Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: EDINVA

The information the mother/grandmother provides is passed to the Dept of Health (and/or Vital Statistics) and thus to any media outlet that reports births. Thus, the information reported IS from family.


Okay, continuing on that premise then the Dunhams cannot be trusted at all because right from the outset they blatantly lied in providing the address of the “father”. Why provide a false address unless they didn’t even know where the guy lived?

Who knows, maybe Barack Obama Sr. didn’t even know that the Dunhams listed him as the father (set-up by a family of grifters?)


96 posted on 01/10/2011 7:28:31 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Hotlanta Mike

I have no idea how old you are, Mike, but it is virtually impossible to convey to anyone under 50 what a total disgrace an unmarried teen pregnancy was in 1961, and for many years thereafter. It was the end of the girl’s (and her family’s) life in acceptable social circles. Period.

In those days there were homes to which young, single, pregnant girls were sent from the time their pregnancies showed until the births. The homes arranged adoptions. The families made excuses about why Suzy-Q was out of town for a protracted period of time. Everyone then suspected that Suzy was at one of those homes, but the social compact was that nothing was said. Suzy returned home and outwardly went on with her life as if nothing happened. She was spared the stigma.

In the case of Stanley Ann, she obviously chose to keep the child, regardless of where he was born. It could be because the father married her in what was known as a “shotgun wedding,” or it could be because of her rebellious, counter-cultural attitudes.

Granny was a bank manager, a position that required an upstanding reputation in the community. Her daughter was only 18. She would do and/or say whatever it took to protect both her and her daughter’s reputation.

They could have listed BHO, Sr. without his knowledge on the birth certificate information, they could have allowed (forced) a marriage to take place with the understanding that once the child was legitimized, they would divorce. Leave aside that BHO, Sr. had a wife back in Africa - that information would not have been provided in seeking a US marriage license.

BHO, Sr., himself, was irrelevant to the Dunhams’ goal of protecting themselves, their daughter and, ultimately, their grandson from the shame that attended an illegitimate birth during the mid 20th century. This could explain why BHO, Sr., when visited years later by UHI pals in Africa, never inquired as to the welfare of either Stanley Ann or BHO,Jr. It’s all very, very peculiar.


121 posted on 01/10/2011 3:10:35 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson