Posted on 03/15/2013 3:51:54 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Three points to keep in mind:
1. The schemers were so determined to distract from the Malcolm X paternity and NYC locus-of-interest, that at the time ‘born in Kenya’ seemed like a great way to lead people far away from the Truth about “Obama”.
2. In the ‘80’s and ‘90’s “Brand Obama” was in its test phase; they were still debugging. [They still are.]
3. The Presidential Natural Born Citizen requirement was not ‘in the radar’ of they who concocted the “BHO II” synthetic identity and life story [i.e., Mom and Uncle Fred]. By the time “Barack’ got to Harvard Law School, the identity and birthplace-lie were already established. They had to ‘work with it’ as best they could.
Can you gather the info and put it in a separate topic, sounds like you have got a TON of stuff!!
Not true at all! Kenyan MPs said on the record, on the floor, that Obama was born in Kenya. This was after his election.
Your Canadian theory is just that: a theory, and it lacks any supporting comments in the public record.
Paternity was acknowledged on August 31, 1961 to Immigration and Naturalization Officer William Wood in Obama Senior’s interview for a student visa extension.
It was also acknowledged in the 1964 Dunham-Obama divorce decree.
The writing on the memo is that of William Woods of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not of Barack Obama Senior.
You do pose interesting questions and theories that would be fascinating to explore if a grand jury investigation were ever to be convened to look into this issue.
“The writing on the memo is that of William Woods of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not of Barack Obama Senior.”
I’ve been trying to avoid sarcasm except when absolutely necessary...and this is one of those times. The officer *interviewed* Pathological Liar Sr., right? So OF COURSE the writing is his...duh.
Are you really trying to make the point that Sr. could only have LIED if he wrote the words? That he could not have LIED verbally?
Or is your point that Sr. had a reason to lie in writing, but none to lie verbally?
OMC; I’m losing IQ points just discussing this w you. Your comment is THAT bizarre.
Honestly, NG, I’ve read inane comments, but yours takes the cake.
Okay; sorry for the sarc in the previous post. I was momentarily gobsmacked by the stupidity of your comment and I got a little carried away. So here is a do over:
It happened this way. The officer interviewed Sr. He asked Sr. a question. Sr. LIED. The officer wrote down the lie. It didn’t become the truth just because the officer committed it to writing. It was still a lie. Okay?
Wonder if Sr. also mentioned Kezia in this interview. Quite a relevant topic, wouldn’t it have been? Had a definite bearing on the subject at hand: i.e.: Sr’s American wife, or supposed wife, bigamy, etc. Doubt the topic came up though, don’t you? The LIAR Sr had a spotty record At Best when it came to honesty, didn’t he?
Just heard elsewhere that Arpaio is about to appear on Cavuto on Fox.
Thanks. I imagine the topic will be about the Arizona case before the Supreme Court and nothing to do with Obama’s documents.
Ah, you’re probably right. When with SCOTUS say something about that case, do you have any idea?
The serious trouble for aka Obama is: prior to presentation to a grand jury, this doc would be forensically examined by investigators - and proven forged and fraudulent.
There would be no fascination about the 'interview'. Never happened.
“Paternity was acknowledged” at INS interview.
Yes, He thought it in his benefit to use the paternity to extend his stay.
I have seen no evidence of a marriage certificate only the remaining records of the divorce proceedings. Some documents missing.
Acknowledging paternity by BHO, Sr. may make BHO, Sr. the legal father. But he may or may not be named on the actual birth document wherever it is. My guess is that no father is named on the actual COLB/birth certificate. And that he was NOT born in HI.
The maddening part to me is that many in DC KNOW what the truth of this matter is, but none will act. WHY?
You would think that with the number of powerful enemies he has made, someone would have produced the goods on the O B_tard.
You can’t get a divorce without a legal marriage and why would anybody go through the expense of a divorce if you’ve never been married? Page one of the divorce decree states the date and place of the wedding and it is recorded in the Hawaii Index of Marriages 1960-1965.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/were_ann_dunham_and_barack_obama_really_married.html
“the entry in the Hawaii Department of Health public marriage index”
Lists a marriage, but no documents to support it exists.
And the divorce papers have no documents to support the marriage.
The arthor of the article did a good job on the logic. I find no fault with it.
It does not change the fact that there are no document to support the marriage between BHO, Sr and SAD.
There is proof that some of the HI birth record index files have been modified to include things other than approved applications.
It was a scam marriage. They never lived together as man and wife.
It was discussed down to the very last atom on FR at least a couple of years ago and the conclusion was that yes indeed, people can and sometimes do divorce even with a previous legal marriage. Has been done.
Nero, you’re really late to the party.
And no, I have no idea where the threads are. The research done on FR by numerous persons has been meticulous and Pulitzer Prize worthy. You’re just late and if you really want to know the truth (which is known only to yourself), there are long, long threads going back to 2008 with incredibly worthwhile info on them. Do the work and find those threads.
A divorce decree is a document. A state Marriage Index is also a document. both are admissible in a court of law.
“A state Marriage Index”
Is a record in a database. It is possible to be forged.
A Document is much harder to forge because it has a physical presence.
In the beginning Marriage Indexes were paper or microfilm, they no longer are. Now that does not mean that the paper or microfilm Indexes have been destroyed, but why if there is an entry on the Index, is there no document to support it?
And notice both entries to the Marriage Index are to Stanley Ann Dunham, she is not referred to as Stanley Ann Obama when she was married to Lolo. In both cases she was referred to as Stanley Ann Dunham. I contend that there was only a sham marriage between SAD and BHO, Sr.
When this fraud is eventually exposed blood will flow from it.
Any document can be possibly forged. Proving in a court of law that a particular document has been forged is another matter.
You are correct that just because Hawaii digitized their vital records in 2000 doesn’t mean that they destroyed the original paper and pen records.
If there was a sham marriage there was also a sham divorce.
There were no photos, no marriage license, no evidence that his parents ever married.
Until, of course, The American Electorate wanted more.
And like magic, presto!! Records appeared. All sorts of records. Marriage, immigration, America seeks a record, and it appears!
That is an excellent point. Makes you wonder why Ayers/Obama admitted to having no paperwork [of the type O’s half-sister had, enabling her to make a legal claim on her father’s estate]. Perhaps they could not be sure the press wouldn’t do a light, cursory half-butt vetting of Obama, and they wanted to get out in front of his sketchy/complete lack of documentation. Then if an MSMer turned something up, they could say, ‘That’s old news; Obama covered it in Dreams’.
How could they know the MSM would do ZERO vetting & be proud of it? No one has ever received such a complete & total pass before. In hindsight, Ayers & Obama probably wish they’d omitted the aside about lacking any & all documentation of a Barrack Obama/Stanley Ann marriage. Though as this thread demonstrates, most people overlook that passage anyway.
[Your second point was just as good. How DID Obama go from having zero documentation to having the listings his supporters now compulsively cite? ‘Magic’ is the word for it alright; leftist lying ‘magic’ in the best Stalinist tradition of rewriting history. But of course, anything goes in the furtherance of The Won.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.