Photo at # 770.
Thanks, Brown Deer.
Happy St. Patrick's Day to All.
There are good ships,
and there are wood ships,
The ships that sail the sea.
But the best ships, are friendships,
And may they always be.
Posted on 03/08/2014 6:07:03 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
So when did Ann's and Obama Sr.'s "whatever happened happened fast" wedding happen? For no apparent reason, confusion abounds among Obama's biographers over the wedding date:
1. Dreams claims that Ann and Obama Sr. were in married "in 1960"; similarly, Mendell's 2007 book claims that the couple were married "sometime in late 1960" when they "slipped off alone to the island of Maui"; and both Obamaland (2008) by Ron Jacobs (with contributor David Maraniss) and a 2007 Washington Post article claim that the two were married "late in 1960."
2. A 2007 Chicago Tribune article vaguely claims that Ann and Obama Sr. were married "six months before" Barack's birth on Aug 4, 1961 -- or, in other words, sometime in early 1961.
3. An April 2008 Time article by Amanda Ripley, as does Maraniss's August 2008 article, gives a specific date of February 2, 1961 for the wedding, apparently based on Ann's and Obama Sr.'s 1964 divorce records – mysteriously appearing on the web. But since fake documents have been known to appear on the web, Obama's biographers, Ripley and Maraniss, might want to verify the 1964 divorce documents – especially since a Feb. 2, 1961 marriage date for "Ann and Obama Sr." wasn't reported in any Honolulu Advertiser or Honolulu Star-Bulletin marriage lists from February 1961. Take the February 8, 1961 Star-Bulletin, which listed eighteen marriages from Feb. 3, Feb. 4, and Feb. 6, and no Feb. 2 marriages, and the February 7, 1961 Advertiser, which listed eleven marriages from Feb. 2 to 4, including two Feb. 2 marriages.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Richard was a name that came out of the name of the kindergarten she established, MADARI - MA for Mark, DA for David, and that left RI unaccounted for, so presto RI FOR RICHARD.
SPINNING OUT A STORY. LINK WTPOTUS
Haven't you heard of the practice of creating names and children no one can find? Maybe Richard also had an unfortunate accident, easy enough to arrange - it's only on paper, no one actually dies.
Occam is for lazy people, it doesn’t work for identity fraud, is enables it.
There are several reports about the Indonesian records for zero being cleared out by someone from the US with ample largesse and there’s a letter from the authorities in the US which states that the passport application for her first passport issued in July 1965 are not available because they have been destroyed.
It would be a waste of time supplying that informatin to you, so I won’t bother. It’s on Google.
And the author has a self-confessed mental disability, and didn't make the cut to become a CIA employee. Now he spends most of his time sueing his sycophantic little operatives onto me.
It might have been that the bc which had the name on it that he is now using, showed the name of the mother as Anna (maiden name) Obama, and the birthdate in January. Might have been useful up until it was time to write 'Dreams'?
June 22, 2012
Maraniss Bio Deepens Obama Birth Mystery
By Jack Cashill
David Maraniss has no use for “birthers.” In a recent interview, he dismissed their beliefs as “preposterous” and wonders why they cling to them, since “every fact and document leads in another direction.”
Yet the one core belief that has united the birther community — if there be such a thing — is that Obama dissembled when he talked at both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Conventions about his parents’ “improbable love” and “abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.”
Birthers have known for years that there was no Obama family, that the couple never lived together, that Obama campaigned on a lie, and that the major media covered for him every step of the way. This, ironically, Maraniss confirms in Barack Obama: The Story, a book that has to be parsed as carefully as the Talmud or Finnegan’s Wake to be made sense of. Despite his slam on birthers, the facts herein will come as more of a shock to the Obama faithful than to those who have questioned the official birth narrative.
“In the college life of Barack Obama [Senior] in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.” Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”
Having established the facts, Maraniss turns protective. He refuses to explore the implications of his own reporting. The most consequential is that Obama grounded his 2008 campaign — his very persona, for that matter — on a family story that was pure fraud. Lyndon Johnson’s masterful biographer, Robert Caro, would never let his subject walk away from such a lie unscathed.
The casual reader of the Maraniss book is left with the impression that Ann and Obama had a one-night stand that they both regretted, but that they consented to marriage because that is what people did back in 1961. The more informed reader wonders whether Barack Obama, Sr. was fronting for the real father, the best candidate being Obama’s future mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Maraniss opens the door on both possibilities but fails to even peek through.
As to the presumed February 1961 wedding, the usually thorough Maraniss offers no detail at all. His endnotes say only this: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.” To be sure, Ann and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited both their purposes: Obama to extend his visa, and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband Lolo Soetoro in the country. The INS believed her to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro. Maraniss explains none of this.
Like all other mainstream biographers of the Obama family, Maraniss tells us not a single word about Ann’s life in the six months between the February wedding and Obama’s August 1961 birth. Given the controversy surrounding Obama’s place of birth, Maraniss should have commented on a void of this duration, and he knows it.
Later, when discussing Obama’s murky New York years, he opines, “Nothing is so tempting for conspiracy theorists as what appears to be a hole in a life.” Maraniss attempts to flesh out the New York years. He makes no effort to fill this critical hole in Ann’s life.
On the subject of the birth, the usually voluble Maraniss is as tight-lipped as he is on the wedding. He reports that Obama was born at 7:24 in the evening of August 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Hospital. As reference, he cites “State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth,” presumably the unverified document posted online last April.
In the way of confirmation, Maraniss offers only one story — an elaborate one that he takes two pages to tell. It comes down to this: a woman is having lunch shortly after Obama’s birth with an OB/GYN, who tells her, “Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”
The woman, Barbara Czurles-Nelson, has been telling this story for several years. Maraniss adds the clarification that the doctor in question was not the one who delivered the baby, as first reported, but someone who had heard the “Stanley” anecdote on the grapevine.
One serious flaw in Maraniss’s reporting is that he gives too much credence to obviously inflated memories. A glaring example, one that has been cited often as fact, is of the paper Obama allegedly wrote as a schoolboy in Indonesia in which he said, “Someday I want to be president.”
Maraniss quotes the entire, seemingly impressive paper, both in English and in the Indonesian language, Bahasa. He then adds, “The paper no longer exists, though [the teacher’s] memory is precise and there is no reason not to trust it.” No, David, there is every reason not to trust it.
Czurles-Nelson also remembers her story much too well. In the gratuitously lengthy account of the “Stanley” anecdote, the reader learns, for instance, that 50 years earlier, Czurles-Nelson and the doctor were sitting “near the lunch buffet.” This is the kind of confirming detail Maraniss likes to provide.
All the stranger, then, is his failure to provide a single shred of information regarding the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth. The reader has no idea who took Ann to the hospital, who delivered her baby, who took her home, or even where “home” was.
Maraniss hints at where home was not — namely, the residence her parents shared with the Pratt family at 6085 Kalanianole Highway, the address listed on the birth certificate. As Maraniss relates, the Pratt daughter, then an adolescent, “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.” He adds, “[Ann] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].”
Indeed, the young family never lived together, and this Maraniss concedes. “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital,” he writes, “he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland ... .” They had decamped for Seattle, where they would live for the next year.
Maraniss interviewed not a single person who saw the newborn in Hawaii. It is likely that Obama Sr. never saw young Barry. Barry Obama’s first sighting was in Seattle. Maraniss tells us nothing about how Ann and the baby got there.
In the blogosphere, these revelations do not comes as news. In the mainstream media, however, they must stun. In their respective biographies of Obama and his family, all published 2010 or later, the New Yorker’s David Remnick, the Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs, and the New York Times’s Janny Scott and Jodi Kantor each consciously skirted the facts to sustain the illusion of a functioning Obama family. More troubling, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza did the same in his disingenuous 2010 bestseller, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.
As recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was telling America’s schoolchildren that his father “left when I was two years old.” The media let him get away with it. Is it any wonder that birthers don’t take their criticisms too seriously?
Maraniss debunks this fraudulent birth narrative much too quietly. Perhaps he feels guilty about contributing to it himself. He wrote a 10,000-word Obama bio for the Washington Post in August 2008, and he made a total botch out of the birth narrative. Had he gotten the story straight then, he might have turned the election.
David Maraniss has no use for “birthers.” In a recent interview, he dismissed their beliefs as “preposterous” and wonders why they cling to them, since “every fact and document leads in another direction.”
Yet the one core belief that has united the birther community — if there be such a thing — is that Obama dissembled when he talked at both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Conventions about his parents’ “improbable love” and “abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.”
Birthers have known for years that there was no Obama family, that the couple never lived together, that Obama campaigned on a lie, and that the major media covered for him every step of the way. This, ironically, Maraniss confirms in Barack Obama: The Story, a book that has to be parsed as carefully as the Talmud or Finnegan’s Wake to be made sense of. Despite his slam on birthers, the facts herein will come as more of a shock to the Obama faithful than to those who have questioned the official birth narrative.
“In the college life of Barack Obama [Senior] in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.” Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”
Having established the facts, Maraniss turns protective. He refuses to explore the implications of his own reporting. The most consequential is that Obama grounded his 2008 campaign — his very persona, for that matter — on a family story that was pure fraud. Lyndon Johnson’s masterful biographer, Robert Caro, would never let his subject walk away from such a lie unscathed.
The casual reader of the Maraniss book is left with the impression that Ann and Obama had a one-night stand that they both regretted, but that they consented to marriage because that is what people did back in 1961. The more informed reader wonders whether Barack Obama, Sr. was fronting for the real father, the best candidate being Obama’s future mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Maraniss opens the door on both possibilities but fails to even peek through.
As to the presumed February 1961 wedding, the usually thorough Maraniss offers no detail at all. His endnotes say only this: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.” To be sure, Ann and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited both their purposes: Obama to extend his visa, and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband Lolo Soetoro in the country. The INS believed her to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro. Maraniss explains none of this.
Like all other mainstream biographers of the Obama family, Maraniss tells us not a single word about Ann’s life in the six months between the February wedding and Obama’s August 1961 birth. Given the controversy surrounding Obama’s place of birth, Maraniss should have commented on a void of this duration, and he knows it.
Later, when discussing Obama’s murky New York years, he opines, “Nothing is so tempting for conspiracy theorists as what appears to be a hole in a life.” Maraniss attempts to flesh out the New York years. He makes no effort to fill this critical hole in Ann’s life.
On the subject of the birth, the usually voluble Maraniss is as tight-lipped as he is on the wedding. He reports that Obama was born at 7:24 in the evening of August 4, 1961 at Kapi’olani Hospital. As reference, he cites “State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth,” presumably the unverified document posted online last April.
In the way of confirmation, Maraniss offers only one story — an elaborate one that he takes two pages to tell. It comes down to this: a woman is having lunch shortly after Obama’s birth with an OB/GYN, who tells her, “Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”
The woman, Barbara Czurles-Nelson, has been telling this story for several years. Maraniss adds the clarification that the doctor in question was not the one who delivered the baby, as first reported, but someone who had heard the “Stanley” anecdote on the grapevine.
One serious flaw in Maraniss’s reporting is that he gives too much credence to obviously inflated memories. A glaring example, one that has been cited often as fact, is of the paper Obama allegedly wrote as a schoolboy in Indonesia in which he said, “Someday I want to be president.”
Maraniss quotes the entire, seemingly impressive paper, both in English and in the Indonesian language, Bahasa. He then adds, “The paper no longer exists, though [the teacher’s] memory is precise and there is no reason not to trust it.” No, David, there is every reason not to trust it.
Czurles-Nelson also remembers her story much too well. In the gratuitously lengthy account of the “Stanley” anecdote, the reader learns, for instance, that 50 years earlier, Czurles-Nelson and the doctor were sitting “near the lunch buffet.” This is the kind of confirming detail Maraniss likes to provide.
All the stranger, then, is his failure to provide a single shred of information regarding the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth. The reader has no idea who took Ann to the hospital, who delivered her baby, who took her home, or even where “home” was.
Maraniss hints at where home was not — namely, the residence her parents shared with the Pratt family at 6085 Kalanianole Highway, the address listed on the birth certificate. As Maraniss relates, the Pratt daughter, then an adolescent, “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.” He adds, “[Ann] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].”
Indeed, the young family never lived together, and this Maraniss concedes. “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital,” he writes, “he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland ... .” They had decamped for Seattle, where they would live for the next year.
Maraniss interviewed not a single person who saw the newborn in Hawaii. It is likely that Obama Sr. never saw young Barry. Barry Obama’s first sighting was in Seattle. Maraniss tells us nothing about how Ann and the baby got there.
In the blogosphere, these revelations do not comes as news. In the mainstream media, however, they must stun. In their respective biographies of Obama and his family, all published 2010 or later, the New Yorker’s David Remnick, the Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs, and the New York Times’s Janny Scott and Jodi Kantor each consciously skirted the facts to sustain the illusion of a functioning Obama family. More troubling, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza did the same in his disingenuous 2010 bestseller, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.
As recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was telling America’s schoolchildren that his father “left when I was two years old.” The media let him get away with it. Is it any wonder that birthers don’t take their criticisms too seriously?
Maraniss debunks this fraudulent birth narrative much too quietly. Perhaps he feels guilty about contributing to it himself. He wrote a 10,000-word Obama bio for the Washington Post in August 2008, and he made a total botch out of the birth narrative. Had he gotten the story straight then, he might have turned the election.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/maraniss_bio_deepens_obama_birth_mystery.html
http://laotze.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/tracking-down-obama-in-indonesia-barack.html
it’s in 5 parts:
http://laotze.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/tracking-down-obama-in-indonesia-part-5.html
excerpt:
Apparently, all of them have now come to know that the US presidential candidate for 2008 had once gone to this school in SDN 1 Menteng. Timothy delivered us to see Deputy Principal Akhmad Solikhin who was in his office. Akhmad was being visited by the United States Embassy staff. After having to wait for several hours, the party from the United States embassy left.
Akhmad said that since the news that Barack Obama had previously gone to this school in Jakarta, the world public seemed to be focused on this school that was previously named Carpentier Alting Stichting Nassau School. Including the US Embassy took part in attention. It is said, they want to give a big contribution to increase in the quality of the education in the school, the quality of the students, the teachers, as well as school facilities.
Photo at # 770.
Thanks, Brown Deer.
Happy St. Patrick's Day to All.
There are good ships,
and there are wood ships,
The ships that sail the sea.
But the best ships, are friendships,
And may they always be.
Not that I can follow what you mean by that statement, your grammar and grasp of english makes that difficult, but here you go: 
Well, that does it, Sammy loved Hawaii and he sang about it, Pabak Subuh had followers there, Frank Marshall Davis lived in Honolulu, President Sukarno is shown with Elvis in Hawaii in April, 1961, and the man zero most resembles, never went near the place. So that’s FIVE possible contenders for fatherhood. Whoops! I forgot the kenyan student. Make that SIX.
I’ll add them to the line-up soon.
Occam is not for lazy people. It’s for extremely imaginative sleuths, which I sometimes am, and I need Occam! It’s people like me who are open to all sorts of ideas that remind us; the monster shadow on the wall is probably my jacket thrown over a chair. KISS is useful to sleuths. There are exceptions, but not that many.
Nonething you so sagely offer applies to the results of a masterfully created false identity. Ayres for example, had no use for any razor. He took a half truth and embellished it to the hilt.
If you want to use a razor, apply it to ‘Dreams’. A couple of shaves there and the entire edifice collapses.
KISS is useful in creative writing, in suspense novels, but when it comes to trying to explain a complicated set of events, KISS is useless. You are welcome to apply the 'rule' to what you write, but recommending it to me won't reduce my output, not after it took a group of people several years to reach certain conclusions, some of which I'm trying to make available here. Against a tide of rejection and ridicule, I might add; yet not one of them has the ability to take the discussion beyond attack and into the area of debate. Well, not without resorting to quoting from 'Dreams' that is.
The five W's and an H are more to the point and would have been useful had Ayres applied them.
WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE WHY AND HOW.
It beats me why, as you are his greatest champion, why you don't make the leap and write to him youself? Might it be because you know it's going to be a waste of time because he's hardly going to contradict himself and you'll be no better off than you were?
Would that be Joey with Mark on the cover of Mark’s book?
Fred, what would I write to Mark Ndesandjo? That I believe he is telling the truth about David? That is my position, but it’s hardly worth Mark’s time, & wouldn’t make any sense anyway.
I can’t write and tell him I think he’s lying about David. I don’t believe he’s lying. So that’s out.
Surely you don’t expect me to write to him and tell him others think he’s lying about his own brother. Why would I do that? To spread gossip? No thanks; the gossip is sickening and sordid enough in its current context; there’s no need to spread it.
You took the words out of what I was thinking and asked the question before I had figured out how to compare them...and here you are. Clever, you are.
Because you wrote:
He could reveal the year in which the family photo was taken. He could, if he wasn’t too offended by the questions themselves, give specifics about his brother’s life and death. He could lay this matter to rest if given the chance.
And if he replied, you could post the letter here.
Frankly, I don't understand the kerfuffle, none of the images on the cover of the book show any names.
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.