Fox News Video: Donald Trump Goes There; Barack Obama's Real Name Is Barry Soetoro

Well if you ever find out what that ‘something’ was, please let me know.

I thought you’d have worked out what it is for yourself. Legal proof of marriage is limited to a Marriage Certificate.

This was 1964 in HI. I have no idea what ‘proof’ of marriage was acceptable to the judge. Do you have a citation for your claim that applies specifically to HI for that timeframe?

& btw, no, I don’t for a moment believe there was a standard issue marriage certificate available in Stanley Ann’s case. If there were, the excerpt I have posted from Dreams from my Father would be nonsensical gibberish. Ayers is an America-hating radical terrorist, but he’s not stupid. He wouldn’t hang an illegitimate birth around Obama’s neck for the heck of it. I explained his reasons for including that passage up thread. There is no other possible motive for putting such a ‘murky’ reference in Dreams. The ‘wedding’ was irregular *at best*.

Sorry, you got that the wrong way round.

The current legal proof of marriage is a Marriage Certificate and it’s the only document that suffices. If it was different in 1964, there’ll be a HI statute dated between 1964 and now that defines the change - that’s how legal systems work. If there isn’t, then it hasn’t changed. Can you cite any such statute?

Most of Dreams from my Father IS nonsensical gibberish.

The way I read that quote is that it wasn’t your typical happy-day wedding with all the trimmings (white dress, family, party and cake and happy, smiling photo album). It was a bare bones affair done in an almost shameful manner; an inter-racial marriage with a barely 18 year old, pregnant bride. It was, nonetheless, a legal wedding.

If there was no wedding, there’s no need for a divorce. If there was no wedding in Hawaii, the divorce documents wouldn’t have referred to it and the judge wouldn’t have signed off that he’d seen ‘due proof’ to that fact and it wouldn’t have appeared in the official Hawaii Index of Marriages for that era.

As noted above, people can and do get divorced who have never been married. That is a fact. The exact circumstances that result in a divorce-in-the-absence-legal-marriage apply to the Stanley-Ann divorce case. This being so, it cannot be maintained that proof of marriage was a necessity for divorce.

Yes, they can but the divorce papers would reflect those special circumstances. Dunham’s papers don’t so that can be discounted.

You need to try again.

‘Most of Dreams from my Father IS /nonsensical gibberish.’

This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen on FR. What is the source for that assessment? Is it just one of those cases where, if an anti-birther says it, it must be true? Or are you able to cite some actual evidence to back up that one-hundred percent false statement?

‘The way I read that quote is that it wasn’t your typical happy-day wedding with all the trimmings (white dress, family, party and cake and happy, smiling photo album). It was a bare bones affair done in an almost shameful manner; an inter-racial marriage with a barely 18 year old, pregnant bride. It was, nonetheless, a legal wedding.’

Classic, classic anti-birtherism. Something I noticed from my very first ever encounter with anti-birthers: facts are their enemies. That was several years ago, and I’ve seen nothing in the meantime to change my opinion. Present an anti-birther with facts, and they (1) ignore them, (2) ‘forget’ them, (3) attack them, or (4) mock them. In no case does a fact actually affect the thinking of an anti-birther. Nothing else does either. Their thinking is cast in concrete, facts & evidence notwithstanding.

Here are some facts for you. The opposite of a “real” wedding” is not a “legal” wedding. A legal wedding is “real”. A wedding which is ‘not real’ is not legal.

Here is another fact. There is nothing “murky” about a bare bones wedding. Even if the parties were ashamed, it still wouldn’t be “murky”. Rather, it would be a simple, bare-minimum wedding. Nothing ‘murky’ about it; in fact, it would be manifestly straightforward.

Here is another fact. It doesn’t take “courage” to learn the ‘bill of particulars’ re: a ‘bare bones’ wedding. Obama, via Ayers, was not confessing in Dreams that he is so cowardly that he couldn’t bear the thought of a simple, scaled down wedding. He certainly bore the fact that there was no cake, no witnesses, no photographs, etc. Having courageously borne these facts, is he then supposedly too scared to acknowledge that the ‘wedding’ was nothing elaborate?

Your suppositions are gibberish. Dreams from my Father is anything but. [If I have to explain that to you, I will. I hope I’m not dealing with a person too dense to grasp it on their own, but if so, I will unpack it for you. Say the word.]

Now here is another fact. Stanley Ann Dunham was alive when Dreams from my Father was published. Obama knew she would read that her ‘marriage’ was “murky” and that her son had insufficient courage to hear the details. If the ‘wedding’ was as you describe, just a simple, minimalistic affair, then the words Ayers wrote & Obama signed off on were viciously cruel. A mother doesn’t need to hear that her marital arrangements were too outré for her delicate son’s ears even to hear. If what Ayers/Obama wrote was lies, they were lies designed to cast Obama in the worst possible light. Tell me that not even anti-birthers believe that was the purpose of Dreams from my Father.

As a matter of fact, I believe Stanley Ann was already ill in June/July of ‘95. If so, Ayers’ idea of introducing Obama to the broader political stage was to depict him as a man who took vile, gratuitous potshots at a sick, dying and undeserving mother. How foolish does even an anti-birther have to be to imagine Ayers & Obama thought this was a smart political move? ‘Vote for me: I told nasty lies about my mother when she was on her deathbed, and made sure her final mos were as miserable as possible’.

The only reason Ayers/Obama would have included that passage is if it was true, & they needed to cover that base to protect Obama’s political future. That is the ONLY reason.

“This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen on FR. What is the source for that assessment? Is it just one of those cases where, if an anti-birther says it, it must be true? Or are you able to cite some actual evidence to back up that one-hundred percent false statement?”

Just my opinion of the thing. There’s no such thing as a ‘one-hundred percent false statement’ when it comes to opinions about books and stuff. I’m surprised you don’t know that. You don’t agree with my opinion? Fine. Not a problem. From the tone of your denunciation of my opinion, you clearly think very highly of the book. Great. I’m sure Obama must be very thankful to think there’s at least one person in the world who not only likes it but defends it vigorously.

“Classic, classic anti-birtherism. Something I noticed from my very first ever encounter with anti-birthers: facts are their enemies. That was several years ago, and I’ve seen nothing in the meantime to change my opinion. Present an anti-birther with facts, and they (1) ignore them, (2) ‘forget’ them, (3) attack them, or (4) mock them. In no case does a fact actually affect the thinking of an anti-birther. Nothing else does either. Their thinking is cast in concrete, facts & evidence notwithstanding.”

You didn’t present me with any facts. You cut and pasted a section of someone’s impressions about their parents wedding. I gave you my interpretation of it. If you want to get all hot and bothered about how I interpret adjectives, have at it.

I prefer to deal in real facts. The type that can be legally verified. Like the ones that demonstrate that Obama and Dunham got married in February ‘61 in Hawaii and were divorced in ‘64 as i’ve listed ad nauseam up-thread.

You’re clearly emotionally invested in the ‘Dunham in Kenya’ scenario and I can understand that being presented with hard, factual evidence against it must be upsetting. You haven’t presented a cogent argument against those facts (even though you’ve had multiple opportunities) so unless you can, I’m going to move on to other things for now.

‘Just my opinion of the thing.’

Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.

I wouldn’t be proud of it.

Your statement, btw, is one-hundred percent false if you cannot bring any evidence at all to bear that backs it up. You say it is just an opinion. So it is a baseless, ignorant opinion. Unless and until you substantiate it, it is just a self-serving line without any foundation whatsoever. [Yes, even opinions need back-up, if they are to be anything more than nonsense statements. If you say, ‘in my opinion so-and-so is a liar’, but cannot provide a single instance of that person actually telling a lie, your ‘opinion’ is worthless. If you cannot cite even one gibberish sentence from Dreams, your ‘opinion’ is self-serving twaddle.]

I presented you with a series of facts. If it were otherwise, then you must be saying (for instance) that Dreams was published AFTER Stanley Ann was dead. Or else you are saying that to have her own/only son describe her ‘wedding’ as something he didn’t have the courage to know the details about was a heartwarming thing for her to hear in the midst of her fatal illness...and I wouldn’t put it past you. Anything to prop up the anti-birther lies.

There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61. Since this discussion started, two separate cases have come to my attention re: couples that were granted divorces sans proof of marriage. In one case, there was no Marriage Certificate in existence. In the other case, it existed but was not required for the divorce proceedings. So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just blindly, mindlessly propping up the anti-birther narrative.

And you always will.

‘You’re clearly emotionally invested in the ‘Dunham in Kenya’ scenario’

You must be projecting. I haven’t even mentioned it. I have focused solely on the problems and issues of the anti-birther narrative. You can’t see the problems and you never will. You are so invested in anti-birtherism that even when you are presented with a fact, you are unable to recognize it as such. This is why I am not an anti-birther. I have never been able to ignore or deny the facts.

“Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.”

If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.

“You say it is just an opinion. So it is a baseless, ignorant opinion. Unless and until you substantiate it, it is just a self-serving line without any foundation whatsoever. [Yes, even opinions need back-up, if they are to be anything more than nonsense statements....”

What’s curious about this is that whilst my opinion is baseless because it’s not supported by any foundation or backup, the author’s opinion of the Dunham wedding is hard fact despite it also lacking any backup. This is why I suspect you’re too emotionally involved in trying to prove that they didn’t get married in Hawaii (despite the hard evidence to support the proposition).

“There is no ‘fact’ that Stanley Ann married anyone in 61.”

The marriage index is a fact. The divorce papers are facts. The judge’s statement that he’d seen proof of it is a fact.

“Since this discussion started, two separate cases have come to my attention re: couples that were granted divorces sans proof of marriage. In one case, there was no Marriage Certificate in existence. In the other case, it existed but was not required for the divorce proceedings. So you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just blindly, mindlessly propping up the anti-birther narrative.”

Finally, something that’s possibly worthy of debating. Of course, asserting that there are two outliers doesn’t mean that those circumstances can be blithely ascribed to all cases or even another specific case without supporting evidence. It’s perfectly possible that a couple could find themselves without their Marriage Certificate and the system has mechanisms to deal with that. Care to provide details? I won’t hold my breath, you’re not famous for providing backup for your claims but I can at least hope.

“You must be projecting. I haven’t even mentioned it. I have focused solely on the problems and issues of the anti-birther narrative. You can’t see the problems and you never will. You are so invested in anti-birtherism that even when you are presented with a fact, you are unable to recognize it as such. This is why I am not an anti-birther. I have never been able to ignore or deny the facts.”

Present me with some facts and you’d have an argument. If all you’ve got are literary opinions...well, not so much. If you do have something, anything, here’s your chance to put it out there.

I’ve been saying this for a long time. Why does it only make the news when Trump says it? Why hasn’t the media contacted me to hear what I have to say?

“Yes, it is just your opinion. And you cannot find even one other person on earth who shares that opinion/agrees with you. You posit this opinion without a particle of evidence to back it up. You have been forced to make a ridiculous statement because that is the only way you can defend your anti-birther stance.”

‘If you’re eager for a debate on the literary merits of Dreams of my Father, start a thread on it. I doubt I’ll participate. I’ve given you my opinion of the thing. I’m indifferent if you don’t agree with me on it. Life’s too short to get involved in the debating the merits of that lacklustre effort.’

This, in a nutshell, is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. I said Dreams is not gibberish. No one, not even the book’s most virulent detractors, claim it is “gibberish”. That is the most absurd and idiotic claim ever made about Dreams. Search the world over, and you will not discover one other person who believes it is gibberish.

But you, being as slithery as the typical anti-birther and either really dense or just pretending to be dense, set up the usual straw man. If Dreams is not “gibberish”, then then the issue must be “literary merit”.

This leads to the one question I have never satisfactorily seen answered, nor can answer myself. To wit: are anti-birthers stupid, or do they just see some advantage in *acting* stupid? I honestly cannot say.

I doubt you will be able to grasp the following examples, or that if you can, you will acknowledge it. It will just be another opportunity for you to dissemble and slither away from the facts. But fwiw.

The book, Rules for Radicals, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.

The book, Our Lenin, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.

The book, Germany Awakened, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.

The book, Dreams from my Father, is not “gibberish”. To make that statement is not to affirm that one likes or admires the book. It makes no allusion to its literary merit. It is simply a factual statement. The book is not “gibberish”.

I give exactly zero odds that you can understand the point of these examples. I don’t know if you are pretending to be deliberately dense, or if this is really the best you can do. It doesn’t matter which it is. The result is the same. & if you can’t figure out the result, after I’ve said it in so many words...then there is no ‘pretending’ going on.

I’ll put it another way. If you are operating in good faith & are not a drooling moron, you should be capable of understanding the examples I gave. If so, you will acknowledge it. If you are incapable of even such a basic, elementary function of communication, then what are you doing on a conservative site? Conservatives are capable of honest communication, & we do it routinely. It is just liberals who use language to obfuscate, dissemble, propagandize & waste time. It is their métier.

So which are you?

gib·ber·ish (jbr-sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
2.
a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

I found the parts I read of Dreams of my Father (I didn’t finish it) to contain a lot of nonsense, very pretentious and rather vague (among other things). Hence the use of the word ‘gibberish’, it seems very apt and it is a direct commentary on the literary merit of the book.

Now, are you genuinely offended by the use of an adjective to describe a book or is this just a bunch of handwaving to divert the thread?

I found the parts I read of Dreams of my Father (I didn’t finish it) to contain a lot of nonsense, very pretentious and rather vague (among other things).’

& still no examples. No details. Just sweeping generalities.

I’ll be blunt. I don’t believe any of Dreams matches your description. That is because Dreams is a pure work of propaganda, as pure as any of the other three examples I cited.

There is a word for “gibberish” propaganda. That word is “failed”.

But Dreams did not fail. It succeeded spectacularly.

Here were Ayers’ tasks. He had to take an unaccomplished, self-absorbed, self-congratulatory (read: ‘obnoxious’), raised-by-white people political-nobody and make him first and foremost acceptable to the black Chicago constituency that would give Obama his first political win—if he was to have one—and in broader terms make this same narcissist appealing to a wider electorate, should Obama get that far.

It was a Herculean task. Considering what Ayers had to work with, it was a virtually impossible task. Had he at any time veered into “gibberish”, he would have failed.

But Ayers stayed on point. He presented Obama as well as anyone could, & this involved two things. First, lying like a rug 99 percent of the times (at least) that the book depicted Obama in a positive/appealing light. Second, Ayers had to cover Obama’s butt on the manifold issues with The Won’s personal attributes & unacceptable personal history. I.e.: in order for the propaganda to succeed, Ayers had to massage, & then present in the most sympathetic way possible, the WEIRDNESS of Obama’s sketchy, unacceptable history.

A general rule of thumb therefore applies in general to this type of propaganda and to Dreams in particular. Anything that makes Obama look good is almost certainly a lie. Anything that casts him in a negative light is ^certainly^ an effort to smooth over some unsavory or outright unacceptable aspect of Obama’s history/past.

Thus it is possible to say without reservation that the allusions to Stanley Ann’s “murky”, ‘not real’ wedding are true—at least as much of the truth as Ayers deemed it absolutely necessary to divulge.

& that is why it matters. Because both Ayers and Obama knew the truth, and knew it could hurt Obama in a devastating political way. So Ayers had to sympathetically tap dance around the truth, revealing just enough to cover Obama’s fanny in the event of future revelations.

From this is it becomes crystal clear that the ‘murky’ wedding was not ‘real’, and that Michelle absolutely told the truth when she said Stanley Ann was “very young and very single” when she had Obama.

Not that I imagine you followed one word of that, but nevertheless, there it is. I.e.: there is why your unfounded and absolutely false claim that Dreams is “gibberish” matters, and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status.

“& still no examples. No details. Just sweeping generalities.”

Yes. Correct. It was a general impression of the book.

“I’ll be blunt. I don’t believe any of Dreams matches your description.”

Good for you.

“Not that I imagine you followed one word of that, but nevertheless, there it is.”

It was tough going but I got there in the end. I think.

“and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status”

That’s not a FACT. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. You’re just making an assertion. However much the logic leads you to that conclusion in your own head, someone else could interpret that information differently. For example, it is possible that you are wrong.

Here are some FACTS. They are known and proven to be true:

1. A marriage between Obama and Dunham is listed in the official Hawaii Marriage Index.
2. A reference and date for a marriage in Hawaii in their divorce papers.
3. A judge signing that ‘due proof’ of that marriage being presented to the court
during their divorce proceedings.

Unless you’ve got something new and FACTUAL about their marriage, I’m moving on. You are too emotionally invested in your own peculiar theory about their marriage and the OCD about the word ‘Gibberish’ is disturbing. The important part of allowing lurkers to see the FACTS about the case has been done more than adequately.

I know you’ll want the final word so go for it.

‘It was tough going but I got there in the end. I think.’

No; you missed the point.

‘Here are some FACTS. They are known and proven to be true:

1. A marriage between Obama and Dunham is listed in the official Hawaii Marriage Index.
2. A reference and date for a marriage in Hawaii in their divorce papers.
3. A judge signing that ‘due proof’ of that marriage being presented to the court
during their divorce proceedings.’

Here is another fact. No one knows what was presented to the judge. All we know for sure, from Obama, was that the wedding was not ‘real’. In fact, it was so weird that he couldn’t even stomach the details. That too is a fact. Had you followed my prior post, you could concede that much. But you are too emotionally invested in your Obama-apologist-narrative to comprehend any fact that threatens it.

You are a typical anti-birther. I met quite a few exactly like you before I was a birther. Here’s what happened.

I came upon a discussion on FR, concerning birth certificates. One group claimed that computer generated short form certificates of Live Birth had totally supplanted LF, raised seal BCs. The other group said some state agencies still required LF BCs.

Well I was very interested in that discussion. Again, not because I had any idea why it mattered. Rather, I had just had a personal transaction with the state which had direct bearing on the discussion. I opted to share it, imagining that both sides would be very appreciative of a real-life, recent example.

I summarized the incident accurately but succinctly, and posted it. I expected the participants to interestedly discuss this actual occurrence.

Didn’t happen. Instead, the group I later learned were ‘anti-birthers’ wasted no time in attacking my account. They said, in so many words, I was too stupid to know what had happened. The events I claimed had happened “couldn’t have happened”, so I had to be confused at best. I was, in short, a clueless moron, unable to grasp even the simplest interaction with a state agency.

I stared at the responses in shock. Who WERE these people? What kind of mental illness could possibly lead them to instantly diagnose my true and accurate account as the result of stupidity?

I posted again. I pointed out that the entire incident was short, simple and straightforward. I assured them all that I had recounted it accurately and truthfully. I pointed out that I had no reason to do otherwise. I also pointed out that the end result validated my claim: i.e.: it wouldn’t have ended as it did, had I simply misunderstood the entire transaction.

Well that got them REALLY hopped up. Now suddenly I wasn’t stupid any longer. I was a flat out LIAR. They all agreed on this point. They either couldn’t, or wouldn’t, admit I had no reason to lie. I had presented a FACT that unsettled their anti-birther narrative, and so I had to be destroyed. They did their best to do so.

That was my initiation into this debate. Everything I have seen since has only reinforced my impression. Facts are the enemies of anti-birthers. When they encounter one that threatens their theory, they turn on the person who presented that fact. They make serial and ever less plausible false accusations. They are fundamentally out of kilter on an emotional/psychological level. Defending a pathological liar has done that to them. They will be the last to know, unfortunately. People in that situation are always the last to know.

I feel sorry for them. Obama is not worth it. His lies are so ubiquitous, no one can defend him year after year without paying a heavy price. One day the anti-birthers will realize they were used and abused. But that day has not yet come. They are still in ‘Obama is honest and birthers are the problem’ mode.

It will not last forever. The awakening will be rude.

“and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status”

‘That’s not a FACT. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. You’re just making an assertion. However much the logic leads you to that conclusion in your own head, someone else could interpret that information differently. For example, it is possible that you are wrong.’

How am I wrong? Do you believe that it politically helped Obama to describe his mother’s marriage this way...when she was still alive...when she was dying...when a normal son would not wish to add to her suffering?

You don’t make a case for any of your objections. You say, ‘You could be wrong’, but never suggest how. I.e.: how would it help Obama politically to be gratuitously cruel to his mother? Or how can you argue that describing her ‘marriage’ as requiring more courage than her own son possesses even to even learn the details? [I.e.” not the details that it involved no cake, guests or photographs; Obama already knew that. He is saying, in so many words, that there is something so icky about his own mother’s wedding that he, possessed of normal courage, cannot stomach the details. (I.e.: possessed of normal courage because no narcissist would ever describe himself, or allow himself to be described, as abnormally cowardly.)]

How about for once abandoning your uselessly broad generalities and telling me exactly how my reasoning is wrong. Was Ayers trying to torpedo his protégé’s political career? If so, why? Or if not, then what is so appealing about a son verbally slapping his sick/dying mother around? How was that nastiness, if it was in no way necessary to cover a possible revelation re: Obama’s sketchy history, supposed to help him get elected?

In ‘95, when Dreams was published, it was impossible to know the degree to which the press would close ranks around Obama, acting as his Palace Guard. Both Ayers and Obama had to assume he might get a question re: some of the info in Dreams. If Ayers just threw that ugly reference to Stanley Ann’s wedding in for cruel fun, it could have hurt Obama big time, had he been asked about it. Obama is not MENSA, but Ayers is not a moron. He would not have jeopardized his young black radical future-candidate just to take a vicious swipe at a dying woman.

An observation about this part of your post:

“... I came upon a discussion on FR,concerning birth certificates. One group claimed that computer generated short form certificates of Live Birth had totally supplanted LF, raised seal BCs. The other group said some state agencies still required LF BCs. .....”

Certified copies of long form birth certificates with raised seals are required by federal agencies doing background checks for people’s security clearances.

The agency doesn’t accept the short ones; they need to have the one with the parents names and places of birth.

They want to know if the parents were born outside the u.s. and if they would have been citizens or not.

The sad part of all this is, 0 would not be able to pass the background check with the bogus document he showed on the white house web site.

And this is the guy that has access to the nuclear launch codes.... and (above) top secret info.