‘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.]
Relax. As I said, it’s not a problem. I understand perfectly. I’d be a little embarrassed as well, I might even make up some excuses for not going there. It’s OK.
On the marriage in Hawaii issue, you seem to be a operating under a misapprehension that I’m saying that the marriage definitely took place there. I’m not and I’ve never made that argument.
I’m merely pointing out that when you said there is no evidence, you were wrong. There is. There are official records n Hawaii that directly refer to it.
Clearly, you’ve decided that these official records aren’t of sufficient solidity to prove the case. Fine. Whatever floats your boat although it seems weird to me that two people would go through a formal divorce if they weren’t ever married - not as weird as claiming she was in Kenya at the time, granted but weird nonetheless.