(If they had married, his father would have committed bigamy, since he already had a wife back home in Kenya.)
I've long suspected that no marriage took place, and now Michelle Obama has confirmed it:
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”This information comes to us by way of TexasDarlin', who goes on to note:
And that makes Stanley Ann Dunham’s Aug. 61 trip to Mercer Island even more mysterious. Ann was not on her way to visit Barack Sr. at Harvard, as her friend told me. First of all, Barack Sr. didn’t go to Harvard until 1963 (or late 62?). Secondly, they weren’t together then, as Michelle confirmed Thursday.Now before you accuse me (or TD) of making dark insinuations about the Mercer Island trip, let me state that I'm not linking that strange journey to any grand conspiracy theory. I simply think that it is strange, and I'm curious to learn the explanation.
I can’t imagine that 18-year-old Ann would travel from Honolulu to Boston with a 3-week-old baby, ALONE, to visit the ex-boyfriend (baby Barack’s father), even if he were at Harvard then. I can’t imagine her parents would let her.
Frankly, I think this latest piece of data nearly demolishes the theory that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya. Why would the elder Obama transport a woman he did not love to his homeland?
UPDATE: Is Barack Obama technically a "Junior," in light of the fact that his father did not marry his mother? When you think about it, the situation is rather sad.
I rather like Ann from what I've read of her, although she probably should not have had a child if she couldn't play more of a role in raising him. Nothing about the elder Obama seems admirable in any way.
13 comments:
I wouldn't be surprised if Barack Sr.'s name isn't even on the original birth certificate. It wouldn't be unheard of for the father's name to be listed as "unknown" in those days, especially given the fact Senior was already married. And "Barack Obama" is probably not the younger's original name in the first place. It's probably Barry Dunham or something similar.
So what his parents weren't married? Shouldn't you be more interested in things like bringing the troops home, raising welfare payments, and improving social conditions? What is it about the public-relations razzamatazz of bourgeois elections??? What a stupid 'talking-point' the issue of a candidate's parents' marital status is!!!
b
Bringing the troops home? Obi and his people have said many different things about that; who knows where the truth is?
There is no popular sentiment in favor of raising welfare payments. Don't expect much -- that's another issue on which Obama has contradicted himself.
Improving social conditions...? You mean, the way he "improved" his district in Chicago, pushing through legislation that would privatize taxpayer subsidized housing for the poor? That trick made sure that the poor suffered horribly, while the taxpayers were ripped off. But Obi's crook friends sure had THEIR "social conditions" improved.
I'll talk about whatever I damn well please, thank you very much -- especially on weekends, when this blog traditionally has a more expansive view of what constitutes importance.
I don't know how significant Obama's parentage will prove. For that matter, I don't know whether McCain's stormy relationship with HIS dad is significant.
But American historians -- of the presidency, and of everything else -- are always concerned with biography.
We never know which biographical details will prove telling. What kind of drinks did Lincoln serve at his saloon? What should we read into the fact that Stephen Douglas was courting Mary when Abe came along?
Ultimately, we can't prune data. We just gather up as much info as we can get, and hope to assemble the pieces into a picture of a man's character.
Once we get a better glimpse at Obama's character, perhaps we will learn why he has backtracked on so many issues, and why he has not kept his progressive promises in a single instance.
I think there is a very good chance that Stanley originally surrendered Obama for adoption and that's what the trip up north was about - retrieving him from the care of the social service agency. An unmarried, 19 year old girl with a mixed race child in 1961 - that was a heavy duty stigma to deal with. She's not gettin' married to anyone decent, that's for sure.
In 1961, mothers who surrendered children for adoption, in many states, had up to a year to reclaim the child. Agencies had, traditionally, left the infants in a facility of some kind until the period was up. They were just beginning to place the babies with the families from the get-go. The year-long decision-making period proved to be unworkable once real hearts were at stake and the laws were changed to 90 days - still very difficult but it allows the child a shot at bonding as an infant with both/either families.
Nobody would really care whether he parents were married but for the fact Obama has SAID they were. This whole thing could be easily resolved if Obama would provide the original birth certificate, his parents' marriage certificate and divorce decree, if they exist, any adoption papers involving his stepfather (remember, Obama took the Soetoro surname sometime later on) if they exist. It's that simple.
I would strongly suspect Obama didn't legally change his name to "Barack Obama" until much later on in life.
The problem in a nutshell is he likely lied about the his parents' marriage.
You know, he may have genuinely thought they were married.
Back in the 1960s, it was pretty common for couples who were "shacking up" (to use a quaint term) to tell people -- including family members -- that they had run out to Vegas for a quickie wedding.
My mom did that. My mom went to work for my dad when he was 51 and she was 21. he left his wife for her and they moved in together. She got pregnant in short order but my grandparents came and took her home. I didn't meet my father until I was 27.
The story to both me and the neighborhood was that they got divorced and short of hiring a PI, how would anyone know the difference?
He's a pol, so he's a venal bottom-feeder, always ready to please big money. That's his character. End of story. Obama is vile. Egged on by Clinton, he even said Jerusalem should be the 'indivisible and eternal' capital of Israel - a position which even Bush hasn't taken in public. But no vote for any candidate will bring the troops home, or raise welfare payments, or improve social conditions. These concessions would only happen if the rulers were forced to make them, outside of any election. They're important; elections are showbiz.
Of course you will talk about whatever you want. I'm commenting, is all - on your space, as a guest, as I fully recognise. I didn't think you only wanted fanmail! But you do seem obsessed by this election. Is it because you voted for Obama in the primaries?
When I was at college, I accidentally voted in a student union election for a candidate who was a friend of an acquaintance, who wanted to get elected so he could support someone I knew in a squabble she had with the college authorities, with the aim of getting into her knickers. I then found out he was a Tory!! And he won by one vote!!! I was deeply embarrassed, and I still am! Fortunately, after 'supporting' the person I knew (I don't think he was successful, either in the administrative issue or in the knickers one), he resigned, and a new election was held. Normally I wouldn't have been interested, but because of my dreadful faux pas in voting for him in the first place, I made sure I went and voted for the most left-wing of the candidates in the new election.
If a Chicago crook like Obama gets elected, it may be another nail in the coffin of popular respect for the electoral and political system, which may not be a bad thing. As in, look on the bright side. Having said that, though (and before I get accused of supporting Obama), I would still like the widespread hatred and contempt for the Bushites and the Republicans to cause them to fall from public office. Why? Because this will at least make a lot of decent people happy and put their hopes up. But that's about the furthest I would go.
People will need to have their hopes up, because the boss class is really going to put the boot in, in the coming period, whoever wins the election. It may even occur (who knows?) that a crisis of the credit system in its current form will bring hyperinflation before the election, let alone after it. A lot of people are already losing their jobs and homes.
Whoever wins the Democratic candidacy is likely to have more people actively involved in their campaign than any other Democratic candidate ever, because so many people (respectable honest people who are not professional pols or careerists) want so dearly to watch the Repuglicans get trashed. But the election won't change much, whoever wins. Maybe if a Democrat wins, people will be more forceful in their struggles when they realise afterwards that the person has 'sold out', than if a Repug wins...
The course of history is decided by other factors than elections. De Gaulle won an election in June 1968.
b
Wow ! Thanks for covering such an important issue that will profoundly change our perception of the man.
Too bad KOS was not supporting Hillary, you would be obsessed with her instead...
A
And here I thought he was just a pr*ck.
Last month, Third Estate said friends
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2008/06/christ-child-is-born.html
of Ann Dunam declared "Unknown" was on the birth certificate. This news doesn't surprise me but I agree with Joe Cannonfire, it is news. Remember what was done to Gary Hart when it turned out his family's name was changed? It also goes to authenticity and the autobiography which is all Barack's run on.
'Goes to authenticity'? Who on earth thinks any American pol on the stump has any of that?
Sure, it might help the move to get him replaced as the Democratic candidate, or even help McCain win.
Is it 'authentic' for a left-wing person to say don't support Obama because his parents weren't married?
Nope. It's realpolitik
b
This is a big deal because all Barack has is his biography. He has no record to run on. He has no issues to run on. FISA? NAFTA? He's got nothing.
If he's exposed as lying about his birth then that is a big deal. I think his birth certificate reads: "Barack Dunham." But it wouldn't surprise me if even "Barack" wasn't on the birth certificate. The link someone posted says "unknown" on father and I agree that's probably true. He's not a Junior.
Post a Comment