The Stolen Valor Act and the Right to Fabricate

© Miri WTPOTUS July 6, 2012 

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that We the People have the constitutional right to claim that we have earned military honors or served our country in its Armed Forces, even if neither is true. In other words, the First Amendment protects the right to fabricate.   

The high court ruled 6-3 on Thursday to toss out the conviction of Xavier Alvarez, a former California politician who lied about being a decorated military veteran. He had been charged under the 2006 Stolen Valor Act, which made it a crime to lie about receiving the Medal of Honor and other prestigious military recognitions. The decision invalidated the law, as the justices ruled Alvarez’s fabricated story was constitutionally protected speech.

Not all members of the military or military veterans condemn this ruling.  One decorated hero, Jack Jacobs, explains:

“There are lots of things people do that revolt me, but I’m happy that I fought for this country, not to give them the right to do something stupid, but for the majority of the people to do the right thing,” said Jacobs, 66, who earned the Medal of Honor in 1969 for carrying several of his buddies to safety from a shelled rice field despite the shrapnel wounds in his head, the streaming blood clouding his vision.

“I’m a free speech guy,” he said.

He’s also a hero who “gets it.”  Thank you for your service, Mr. Jacobs.  We the People will never be able to honor people like you as much or as well as you deserve. 

However, even if a person has the right to lie about having served, or having been awarded military honors, the ruling doesn’t protect him or her from the consequences that come from having fraudulently received something as a result of false claims.  For example, there’s the case of Marine Sgt. David Budwah, who

was demoted to private and dishonorably discharged after pretending to be a wounded war hero to get free seats at rock concerts and sports events.

Which brings us back to the case of Xavier Alvarez, who sat on a board of directors for a municipal water district.  One wonders if his false claims helped him to get that seat on the board.  If so, can the municipality now charge him with fraud, in order to recoup the compensation and other benefits he received as a result? 

Which then brings us to the case of Barack Hussein Obama II and the recent biography written by David Maraniss, Barack Obama:  The Story.   This book contains shocking revelations for those heretofore inclined to believe everything Obama says and writes (or has written for him).  There were very few revelations, however, for those of us who have doubted the veracity of Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, from the beginning.

Maraniss reveals that Obama’s book is full of fabrications (38 and counting).  But then, Obama admitted as much in the beginning of the book, when it was originally published in 1995:  timelines were messed with, conversations were made up, names were changed, and characters were morphed into “composites”.  In their haste to annoint Obama the messiah of hope and change, the media failed to pay attention.  As Jack Cashill wrote:

The respectable media, left and right, are finally opening themselves up to the possibility that the story Barack Obama told in his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father has been, in large part, manufactured.

As a case in point, the Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson has had to do some serious reevaluating of the man after reading David Maraniss’s … book, Barack Obama: The Story.  Writes Ferguson ruefully,

“The writer who would later use the power of his life story to become a plausible public man was making it up, to an alarming extent.”

What Ferguson found particularly “dispiriting” was that the moments most likely to be “invented” were the most critical ones, the book’s racially-charged epiphanies, “those periodic aha! moments that carry the book and bring its author closer to self-discovery.”  

Obama’s fabrications involve what could be called stolen victimhood Examples abound in the book:  

Obama wrote that his grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama was imprisoned and horribly tortured by white British colonialists.  Except Onyango Obama wasn’t.  

The young Obama, in Indonesia, was traumatized by reading a magazine article about a black man who tried to bleach his skin white.  Except there was no such magazine article.  

Obama was, to his shame, the only black employee at his first job after college.  Except he wasn’t

Obama and his second white girlfriend broke up because she couldn’t understand or relate to “black suffering,” actually crying because she could never be black herself.  Except it didn’t happen, Genevieve Cook says. 

Did he innoculate himself against allegations of fraud by that introduction to the first edition, where he admitted, in so many carefully parsed words, that he could be “just making things up,” to borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin? 

Let’s compare Obama’s  memoir to the situation of another author, who also wrote a book that was classified as a memoir. 

James Christopher Frey, author of  A Million Little Pieces, was outed by a website that found that he had exaggerated incidents in his book.  As an example, he turned a 5-hour stay in jail into an 87-day stretch in the slammer.  Like Obama, he also changed names and embellished events.  

After being outed, Frey and his publisher did penance.  Future editions of his book contained disclaimers by the author as well as the publisher.  Mea culpas all around, as demanded by an outraged media.  Frey was  given a public tongue lashing by Oprah Winfrey on her TV show, because she had previously touted his book on her program–just as she had touted Obama’s memoir.  Frey, however, was publicly shamed for deceiving her. Obama, her friend, was not.

Will Obama’s memoirs ever be held to a similar standard?  But, wait!  He did include that warning, didn’t he?  Even though nobody paid much attention to it except for those of us who have doubted his fable from the get go.

Today, reporters and apologists for Obama, including, apparently, Maraniss himself, use the Frey excuse to excuse Obama!

Frey admitted that he had literary reasons for his fabrications, as well: “I wanted the stories in the book to ebb and flow, to have dramatic arcs, to have the tension that all great stories require.” He also said memoirists had a right to draw upon their memories, in addition to documents, in creating their written works.

The Frey excuse, therefore, states that memory is constructive and imperfect and that “literary reasons” suffice to explain and excuse even deliberate untruths told in memoirs, especially if it makes for a great story.

Writer John Nolte quoted Maraniss himself, who said of Obama’s 38 fabrications (there are actually many more):

But it is important to say that it falls into the realm of literature and memoir, not history and autobiography, and should not be read as a rigorously factual account. …  The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive. The themes of the book control character and chronology. Time and again the narrative accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles in his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white. Sometimes the composites are even more complex; there are a few instances where black figures in the book have characteristics and histories that Obama took from white friends. The racial scene in his family history that is most familiar to the public, the time when he overheard his grandparents in Hawaii argue because his grandmother was afraid of a black man at the bus stop, also happens to be among those he pulled out of its real chronology and fit into a place where it might have more literary resonance. Like many other riffs in the book, it explored the parameters and frustrations of his blackness.

The Frey excuse excuses all (for Obama but not necessarily for Frey).  Obama was “just making things up” and presenting created characters and events to advance a narrative, all for the sake of literature, except that Obama and his supporters, in word and deed, certainly implied that the book was literal truth and not myth, despite that sneaky disclaimer that most interviewers and book reviewers neglected to mention, if they even noticed it.  Obama’s book was never presented as, or categorized as, fiction.

Maraniss tries to excuse what appears to be an aggravating circumstance–Obama invented racial incidents in order to exaggerate the “frustrations of his blackness.” 

This from a man who presented himself to voters as “post-racial”, as an everyman to whom all can relate because he is (allegedly) a product of both black and white worlds.  He also wants us to believe that he is Asian by proxy, via the formative years that he spent in Indonesia.  In fact, he went further, announcing to persons of South Asian descent that he actually is one of them:

Not only do I think I’m a desi , but I’m a desi.  I’m a homeboy.

Did Obama make that claim to “advance a line of thought?”  Was it a literary “device” or did he expect listeners to believe and accept it on faith (eschewing reason) as some sort of religious mystery like transubstantiation?  Obama is, after all, a godlike being, at least in his own mind. 

Now we learn that he has invented incidents and characters that serve to aggravate racial tensions.  Incidents and characters meant to exacerbate grievances and divide us, rather than to unite us as one people. 

Small matter to Obama, apparently, if his devices unfairly taint the reputations of his white characters (actually, shamelessly stereotypical caricatures) by “distorting” their words or actions. 

Very little about these one-dimensional characters rings true.  Why it took so many so long to notice is truly a mystery.

Obama’s tale about Madelyn Dunham’s fear of the black man at the bus stop is among the worst.  A useful device that he employed during his “landmark” speech about race, an anecdote that left the impression that his white grandmother was a racist.  In response, her friends and former co-workers rallied to her defense: 

… several current and former Bank of Hawaii executives — some of whom were mentored by Dunham and knew her after she retired — said they were stunned by Obama’s comments about his grandmother.

“I was real surprised that he indicated that,” said Dennis Ching, who was a 23-year-old management trainee under Dunham beginning in 1966. I never heard her say anything like that. I never heard her say anything negative about anything.”

In campaign speech after campaign speech, Obama repeated exaggerations from his book.  For example:  His mother and father enjoyed an “improbable love” and the three of them lived happily together for the first two years of his life, until his father chose education over family.  In truth, his mother left her husband and moved to Seattle only weeks after Obama’s birth; she did not return to Hawaii until her husband (if they were indeed married) had left for Harvard.

Another example:  Obama has often claimed that he was raised by a single mother who sometimes eked by on food stamps. In truth, his mother was married from 1961 to 1980, with perhaps a year between husbands (at most).  It’s unclear where Obama was when his mother went to the University of Washington in the autumn of 1961, but at least one news story stated that the infant “namesake” remained in Hawaii with his grandparents, which makes far more sense.

As a child and young man, Obama enjoyed perks that most only dream about, such as world travel and an expensive education in elite schools.  For the most part, he was raised by his grandparents, except for the four years that he lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia.  While his mother may have separated from her second husband shortly after their daughter, Maya, was born, Obama was sent to Hawaii right about the same time, to live for the rest of his childhood with his grandparents.  So, he was not raised by a single mother, nor did they live in poverty.  Quite the contrary.

Obama was elected on the strength of this “compelling” life story, as told by Obama.  A story that is now exposed as fabricated.  If so many “facts” and stories, anecdotes and conversations, are simply made up in order to advance a false narrative, then how much truth is there in Obama’s book?  Are “birthers” really as crazy as the media (and Maraniss) would have everyone believe?  

Is it truly a “preposterous notion” to suspect that Obama is lying about his eligibility for the presidency, especially when he has not shown anyone a certified paper copy of his birth certificate, including any of the judges presiding over the hundreds of cases that challenge his eligibility?

Maraniss has written a hagiography that merely echoes Obama’s autohagiography.  A variation on a theme by Obama.  

After stating that Obama’s book cannot be read as “history,” Maraniss seems to believe that his own book, which repeats much of Obama’s book, is history.  To supplement the narrative from Obama’s own stories, he includes specious anecdotes which are little more than gossip–conversations allegedly remembered verbatim, fifty years after the fact, with no secondary source to lend them any credibility. 

Maraniss was blessed with a private visit with Obama, in the Oval Office, which he described:

When the interview started, he said, You call my book fiction,” and I said, “No, Mr. President, in fact, I called it literature.” It had to do with the composites and chronology changes, which he talks about in the introduction to his memoir. In my book, I try to get the right story. That’s what he was defensive about, but as we went through them, there was never a case where he said, “No, that’s not the way it happened.”

This author was given an hour and a half interview in private, in the Oval Office, with Obama.  Why Maraniss?

After all his research, how many new discrepancies did Maraniss find and report?  Was his book intended to get the “right story” or to spin the stories that already were falling apart or being picked apart, piece by piece, by skeptics? 

Maraniss states that he read (and it’s obvious that he drew upon) other mostly flattering biographies of Obama or members of his family–books such as those by Sally Jacobs, Janny Scott, and David Remnick.  After being asked about the best selling book by Ed KleinThe Amateur, Maraniss responded tellingly:

I have not read it, nor do I ever intend to.

David Remnick himself has found an artful way to excuse Obama’s “artful shaping” of his false narrative–he paternalistically explains that this is what black people do, or at least, that’s the way I read it:

Remnick concluded that Author Obama wanted his life story to fit into a long tradition of African-American literature: a “narrative of ascent” discernible in early slave memoirs right up through contemporary classics like Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man (1952) and The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965).

When in doubt, play the race card.  Works every time to shut up most critics, but not those who truly are color blind.  (We will cry b.s., regardless of your race, color, or creed, if what you write is b.s.) 

Obama wanted his life story to fit this “narrative of ascent.”  It didn’t fit, so he made it fit, and expected the whole world to believe it.

Because he’s Barack Obama and not James Frey, the media is just all right with that.  Others are, too.  One distinguished black professor has excused Obama with a rather amazing statement:

Gerald Early, a noted professor of English literature and African-American studies at Washington University in St. Louis, agreed. It really doesn’t matter if he made up stuff,” Early told Fox News. “I mean, after all, it’s like you going to a psychiatrist and you make up stuff, and the psychiatrist can still psychoanalyze you because they’re your lies.”

It doesn’t matter if he made up stuff or told lies!  Thus sayeth “noted professor” Gerald Early. 

Somehow, it mattered that James Frey made things up. It mattered that Xavier Alvarez and David Budwah made things up. It mattered when the media thought that Senator Marco Rubio made something up (or “embellished“).

Yet it doesn’t matter that the president of the United States got elected based upon the narrative that he told in a memoir that is chock full of made up stuff!

Not only that, these “lies” may not even be his lies, if we accept Jack Cashill’s analysis that identifies Bill Ayers as the probable ghostwriter.

Sgt. Budwah was placed on trial, demoted, and ejected from the Marines; his Commander in Chief (the man who says he got Bin Laden) remains.  Obama is held to a different standard than the troops he leads. 

Free tickets to rock concerts and sporting events are chump change compared to netting millions from the sale of a book full of prevarications or to being handed the keys to the most powerful office in the world. 

The Supreme Court has judged that a person has a constitutional right to fabricate.  Did Obama defraud the voters in 2008 with his fabrications?  Does he intend to try again in 2012? 

In a word, yes.  He always gets by with more than a little help from his friends.  Will it work this time? 

70 responses to “The Stolen Valor Act and the Right to Fabricate

  1. It took me four days to write this post. I planned to save it for Monday, until I saw that others were getting out there with the story, beating me to the punch, so to speak. Here it is. My take on the topic. Wordy, as usual. 🙂

    • this is the original story I remember. with a few variables as it spun.

    • That’s the story I cited in the post, I think. The one that called him the “namesake”. This implies that BHO Sr. was left behind with his namesake in Hawaii, but that’s likely not true. Nobody who knew the man even knew about any child or wife. If Barry was left behind by Ann, it wasn’t with his “father”.

      That’s the one story that said that SHE left her son behind. (I’m guessing with her mother, but who knows?) After that, up suddenly popped Toutonghi with her supportive story to make it appear as if Ann Obama brought the child with her to Seattle.

      Then there’s the high school girlfriend who claimed she saw little, pink Barry at 3 weeks of age, when Ann didn’t even know how to diaper him. But even she had no clue, she says, that Ann moved back to Seattle, went to U of WA, and had that baby with her.

      So, given Obama and company’s tendency to add lots and lots of little embellished details to make the lies sound true, I wonder if perhaps she DID abandon the baby to go off to U of WA? Toutonghi was certainly mistaken about how old he was when she allegedly babysat for him, so either he really was born early in 1961, right as Ann dropped out of college, OR Toutonghi was just “making things up” for whatever reason, to cover for the fact that Barry was not in Seattle with his mother. So where was he?

      What if she did give him up for adoption? What if several years later, he still hadn’t been adopted so, when she returned to Hawaii, she got him back from the orphanage and took him to Hawaii with her? Suddenly, he shows up in photos. Why no photos of him in Seattle, if he was there? Toutonghi implausibly claims that she has NO photos herself, of her own family, from that time, when she was a first-time mother, too. No photos of her firstborn playing with little Barry? Hard to believe.

      • Family of Barack Obama – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama – Similarto Family of Barack Obama – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Charles Thomas Payne: Great-uncle of Barack Obama, younger brother of Madelyn Dunham, born 1925. Served during World War II in the U.S. Army 89th …

      • You may be right! She did allegedly tell Barry that she was an au pair in Chicago at age 16 and Uncle Charlie Payne lived in Chicago (among others, like the Ayerses). But she also said that she saw Black Orpheus there, yet it wasn’t released then, so again–bogus timing, although Barry admits that he messed with timelines. I don’t think she graduated Mercer when they said she did, either. If anything, moving around like they did, she’d be behind in school, not AHEAD of her class.

      • I vote for that one – au pair in Chicago, for a little boy named Barry who was the illegitmate son of . . . ???? someone in the chicago-seattle-honolulu CPUSA family that knew BHO Sr, Stanley Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis, and the Ayers family. someone they knew well enough to arrange for their daughter to go live with as an au pair and then when the truth of the baby was going to come out, they were close enough to arrange for sad to take baby to live with stan and mad, and arranged for a move to hawaii where they were hooked up with FMD .

        i dunno – so many possibilities. headache. hey, who was that black actor covert member of the cpusa – paul robeson, sound familiar?

    • Thanks Miri it is very interesting … 🙂

  2. Good job, thanks! I still don’t understand why the Supreme’s took this case. It must be some to advance someone’s narrative.

    • Thanks. I just found this thread at Free Republic. Funny how we all seem to think alike. Someone there mentioned stolen valor, too. And his LIES. His lies extend beyond himself, too, as you can see in the lies he makes up about his grandfathers. I would not be the least bit surprised to find that Stanley Armour’s service is not what it was cracked up to be. Remember how he even lied about the uncle who liberated Auschwitz? There’s nothing too minor for him to create a myth about. There’s the lie about Stanley carrying him on his shoulders, as they watched astronauts crash down into the Pacific. Except that didn’t happen, either. The timeline is off, unless, of course, he LIES about when he was born, which is probably also likely. I get a kick out of these people who only now discover what a pack of b.s. his entire book is. And they call US crazy. Was Maraniss tasked to study everything that’s been written about over the past four years, to take the TRUTH that has been found, and then to weave it into another implausibly “plausible” tale, to explain it all away lest the general public begin to react to him the way they did to James Frey’s fabrications? If you notice, in one of the stories that I linked, Maraniss even says that he didn’t want to do this book. Which begs the questions: Why did he do it, then, and WHO asked him to or made him do it? Notice that only the sanctioned biographers get those papal-like audiences with That One. All of these official biographers could be part and parcel of The Plan. Osnos and company. All connected. All complicit. How else can you explain the blindness? Every time something is shown to be false, the goal post moves, and then the “correction” is glossed over. Stories written in 2008 are rewritten another way in 2012 AS IF THE ORIGINAL DIDN’T EXIST. It’s like something out of Orwell.

  3. Oh! Dang. I forgot to mention this from that Fox News story:

    Henry Ferris, the editor who helped Obama shape his rough and overly long manuscript nearly two decades ago, told Fox News he does not remember discussing with the author his use of literary license. “I was immediately struck by how talented the writer was and what an unusual story it was,” said Ferris, now a vice president and executive editor at the New York publisher William Morrow. As for the departures from the facts, Ferris cautioned that it is “not uncommon” for memoirists. “I think there’s the very good possibility…that what he intended to do is to protect the privacy of these people he writes about in his book.”

    Henry Ferris. Oh, so HE’S the editor who helped Barry “shape” Bill Ayers’s rough draft. Right. Why would a person who claims to have been the editor of the Harvard Law Review NEED an editor? (I ask, tongue-in-cheek, knowing the caliber of his writing.) It must have galled Ayers to have this Ferris guy second-guessing his “literature”. Literary license. He doesn’t have any literary license and he doesn’t have a Social Security Number, a draft card, OR a birth certificate. He’s undocumented all around.

    Barry was only trying to “protect the privacy” of the INVENTED CARICATURES in his book! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    • I saw the clip of the guy on FOX and was “immediately struck” by the fact that he said he was “immediately struck by how talented THE writer was and what an unusual story IT was.” the question he was responding to was something like what was his first impression of President Obama’s manuscript. so, it was odd that he said THE writer instead of “i was immediately struck by how talented of a writer he was and what an unusual story he had to tell.”

      • Good catches! THE writer. Not necessarily Obama. Maybe he had a clue that it was ghostwritten. I can see it, actually. Barry meets with the guy who criticizes the work left and right, as editors do and must. Barry takes umbrage and points out that, hey! I didn’t write it; my ghostwriter did.

  4. Nicely done Miri. Most I will refer to the article will not scroll to the comments — if they dare read the article even — as I will put it before Barry’s devotees. On that note could there be an ongoing update at end of article on the Post Book Misrepresentation including what you added in the comments. The style you used to present is very effective. One I think about is the story of his daughter being taken to the hospital when a baby and he and the mrs. almost lost her…….

    • Thanks. Yes, it’s long. Sorry. I could have added pages. There’s a trick to getting to the comments without scrolling. Just go to the front page and click “comments” under the title of the post (or the same word down at the bottom).

      I remember that story about the daughter. Didn’t they say she had encephalitis or was it meningitis? That might be true. If so, then I’m certainly glad that she pulled through.

      • the story was supposedly proven false and I suspect it was because no matter how much I google — in every angle — I can not find the story and articles it was in. No mention anywhere. Now, if true, it would be held up in the display box of “All Things Perfect Parents Barak and Michelle”

        • What A Hoot, I think I saw that story just last week! Let me go try to find it again. Here, this one is good because it has links to the sources. I read a story about Obama making that speech.

          “When our youngest daughter, Sasha, was diagnosed with meningitis when she was just three months old, it was one of the scariest moments of my life. And we had to have a spinal tap administered and she ended up being in the hospital for three or four days. And it was touch and go, we didn’t know whether she’d be permanently affected by it. It was the nurses who walked us through what was happening and made sure that Sasha was okay.”

          But Mooch contradicted him just days later! She said the doctor thought it possible and so sent her to the hospital but it turned out she didn’t have it.

          I was looking for something else altogether and I thought, I don’t remember that at all–that his daughter had meningitis. (I think it was when I was looking for their various first date stories.) What a coincidence that you bring it up right now.

          Hey! Right on cue, the lamestream came to their defense: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5365670-504383.html

    • That’s a good idea. We can use this post to document all the “misrepresentations” that we’ve found through the years. There are SO MANY. I almost just linked to the O Timeline, which shows a lot of the discrepancies. That, in itself, seems so telling.

      Like when somebody tells a pack of lies and then gets tripped up because the stories aren’t true and so they didn’t happen; the liar forgets the details because there’s no TRUE MEMORY to fall back on.

      You can tell a story but you don’t remember it like you do if it really happened to you–sights, sounds, feelings, smells, etc. So you get confused about the details and contradict yourself.

      What gets me most, I think, is how things that for people like us are set in stone (like the dates our parents married or the date someone was born) for Obama are ever morphing. When did Ann and Lolo marry? Even SHE didn’t know!

  5. Mark Steyn: Obama the 1st Invented-American president
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2898607/posts
    curtain……. hanger…… & died….

    • 🙂 Nobody says it like Mark Steyn. Certainly not I.

      Yet another POISONOUS LIE: “His Indonesian step-grandfather, supposedly killed by Dutch soldiers during his people’s valiant struggle against colonialism, met his actual demise when he “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes.””

      There’s the meme: Evil WHITE Dutch colonialists versus Southeast Asian freedom fighter. Not true, but hey! So what?

      You know what? It’s RACIST to INVENT such lies. Remember the outcry when that white woman killed her kids by driving their car into a lake and then she made up a story that a black man carjacked and killed the kids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith

      That was racist. Yes, it was.

      And so is making up these lies about his grandfather being tortured by the Brits and his step-grandfather being killed by the Dutch. It gives you a little insight into the mind that made up those stories, so Gerald Early actually has a point there, if these are his lies and not Ayers’s.

      • OMG. Outdone!

        “In such a world, it was surely only a matter of time before a fake memoirist got elected as president of the United States. Indeed, the aforementioned Rigoberta Menchu ran as a candidate in the 2007 and 2011 presidential elections in Guatemala, although she got knocked out in the first round – Guatemalans evidently being disinclined to elect someone to the highest office in the land with no accomplishment whatsoever apart from a lousy fake memoir. Which just goes to show what a bunch of unsophisticated rubes they are.

        In an inspired line of argument, Ben Smith of the website BuzzFeed suggests that the controversy over “Dreams From My Father” is the fault of conservatives who have “taken the self-portrait at face value.” We are so unlettered and hicky that we think a memoir is about stuff that actually happened rather than a literary jeu d’esprit playing with nuances of notions of assumptions of preconceptions of concoctions of invented baloney. And so we regard the first member of the Invented-American community to make it to the White House as a kinda weird development rather than an encouraging sign of how a new post-racial, post-gender, post-modern America is moving beyond the old straitjackets of black and white, male and female, gay and straight, real and hallucinatory.”

    • Conservatives live in the world as it is. They see it as it is and deal with it based upon the reality of the way the world is.

      Progressives live as if the world is what they want it to be or what they believe that it is. They don’t see the world OR people as they really are; they deal with people and the world as if they are as they WISH they were or as they believe that they are. So when Obama writes his memoirs of his life as he IMAGINED it, that’s all well and good. People are archetypes. Progressives are GOOD archetypes and conservatives are BAD archetypes. From that, they deal with the world. Simple. Simple MINDED, but simple.

    • I disagree with this guy. First of all, have you ever before seen that marriage index showing both marriages one after the other? If I saw it before, I don’t remember. I find it hard to believe that in that five-year span, there was no other marriage by any bride named Dunham in Hawaii. There were other Dunham families in Hawaii at that time. It’s a common name. But let’s accept it as real, since the author does, for the sake of argument.

      He sounds like an obot. Making lame excuses for why Barry forged a birth certificate!

      There’s no freaking way that all Barry wanted to hide was that his parents never lived together. He’s certainly not hiding that his mother signed her maiden name on his bc because she was angry at BHO Sr. and didn’t want to acknowledge the marriage. How ridiculous!

      So his theory is that all this time they have hidden his birth certificate solely because Ann forgot to sign Obama or deliberately didn’t sign Obama because she continued to use her maiden name after her marriage!

      He ACCEPTS that they were married. He claims there are multiple items of evidence proving the marriage. So I say that even IF it was only a sham marriage of convenience, it was still a legal marriage. Oh, wait.

      He claims it wasn’t legal because BHO Sr. was married to Kezia in Africa. But does he know that for a fact? Do our marriage laws recognize foreign marriages? Would he be considered a bigamist HERE? Do our laws recognize marriages that are (claimed to be) “bush marriages”, meaning tribal or “common law” (sort of like religious marriages that were not legalized by a court)? The judge in the divorce court considered it legal.

      Ok. So what if it was deemed illegal and nullified HERE because of the marriage to Kezia? Who would know that and how would that be noted on his BC? According to the record that we’re supposed to believe is true (this guy calls it “real”), Ann NAMED BHO Sr. as the father with a race of African. So, if they were married, she would have had to sign her legal name. Why would she not have signed it? She used Obama for the Polk directories (HI and WA) and for her college enrollment in WA and when they divorced. Why would she have NOT signed it on his bc?

      Where would be any shame for Obama, 5 decades later, if their marriage was declared null and void because BHO Sr. was married already in Kenya? If anything, it would ensure his natural born citizenship status because the only LEGAL parent would be the one that’s a US citizen (if he was born on US soil).

      This author also seems to know little about how Hawaiian laws work–how somebody can get a HAWAIIAN bc even IF they weren’t born in Hawaii, so long as somebody files an affidavit claiming that the birth took place in Hawaii (and the authorities accept it).

      I think it’s MUCH MORE LIKELY that the father’s name was left blank. Or that the current state of the father’s name is Lolo Soetoro OR at least, if it’s BHO Sr., it previously said Lolo Soetoro before an amendment made it BHO Sr. (either for the first time or again, meaning back to the original father’s name, if he was originally named on the bc).

      It’s entirely possible that Lolo is his biological father, thus that enquiry by the INS into the status of Ann’s son in relation to Lolo Soetoro. (Decision was that he was technically, according to the law in question, Lolo’s STEPson.)

      It’s possible that when Ann divorced BHO Sr. and married Lolo, she told the court that Lolo was really his father. If that wasn’t true, she may have said it anyway, to facilitate the marriage, the adoption, and the move to Indonesia. When it was convenient for BHO Sr. to be the father again, so Barry could return to the US and again become a US citizen and live with his grandparents, then the name was changed again.

      But the point is: ANYTHING that has happened to the bc over the years MUST BE NOTED on the bc and also noted on ANY certified copy ever produced for legal uses. THAT’S what he’s hiding: The permutations that will prove the truth about who his parents are (or may be) and who they are not and also the TRUTH about his eligibility.

      This writer ALSO contends that Barry claimed via his publicist for 17 years that he was Kenyan born only because it sounded exotic. I cry B.S. big time on that one.

      It has been known for some time, and publicized (again by Maraniss), that Ann was in Washington State only weeks after Barry’s birth, so trying to hide it now would be USELESS, if his goal were only to keep up the bogus meme that they were a happy little family until he was two.

      He claims that Ann had to keep the baby. No, she didn’t. In fact, as the INS records also show (something which this writer neglected to mention) she and BHO Sr. had PLANNED put him up for adoption via the Salvation Army. THAT FACT also has already come out and been publicized. Nope. Too pat. And too far fetched. Not disappointing to anybody who has done the research. But it could be useful spin for the public, by obots.

      I agree that mixed race babies weren’t accepted, but they were more likely to be accepted in Hawaii. It would be as easy as pie to pass off a kid that looked like Barry as a Hawaiian. If she wanted to. In fact, since nobody in Hawaii amongst BHO Sr.’s friends even knew about the child, then she could have named him whatever she wanted. Even a Hawaiian name.

      He claims that BHO Sr. never returned to Kenya between 1959 and 1964. How does he know? He claims that since they weren’t a happy family, then it’s unlikely Ann would have gone to Kenya to meet his family. How does he know WHEN the disillusionment took place? He claims it’s unlikely Ann would have gone there only to run into Kezia. Shows how uninformed this guy is about the history here. It’s already been reported that Kezia and RUTH, the third (or fourth) wife coexisted in Kenya for years without knowing about each other. Well, at least Kezia didn’t know about Ruth, if you believe the story. They ran into each other for the first time at his bedside, after one of his notorious drunk driving accidents.

      There’s something on that BC that proves his ineligibility. He has no shame, otherwise. He has a complicit media and a ton of supporters that would simply SPIN it to his advantage if the truth were merely that his parents weren’t a happy couple.

      Another thought: Say she did marry him for convenience. So why then did she not sign her married name on the certificate? Would seem counterproductive, if the goal was to provide a father’s name for the kid. If she were angry for some reason (found out about Kezia or something else), then it’s possible that she had the child wherever, lied about her marital status, didn’t name the father, signed her maiden name on the bc. Or maybe NEVER even got a bc for the kid until she needed to divorce BHO Sr. to marry Lolo. If that was the state of the BC, then at some point before the divorce, BHO Sr. would have to be added or a bc created because on the divorce, the child is mentioned and acknowledged. So then the BC would be labeled late and/or amended and the amendment would be listed there forevermore. I guess that’s possible, but it’s still something that Barry could SPIN if he wanted to. Easily.

      IF his real parents are the ones he claims and if they really were married and IF (huge if) he was really born IN Hawaii. Suppose she was angry and she took off for Canada, for her aunt’s home, gave birth IN CANADA, no father named, maiden named signed. Went to WA for college. Returned to Hawaii after BHO Sr. left and THEN she and Madelyn swore he was born in Hawaii and they got him a late Hawaiian bc.

      • And then there are the missing port of entry records for the first week of August 1961. Somebody at American Thinker proposed that the sham marriage took place, they tried to adopt the kid through Salvation Army but didn’t for some reason (maybe because they were married–think about the shame of THAT! His married parents wanted to give him away!), and so then Ann sailed to Kenya, planning to give the kid up for adoption to his LUO tribe, or perhaps even to leave him there for Kezia to raise. This is commonly done with co-wives. And Ann and Kezia were said to be friends.

        The person with this theory didn’t mention Sarah’s comment about how as an orphan the potus passed through her hands OR those missing port of entry records. But both fit right in with THAT theory. (Also all the statements by so many people, including his own publicist/publisher, saying he was born in Kenya.)

        It’s possible that Barry did remain in Kenya with Kezia (thus his closeness to her and to Auma and Malik) until he went to Hawaii to live with the Dunhams who he didn’t know (maybe brought there by BHO Sr. to go to Punahou and get an American education).

        Maybe his alter ego while there was “David”. I remember reading an African news article that stated that when Barry showed up in Kenya again, as a grown man, whenever it was that he went back there, everybody in the village thought he was David. But David was conveniently dead, if we believe the stories, and the villagers were told, “No, that’s not David. That’s Barry.” So Barry looked enough like David to be mistaken for him, maybe because they were one and the same?

        Then there’s the curiosity that Ruth supposedly had 3 sons but where does that leave Richard? Maybe he’s Joseph and it might be that David was Barry all along and not Ruth’s at all. (If any of them are Ruth’s.) There’s no grave for David in Kenya, near his father and grandfather. There’s so far no record found of this motorcycle accident or his death.

        Did the British in Kenya recognize bigamy among Muslims? If Kezia was married legally to BHO Sr., then maybe he wasn’t legally married in Kenya to Ann. Therefore, when he died, Barry had NO CLAIM on his estate. Except they say that only Ruth could prove that Mark was BHO Sr.’s son, so only Mark inherited. It’s such a tangled web and nothing makes sense.

        Of course, there are photos of Barry in Indonesia, but Ann worked for USAID and she had “educational travel” for her kids. She might have flown him to Indonesia for visits from Kenya, until he went to Hawaii (and even from Hawaii, after he went back there). She also, herself, spent time in Africa.

      • Miri | July 7, 2012 at 5:46 pm —

        “First of all, have you ever before seen that marriage index showing both marriages one after the other? If I saw it before, I don’t remember.”
        —–
        NOTHING from from the HI Department of Health can be accepted as fact – they LIE.
        ==========
        ==========
        “It’s A Date – INDEX DATA BOOK IMAGES”

        “What this material will show absolutely is that there is more than one reason to be concerned with the actual Birth Index 1960-1964 that the public is allowed to view at the Department of Health, Honolulu HI.

        Recently I did a different post about the strange entry immediately above obama’s in the Index book. That index page will be re-posted here. What I did not highlight, although I was well aware of it at the time, is that in the 1960-1964 book, THE HEADER ON THE PAGES DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DATE RANGE. This is very significant because in the other Index Data books viewed and imaged that day, the date range is at the top. In all but the book containing obama’s information.”

        http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/9-its-a-date-index-data-book-images/

        • Yeah. I know that they lie. I remembered that ladysforest had some indices on her blog, but I didn’t recall that specific page showing marriages for that 5-year period, sorted by bride, so that it showed both of SAD’s marriages. I didn’t see that page the link you gave, so did I miss it or is it on another post?

          • http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date/

            “Marriage Index 1960-1965”

            Sorted by Bride:


            ===
            ladysforest:

            “The index above shows both of Stanley Anns’ entries. Interrogator noticed that this Marriage Index was set up differently as to the date range than the other types of Index Books. For example, the other Index books are dated from 1960-1964, 1965-1969. The Marriage Indexs imaged and shown on this blog are 1960-1965.

            The very interesting thing about the date range of the books that have obama’s mother and father, and obamas mother and Soetoros’ marriages recorded? You know what that is?

            It is out of sequence. 1960-1965 is a SIX year range. The next Marriage Index book, would have the date range 1966-1969. Four years. So, ALL of the marriage Index books have a five year range, except for the book containing Stanley Anns two marriages, and the second book covering the rest of the 1960s.”

          • Thanks, Gordo. I figured that ladysforest’s source was the “citizen researcher” mentioned in that post. You’d think they would have cited her blog as the source. The thing about these things is that it’s very easy to add a name or delete a name from a printout like that. You run the query, you create a workfile, you modify the workfile, you print the list. Do they CERTIFY it as true? Iirc, they even have a disclaimer right on their webpage saying they’re not responsible for “errors”.

      • “This author also seems to know little about how Hawaiian laws work–how somebody can get a HAWAIIAN bc even IF they weren’t born in Hawaii, so long as somebody files an affidavit claiming that the birth took place in Hawaii (and the authorities accept it). ”

        Yeah, and in the comments section following the article, I let him know that he doesn’t know anything about the history of and procedures within the Hawaii Dept of Health and birth records. I also let him know that he made an a** of himself by telling those of us who do know to “Get real.”

        As Futurama’s Bender would say, he can kiss my shiny metal a**.

        • Know what? That “get real” is like another obot specialty: “Dream on.” Sound familiar? They use these phrases all the time. They have their own lingo and talking points. You know what else that’s a possibility? This is freaky. I read that there are computer programs that carry on conversations with people. Every year, there’s a contest to see how long it takes people to determine whether or not they’re conversing online with a REAL person or with a computer. Software could easily be adapted to go to blogs and post comments supportive of Barry. These obots might TRULY, TRULY be robots. Computers. Programmed to spew their falsehoods. It might actually be WHY they fail to ever address the questions asked of them.

    • I have a sick feeling that we’re being prepped for a whole new birth and early years narrative of Prezdint McFlopears, the 2012 version to replace the 2008 version, the earlier version now known by most everyone to be nothing more than fiction. The New And Improved Narrative will be sold as The Truth – We Really Mean It This Time, but it’s just another pack of lies. These new lies will tell a somewhat rougher or seedier story than the 2008 version, but nowhere near as horrible as the actual facts are. And that’s the part that has me feeling sick about it: The truth is so shocking and damaging that they prefer admitting to having made up the 2008 narrative and then replacing it with a new made-up story than to let the truth be discovered and disclosed by one or any of the many sleuths and researchers, who are so close now to having this one nailed.

      • That well may be. What else CAN they do, as things unravel? Maraniss admitted that Barry was so, so very touchy and defensive. Laying into him immediately: “You called my book fiction.” Touchy, touchy. Why? Because it IS fiction and he knows it and we know it but, my gosh, he doesn’t want EVERYBODY ELSE to know it, too. (Probably not to worry. Is anybody reading Maraniss’s book? Is it a best seller like Ed Klein’s? Too bad Klein didn’t address the fabrications in Dreams.)

        Yeah, that’s the ticket. This is Plan B. As the truth leaks out, they WILL SPIN it for all it’s worth. They’ll make him a victim. They’ll claim he didn’t KNOW that (whatever) was true. He’s a VICTIM. You can’t BLAME HIM for the sins of his parents. If it’s outed that FMD is his dad, well, so what? They’ll rejoice that he’s a NBC and call anybody who points out that FMD was a communist pervert that Barry can’t pick his father, he’s now undoubtedly a nbc, and you’re a RACIST for criticizing FMD. He can no more throw FMD under the bus than his own grandmother. (Wait! He did throw Grams under the bus. Nevermind.)

    • I know. What’s up with that Morgan Freeman? How racist. Not black enough? Not black? What? Did Morgan find out something that we suspect?

      Somehow I seriously doubt that Barry is our first “mixed race” president. It’s extremely unlikely that he is the first. Given the mixing in this country, at least one other president likely shared genes from another race.

      We are ALL mixed. Eastern Europeans are mixed with Central Asians and vice versa. Southern Europeans are mixed with Africans and vice versa. Arabs are mixed with Africans, and vice versa. Northern Europeans are mixed with Asians and Aleuts, and other polar folks, and vice versa. US European-Americans are mixed with Native Americans, Africans, and Asians, and vice versa. Polynesians are mixed with Asians and whites and vice versa. They’re mixed with Mexicans, too, and Mexicans are a mixture of European whites, blacks, and native Mexican Indians. Almost every African-American has white blood as does almost every Native American. One might make a good case that the only “pure” race is the Australian Aboriginal, but I’m guessing that they’re mixed with whites by now, too. It’s a fact, Jack. Get over it Morgan. Join us all in being post-racial.

      The reason that the Republicans have tried to make Obama be a one-term president has NOTHING to do with his color and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he PROMISED to transform America into a COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP (that’s the goal, although he stopped after the word “America”.)

      • btw, take a close look at Morgan Freeman. Does he look remotely 100% black to you?

      • http://www.computerhealth.org/ebook/5blkpres.htm
        I did lots of research on our presidents who were probably more black than Obama can legally claim. Surely Obama better prove this along with the rest of his identity, but like everything else the media has lost enthusiasm for truth or proving anything. Read this, it’s short but it should put a morsel of interest to explore.

        • I did most my checking on WARREN G. (for Gamaliel) Harding because of his name and the era of his presidency.

        • How accurate, do you know, are the black claims for these presidents — FIVE BLACK PRESIDENTS

          Joel A. Rogers and Dr. Auset Bakhufu have both written books documenting that at least five former presidents of the United States had Black people among their ancestors. If one considers the fact that European men far outnumbered European women during the founding of this country, and that the rape and impregnation of an African female slave was not considered a crime, it is even more surprising that these two authors could not document Black ancestors among an ever larger number of former presidents. The presidents they name include Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolidge.

          The best case for Black ancestry is against Warren G. Harding, our 29th president from 1921 until 1923. Harding himself never denied his ancestry. When Republican leaders called on Harding to deny the “Negro” history, he said, “How should I know whether or not one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence.” William Chancellor, a White professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy and identified Black ancestors among both parents of President Harding. Justice Department agents allegedly bought and destroyed all copies of this book. Chancellor also said that Harding’s only academic credentials included education at Iberia College, which was founded in order to educate fugitive slaves.

          Andrew Jackson was our 7th president from 1829 to 1837. The Virginia Magazine of History, Volume 29, says that Jackson was the son of a White woman from Ireland who had intermarried with a Negro. The magazine also said that his eldest brother had been sold as a slave in Carolina. Joel Rogers says that Andrew Jackson Sr. died long before President Andrew Jackson Jr. was born. He says the president’s mother then went to live on the Crawford farm where there were Negro slaves and that one of these men was Andrew Jr’s father. Another account of the “brother sold into slavery” story can be found in David Coyle’s book entitled “Ordeal of the Presidency” (1960).

          Thomas Jefferson was our 3rd president from 1801 to 1809. The chief attack on Jefferson was in a book written by Thomas Hazard in 1867 called “The Johnny Cake Papers.” Hazard interviewed Paris Gardiner, who said he was present during the 1796 presidential campaign, when one speaker states that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” In his book entitled “The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson,” Samuel Sloan wrote that Jefferson destroyed all of the papers, portraits, and personal effects of his mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, when she died on March 31, 1776. He even wrote letters to every person who had ever received a letter from his mother, asking them to return that letter. Sloan says, “There is something strange and even psychopathic about the lengths to which Thomas Jefferson went to destroy all remembrances of his mother, while saving over 18,000 copies of his own letters and other documents for posterity.” One must ask, “What is it he was trying to hide?”

          Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president from 1861 to 1865. J. A. Rogers quotes Lincoln’s mother, Nancy Hanks, as saying that Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man. William Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner, said that Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and that his mother was from an Ethiopian tribe. In Herndon’s book entitled “The Hidden Lincoln” he says that Thomas Lincoln could not have been Abraham Lincoln’s father because he was sterile from childhood mumps and was later castrated. Lincoln’s presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as a Negro and nicknamed him “Abraham Africanus the First.”

          Calvin Coolidge was our 30th president, and he succeeded Warren Harding. He proudly admitted that his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. However, Dr. Bakhufu says that by 1800 the New England Indian was hardly any longer pure Indian, because they had mixed so often with Blacks. Calvin Coolidge’s mother’s maiden name was “Moor.” In Europe the name “Moor” was given to all Black people just as the name Negro was used in America.

        • Good job, alfy! You proved my hypothesis for which I had no evidence but common sense. 🙂

    • Oh, beginning to see the light. If they suddenly recognize that Barry is bad news, they will have to attribute his badness to something and since whites are intrinsically evil, voila! A racist excuse to reject him. You know, I don’t really care why they reject him so long as they do. We ALL OF US PEOPLE, black, white, brown, yellow, red, green with purple lips, cannot afford another four years of this communist.

    • Have y’all ever seen that Dave Chappelle skit about the racial draft? It’s hilarious. Somehow, LC’s post reminds me of that. comedycentral.com/video-clips/b224ei/chappelle-s-show-the-racial-draft

  6. i saw Allen West on the tube this morning. i have hope that we are in a position to kick BLT Marxism on its libturd lying face. RAID>>>>.

    it feels like a revolution, like the First one I learned about in 4th Grade.

  7. He’s a phony baloney. He’s an A-#1 bamboozler!

    A blast from the past. Still pertinent after all these years.

  8. Obama’s true purpose for seeking the Presidency. is to destroy America 👿

    • I agree.
      Not to toot my own horn, but I saw this coming over 4 years ago…

      Obama Nation: Using Racism In Order To Form A More Socialist Union
      Posted on March 19, 2008

      • Go ahead and toot! It’s a great post, with great insight. Too bad it all came true.

        • Off topic but this is funny. They hacked the Dept. of Trans. signs:


          http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-07-05/signs_32555718

          • And this one isn’t funny: Soros, Obama, and Hillary Clinton are pushing a treaty that would give UN control over gun purchases everywhere. They claim it doesn’t but the fine print does. Just like Obamacare, you have to read the treaty so you can find out what’s in it. Remember, too: Treaties override the Constitution, in some people’s interpretation. It sets up a UN program of gun registration and gives them control over sales and purchases. It also requires OUR government to ask permission of the UN before we can sell any guns to other nations. http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes-un-control-over-gun-ownership/

          • The good news: “No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” “The prohibitions of the federal constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and senate combined.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed 2nd 1148 (1951)
            This is neither rocket science or a secret. It has been the law of the land since 1791.

            No treaty or agreement with a foreign entity, which includes international bodies we may be a member of or associated with, can supercede the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. That’s the way it is and has been since the founders weren’t dummies, didn’t fight a war for independence, then put a loophole in the Constitution for future fools to sign that independence away by aligning themselves with outside powers. We should remind our Congressional reps of this fact…again.

  9. Ever hear of Hawaiki? Hawaii but with a “k”? I came across Hawaiki when I was doing some research and came across a Jo-Ann Baker who turns out to be nothing but the Recording Secretary for Hawaiiana Management Co., Ltd. Hawaiiana is the largest residential property management company in Hawaii. BUT ever hear of the HAWAIKI TOWER or the HAWAIKI TOWER CONFERENCE ROOM in Hawaii? this Jo-Ann Baker the Recording Secretary for Hawaiiana Management Co., Ltd. declares at the conclusion of Hawaiianna’s Management meeting – ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
    Submitted by:
    Jo-Ann Baker
    Recording Secretary
    10-27-03 hawaiki
    http://hawaikitower.org/adobe/Meeting_Minutes_2003-10_October_27,_2003.pdf

    hawaiki? is that a LEGAL terminology that can be used instead of Hawaii? So I was like, wth?( 🙂 ) I started looking into hawaiki and what in the world in means! this is as far as I’ve gotten so far. Miri, what do you think? is this something Hawaii could let “slide” for the “one”? or am I just very over tired?
    —-
    It has been made clear that Java (Indonesia) is one of the Hawaiki. The ancestors of the Māori settled in Java then moved to Fiji and from there they dispersed to all corners of the Pacific. Pākehā research has shown that the Māori came from India then settled Java.
    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/hawaiki/4/1
    ——————
    S. Percy Smith
    Second edition, enlarged and mostly rewritten. 1904

    Hawaiki.
    Chapter I. The Polynesian Race and its Traditions.

    migrations arrived at Hawaiki, or Java. Papa-nui, according to the Marquesan “log,” is certainly in Indonesia,

    http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tei-source/SmiHawa.xml
    ——————–

    Page – 4

    Interpretations by early scholars

    When European scholars began to investigate tribal traditions in depth, some were taken by stories concerning Hawaiki. Given the ubiquity of Hawaiki in tribal traditions – all describe Hawaiki as some kind of originating point – some Europeans attempted to understand more.

    One scholar was S. Percy Smith, the founding president of the Polynesian Society and author of numerous texts on tribal history and traditions. In his book Hawaiki, the original homeland of the Maori (1904), Smith advanced his theories as to the physical location of Hawaiki. He suggested that islands such as Savai‘i in Samoa, Hawaii and even Java near Indonesia were actually Hawaiki in localised forms. His method was to develop a view on the origins of the Māori people by analysing the traditions held by Māori in his time. This method had widespread acceptance and many scholars, both Māori and Pākehā, were excited by his conclusions.

    • Link for the last –
      Page – 4
      Interpretations by early scholars
      http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/hawaiki/4

    • Interesting confluence of items: Hawaiki myth could be known by many. Origins of the Polynesians. Certainly could involve Indonesians. Papua? Java? And then you have the theory that the Maori originated in India, which fits Barry’s claim that he’s a “desi”.

      • I find it a little interesting how this Hawaiki is used. Is it legal to use Hawaiki other than Hawaii? (refer to pdf above) and also It has been made clear that Java (Indonesia) is one of the Hawaiki (above) so are the Hawaiki’s accepted, the Hawaiki Islands being part of one?

        After looking into this Hawaiki Tower a little more, I found that it is owned by the Nauru Trust (Nauru Island) Naura purchased the property in Hawaii in 1984. (I wonder if Bank Of Hawaii or a certain M. Dunham was involved in this transaction) Naura is known for it’s criminality – Selling Passport’s and Banking Licenses. And do I dare mention their connections to GE, Enron, and the underworld. I’ll need to look into it more.

        Hope this all make’s sense what I’m trying to say, I’m in a hurry..again!

        HAWAIKI TOWER

        The Island of Nauru, formerly known as Pleasant Island
        ~~~
        In November 1984 the Nauru Trust purchased a 17.25 acre parcel located in Honolulu’s Kakaako District at the intersection of Waimanu St.
        and Piikoi St. On November 7, 1984, the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) issued Planned Development permit #PD 2-84 to the Nauru Trust, which authorized the development of the property in four (4) separate and distinct phases (the 404 Piikoi project).
        In October 1988, the property and permit were transferred from the Nauru Trust to Nauru Phosphate Royalties (Honolulu), Inc. (NPRH), a U.S. subsidiary of the Nauru Trust. Prior to the start of development of each phase of the 404 Piikoi Project, NPRH enters into a Master Development Lease with Nauru Phosphates Royalties Development (Honolulu), Inc. (“NPRD”), a wholly-owed subsidiary of NPRH, which develops, constructs, markets and sells the condominiums in each phase. Phase 1, Nauru Tower, was competed in February 1992.

        http://www.hawaikitower.org/information.htm

        • Good thoughts and good finds. Selling passports?!!!

          • Yes selling passports. There’s much more of a connection here, I’m still looking into it all.

            Sinister shell game on Nauru hides a cast of global villains

            April 12 2003

            America’s terrorism net has reached a tiny island where a nest of people, including Australians, are trying to hide billions of dollars, writes Craig Skehan in Washington.

            Snip ~

            A second line of investigation centres on a scheme in which an American-Chinese man, Paul Lee, through a company called the Transpacific
            Development Corporation, was authorised by the Nauru Government to sell Nauru passports for a commission.

            The US Government has complained that some of these passports were obtained by members of terrorist groups.

            US authorities have now sought information on all Nauru passports sold to Indonesians because of fears they could be used by members of militant Islamic organisations.

            The passports investigation involves anti-corruption agencies in Macau and Hong Kong. Inquiries are also being made into allegations of corruption and kickbacks involving Nauru officials and politicians.

            Explanations have been sought over hundreds of thousands of dollars missing from Nauru Government accounts holding funds from passport sales.

            In the past six years, thousands of passports have been sold for $US15,000 to $US35,000 each.

            There are also concerns that funds could be used by individuals, who have profited from the passport scheme, to influence the outcome of
            Nauru election on May 3.

            One former sub-agent for the sale of Nauru passports has given investigators details of the scheme, and also about a lucrative sideline in the sale of residency papers. Nauru has promised to close the passport operation as well as its off-shore shell banks and corporations.

            But provision of the voluminous financial records dating back to the 1980s means that many who used Nauru’s financial centre now face tax or criminal investigations.

            http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/11/1049567875098.html

          • Pacific nation Nauru on brink of collapse
            April 18, 2004

            Nauru turned itself into a no-questions-asked banker for the Russian mafia in the 1990s, a venture which lasted until last June. Until recently it
            had around 400 off-shore banks, all registered to one government mail box.

            Russia’s Central Bank has claimed $US70 billion ($A94.63 billion) of Russian gangsters’ money has gone through Nauru banks.

            Three years ago, needing the money, Nauru became a detention centre for Australia’s asylum-seekers in a much-criticised scheme dubbed “the Pacific solution”.

            http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/18/1082226623418.html
            ====

            Pacific isles potential terrorist haven, says Goff

            1:00 PM Monday Apr 12, 2004

            The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru came under scrutiny during the 90s, when it acted as a money-launderer for the Russian mafia. The tax haven filtered an estimated $107 billion through 400 offshore banks, all registered to a single Nauru government mailbox.

            It also sold its passports to non-citizens.

            Snip ~

            After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Washington raised fears Nauru could be a terrorist conduit and pressured it to close its offshore banking and passport-selling operations.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3560079

  10. Excellent post and comments btw!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s