“I’m not sure the wedding is as well documented as you imagine.”
It is exactly as well documented as I posted; a record of the marriage in the Hawaii Marriage Index and a reference to it in the divorce papers. To understand that point you need to remember two things. Firstly, I’m not claiming that they were married in Hawaii, I’m stating that your assertion that she was living in Kenya is dubious and unsupported by the evidence. Secondly, you stated that there isn’t “one hint of a scrap of a shadow of a tertiary, third-hand hearsay clue that she spent the 9 mos of her pregnancy in HI”, I’ve clearly demonstrated that there is. The fact that you don’t regard it as sufficiently solid is irrelevant.
“Do you believe that one line in a marriage index proves a 9 mos residency?”
Nope. It’s evidence that she was in Hawaii at some point during her pregnancy, nothing more.... but it IS evidence.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want to discuss your claim that she was in Kenya. It’s outlandish at best and flies in the face of both the evidence (everything from cost to inoculations to immigration records) and common sense. No problem, I’m not surprised. I wouldn’t want to discuss something like that in public if I’d made such a claim.
‘I’m not surprised that you don’t want to discuss your claim that she was in Kenya. It’s outlandish at best and flies in the face of both the evidence (everything from cost to inoculations to immigration records) and common sense. No problem, I’m not surprised. I wouldn’t want to discuss something like that in public if I’d made such a claim.’
That is a classic Stuck on Stupid comment. I (1) covered this in my first post to you, and (2) drew your attention back to that post when you first started down this bogus alley. You either haven’t read my first post, you read it but didn’t understand it, or you understood it but you imagine that if you ignore it long enough and hard enough it will go away.
It’s still there. I suspect you read it but cannot grasp the meaning. I don’t care. Or I should say, I couldn’t care less. Keep on huffing and puffing. Nothing you say will change the facts. But facts, I have noticed, are anathema to anti-birthers. So carry on with your I-can-ignore-reality-if-I-want-to approach. It will get you nowhere.
Now as to the “reported” wedding. This is a linguistic problem. I mean by ‘tertiary’ third-hand info about Stanley-Ann’s presence in HI during the aforementioned time period. You evidently mean, ‘evidence that has been thoroughly discredited’.
That is the problem. A difference of meaning.
Here are the two discrediting pieces of info, in case you missed them:
Bill Ayers, working off of Obama’s notes, described the wedding his way, in Dreams from my Father:
‘”How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were informed.”’
Obama’s notes, as presented by Ayers in such a way as to make Obama look as good as possible, reveal there is “no record of a *real* wedding”.
Why did Ayers include such information? It can only be for one reason: there was no record of a wedding. No record of a wedding = no wedding. So Obama was a bastard. Ayers wanted to get out in front of this story, so he painted Obama in the most sympathetic light: a person who knows there is something “murky” about his parents’ ‘not-real wedding’ but who is too timid to investigate exactly what it is. That way, if the bastard-issue surfaced at some point in Obama’s political career, he was covered. Ayers took care of it as best he could. In doing so, it was necessary to reveal there had never been an official wedding, but that was the price he had to pay. Anything else, and Obama wasn’t covered against potential future revelations.
The second piece of discrediting info:
Micelle Obama, speaking to public school kids: ‘His own mother [Stanley Ann], she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”’
Michelle Obama was in a position to know, and had no reason to lie. She backs Ayers’ version to the hilt. There was no “real wedding”. Therefore Stanley Ann was “very single” when she gave birth to Obama.
You cannot argue that the notation in the HI marriage index was there all along but that both Obama and Michelle are telling the truth. If, however, the notation was added much later, then Obama and Michelle gave truthful accounts. Since neither of them had any reason to lie in this case, the answer is ‘B’.
[I suppose, being an anti-birther, you will argue that the wedding was “real”, but that either Obama’s mother or his grandparents lied to him. Anti-birthers will argue any piece of rank stupidity when they get desperate. Just to let you know, that ‘argument’ has no basis in fact, and is idiotic on its face. Try again.]