Posted on 07/30/2013 9:03:55 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Mike Zullo say’s at 9:30 in the video that there is no evidence that Barack and Stanley Ann are the parents.”
On this one point I disagree with Zullo. The INS FOIA documents and the cross-corroboration provided by Stanley Ann’s UH and UW transcript and the HI and WA Polk directories as well as the newspaper announcements ALL provide a strong circumstantial case that Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom...but NO confirmation of WHERE he was born.
Zullo mentions his awareness of the INS documents and does not make any insinuation that they are fake. If they are not fake, the in my opinion as a former certified fraud examiner (CFE) then by themselves they are solid evidence that Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom.
Here is a link to a 1,600 comment FR thread that invited any evidence that Valerie Sarruf was Barry’s mom and also invited evidence that ANY woman OTHER than Stanley Ann was Barry’s mom. There is no evidence on the thread so far. There are only insinuations and speculation that Lebanese Christian actress Valerie Sarruf is Barry’s mom and Malcolm X is the dad:
Re:”Mal and Val - not Ann and the Old Man” Any evidence Valerie Sarruf is Obama’s mom? (vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2913366/posts?page=1
thanks- will do :)
By “photoshop” I meant the crude blurring of the word that begins with “K”. A more clever way would have been to photoshop a plant or a child or desk in front of it. By blurring it they made it obvious that they did not want that word to be known. Either they didn’t care about being obvious (they knew everyone would be too chicken to do or say anything?) or they think everyone is stupid, or both.
Alvin Onaka was asked to verify that Stanley Ann Dunham was the mother, Barack Hussein Obama was the father, and the birth place was Honolulu on the island of Oahu. Onaka would not verify any of those facts.
So we honestly have no idea what the truth is on ANY of those items. Legally. And nobody can legally know any of those facts. There are no legally-established birth facts, unless Obama’s got a legally valid BC from somewhere besides Hawaii - which must be the case if he has been able to get a passport, driver’s license, etc. Whatever BC he used for those purposes must have claimed something other than Honolulu, HI, because only Hawaii can issue a BC claiming a Honolulu birth, and the one HI has is not legally valid.
Nobody can certify Obama as eligible. To do so in order to get Obama on any and every ballot was ELECTION FRAUD. For Obama to swear that he was eligible was perjury in every instance. We know that Obama took office because of fraud and perjury.
Law enforcement failed to do anything about it because they were afraid the political system would punish them - as it has punished IG’s, military people, etc who have actually done their jobs and kept their oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution. The “scandals” that have become public recently are about the Obama regime - with a complicit Congress, bureaucracy, media, and courts - obfuscating, threatening, spying on, refusing to protect and/or giving murderous assignments to, demoting, etc those who stood in their way. Those of us with our eyes open on the eligibility issue have said for a long time that this stuff was going on and were called crazy for it. We’re still waiting for the apologies due - and the recognition that politically-motivated criminal conspiracies by the government are not necessarily too far-fetched to be true, now that we’ve seen Fast & Fdurious, Benghazi, IRS-gate, NSA-gate, Extortion 17, and attacks on investigative journalists such as Michael Hastings, Sharyl Atkisson, and the Fox guy who was being eavesdropped on.
Anyway, the judiciary is supposed to deal with all cases and controversies arising from the Constitution, and SCOTUS is to apply the Constitution to matters of fact and to law. In this case only a federal court can compel the facts to be found out. It is unconscionable that they have said it is nobody’s business whether the Constitution is being upheld or not - and whether everyone in the entire system has FAILED to keep their oaths of office.
Yes of course, sauce for the goose isn’t the sauce for the gander.
He certainly wasn’t being a responsible husband in any sense of the word to Kezia. Or Ruth for that matter.
Don’t place any trust in the newspaper announcements; they are fabricated.
“Don’t place any trust in the newspaper announcements; they are fabricated.”
IMO, reasonable people can disagree on the forensic claims regarding the announcements. I am persuaded that they exist in numerous archives around the country. They do NOT prove Barry was born in HI in the slightest. They are corroborated by the INS FOIA documents as to date of claimed birth and address of Stanley Ann and claimed father.
I have seen no credible evidence that the INS FOIA documents are forged and I regard them as highly corroborated and highly “verifiable” meaning that names of numerous people and supporting documents can be further investigated, such as the name of the U of H administrator who reported that BHO Sr. had impregnated Stanley Ann and that adoption out to the Salvation Army had been contemplated.
The microfiche reels containing the newspaper announcements could also be legally discovered and examined, but they are secondary circumstantial evidence from an unknown source.
In contrast, the INS FOIA docs are US gov’t documents corroborated by numerous state archived documents (UH and UW transcripts).
Good lord! That thread is 1,635 posts long. I need a summary lol.
“The microfiche reels containing the newspaper announcements could also be legally discovered and examined”
They have already by freeper Ladyforest back in 2010. Here is her analysis Seize.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/
Ladyforest does not have the reels, only printouts from the reels. The reels are the forensic “best evidence.” This is why Zullo wants the 1961 reels for Barry”s LFBC!
Ladyforest says:
“I own a set of paper copies of both of these newspapers (copied from microfilm) that were personally collected for me by a close friend. The copies that I own are from both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, and were collected from BOTH Hawaii libraries that have the micro films, the State Library and the University Library. These were collected early March 2010. I also own a set of these paper copies from the Library of Congress in Washington DC, that I personally collected in 2010. The dates for each set are from July 23,1961 through September 8, 1961. I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming to have the microfilm rolls-I have the paper copies made while viewing the microfilms. The viewer has a printer that allows you to print the image on the screen.”
I thought I had read somewhere that there was evidence that the reels had been spliced. Maybe butter can elaborate. I think she knows more about this.
Thanks a million Seize. I will take my time with it.
CCPS
“I thought I had read somewhere that there was evidence that the reels had been spliced.”
This has been claimed, but only forensic examination of the actual reels can prove it, IMO.
Agreed.
Yes, there has been some research done. Pinging ladysforest.
Responsible is something that is relative to the culture - he was native to a tribe in which polygamy was practiced, his father had at least four wives that we know of, on top of which he was a muslim, which allows ‘divorce’ through repudiation. He may not have been devout in his religion, but certainly crafty enough to practice the aspects of it which suited him.
As far as the government of Kenya was concerned, it seems his marriage to Kezia was a legal, binding marriage, and she was considered to be his window when he was killed, as was Ruth, and his new wife, Yealle (who also made claims upon his estate) and now lives in Atlanta.
It’s not the marriage to Kezia that is in question here, it’s the paternity of the child she gave birth to in around October 1961, for which the record appeared in the archives in the UK, and seems to have drawn Hillary to investigate. She would have come away none the wiser. A child born to Kezia in 1961 would certainly legally be named after the man she was married to, but he had been in Hawaii since at least August 1959, and as he maintained to his friend, according to Peter Firstbrook, he wasn’t the father.
You want to plough through this research - and come out the other end as empty of facts as when you went in?
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/obamas-kenyan-birth-records-discovered.html
There’s only one possible conclusion. And that’s granny Sarah was telling the truth when she said that some of the children of Kezia weren’t the children of the kenyan student.
Why would anyone accept the BS in ‘Dreams’ that while married to Ruth and living in Nairobi, the kenyan still had relations with Kezia? Don’t you think that maybe that was a cover-up for two children she had while he was away?
Do we know the birth years of all of them? Of course not. We only think we know that Malik was about two (at one time she said six) and she was pregnant with Auma when he left in 1959.
So who might have been the father of a child born to Kezia in around October 1961? We do not know, but we think we know who it wasn’t.
May I suggest you start from the beginning? You wouldn’t want to be influenced by just the opinion of one, would you now....
watch “The Omen”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.