Posted on 02/25/2013 9:25:42 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Today, I had a conversation with an investigator from the Cold Case Posse in AZ. We talked and I expanded on several dossiers filled with evidence for over an hour. They asked for all of my relevant information on Obama, the Harry Bounel alias evidence, and the dossiers I completed on Stanley Ann Dunham, her parents, and Michelle Obama as well. They have it all. BTW they also say that it looks like my information cannot be disproved and will be useful.
I have proof, definitive proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was in WA state in "1961" as per the issuance of a SSN numident in her name with the SSN 535-40-8522. There is no way that she was in HI and I have proof because in the fall she was in college in WA, not HI.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
If the Stanley Ann-is-not-the-mother theory were correct its proponents could calmly and logical present facts and evidence, and argue their case in a rational manner. Instead their MO is constant personal attack, insults, snark, goading, rudeness and bully-tactics. They act like vicious children, and treat their fellow conservatives as The Enemy. That approach is not the sign of truth. It is a sign of ‘pounding the table’, which is what one does when the facts do not make the desired point.
Good for you, just kick the can again. LOL.
Show me one genuine , non fake document that proves Stanley Anne Dunham is the natural mother of Barak Obama.
Or just eff off and find someone else to harry.
The current so called president of the United States is a fable,a figment of someone’s imagination. No one knows who his mother is or was.
And really, its actually to late to really give a damn.
Thanks for proving my point, Candor. “Eff off”, really? Really? Out of the blue, you tell me to “eff off”?
You know what I say to that?
I say, “You have a nice day too.”
“There is no credible documentary evidence that Stanley Anne Dunham is in fact Barak Obama’s mother.”
IMO, the INS FOIA documents present a nearly ironclad circumstantial case supporting Stanley Ann Dunham as Barry’s mom. These documents and the UH and UW transcripts all cross-corroborate SADO’s attendance in Russian class, marriage to BHO Sr, being impregnated by BHO Sr., address living with her parents and her intent to attend college in WA after the birth of BHO Sr’s baby. It is all there in federal government and state university documents.
IMO, only if a credible case can be made that the INS FOIA docs are forged could there be a supportable claim that “there is no credible documentary evidence” SADO is Barry’s mom.
Do you, Candor7, claim that the INS FOIA docs are forged?
Is so, what evidence supporting your claim of INS FOIA forgery can you offer? Details, please, including links would be appreciated.
Absolutely. Eff right off.
circumstantial case ?
This is hardly a court of criminal law bound by the rules of evidence.
We simply do not have ONE document that proves that Stanley Anne Dunham is the natural mother of Barrak Hussein Obama.
And thats a fact that is not circumstantial. Pardon me for pointing that out.
And thats after 6 years of people asking and demanding a simple proof of fact we all can do in a moment, on the “transparent “ president.
Its too late anyway. The damage has been done and it is irreversable.
Well thank you for making the exact same point I’ve been making, in spades.
All the best to you Candor; all the very best.
And I have been making the same point to you , which you persistently ignore, so eff off.
No one can produce one genuine document that proves that Stanley ANne Dunham is the natural mother of Barrak Hussein Obama.
Rest assurred, you’re in my prayers.
Many blessings, FW
“We simply do not have ONE document that proves that Stanley Anne Dunham is the natural mother of Barrak Hussein Obama.
“And thats a fact that is not circumstantial. Pardon me for pointing that out.’
That is not my understanding of the law. The law does not require absolute proof even in criminal cases.
Criminals can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt using ONLY circumstantial evidence.
In civil cases only a preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50%) is needed and that evidence can solely be circumstantial as well.
All plaintiffs and defendants are entitled in discovery to “the best evidence” to the greatest extent legally available at reasonable expense and convenience.
The INS FOIA documents are “the best evidence” currently available that SADO is Barry’s mom and are not just one but several that individually would suffice to lead any judge or jury to conclude who Barry’s mom most likely is beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO.
In contrast there actually are zero documents to support any other mother for Barry that I have seen.
The validity of the INS FOIA docs cannot yet be contested by making unfavorable comparisons to the documentary evidence supporting any alternative mother because, at least on the public record, there are no such documents.
The BHO Sr. INS FOIA docs CAN be entered into evidence under the federal rules of evidence (FRE), while missing hypothetical documents or hearsay in support of alternative mothers obviously can’t.
In addition, the INS FOIA docs provide a very well-documented, contemporaneous, cross-corroborated narrative as to when and where Barry’s two parents came together to conceive Barry.
Do you have an alternative mom for Barry for whom there is any documentation supporting that alternate maternity and supporting any coherent narrative supporting how, when and where she and the sperm donor came together?
Having numerous official documents supporting SADO as Barry’s mom trumps having no documents supporting any alternate mother every day, IMO.
Madelyn also left 1/2 million to Barry when she died..I just dont see her leaving her life savings to someone she dont know.. Zero is part of the dunham family..If barry was from another mother, then why would madelyn do that? Thats the way i see it anyway
I wonder if old Madelyn “Toot” left some of that money to Maya?
“..If barry was from another mother, then why would madelyn do that? Thats the way i see it anyway”
I agree. Barry is part Dunham by all available evidence I have seen.
The narrative put forward by others having Stanley Ann suddenly become a nanny for Barry out of the blue in 1964 would mean that Toot and Gramps were part of the conspiracy to hide his identity. For what reason would any same adoptive commie sympathetic grandparents take over the expense and spend the time and effort raise the spawn of a white-hating Muslim like Malcolm X?
Toot also used her connections with the bank president to get Barry into Punahou, IIRC, as she would for her own grandchild, not to mention personally raising him herself with Gramps for eight years.
If Toot left $500k to Barry, she probably left at least that much to Maya so Toot likely had an estate of at least $1M.
Carp, you know why. SAD and Dunhams were well paid to rear the child.
I do not believe that money could buy the genuine affection shown for Barry by his mom, and his grandparents in every photo available from the zoo to the beach with gramps to posing with his grandparents at Columbia (I don’t believe that was photoshopped). That is how I read the body language in the pics. I also regard Barry as having the same jaw-line as his grandfather.
If someone had paid money to place Barry with SADO and the Dunhams in HI in exchange for money, for what possible reason would they do that and why would they pick the Dunhams? Such a person would have to be out of their mind!
SADO was a struggling student who married a Muslim and took off for Indonesia with Barry and it would be a felony crime to take custody of a child under a false identity and take it out of the country, not to mention threaten the future of SADO and her mom’s bank VP position.
IMO the best evidence (abundant, IMO) and Occam’s Razor as well as common sense dictates that Stanley Ann is almost certainly Barry’s mom.
The Mal-Val narrative is all blanks or problematic on key questions such as:
1. Where was Barry conceived?
2. Where was Barry delivered?
3. Why did his mother and father give him up to SADO in 1964?
4. If SADO never saw Barry before 1964, why was he given to her with the name BHO? Mal and Val had no known connection to BHO Sr. in 1964.
5. Would a brief alleged baby-sitting episode supposedly in January 1961 by a distant cousin by marriage in Seattle to an alleged wife of BHO Sr. provide a sufficient connection to Mal and Val for their son to be named BHO as he was given to SADO to be his nanny?
6. Why did the alleged Asian Anna S Obama in Seattle, alleged secret wife of BHO Sr., give up her son to BHO Sr. to be taken to Kenya to be raised by Ruth in the great baby identity swap of 1964 and then disappear?
7. When were the pictures in Kenya of the two boys (alleged Roman and alleged Barry) taken in the studio and with BHO Sr. and Ruth? I do not believe that a coherent narrative can be constructed that places these two boys with these supposed identities in Kenya at the same time for these pictures, or at any place at the same time. (Of course, they are Mark and David!)
You make good points. However, there is another point that would be made in a logical discussion. (Not that logic plays any part in the SADO-Not-the-Mother theory, but I submit this for your consideration, Seize.) Let’s concede there is limited evidence of SADO as the biological mother. You’ve got a granny in Kenya making claims, the doc you mentioned [which, if it’s forged, requires a conspiracy as big as Jupiter, but whatever], a strong Dunham physical/family resemblance, and not much else.
In a rational discussion the next question would be twofold. 1: is there more than one explanation for this paucity of evidence? And 2: is there any solid, factual evidence supporting a different mother?
So far on the second point I have seen zero actual evidence; only this vast, nebulous, unsubstantiated conspiracy: speculation and conjecture, w zero actual facts.
On the first question, however, the unequivocal answer is YES. There is certainly at least one other explanation for the lack of natal evidence. Namely, that a foreign birth has been meticulously covered up. I.e.: from sometime at or around 1993 persons associated w Obama realized the foreign birth was a major problem and began destroying, altering and sealing documents. There is, in fact, ample evidence that this actually did occur, and additional evidence periodically comes to light. So far, this theory has far more basis in fact to back it up than the mystery-mother theory, and that’s just basic logic.
Here’s a quick analogy to illustrate the point re: logic. A group of pedestrians come upon a body splattered on the pavement at the foot of a very tall apartment complex. One of the pedestrians says, ‘This can only mean one thing: suicide.’
When the detectives arrive they set about collecting evidence. Why? If it’s a clear cut case of suicide, why even bother?
They collect evidence because they don’t know a priori if it was suicide, a tragic accident, or murder. Only evidence will reveal the answer.
The SADO-Not-the-Mother crowd doesn’t grasp this basic fact. As long as 2 or more scenarios acct for the scarcity of birth records/evidence, they can’t use that circumstance alone to ‘prove’ one theory over another. They need to build a case for their particular theory based on evidence, FACTS and probability.
Simple logic: it’s becoming a lost art.
Here's a novel idea.
Instead of trying to prove researchers wrong, why don't you devote your energy to proving them right?
You've never added any useful information to these threads. All you've done thus far is post plagiarized information, and then tell people how wrong they are.
pla·gia·rize (v):
to take and use ideas, passages, etc., from (another's work.)
I’m with you. The Mal-Val narrative is just plain strange and incoherent.
A pregnant Val and a pregnant Asian woman both losing track of their babies or exchanging them, or giving them up, or whatever. One living with Ruth in Kenya, one living in Seattle, etc. It’s all so wacky. I’ve not been able, after all this time, to make any coherent sense out of the theory.
In the photo set up-thread (4 baby boys), I see depicted three photos of a young Obama and one of a different child (the real David - I guess). So if the narrative starts with a pictures of both Obama AND David instead of four photos of just a young Obama the rest falls apart from there.
In my opinion, lots of straining and jamming of non-existent evidence into a theory that went off the rails big-time. Lots of conjecture.
Stanley Ann is unaccounted for during the time of the pregnancy. The most logical story is that Stanley Ann is the mother and was pregnant some place other than Hawaii.
I suspect a pregnant Stanley Ann with a foreign birth is the same Ann, Anne, and Anna. Her missing passport and the missing national archive records are big tells.
If the Mal/Val story turns out to be correct in the end, I’ll gladly congratulate those who ferreted out the correct solution and even apologize for being so obtuse. So for me, until that time the story is just that, a story.
That’s not to say that there aren’t some strange facts and circumstances surrounding Obama. There definitely are. I just think they are more mundane ...even for Obama and the known cast of commies, marxists, and fruitcake characters in his life.
One of the reasons I think they even brought up the subject of the folded up birth certificate and vague marriage in “Dreams” was just because it is vague and most likely foreign. The circumstances of Obama’s origins were already out there. The Hawaiian school had his information. The hospital knew whether or not he was born there. Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, ICE, passport office, State Department, INS, Indonesian government etc. had his information. He was a nobody at that point.
Back when “Dreams” was being written, they didn’t know what the future held or that they would need to or be able to so successfully hide, obfuscate documents and forge birth certificates. They didn’t know that privacy laws would become suicide pacts that help cover up fraud.
So in “Dreams” they use the vagueness to their advantage. Why bring it up otherwise? If he’s legit, there is no need to mention anything about a birth certificate. If he is the super-secret love child of a space alien and coyote and nobody has even an inkling, why draw attention to it?
Only with the growing political power from his community organizing groups, ACORN, Pelosi, Brennan, and all the political hacks, Soros, DNC, Chicago mob, Saudi money connections, etc. was he able to scrub and forge his records to allow him run.
They are probably surprised them selves that the “you are a racist” if you mention my father is a non-American scam worked and everyone with any authority was too scared to mention it. They just steamrolled their way over that aspect of the NBC issue.
Once a black man secured the Democratic nomination, nobody was going to mention a “little thing” like his father’s citizenship status.
“Look squirrel. You’re a racist. Look, McCain was born in Panama. Look squirrel. You’re a racist”...worked well for them.
Heck, in retrospect, a birth on foreign soil with a foreign parent might not have been a bridge too far for the first black presidential nominee, but it certainly would have exposed all the fraud. Foreign scholarships. Forged birth certificates. Tampered with passport record.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
“Definition of PLAGIARIZE. transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source”
LucyT:
You left out a key concept in your incomplete definition which is “without crediting the source.”
Show me where I have ever claimed that the work of other people was my own or failed to provide sources or links for quotes when I have used other sources.
A you can see from recent comments, more than a few FReepers find my analysis of the Mal-Val narrative and the competing "SADO is Barry's mom" narrative to be valuable and I take great satisfaction from that. It is normal and necessary for competing narratives explaining a conspiracy to be aggressively challenged on the forensic merits, and that is what I have done using my professional training.
Carp, you have a lot of talent. Why aren't you willing to help with research that might prove them right?
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.