Posted on 03/01/2012 1:50:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
I just finished Watching Sheriff Arpaio's press conference. The Sheriff's posse has concluded that the document was created on a computer and is therefore a forgery.
I will once again point out that if Obama was adopted, he would get a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate, but it will in fact have been created by the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii at the Direction of an Hawaiian State Judge.
"The Obama was Adopted" theory addresses the "forgery" issue head on, and precludes it from being a crime. In my opinion, this is the simplest explanation for the fact that Obama's document looks cobbled together, and that Hawaii is tacitly confirming it as legitimate.
I will further add, (for those who have not already been so informed) that *I* was adopted, and *I* have a birth certificate which was created six years after I was born, and is in fact a replacement birth certificate that lists my new last name, new parent's names, etc.
This theory ties up a lot of the loose ends neatly (not all of them) and it doesn't involve believing that the Hawaiian government is involved in a criminal "conspiracy." I urge people to consider this idea before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved with producing this document has committed a criminal act.
I disdain the use of the word "conspiracy" because it has been an accusation from the beginning that those of us who feel we are being kept in the dark about his actual documents are kooks and nuts just waiting for black helicopters to fly over our houses where we crouch in the basement hiding while wearing aluminum-foil hats.
People imply that a coverup must somehow involve a massive conspiracy utilizing all the resources of the "New World Order", the Bilbibergers, the Tri-Lateral Commission, and all that crap. I have said all along, it's just Barack Obama lying to protect his own A$$. (And possibly his grandmother protecting her grandchild.)
I'm skeptical, because 1) those signs may point to a formal and official adoption or something much more informal and unofficial, and 2) it's not clear how Indonesian and US law interact, what kind of Indonesian legal proceedings would have changed Obama's status.
And this is the most salient point of the idea. *I* am convinced he was adopted by Indonesian standards under Indonesian law, but whether or not that has any effect on his American Status is in my mind vague and indeterminate. At this point I drag out one of my old rules.
People do things based on what they *THINK*, not necessarily what *IS*. All it takes for Grandma Dunham to take action is a BELIEF that it will have an effect. It is entirely reasonable to believe Grandma Dunham could be motivated to act on uncertainty in order to guarantee certainty regarding the status of her Grandson. (Who by this time she cared about.)
Maya's understanding of "adoption" and Indonesian adoption law is shaky, and can't be taken as hard evidence that there was a formal legal adoption. If you want to rely on her testimony, though, it sounds like she's saying there most likely wasn't a Hawaiian adoption of Barack by Lolo.
I'm not suggesting any of it is "hard" evidence, it's all circumstantial, but it is nonetheless persuasive circumstantial evidence due to the number of pieces of it, and the subsequent behavior of those involved.
I'm also skeptical of the Soebarkah story. True, the name is there in black and white on the paperwork, but it's in parenthesis after Barack Hussein Obama. We're free to speculate about why it's there and why both names are crossed out, but we don't know with any certainty. It's an indication that something may have happened, but not proof.
Again, I put it in the category of indicative, not conclusive.
The deportation (which I didn't know about before) and divorce papers are more substantial. The response, though, would be that when you live a double life, with some things official and legal and others informal and unbinding, you can get confused about what the actual legal status of your affairs is. If you're fighting deportation, you're going to use whatever arguments are available, regardless of whether they are true or reflect the real legal state of things.
No doubt. Barack Obama sr. tried to use Barry in the same way. To fight deportation. (Barack sr. was only in the country because he lied on his Visa application. US Law at the time barred entry to anyone who associated with Communists or Polygamists.)
And I'd need more information before I could safely say that what the mention of Barack Obama as an adult child "still dependent on the parties for education." I'd want to know what the common practice in cases like this was, and what reasons there might have been for listing or not listing a stepchild.
Like I said, your theory is interesting. It's more plausible than most of the others I've come across. It could very well be true. But I'm going to wait for more evidence.
Nothing wrong with that. That is actually how I prefer to do things. My efforts are not intended to convince anyone that things actually happened this way. My efforts are to show people that they MIGHT have happened this way, and to keep this theory in mind when evaluating the possibilities. When a piece of evidence pops up to either reinforce or impugn the theory, we will be better able to see what is the actual truth. I just want people to consider the idea as a possibility, not the ONLY possibility.
You may be convinced of the truth of your version of things, but "a good circumstantial case" doesn't mean that the burden of proof switches to the other side. You could show motive, means, and opportunity, but you still haven't proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, i'm not convinced of the truth of this theory either. There are bits and pieces that make me wonder if it is correct. (The pencil marks on his long form birth certificate. The Daily Pen has a very good explanation for them, but it requires the document to be real and authentic, if I understand the article correctly.)
Again, I just want it (the theory) on the table among the other selections.
THUS, you see SOEKBARKAH became SUBARKAH:
Suharto’s body was taken from Jakarta to the Giri Bangun mausoleum complex near the Central Java city of Solo. He was buried alongside his late wife in a state military funeral with full honours, with the Kopassus elite forces and KOSTRAD commandos as the honour guard and pallbearers and Commander of Group II Kopassus Surakarta Lt.Colonel Asep Subarkah.[90
And this is why I said you know more about this aspect than do I. I didn't know any of this till you explained it.
The fact that he wrote two different articles, one with five mistakes in it and one without any mistakes, makes it easy to see that they are mistakes. Were they not, they would be in both articles.
Apart from that, the kooky stuff he said conflicts very seriously with OTHER evidence. It is far simpler to count it as a reporters mistake than to explain it any other way.
I don't know about you, but i've been interviewed by reporters (Both Newspaper and Television reporters) dozens of times. The one thing I can guarantee is that they NEVER get it right. The best you can hope for is that they don't make TOO MANY mistakes.
But this is really simple. If you want, *I* will attempt to Contact Bill Lawson and ASK him if these were mistakes.
Your original comment:
and I can only assume it continued during the time Madelyn Dunham was growing up. Apart from that, the Family lived in Oklahoma and Texas before moving to Washington.
Truncating a quote is something only a little child does. Here is the quote in it's entirety.
No, because I think Madelyn Dunham was utterly ashamed of the fact that she had a Black Grandchild. Madelyn Dunham was from Kansas, and from my Reading of Frank Marshall Davis' book "livin' the blues" they were pretty prejudice in Kansas during the 1920s, and I can only assume it continued during the time Madelyn Dunham was growing up.
Truncating a quote is an attempt to change it's meaning by omission, and is a form of lying. Why are you attempting to deceive?
You make a comment that i'm lying without any quotes for me to figure out which of my statements you are objecting to, then when I pick the one which I THOUGHT you must have been referring to, you say , "no, it's the OTHER one." (And then you cut out the part of THAT quote which renders it in context.
So how old was Madelyn Payne Dunham when her daughter Stanley was in school? It was actually Stanley Ann who was growing up there, not Madelyn! That seems to contradict your implied predjudice.
Nobody said Madelyn grew up in Oklahoma or Texas. Madelyn Dunham was from Kansas, which according to Frank Davis was just as Prejudiced.
How about this? As far as you are concerned, i'm lying. Please ignore me henceforth as unworthy of your attention. I hope to treat you the same way. (Though I shall be surprised if you won't insist on demanding my attention.)
Whether Frank Davis was a communist Pedophile is immaterial to the fact that he experienced life in Kansas during the 1920s, and wrote about it. One is not automatically wrong about everything just because they are wrong about one thing. Look at you for example.
Are your feelings so hurt that this is the best you can do? How about just apologizing? Do the Christian thing. You wrongly called me a liar, and now you are attempting to obfuscate the fact that I was correct, and you were wrong for calling me a liar.
I disagree. You obviously haven't read the threads i've been involved in or you wouldn't have presumed I was an Obama supporter. You are guilty of the very thing which you have accused me of. (Not reading all the threads.)
What was it Christ said about worrying about the mote in your brothers eye?
But you haven’t read them all, or absorbed much of what you have read. Instead, you have your own “ideas” that ignore the research already done. Not “ideas” but actual research.
I have read quite a lot of the threads. I believe I have a far better grasp of the details of this issue than most people on Free Republic. I think you underestimate what I have read and how I have analyzed it.
You say you and others have read ALL the threads, yet I have written quite extensively on this issue, and still a lot of you thought I was somehow supporting Obama.
We can disagree, but we ought not be disagreeable. If you see I am lacking in some piece of knowledge, Educate me. Don't disparage me till after you've tried to enlighten me.
I have just sent an email to Bill Lawson at the Maumelle Monitor asking him to clarify his article of November 13, 2008. I specifically asked him about Barry’s mother having died in 1970.
If he responds, I will let you know what he said.
This is my take I'm dying to see some DNA so we can tell just who this imposter really is.
You continue to refer to FIVE mistakes. Would you care to make a list? It might be productive to look at the five of them individually...
And you may just have a little problem with your journalist, notice how both articles are still up? If the second article that he wrote about an hour after the first was meant to be a correction, why is the first - containing your ‘five mistakes’ - still there?
Initially, article number two carried the message - this is Virginia Goeldner’s first interview - but that has now been removed.
Write to the author by all means, but after what you have said about reporters, why would I believe any response you might recieve?
An eight-year old Philip Nolan? That's a bit much.
Do you think children renounced their US citizenship so often that there were specific regulations to deal with that?
I don't know the exact law of the day, but it seems like Barack was too young to renounce his US citizenship himself and his mother couldn't renounce it for him.
The area where the name is written and crossed out was to add or remove a child from the mother's passport. It's not clear whether you're including or excluding a child by writing the name in there.
One possibility is that the mother thought she was adding his name and realized that she'd be removing it (or vice versa), so she crossed it out.
I'm not saying he definitely wasn't adopted and definitely never lost his citizenship. I'm just saying there are other possibilities.
“The area where the name is written and crossed out was to add or remove a child from the mother’s passport. It’s not clear whether you’re including or excluding a child by writing the name in there.”
Parenthesis () around the name indicate exclusion. Crossing through the name is indicative of removing the person from the passport because they have naturalized with a country other than the U.S. See declaration above signature line on passport renewal form.
As for minor’s convincing a CAO their renouncement is voluntary, a locally employed staff member is assigned to the minor to investigate and advocate for renouncement on behalf of the minor through a report to the CAO. The CAO writes a report to the Sec of State who make the decision as to veracity of the claim of voluntary renunciation.
A voluntary renunciation case can be made if the minor isn’t listed on the CLASS as a victim of kidnapping or a custody dispute.
The list is at the link I gave you when the issue first came up. It was compiled by Dakkster. Here's the link again.
And you may just have a little problem with your journalist, notice how both articles are still up? If the second article that he wrote about an hour after the first was meant to be a correction, why is the first - containing your ‘five mistakes’ - still there?
Also mentioned in the comment at the above link.
Initially, article number two carried the message - this is Virginia Goeldner’s first interview - but that has now been removed.
Okay.
Write to the author by all means, but after what you have said about reporters, why would I believe any response you might recieve?
Why don't we see what his response is, THEN you can decide whether to believe it or not. I'm not even sure if he will respond. I know *I* get a lot of junk mail, and I don't even let my e-mail address be known to the public. I just checked. He DID respond. Here is what I sent to him, and here is how he responded.
Here's what I sent:
I am writing you regarding an article you wrote November 13, 2008, regarding Virginia Goeldner's experience as a member of Obama's Family.In the article you refer to Barack as having been raised by Virginia's sister-in-law after his mother died.
“Goeldner said her sister-in-law actually raised Barrack Obama, or Barry as they called him, when he was young, after his mother died in 1970.”
Barack Obama's mother was Stanley Ann Duham/Soetoro. My understanding is that she died in the 1990s, not in 1970. Was this a mistake, or were you referring to someone else?
"Signed my name here."
Here's what he said.
That was a typo obviously. There were a couple more small ones but that was the biggest.Bill Lawson
Stephens Media
Now you can *tell* me what you think of this response.
Do you know what a ‘typo’ is?
Dakkster seems to have disappeared, and your link doesn’t work. Are you Dakkster?
Yes, and claiming he made such doesn't really address the question. The mistake is not a "Typo" it is a mistake of actual "fact", one of several.
His answer is not very satisfactory, but it is what it is. I don't write for other people. If I did, their answers would make a lot more sense. :)
I think he uses the word "typo" because he didn't want to come out and admit it was an actual mistake of fact. I am reminded of an old joke about an American Officer Stationed in Japan.
.
The American officer had typed up a report and given it to a Japanese liaison officer. The Japanese officer brought it back and showed him a misspelled word. The American officer looked at it and said "Oh, a "typo."
The Japanese Officer looked at him and said " What mean this word "typo"?
The American officer responded, "Sometimes when you are typing you hit one key instead of another and the word comes out misspelled. In America we call this a "typo."
To Which the Japanese officer responded: "In Japan, we call this MISTAKE!"
.
Some people don't like to admit they made a "mistake."
No. Read through his messages and you will see he and I have very different beliefs. He was convinced that Madelyn Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis are Barry's Mom and Dad. It didn't matter what piece of evidence was presented, in his mind it always proved that Madelyn Dunham and Frank Davis were the parents. It actually got pretty old reading how EVERYTHING proves this in his opinion.
As for the link not working, let me try again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2754825/posts?page=253#253
This time i'll test it rather than just copy and paste. It seems to work this time. Message 253.
He could do some decent research occasionally, but he would not get off that "Madelyn Dunham is the mother, and Frank Davis is the Father..." Theory.
You can dance around this issue until the moon turns blue as far as I’m concerned, in 1982 when the Goelnders visited the Dunhams in Hawaii, Madelyn told Virginia that they had been looking after the boy since his mother died in 1970, and that’s exactly what Virginia repeated.
Why Madelyn would say that is another story. But it’s obvious what she DIDN’T say is that Stanley Ann Dunham died in 1970.
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.