, the Libellant, being Ann, is now and for more than 2 years past
has been a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii. This is not true. Ann had been
living in Seattle, Washington and only returned to Hawaii in January of
1963. That is not the 2 year requirement."


Answer: States' LEGAL residency requirements vary. Most of them do not count the time that someone spends in a college or university outside of the state as not being a legal resident.

The Conservative Wife said...

The FACT that I stated is THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE MARRIAGE! So they were married... who flippin cares. I only ever pointed out that there is no record to be found about it. Even Obama himself says "There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride." His words. There is no record. That's it. Not that they were for sure never married. I feel so incredibly sorry for you. You have absolutely no clue as to what an ass you are making of yourself.

smrstrauss said...

However, it is not true that there is no record of the marriage. The register of Hawaii IS a record.
Obama was not aware of the register and was referring to documents around his home.
Moreover, you did not say that there was no record. You said "...she supposedly married Obama, Sr. "---meaning that despite the divorce and the Hawaii official record of the marriage, you doubted it.

The Conservative Wife said...

Let me spell it out for you, Strauss. When I say "no record" I am referring to an actual marriage license that has been filed with the state. There is not a marriage license filed with the state. I am so glad that you are such a close personal friend of Obutthead that you know what he is referring to in his book. Now please explain away Michelle Obama's remarks during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri:


“Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.”


These are HER words. They HAVE NOT been taken out of context. She says she was VERY SINGLE when she had him. Yes, I said supposedly. I can say that because it is MY belief that the circumstances surrounding said marriage are sketchy at best. MY opinion. MY blog. If you want to share your foggy version of the truth, then start YOUR OWN blog. Geez... get a freakin life already.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "There is not a marriage license filed with the state."
Answer: The Hawaii register of marriages shows that there was a marriage license filed with the state.

Re: “Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single

When the father is not around, the mother is in effect single.

The Conservative Wife said...

You were just complaining of how the "birthers" left off a part of the video concerning obama being born in Kenya. Now you are doing the same by not finishing the sentence. Mooch goes on to say very young and very single WHEN SHE HAD HIM. You are very much proving my point that you are a hypocrite. You turn around and do the same thing that you yourself condemn. And Thank You for making my post ever more popular. Reasonable and logical people can clearly see through your BS. Only those who share your mental illness will agree with you. You are obviously not going to change my mind and I am obviously not going to change yours. We can agree to disagree. You have a nice life, Strauss. I am done with you as I have clearly and FACTUALLY made my case. You, on the other hand have provided no proving document. I have already changed the 1967 to 1964 just as the passport document states. Yes, there is a divorce decree. Yes, the marriage is listed on the Hawaii State registrar. I have not disputed that. You are the one to keep harping on it. I do not see how a marriage to Sr could have been legal given the fact that he had a wife and 2 kids back in Kenya. If he married her in Kenya, then yes, but not in America. All it would amount to would be a married man sleeping with another woman and getting her pregnant. Happens all the time. And poor kids have to suffer through it. I feel as though I have proven my point. I could really care less if you disagree. It is your right to do so and I do not hate you for having an opinion that differs from my own. People can read and make up their own mind. I have made up my own mind. I do not buy in to what the MSM tells me. They are nothing more than Obamas puppet masters. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is an American issue. As Americans, we have a right to know who the hell these people are and what they stand for. As Americans, we have a duty to stand against tyranny. As Americans, we have a right to live as a free people.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Mooch goes on to say very young and very single WHEN SHE HAD HIM."
First, you are assuming that Michelle is being scientifically accurate in what she says, which is absurd.
That being the case, "when she had him" means the time around when his mother had him---and you yourself pointed out that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama went off to the the University of Washington in Seattle Washington within about a month after she had Obama. She was alone, a single mother.

neil schnurr said...

Are you serious? Do you honestly expect the people who visit this site to believe that that you have anything better than you have shown so far? And let’s be realistic, the people who visit this site are the only ones who matter in this argument, because they are the only ones who are going to see it. Do you honestly expect me, or anyone else reading this, to believe that you were sandbagging, and are saving your REALLY GOOD STUFF for later? You picked disputing the dates of marriage and divorce, because those were the items where it was least likely for you to look like you were just grasping at straws.

If for some reason, you didn’t lead with your best stuff, then that PROVES THAT YOU REALLY ARE STUPID, because fewer and fewer people read posts and their related comments as they age, so you missed your opportunity to convince anyone. CW and I are probably the only ones even looking at this anymore, and I assure you that the novelty is quickly wearing off for both of us. Don’t confuse this with winning by attrition, it’s more akin to shooting after the deer have ran by.

Now let’s return to my original point that you are wasting your time, quibbling about a relatively minor detail, and once again, remember that the only ones who will be judging who’s right and who’s wrong here, are the two or three people besides us, who are still reading us. They’re the only ones who matter, and guess whose side they are probably on. Still wanna go?

If you had the ability to use logic and reason, you would be able to determine for yourself that it IS a relatively minor detail, because people would come away from reading CW’s series with essentially, the same picture of Obama if she had omitted the detail.

Now, let’s get to the meat of the matter. I going to stick my neck out again, and speak for CW here. You talked about her motive, and that is the one thing that if feel that you were correct about. As I have said before, her motive WAS to point out that Obama is the product of a weird, creepy, socialist environment, (both his childhood and young adulthood) and a huge percentage of people in this country would agree that such an environment would not be conducive to producing a person that they would want to have as president. If all the people of this country were aware of this, he would never been elected, and if you don’t believe this, then why didn’t he use that information to promote himself, during his campaign? Most candidates try to showcase who they are, what they have done, where they came from, whereas the Obama campaign did their best to hide such things.

One last thing, I did offer to have you to dispute CW’s claims that Obama’s father wrote pro-socialist material, or that Davis wrote about his own decadent behavior in his own book, but you didn’t bite. Good call.

smrstrauss said...

Responding to "Are you serious..."


Answer: Rational people who may visit this site, here is a question for you. Just because someone posts a LONG article claiming hundreds of things, and someone is too lazy to respond to all of them and simply shows how stupid one of them is, does that mean that all the others are right?


Say that you saw an article about George Smith. It says: George cheats at cards. George has bad breath. George is a bigamist. George wears his mother's panties. George has a mustache.



And say, someone is too lazy to answer all of those claims and simply shows that George does not have a mustache. Does that prove that George cheats at cards?


It doesn't prove that George does not cheat at cards either, of course. However, it does raise a question about the person who has listed all the claims. If you can disprove, very simply, the claim that George has a mustache (or in the case discussed the claim that Obama's parents were not married), then the motives of the person who posted and the accuracy of that person are questionable.


In any case, I remain too lazy to respond to all of her points, and my offer stands to you to ask ONE of them, and I will respond to it. And that, rational reader, is a rational offer. The next time someone says to you that because someone has made 100 or so claims you have to respond to all of them or they are proved to be true---laugh at that person.

neil schnurr said...

To start with, I owe you an apology. I used the words “proves that you really are stupid” in my last comment, and that was rude. I am sorry for saying that. You actually sound like a very intelligent person, and when you mentioned being “too lazy” to do something, you touched my softer side. Now, you’re talking my language. Lazy is my middle name. In the words of AC/DC, in the song, Down Payment Blues - “I know I ain’t doin’ much, but doin’ nothing means a lot to me.

As for addressing any other of CW’s point’s, I really don’t care anymore. I asked you to dispute her claim that both Obama Sr. and Davis wrote things that most Americans would not agree with, and the fact that they were big influences on Obama’s mother, and thus Obama, and you chose not to. I suppose that you could try to tackle that if you wish, or dispute any other one of CW’s claims, but don’t feel obligated. I am now preoccupied with other more pressing issues. If that makes you feel like you can claim victory, go ahead.

What I am more concerned with right now is this: It is not so much Obama that I (and I assume CW) am concerned with. (After all, if the wheels of fate would have directed his life elsewhere, we would have never heard of him.) It’s what Obama represents, that filthy disease called liberalism. It does nothing but stifle freedom and innovation, restricts people’s ability to enjoy life to it’s fullest by curtailing their freedom, provides a disincentive to both the people on the giving and receiving end of assistance programs, and fails everywhere it is tried, with one exception that I can think of.

I went to school at UW Madison, and lived all four years next to a housing co-operative. It is, and has been, very successful for years but you know what? They have a rule. If you don’t contribute, and try to live off of everyone else - THEY KICK YOU OUT! Without even knowing it, the biggest bunch of lefties in the world, owe their success to practicing a conservative value. - PULL YOUR OWN WEIGHT.

Liberals are always like this. They won’t let a stranger come into their homes and live off of them against their will, but they have no problem with people living off of the government and thus, all of us. Any time someone suggests that people on assistance should WORK in order to receive aid, liberals have a fit.

My other problem with liberals is their willingness to curtail people’s freedom. Freedom of the individual trumps EVERYTHING else, at least 95% of the time, regardless of what problems it may cause. (Obviously, there are exceptions, we can’t allow people to kill and steal. ) We all can come up with examples of where someone exercising their freedom, inconveniences others, but in the end, freedom must win, at least somewhere around 95% of the time. Whether you know it or not, you owe everything that you have that you value, to the freedom provided by the constitution of this country. No matter how rational any particular infringement of freedom might seem, the price paid by freedom lost, is almost always higher.

Now like I said, from what I’ve seen, you do seem to be an intelligent person. My question for you is: How can any intelligent person subscribe to this ugly, filthy, counterproductive, freedom killing, faulty, failing, immoral, disease of a political philosophy called liberalism?

smrstrauss said...

Re: " I asked you to dispute her claim that both Obama Sr. and Davis wrote
things that most Americans would not agree with, and the fact that they
were big influences on Obama’s mother, and thus Obama, and you chose not
to."


Sorry. I must have missed your request. It may have been part of a long long post.


Well, my answer is very simple. People are given advice all the time, and do not follow it. People have ministers as their fathers, and turn out to be crooks. People with crooks as fathers turn out to be ministers. So, Obama senior was a socialist (and an atheist)--so what?


Davis was a communist, but lots of people knew communists (and the story that he was Obama's real father is just as likely as someone other than your legal father being your real father---there certainly is no proof of either).



So the answer is, yes, they both wrote things that US people do not like. And, despite this, we elected Obama with nearly 5 million votes more than Mitt Romney received.

neil schnurr said...

I am the product of my environment and the values my parents instilled upon me. Everyone that I know is also. Everyone I know, that had creepy parents, and grew up in a creepy environment, turned into creepy adults. I suppose that there may be exceptions, but this is certainly the rule, and while people’s definition of “creepy” may vary, I still maintain that if all Americans understood the environment from which he came, Obama would have never been elected.

Now I have no argument with anything you say in your last paragraph. I fully support any environmental, or safety policy that is not counterproductive, but let’s be honest. That’s not what the people on this site are talking about here. Taking the items that you mentioned in the last paragraph, and attaching them to Obama’s brand if liberalism is counterproductive to the advancement of those causes. Clean air, water, go for it - as long as I see a return on the investment. Safety - great, as long as we aren’t replacing personal responsibility and common sense with regulation. I will stand behind you on any cause that actually improves things without having what most reasonable people (with an understanding of economics) would consider a higher offsetting cost of lost freedom. Just don’t ruin it by attaching it to the likes of Obama.

I can totally understand your concern for the environment, safety, and even some other causes, traditionally associated with liberals. I cannot however, understand your support for Obama.

smrstrauss said...

Obama supports the environment, safety and women's right to chose. His two presidential opponents, McCain and Romney, didn't.


It is a matter of opinion whether Obama's background was "creepy," but the political leanings of his mother and father were WELL KNOWN, and the US voter has the right to consider such things and to weigh them against other matters, and the election and re-election of Obama shows the choices that they made.

neil schnurr said...

Not anywhere near, well enough known.

smrstrauss said...

What is the evidence that she hung around with Davis? The pornographic photos, that some birthers have CLAIMED to have been take at Davis's place have all been traced to a magazine published in 1969---when Obama's mother was in Indonesia.


Davis said that he had relations with a girl named "Anne"---which does not necessarily mean Ann, and Obama's mother was using the name Stanley at the time anyway.


What is really creepy is someone who claims that Obama's parents were not married, despite their being divorced. That's creepy. Searching for and finding pornographic pictures of a woman who some think looks like Obama's mother (and not telling folks that the pictures came from a 1969 magazine)----that's creepy. Birther sites LYING about what Obama's Kenyan grandmother said and claiming that she said that he was born in Kenya, when the tape recording shows very clearly that she said he was born in Hawaii---that's creepy.


A woman who homeschools her child at 4 am every day and goes on to earn a PHD and work in microfinance----that's not creepy.

neil schnurr said...

Hey Strauss, I kinda feel like we're buddies now. Since you are not a blogger on this site, you don't have access to the page view counter like I do, so I'm gonna give you a heads up. No one is looking at this post anymore. The page views are only increasing by the number of comments you and are posting. CW was smart enough to figure this out a day ago. She's smarter than both of us!

smrstrauss said...

Although I confess that I'm lazy, I'm not so lazy as not to respond when there is a fact that is blatantly wrong. The claims that Obama's mother was in pornographic photographs that were published in 1969 while she was in Indonesia is blatantly wrong.

The Conservative Wife said...

Just because they were published in 1969 doesn't mean they were taken in 1969. That's a no brainer...even for you.

smrstrauss said...

You are showing your desperation---and that underlines your motive to thrown crap. If your motive was to find the truth you would say: "I agree that a 1969 publication date makes it unlikely that it was Obama's mother."

To be sure, a pornographic magazine CAN hold on to pictures for nine years or so and then publish them---but this is likely to be quite rare. And I believe that you said that:

"There are also photos of Ann posing in Davis’ home in nude and semi-nude poses in 1960. One of the sofas that Ann is posing on has been matched as the same room and sofa seen in a different photo of Davis sitting on that same sofa."


You have not shown "Davis sitting on the same sofa." You have not shown that the pictures were taken in the 1960s. You have not shown that they are pictures of Obama's mother---though some may vaguely resemble her.


The fact that some pictures vaguely resemble her does not help you. It hurts. It shows that you are willing to take a photo of some unidentified woman (who looks somewhat like Stanley Ann) and some unidentified sofa, and say that it was Obama's mother and Davis's sofa--and that the pictures were taken in the 1960s.

neil schnurr said...

Four additional page views so far this morning, including mine.


Time spent on this so far today:


Me- seconds
CW - seconds
You - much, much more. Who's wasting more of their time?

smrstrauss said...

The difference is that I am posting the facts.

neil schnurr said...

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that that is true. Who's gonna know?

RINO Blog Watch (Blog)

RINO Forum - User Submitted News

RINO Forum - Elections

Recent Posts

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Views (since Blogger started counting)

Loading...

Blog Archives

Follow by Email

Content.ad - Widget 13

Click Here To Become A Conservative Blogs Central Blogger

Back to TOP