Any contact the Pratt daughter had with Stanley Ann Dunham would have been after she showed up in 1963 and attended the university as shown above, which would have made the child old enough to jump up and down on a mattress, if in fact, he ever did.
Posted on 08/27/2017 9:34:26 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
As Joseph Arpaio’s federal case headed toward trial this past spring, President Trump wanted to act to help the former Arizona county sheriff who had become a campaign-trail companion and a partner in their crusade against illegal immigration.
The president asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether it would be possible for the government to drop the criminal case against Arpaio, but was advised that would be inappropriate, according to three people with knowledge of the conversation.
After talking with Sessions, Trump decided to let the case go to trial, and if Arpaio was convicted, he could grant clemency.
Trump and Arpaio became brothers in arms five years ago. As they saw it, the two provocateurs — one a celebrity real estate developer, the other a polarizing sheriff — were pursuing justice in the form of supposed evidence that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent.
“There was no collusion,” Arpaio said in an interview Saturday. “I started my birth certificate investigation around the same time he did his.”
The Manhattan mogul sent Arpaio a fan letter and flattered him on social media. “Congratulations to @RealSheriffJoe on his successful Cold Case Posse investigation which claims @BarackObama’s ‘birth certificate’ is fake,” Trump tweeted in 2012.
Three years later, in July 2015, when Trump swooped into Arpaio’s hometown of Phoenix for the first mega-rally of his upstart presidential campaign, the sheriff returned the favor by testifying on stage to “the silent majority” that Trump had begun to awaken.
Backstage at that rally, Arpaio recalled, the two men talked about their shared birthday — June 14, which is Flag Day. Their friendship blossomed and Arpaio became a fan favorite at Trump rallies. “I had a gut feeling that he was going to win,” Arpaio said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I have never paid five seconds’ worth of attention to Toutonghi. Nobody remembers such details after ~45 years. I tried it myself. I tried to recall the year and the season of an important event from ~45 years ago. Couldn’t do it.
Toutonghi either misremembered or else lied. If the latter, she did it to try to help Obama but botched her dates instead. Not so hard to do, if you’re not a numbers person.
In any event I pay zero attention to Toutonghi. She’s an unreliable source.
You might be interested to know that Cindy Pratt knew Stanley Ann both before and after the Seattle hiatus. Before, they lived in the same house (1960). After, Stanley looked Cindy up and showed her the baby. Cindy was aghast at the scandal of SA parading around with a mixed race baby.
I don’t have the link. I’ve posted it before, but failed to find it this time with a quick search. I don’t have the time to dig further at the moment. If I come across it in the future I’ll post it.
More's the pity, neither did anyone else.
The biggest weakness in your theory is the, ‘This can only mean one thing,’ fallacy. For example, you point to Stanley Ann’s senior photo and claim, because no other faces are fully visible/recognizable, that it cannot be her actual photo from the Mercer Island HS yearbook. This is invalid reasoning at best.
Here is a possible explanation for that image. The students whose photos bordered SA’s were contacted and asked if they minded having their pictures posted online. *At least* one person objected, and the image was cropped accordingly.
Here is an even likelier scenario. Whoever wanted to post SA’s senior yearbook photo didn’t want to bother contacting anyone. They also didn’t want to deal with anyone who might object to having their picture posted online. So they cropped the photo accordingly.
You don’t have to have to agree to either of these scenarios. [The second seems blindingly obvious to me, but I know you’ll reject it out of hand.] However, the mere fact that either could be true invalidates your explanation.
Iow, you can’t prove that your theory of the photo is the only possible explanation. As long as there are other reasonable—if not overwhelmingly likely—explanations, yours proves nothing.
Same with Toutonghi. The most likely explanation is a flaky memory. Given the time lapse, that’s the overwhelmingly odds on favorite reason her memory is imprecise.
Making such a huge deal out of Toutonghi’s inconsistencies goes back to the, ‘This can only mean one thing,’ pitfall. As long as another perfectly reasonable explanation exists, your theory is simply inconclusive.
A further thought on Dreams. If a book is cover-to-cover lies, you can’t just pluck one item from it and pontificate, ‘This ‘fact,’ is true, because it plays into my theory.’
When a book contains as many lies as Dreams, you need independent confirmation if you want to state absolutely that some part of it is true. There is zero evidence that Stanley Ann temporarily lived in Chicago or ever worked as an au pair. Zero. The book didn’t even get the year of the film right—because it was nothing more than another in an endless string of lies.
What probably happened was that Bill Ayers saw Black Orpheus and wanted to work a mention of it into the book. Since it’s almost impossible to prove a negative (i.e: that Stanley Ann wasn’t in Chicago) he saw no reason not to indulge himself. It’s the kind of movie he would like.
The overwhelming pattern of Dreams is lies. If you want to build a theory on a ‘fact,’ contained in that fictional account, you need outside proof. There’s not the slightest trace of evidence that Stanley Ann went separate ways from her parents prior to very early in ‘61. To say, ‘I know it’s true because Dreams says so,’ is more like a punchline than a proof.
Probably true. So let's leave her out of it. That still leaves the fact that no one saw Stanley Ann in Hawaii, other than Neil Abercrombie who said he saw the Kenyan with 'Ann' and the baby on social occasions, and Kiri Tith who said he knew Ann or Anne but had no idea she had married or had a child to the Kenyan. The 'Anne USA' shown at the Nachmannof gathering wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham, and neither was the girl he had his arm around in that famous image 'on the dock' where Stanley Armour Dunham also makes an appearance. There are literally hundreds of anomalies that don't square with the fairy tale of 'Dreams' - but as I wrote, I'm no longer as zealous as I once was - and haven't the motive, as an Australian, to go through them all again, so rest easy. You want Stanley Ann Dunham to be the mother. That's your prerogative. But to have that, you have to ignore much of what to me, seems very obvious.
She didn't show up in Hawaii until she changed her name to Ann Dunham Obama with Social Security in January 1963, and brought with her a little boy she's seen holding while he's sitting on a fence somewhere. Her life between the last image of her in the Mercer Island high school record stops after late 1959 and starts again with the images of her with a toddler in Hawaii - when Stanley Armour also took the boy to the beach.
That's all they had to show you where she was. The letter from the University of Hawaii assumes you will accept Stanley Ann Dunham enrolled for Fall of 1960. There's nothing there to show they didn't pull up a record for the student named Ann S Obama and led you to believe the enrolment was for Stanley Ann. And that's about as far as I want to go with this. As long as people cling to the Stanley Ann as mother myth, there's no progress possible. It remains a brilliant strategy to give a child a background and family.
She HAD TO be at Mercer Island High School until the summer of 1960, she HAD TO accompany at least one of her parents to Hawaii in 1960 'after graduation' because she HAD TO be enrolled at the university for FALL 1960, because she HAD TO meet the Kenyan 'in a Russian Class' so that she could 'marry him' and become pregnant...but mothers are sacrosanct, and the author of 'Dreams' did his job well. He wove, he blended, he looked at the true story that he was given, and presented a fairy tale. And for that to succeed, everything possible to be concealed was concealed.
Obama has lived for almost 50 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no bona fides -- no paper trail -- nothing.
I posted a reply before reading your latest, all I want to say now is, thanks for your polite attention, I really don’t wish to take this any further right now.
‘That still leaves the fact that no one saw Stanley Ann in Hawaii, other than Neil Abercrombie who said he saw the Kenyan with ‘Ann’ and the baby on social occasions, and Kiri Tith who said he knew Ann or Anne but had no idea she had married or had a child to the Kenyan.’
We’ve discussed Kiri Tith. Apparently in vain. This idea of yours that a seasoned biography sits down with an interviewee and says, ‘So, did you know an Ann or Anne, ~45 years ago,’ couldn’t be farther from the truth. Maraniss was asking about ‘Stanley Ann Dunham.’ To insist that he wouldn’t have made that clear is simply detached from reality.
Cindy Pratt not only saw Stanley Ann Dunham in HI; she lived in the same house with her. No, it wasn’t a case of mistaken identify. Stanley Ann took her baby and showed him to Cindy after she returned to HI. Cindy would not have mistaken Stanley Ann Dunham for the mythical Ann; SAD wasn’t gone long enough for Cindy to forget completely what she looked like.
Okay.
“...Cindy Pratt not only saw Stanley Ann Dunham in HI; she lived in the same house with her. No, it wasn’t a case of mistaken identify. Stanley Ann took her baby and showed him to Cindy after she returned to HI.”
repeating comment 66:
I looked for Cindy’s comments to Maraniss and all I could find was this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/06/maraniss_bio_deepens_obama_birth_mystery.html
“Maraniss hints at where home was not — namely, the residence her parents shared with the Pratt family at 6085 Kalanianole Highway, the address listed on the birth certificate. As Maraniss relates, the Pratt daughter, then an adolescent, “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.” He adds, “[Ann] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].”
As I do not have access to the book, perhaps you could quote from it, exactly what she said to Maraniss. Thanks.
============end quote
May I suggest we drop it now? I really don’t want to repeat everything I’ve been trying to show since heaven knows how long ago...and you don’t want to see it, right? It’s futile, we are both just defending our own impressions, and there’s no progress possible. Like I said earlier, you were two thirds of the way there, and two out of three isn’t all that bad.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3580997/posts?page=32#32
1, No eyewitness places Obama’s mother in HI at any point during her pregnancy.
2, Stanley Ann was not living at the Kalanianaole Highway address, the ‘home,’ listed on both the BC and the birth announcements, nor (per a resident of the house) did she bring a baby home from the hospital to that address.
3, The first actual sighting of Obama’s mother after her 9 mo disappearance was in Seattle. She had a newborn with her at the time.
Okay, I have the link. It’s a huge, massive excerpt from the Maraniss book, and I’ll never read all of it. However, I’ve read the part where Maraniss describes “Stanley Ann,” living in the hallway outside her parents’ room in the house they shared with the Pratts. I’ve also read about “Ann’s” return to HI. In a babysitter crisis, she would drop Little Barry off at the Pratt’s furniture store, and go to her classes. Cindy described how Little Barry woukd jump on the mattresses and giggle.
Before I send you the link, I am curious as to how you will debunk it. That is your pattern. If you receive information friendly to your theory, you pontificate that it’s true. If you are presented with information that undercuts your theory, you debunk it.
I’m curious as to how you will reject this evidence. Yesterday you said Cindy wasn’t lying. I assume today she will be?
Any contact the Pratt daughter had with Stanley Ann Dunham would have been after she showed up in 1963 and attended the university as shown above, which would have made the child old enough to jump up and down on a mattress, if in fact, he ever did.
Are you okay? Your own post shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was in HI in 1960.
Thanks for further confirmation, if any was needed, that Stanley Ann spent the fall of ‘60 in Honolulu.
Your statement re Cindy Pratt was in error. She told Maraniss that Stanley Ann lived at the Kalanianaole Highway address during that same time frame—the fall of 1960. That was SAD’s ‘makeshift room in the hallway,’ period.
Thanks again for that Kidd letter. I’d seen it before; I just didn’t know you subscribed to it.
The letter from the University of Hawaii assumes you will accept Stanley Ann Dunham enrolled for Fall of 1960. There's nothing there to show they didn't pull up a record for the student named Ann S Obama and led you to believe the enrolment was for Stanley Ann. And that's about as far as I want to go with this. As long as people cling to the Stanley Ann as mother myth, there's no progress possible. It remains a brilliant strategy to give a child a background and family.
And now, I truly want to put and end top this discussion, before you get really upset and start calling me a liar.
Nope. All the dates of attendance are for the same person: Stanley Ann Dunham. The same person that lived at the Kalanianaole Highway address during the fall of 1960.
She was there. Eyewitnesses, plural, put her there. Other than your detached-from-reality theory, no one disputes it.
Other than global warming, I’ve never seen a theory as misaligned with facts and evidence as yours. It’s sad.
I did find a fresh cache of Little Barry toddler pics. At least I’ve never seen you post them...and I’ve seen you post plenty. If you want the link, let me know.
Of course, the U of Washington transcript for SADO posts her U of HI courses, too so they cross-corroborate!
The immigration file for BHO Sr. shows SADO planning to go to UW, so this makes THREE government archived documents (immigration file, UW transcript, UH transcript), all of which are hard to forge, which show SADO at or intending to be in Seattle at UW in Sept. 1961.
Good points. One thing has been established. There was no separate entity named Ann S. Obama. An eyewitness—one who continued to be acquainted with SAD upon her return to HI—says SAD was living at the Kalanianaole Highway address in the fall of 1960. The UoH transcripts list the 1960 student as Stanley Ann Dunham.
Upon her return from Seattle despite having listed herself in Polk’s Directory as Mrs. Ann Obama, SAD continues her university studies as Stanley Ann Dunham. (This tells us tell the ‘wedding’ was a fraud. Had it been legal, SAD would have changed her name in the UoH records to Ann Obama. But Ann Obama is simply the name she uses in non-legal listings; on her official transcript she remains Stanley Ann Dunham.)
We had a pathological liar for POTUS for eight years. That’s a shame. The harm Obama did was profound. His enablers have a lot to answer for.
(What are the odds, btw, that this mythical Ann just happens to have a middle initial that corresponds with ‘Stanley.’ So she ‘just happens’ to go by SAD’s middle name (Ann), and the fact that she also has a middle initial corresponding to SAD’s first name is purely coincidental. (It isn’t.))
ping...
My two bits...
Have you seen this? Nothing to exciting but some slightly interesting e-mails.
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/aug/30/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-birther-emails/
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.