Replies

One question I have is that since it is obvious to anyone with a questioning and non-infatuated mind, that the man in the WH was not born with the name Barack Hussein Obama, but he is using that name now, are ANY documents with the name BHO that refer to him at all legal? Totally apart from any out and out forgeries.

If a person is using a fake name that is legally his name, then I would assume that ANY and ALL papers signed, or documents in that name, are neither legal nor binding.

I wonder about this.

Who was living at the Seattle address? And why do they insist on calling ANNA OBAMA Stanley Ann Dunham?

AMERICAN THINKER

"...Mary was interviewed before the release of Obama's purported birth certificate. It was important to have witnesses confirm an early August birth. Susan Blake claimed that Obama was "pink and very new" in late August 1961, just "three-weeks old." Mary Toutonghi remembers a seven-month-old whom she babysat in the beginning of 1962. The question is -- was she mistaken about the date of first encounter?

To jog her memory, Mary recounted the age of her own daughter: "[She] was 18 months old and was born in July of 1959 [this has been verified] and that would have placed the months of babysitting Barack in January and February of 1962." Those dates, however, don't add up. A child born in July 1959 would be 18 months old in January/February of 1961, several months before Ann reportedly moved to Seattle.

Perhaps to rectify this problem, Mary tried another way to remember the time she babysat. In a 2009 WND interview, Mary stated, "My daughter was 18 months old and she just had her 50th birthday this year ... so that would make the time around February and March 1962." Again, the math doesn't work. The year 2009 minus 50 gives us the correct birth year for Mary's child, but adding 18 months again brings us to January/February of 1961..."

Stanley Ann Dunham visited Susan Blake with a child only a few weeks old, but Mary baby-sat for Anna Obama in JANUARY 1961.

The blending of two women and two children didn't go to plan.

Though obvious (the fraud) here are the problems:

1) There is no winner if the fraud is exposed. Politically that is. If this grenade explodes the shrapnel will hit every politician in office and hit avery branch and function of the federal government. The Repubs will take the hit for letting it go so long. So no power function has anything to gain by exposing the fraud.

2) The path of addressing the fraud is an unknown path that will like be very ugly. Yes, the country would be in crisis until the fraud is addressed after admitting. But again, with no winner - who pushes this?

3) Living the lie became easier that dealing with the truth. Write your Congressperson. I probably have the template of the response from the ones I have recieved. Asked them a direct question - get a deflection. Cowards - all of them.

4) Alinksy in action. Fear of being ridiculed or called a racist is a prime driver.

The entire media has sold out this country. Where is Woodward, where is Bernstein? Not a single MSM function or newspaper does investigative reporting. It was not the politicians or the Democrats or the Justice Department that took down Nixon. It was investigative Journalism. Without WaPo and W&B Nixon serves out his term. The function of the media has failed worse than anything else since 2008.