Posted on 12/15/2016 11:14:42 AM PST by GonzoII
Brought to you by Desert Diamond: http://ddcaz.com Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference on Obama Birth Certificate to be streamed LIVE this afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Unless and until Mary discredits the fall, ‘61 UoW classes/credits, her input is meaningless. There is no reason in the world why, when the news that Stanley Ann had appeared in Seattle in Aug ‘61 began to totally destroy the fable of Dreams, UoW administrators wouldn’t have shot it down if they could. They’d have been heroes.
Obama built his career on the “improbable love,” shared by Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. It literally launched his foray into national politics. The fact of Stanley Ann being in Seattle at the time when Dreams placed her in HI was devastating to the narrative. If the revelation of SA’s whereabouts could have been discredited, it would have been.
But it was both allowed to stand AND confirmed. The fact that those credits are enshrined on SA’s permanent transcript is confirmation. She was there, and she took those classes. Mary can say whatever she likes; her words can’t change the facts.
What would have been devastating is if it became known that the woman Mary babysat for was in fact Anna Obama, the woman who had a child to the Kenyan student in January 1961.
Nothing at this point can change Stanley Ann’s transcripts. According to the credits she received from UoW, she was in Seattle at the very beginning of what Dreams claimed was a two year HI residence. That single fact blew Obama’s Dreams fairytale out of the water. If you recall, conservatives held Obama up to great mockery and ridicule. Again, had the progs at UoW been able to nip all this in the bud, they would have.
As for Mary, the case has been convincingly made that she said whatever was deemed most helpful to obama. Hardly a reliable source. (Btw, aren’t you the one who posted Cashill’s dissection of Mary’s changing tales? (Great article, incidentally.) He didn’t believe honesty was Mary’s foremost concern, and neither do I.)
The idea that educational institutions would not lie due to fear of their reputation, even to cover up lies that support the mythology of 0bola’s background, is nothing short of ...fantasy.
Thank you for your efforts and thanks to the others, too. I hope this info has been passed along to those who can make legal use of it.
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
What Mary said was in fact most Unhelpful to the ‘Dreams’ myth, she said she babysat for ANNA when her own daughter, who was born in July 1959 was 18 months of age.
It was Charlette Le Fevre, from the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries, who told Mary that Anna Obama was Stanley Ann, and the child, which Mary did NOT name, was the little potus. Charlette even editied her own article to suggest Mary’s memory was faulty about the age of her daughter, after Charlette realised the glaring mistake she had made, by adding 18 months to July 1959 and writing that meant the babysitting took place in January/February 1962.
No one seems to have picked up on that. Corsi did. That’s when Mary changed her story and said the child was 7 months old. Corsi rightly pointed out, that once again that brought the timing of the birth back to January/February 1961.
We aren’t the slightest bit intimidated by some documents or detail Charlette maintains were discovered at the university then sent to Corsi by email. She also finds bigfoot traces, UFO’s, ghosts and holds séances.
Her motivation for tracking down the Anna Obama she found in the directory was to be able to add one more name/destination to her Capitol Hill walking tours. She convinced herself and almost convinced Mary - and obviously you - that Anna Obama was somebody she simply wasn’t.
Time will tell. You have you POV and we have ours.
Before I used anything Mary said as reliable evidence, I’d need to know two things. One, Mary had a virtually photographic memory (because after ~fifty years, the best of us can be blurry about exact details), and two, that Mary was meticulously, one could say, religiously, honest. I’ve seen nothing to indicate either, in Mary’s case.
I’m open to seeing it otherwise, but there will need to be evidence presented. I.e.: other feats of memory, in which Mary was able to pinpoint ages down to the month after a fifty year gap, an—just as importantly—cases in which Mary told the truth, despite knowing her testimony would fundamentally harm Obama.
Mary should have said, "What? I never heard of her." And that would have been true, because when Mary first came to light in Alaska, in September 2008, she knew nuttin.
Now I would like to give it a rest, if you don't mind. I think I have a copy somewhere of the original Charlette article, in which she edits herself. I'll post the link when I find it. Other than that, I'm through with the subject, we aren't achieving much with this back and forth, are we? thanks for your interest.
Is Mary’s statement the “smoking gun”? Did she innocently reveal a truth the Obama camp has been fighting hard to keep covered up? She has never once mentioned seeing a newborn. It would stand to reason that if Obama was really just three weeks old when Mary first saw him, that would be what she would remember. A seven-month-old Obama in late August 1961 would make sense on several levels.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/just_when_was_obama_born.html
Agree we aren’t accomplishing anything. This is for three reasons.
One, no one has explained UoW’s motive in lying To Destroy Obama’s Narrative. I could see Leftist/Progs lying to help Obama out, but not lying to take him down.
Two, I absolutely do not believe that Mary accurately remembered to the month how old her daughter was at a certain time fifty years prior. I self-tested this point, and came nowhere close. My IQ, however, is above the 98th percentile. If I couldn’t remember ages-to-the-month from fifty years ago, I don’t believe Mary did either.
Three, as names, Anna is but a variant of Ann. My college roommate’s name was Ann, and she went by Anna for a while. It was no big deal. Corsi said it’s widely accepted that Anna was Stanley Ann. That seems immanently reasonable to me.
Is it possible that Mary was coached by someone connected to Obama, who was trying to minimize the impact of Stanley Ann’s Seattle move, at a time when Dreams placed her in HI?
Text reprint of archived article:
Baby Sitting Barack Obama on Seattle¹s Capitol Hill
by Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson
Seattle Museum of the Mysteries
1/28/09
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts?page=11875#11875
Charlette edited:
[Note: 9/3/09: I believe Mary’s daughter was older than what she remembered which would account for the age discrepency].
I read this article. So far I’ve seen nothing persuasive to the effect that Mary has the memory of a supercomputer, or that she’s honest above all else. Someone else has speculated that she was coached. Put me in that camp as well.
Charlette’s interest was primarily the publicity she could generate for her Museum of the Mysteries venture. She conducted walking tours through Capitol Hill, where there were past residencies of some famous/infamous people. She apparently discovered the directory listing for Anna Obama, and the reverse directory gave her the names of the other residents in that property named Villa Ria apartments.
By the time Charlette found Mary in Alaska, probably through that article about her yard signs being stolen, that property had long been demolished. All Charlette had to do was Google her name...
Charlette contacted Mary in Alaska by telephone, and that conversation is what Charlette wrote about. If there was any coaching, it was a poor effort, and it certainly didn’t take place before Charlette tracked her down. She had to be told that Anna was someone else, she simply remembered her as Anna and she remembered how old her own daughter was at the time.
If Charllette could find Mary, why couldn’t someone else?
UoW says the person who took classes as Stanley Ann lived at the address cited by Mary. As I said, I agree with Corsi and other researchers in general: Anna was Ann.
I put you in that camp a long time ago, I just wonder why you bother responding to anything I write. It’s not ME you are debating, it’s the written word from various sources. The shenanigans around that Mary story should be painfully obvious, it took Charlette from September until March to wake up to her mistake about the dates, and then she edited her own article SIX MONTHS LATER.
I think I understand the reluctance to accept the obvious, Stanley Ann Dunham wasn’t the mother of neither the child Mary baby-sat nor of the baby she apparently-probably-maybe showed to Susan in late August...and who it might have been attended the University of Washington that was the subject of the emailed data sent to Corsi remains open to question.
Can we leave the record stand by itself for now? I think I’ve provided enough information and links for you to have something to ponder.
I appreciate the info you have provided. Here are my takeaways:
UoW would not have lied/committed academic fraud to discredit Obama/make a laughingstock out of Dreams. Had they been willing to lie, it would have been to help obama, not to destroy the underpinnings of his political career.
Some women had fifty yo memories re SA and the baby. It’s possible that they were honestly confused after so many years, and got details wrong. It’s also possible that they purposefully lied, either on their own or with prompting, in an effort to help Obama. Since it’s impossible to know the degree of accuracy embodied in their statements, they should be taken with a grain of salt.
Using a variant of one’s own name is not unusual. If the same address is listed for Ann as for Anna, they are almost certainly the same person.
No published researcher has raised doubts that the person in Seattle taking classes ‘61 was Stanley Ann—not even on such sites as WND or American Thinker. Considering the degree to which conservative researchers have picked apart the details of Obama’s and SA’s narratives, the possibility that they are ALL missing a major hoax is statistically negligible.
Agsin, appreciate all your input. Thanks for the many links, etc.
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.