The Marriage of Obama's Parents: 'In Name Only'?

American Thinker ^ | March 8, 2014 | Shawn Glasco

[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.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3130965/posts?page=533#533

marxism-leninism central

[Fred Nerks]

Aggression is all they have. If for once they debated their theory calmly, politely & rationally they would lose spectacularly. On some level they must know this, because they invariably substitute aggression, personal attacks, bullying, name-calling, insults, snark, mockery, ridicule & outright lies for honest, factual debate. They’ve been doing it for years. Heaven only knows how many posters they have driven from the site for good. That appears to be their goal—to hound, harass, harangue & demean everyone who disagrees with them...

You're being hysterical again.

[Fantasywriter]

In your mind only. When I’ve twice identified live men as dead women, then feel free to call me hysterical. Or, at that point, perhaps delusional—or worse—wd be a better description.

[little jeremiah]

ResisTyr, here is some real info to sink your teeth into, about Chicago.

[little jeremiah]

I am too....

Also the noob’s jumping right into this thread as though he’s “been here before”.

[little jeremiah]

Facts can stand up to scrutiny, and I agree that there isn’t any need to reply to things comments when the exchange will not add to the discussion.

Although pointing out retreads is a good thing!

[Fred Nerks]

Your ability to express yourself in writing leaves much to the imagination... When I’ve twice identified live men as dead women... it took me a few moments to figure out what you meant by that.

You are referring to my identification of persons in distorted underwater photographs in connection with the aircraft belly landing in which Fuddy died. The title of the thread was What Do You See? and I identified, after several attempts, Yamamoto, her assistant, holding her with only the sleeve of her jacket showing, while her feet and knees were visible on the surface.

It's genereally frowned upon to bring a topic argument from one thread to another, but I wanted to get to the bottom of your odd accusation. I updated my comments to that thread yesterday, so if you care to go back there, you will see what I had to say. Regretfully, there are no divers wearing goggles and oxygen-tanks in view, in any of the photographs. Is that what is making you so cranky?

[Fantasywriter]

Actually all I was saying is that I have yet to look at a photo, in one case not even close to being underwater, & identify a live man as a dead woman. I haven’t done that once, much less twice. That is all I’m saying, take it or leave it.

Your comment about oxygen tanks & goggles is the mother of all non sequiturs. What do I care if they’re in the photo or not? I never posted about either one, nor ever claimed to see any. I haven’t even looked for any. I haven’t been a part of that discussion for a long time, & even back when I was I never concerned myself w goggles or oxygen masks. Perhaps you have me confused w someone else? Someone, let’s say, who’s cranky?

[Fred Nerks]

I’m utterly perplexed at the unwonted hostility. It’s irrational. As for retreads, they usually reveal themselves by the second comment, if not the first, don’t they?

[Fred Nerks]

...Actually all I was saying is that I have yet to look at a photo, in one case not even close to being underwater, & identify a live man as a dead woman. I haven’t done that once, much less twice. That is all I’m saying, take it or leave it.

It's up to you now to explain just what you did mean by that. If it wasn't as a result of what you saw on the Fuddy thread, what was it? Come on, live man as a dead woman I haven’t done that once, much less twice. How did that just pop into your head?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You've exposed yourself sufficiently, I wouldn't want to give you any further opportunity to disrupt a discussion as you always do. Be my guest, carry on without me.

[Fantasywriter]

Here is a very helpful key to understanding my comments. Just take them at face value. Don’t read under, over, behind or in between the lines. Simply take my comments at face value & you can’t go wrong.

I’m fine w not posting to you, & w not having you post to me. I am at pains not to post to you as a rule. You wanted to get snarky, though, & call me “hysterical”, so I responded. Then you tried out “cranky”. [What’s w you & these demeaning characterizations, anyway? No need for such hostility. I am a fellow conservative, & as such not the enemy. Hold your fire for the trolls; they make more apt targets.] If you’d like to go separate ways, that is fine w me. As always, I wish you all the best.

[okie01]

And didn't learn anything...

Tell me, what does the British Nationality Act have to do with American citizenship law?

I'll give yo0u a hint: the answer is 'nothing'.

[Fred Nerks]

What Do You See?
Good Morning America ^ | Feb 21, 2014 | Butterdezillion

Posted on Saturday, 22 February 2014 9:39:18 AM by butterdezillion

Remember that video of the plane crash in Hawaii after which Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy “died”?

You need to take a closer look.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3125646/posts

---

I took a closer look, and this was my final reply:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3125646/posts?page=660#660

[Fred Nerks]

As the composite x 4 is back up again, and I have no idea why it temporarilly disappeared, I'll try to answer your comment directly:

The too left small photo in your compilation cannot be zerObama. The ears are totally different than in the other users, most noticeably the right ear. The other pics, however, all appear to be authentically zerO.

It may help if I showed you the original image that 'top left' photo of his face was cropped from. There were two photographs taken on the same day:

Now, before I post another image, because I have a surprise to show you, can you confirm which, in your opinion, are obviously photographs of little zero, one odd ear notwithstanding?

[Fred Nerks]

I forgot one:

What do your powers of observation tell you? Are those two probably the same child?

[MHGinTN]

They are the same child, but what is the point of your asking?

[MMaschin]

I agree.

My kids, from the instant of their birth were American citizens, Canadian citizens, and British citizens.

My wife was born in England, immigrated to Canada when she was 8, and became a Canadian citizen in her teens. After college, she accepted a position in the US, and became a US citizen after that - before our kids were born.

When she became a US citizen, she was told that the US does not recognize her other citizenships. Great Britain, said that she would always be British, and Canada basically said we don't care.

So, at the time of the kids births, she continued to be Canadian, and British, and because of that, the kids became Canadian, and British at the time of their births.

In order to be an NBC, it doesn't matter if you have dual, or in the case of my kids tri-citizenship, it's about how you got your American citizenship.

They became Canadian, and British, because those countries have written (positive) laws granting them citizenship. Therefore they became 'naturalized' citizens of Canada, and Great Britain at the time of their births. For their US citizenship, they required no positive law for their citizenship, and therefore were US citizens by natural law - ergo natural born Citizens.

An easy way to understand what a NBC is, is if you take away every law created by the government cranting citizenship, the 14th Amendment, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, every piece of positive law - and you would still be a US citizen, then you are citizen by natural law, ergo an NBC.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Here’s a scenario for you:

My great grandfather emigrated from Italy 100 years ago. Before he became a US. citizen, renouncing his Italian citizenship, my grandfather was born. Under Italian almost law, he was an Italian citizen, something he never even knew until he was 90. And because he was an Italian citizen under this law, he passed that to my mother and she to me. If I jump through some paperwork hoops, basically documenting the above, I can get an Italian passport. This doesn’t mean I’m applying for citizenship; in their eyes I’m already a citizen. So, here I am, third generation American born. Am I a natural born citizen? Or does a quirk of foreign law control the matter, a quirk that wouldn’t apply if, say, my ancestor had come from Spain?

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3130965/posts?page=483#483

STUDY THE PROGESSION

[hosepipe]

Obama is a traitor and ghetto pig.. whether he can fly or not is minutia..
Sure his mother was a bitch and his daddy is a mystery but those are just distractions from..

He’s a traitor.. performing sedition daily..