. . . . # 136 is Important.
Thanks, David.
.
I just read an interview w Stanley Ann's best friend in HS, Maxine Box. According to Box, Stanley was there during her senior year, and went from Mercer Island to HI w her family.
My question is this. What reason would Box have for lying? Do you honestly believe she has been threatened or bribed to lie? If so, by whom, and why? Wouldn't it be risky to send out people to bribe and threaten every single person who knew SAD in HS and in the Universalist Church, and to do this even prior to the ‘08 election? All it would take is one person speaking up on the record, and at least on sites like this we would know the truth. Do you honestly believe every single acquaintance of Stanley Ann in her Mercer Island days went along w the fraud? If so, why?
I hope you will answer these questions. I ask them in good faith. I would be very open to your theory and some of the others if only more hard evidence were presented. It's the lack of actual evidence, and the improbability of such a large scale conspiracy succeeding for over four years, that trips me up. Please help me out if you can/will.
Those are thoughtful difficult insightful questions which directly impact the substantive issues. I am going to take a crack at answering. Some of the answers are speculative--others do not make any difference.
The ultimate answer to "why" is that Barry's actual history is a sufficient negative politically and probably legally that he could not have been a credible candidate for the Senate much less President.
I think there is probably a 60-40 chance that he was in fact born outside the United States in which case he is not eligible under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to occupy the office of President because he is not a "Natural Born Citizen" as required.
Further, he appears to be the son of Malcolm Little, an Islamic advocate of violent revolution and establishment on racial lines of a different form of government in the United States and the political carryover today from his father's views is likely to preclude any kind of serious political candidacy. If he were a Conservative Republican, I doubt that anyone would care but he isn't--his policies sound like more saleable extensions of those advocated by his father.
As a Presidential candidate, he was a Picture Book Liberal Democrat candidate--so the price of making him a viable candidate was support for the legend set out in the book Ayers wrote for him, "Dreams from my Father"--"Dreams".
Many of the Liberals didn't know and have gone along because they want to believe. And this is a lot like investors who have bet on a particular investment outcome–anyone who does not believe is an enemy; say or do anything to avoid dissent. And the ultimate issue here involves the removal from office by legal process of the most powerful man on earth. The issue will outlive his Presidency–if the fairy tale from Dreams is ultimately dissolved, at least two Supreme Court Justices would be removed, even after his term is over.
But you are correct there is a core group of people who do know and they need to be telling something other than the truth.
Box probably knows most of the story of his origin if not the entire story. Probably so does Close. So does Tony.
On the first substantive issue you identify, the Seattle-Mercer Island story, it isn't really clear that the legend in Dreams is not true. No doubt that the Dunham family was in Seattle in 1956--initially North of the University where she would in fact have gone to Nathan Eckstein; by 1957, on Mercer Island living at Shorewood.
She may well have been there through her graduation from High School in 1960. The reason to be skeptical is that the issue is subject to conclusive proof and conclusive proof has not been forthcoming--instead, much of the evidence offered and maybe all of it is fake.
But the exact time line for 1960-61 for Barry is not clear and it is possible that the story through her graduation from Mercer Island High School in 1960 is true. It may not make any difference whether she remained at Mercer Island through June of 1960 or not. But there is reason to doubt it.
The story from Mercer Island in 1960 through Hawaii and the University of Hawaii Russian Class is not true. Stanley's first appearance on the record in Honolulu is in the spring of 1963.
The only contrary evidence is a letter from the University of Hawaii and a purported U of Washington transcript--no transcript from Hawaii; the class probably was not offered; the place where the initial fairy tale had it taught didn’t exist; they didn’t have staff teachers who could have taught the class (the current fairy tale is that there were at least two women in Hawaii who knew enough Russian to teach a class somewhere but what they might have been able to do or have done is not in any kind of record to support the legend); it isn't a Freshman class; she was not there as a Freshman even in the letter version; looking at her ultimate degree, it doesn't look like she got academic credit for either the Russian class or for the year she purportedly spent at the University of Washington. That part of the story didn't happen.
And to be clear, at this point, there isn't any doubt that the University of Washington transcript record is also a fix (the document is not a 1961-62 transcript; the form is wrong; it is not prepared as such transcripts were prepared; it is just another fake image–like Hawaii, extreme Liberals are in control of the process and it is not surprising that they were able to manipulate the record)--it isn't a record of Stanley Ann Dunham; it does not even record attendance of Anna Toutonghi Obama.
We are looking back 50+ years in history--so to get a credible rejection of the story, you need someone with a reliable 50 year memory and the courage to take on the establishment version of the story which supports the political position of the most powerful man on earth. And in fact, there are a couple of people who have said it isn't so but they haven't been able to make a credible record case.
The people who have gone along are Establishment Liberals living in a very Establishment Liberal political environment who share a political objective in doing so. And remember, the support of Box and Close and Tony developed in the mid nineties, around thirty years after the fact, at the time Dreams was written. Stanley was still alive in the initial stages. So you don’t have much difficulty developing the scenario in which Stanley developed a core of support for a story that supported the ability of the man to whom she has been a long term quasi adoptive mother to run for the Senate and later for the Presidency.
Barry tells you, I believe in Dreams, of his mother referring to the late 50's period by saying "of course I was an Au Pair then . . . ". It isn't clear exactly to what period or location that reference applies.
What appears to have happened is that sometime in the period between the end of 1959 and the end of 1961, Stanley took on the position of being an Au Pair--a glorified baby sitter for Barry. And that engagement ultimatly proved to be her lifetime work. It may be that happened in two stages–first, she worked for someone else as an Au Pair; and was then engaged through a mutual connection to take on the Barry assignment.
As to the Kenya story and the issue of where he really came from--
As a lawyer, from the litigator's perspective, the only admissible evidence on the question of where he was born consists of Barry's statements against interest that he was born in Kenya--I view that as a way to put the legal burden of proof on the question of place of birth on Barry. But I do not think he was born in Kenya.
There is a clear pictorial and collateral evidentary record that there are two little boys in play here. The picture of the two of them together has been posted here a number of times and Fred will post it again if necessary.
You take the montage of pictures of the growing up younger lighter skinned boy and there is just no room for reasonable argument that he is not Barry.
The primary distinguishing feature of the older darker skinned boy is his receding chin which has stayed with him throughout his life. Fred should also post a montage consisting of the baby boy picture; the Christmas Tree boy picture; and the full facial feature of Roman from his web page. Again, there isn’t much room for reasonable argument about who the older boy is.
One of those little boys is Barry; the other is Barack H. Obama, II. II is older--from the picture, probably about a year older.
I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that II was born in Kenya. But from what I know, I don't think Barry was born there.
Based on Martha Trowbridge's story, Zullo looked in New York for a birth and reported negative. However Zullo failed to find the birth of a Barry Little which in many ways fits the time frame for Barry and which has as far as I know not yet been followed up. But that may be a bad lead and given the extent to which the record has been manipulated, it may not be reliable.
Collectively, we all now know a great deal more about his initial appearances and might well be able to put together an effective search for the location if we had the resources to follow up. We don't.
Remember also, Barry and his allies have spent a prodigious sum of money concealing the true story about his origin--by my estimate perhaps as much as $10-$12 million. It isn't very likely that a group of amateur volunteers is going to defeat that kind of effort.
On the other hand, after the election, there will remain a significant political incentive to pursue and resolve the story even if the criminal conduct which has been involved is pardoned by Barry on the way out the door. I suppose one question which maybe Donald Trump can answer is whether or not a Romney Administration would have the political courage to pursue the issue.
mark
. . . . # 136 is Important.
Thanks, David.
.
It boils down a matter of conflicting evidence. I've only examined two components of the theory you laid out. In both cases, I found critical, readily-available, well-documented conflicting evidence. What really shocked me, however, is how little research has been done into this conflicting evidence by the people most committed to the theory you detailed. How can you establish your conjectures as even somewhat likely to be true without thoroughly investigating evidence that challenges them?
What I'm asking is this. If your theory is true, or even somewhat likely to be true, then it must be able to rationally account for not just the facts that support it but the facts that undermine, or at the very least appear, to undermine it. I have been shocked beyond words at how little investigation has been done by the very people most vocal in promoting your version of Obama’s nativity into conflicting evidence. Worse, when someone else researches this evidence, an eruption of nasty irrationality occurs. Far from thanking a fellow birther for uncovering heretofore undiscussed evidence, your fellow SAD-is-not-the-mother adherents go on full scale a t t a c k against the messenger. There is zero calm, rational evaluation of the new evidence [which should by no means be new; it should be very old by now] and 100 percent a t t a c k mode against the party that uncovered the evidence and/or facts.
I cannot entertain any theory whose proponents operate this way. Just yesterday you explained that SAD probably left Mercer Island HS following her junior year. I went looking for evidence, and discovered none. I.e.: no evidence exists that anyone in SAD’s senior class remarked on her year-long absence. Why was this not investigated prior to my poking around in it? Why, furthermore, was I savaged for making this ‘discovery’ [which should not, at this point, have been a discovery at all; it should have been old, familiar ground to all adherents of your theory].
There are numerous similar issues. I cannot find a single proponent of the SAD-is-not-the-mother theory who has delved into conflicting evidence and offered any thoughtful, intelligent analysis. Rather, the near-psychotic reactions I observe when conflicting evidence is presented serves only to persuade me that the theory has no merit.
Granted, David, you are not in that category at all. I've never seen you meltdown and hurl invective. And again, I do very much appreciate your detailed, thoughtful response. Yet I cannot get beyond the fact that so little research has been expended on even the most basic conflicting evidence to your theory. [For example, one proponent didn't even know SAD had earned a PhD. What an indictment. Another suggested she never graduated from HS at all. Okay: where's the evidence that she earned a GED??? It goes on and on.]
I will give your theory a second look when, and only when, its proponents themselves start delving into conflicting evidence. So long as the MO is and remains a t t a c k, a t t a c k, a t t a c k anyone who dares to do the research, the theory is useless.
Fwiw.