- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
The 1st sighting of Barack Obama
Posted By Jack Cashill On 08/10/2011 @ 2:09 pm In Commentary | Comments Disabled
In December 2010, during his first week in prison at Fort Leavenworth, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Terry Lakin met with his assigned civilian psychologist, who claimed to know why Lakin was in prison.
As the psychologist put it, Lakin did not believe Obama to be born in America and thus constitutionally eligible to be president.
Lakin corrected him. As Lakin explained, he did not know where the president was born or whether he was eligible or not. At the time, the problem was that no one did.
Eights months later, no one still does – this despite the release of President’s Obama’s putative birth certificate, Barack Obama Sr.’s INS records and two major biographies: “A Singular Woman” by the New York Times’ Janny Scott about Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham; and “The Other Barack,” about Obama Sr. by the Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs.
After the release of this new information, all we can say with confidence is that the first time anyone reliable has reported seeing the future president was in Seattle, Wash., roughly three weeks after his presumed birth date.
There are two witnesses to this first sighting, Dunham’s high school friends, Susan Botkin Blake and Maxine Box. Blake describes the baby as a 3 weeks old, and Box, though less precise, confirms the approximate age. Neither would see Dunham again.
Jack Cashill’s literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama’s alleged life narrative. Order the book “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America’s First Post-Modern President”
How the baby and his mother got to Seattle remains a mystery. Neither Janny Scott nor Sally Jacobs offers one solid shred of evidence as to where Dunham had spent the six months prior to Obama’s birth and Seattle emergence.
Scott prudently ignores the testimony of Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, whose serial lies about his relationship to baby Obama were exposed at the beginning of 2011.
Jacobs does not. She takes Abercrombie at his word that “every now and then” Obama Sr. took his wife and baby out to meet friends at the University of Hawaii campus. Abercrombie would later back off this claim, but Jacobs lets it stand.
Abercrombie’s claim makes no sense. Even if the baby were born in Hawaii, he could not have spent more than a few weeks there. Plus, as Obama Sr. told the INS, the newborn was allegedly living with his grandparents eight miles from campus.
In that same conversation with the INS, dated Aug. 31, 1961, nearly four weeks after the baby’s birth, Obama Sr. reaffirms the point that “Barack Obama II” was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4. The INS does not verify.
That much said, Obama Sr. is likely lying about the baby’s whereabouts at that given moment. The more reliable Blake places mother and baby in Seattle a week earlier.
Of course, the birth certificate President Obama released on April 27 would seem to confirm an Aug. 4 Honolulu birth, but beyond questions of its authenticity, Obama has never told the truth about his origins. Why should he be believed now?
On the eve of Father’s Day 2011, Obama was still falsely claiming that that Obama Sr. “left when I was 2 years old,” a total fabrication he had been spinning for at least 16 years.
If Obama were born someplace other than Hawaii – say in Kenya, in Washington state or in nearby British Columbia where Obama Sr. was likely entitled to nearly free health care – Obama Sr. had a vested interest in convincing the INS that his anchor baby was in Hawaii.
Those questioning the Hawaiian birth have assumed that it was Obama’s mother and grandparents who were responsible for the Hawaiian birth certification and subsequent newspaper announcements.
But even if the baby were born in Washington state, where the baby’s citizenship would not have been an issue, Obama Sr. would have wanted to claim otherwise.
Scott and Jacobs could have clarified all of this but failed to. More troubling, they did not comment on their failure. Neither thought it necessary to explain why they had left such a critical hole in so controversial a record.
Worse, on the question of Obama’s first six months, both of them, like Obama’s biographer David Remnick in “The Bridge,” consciously deceive their readers.
All three esteemed authors insinuate that Dunham did not start classes at the University of Washington until spring 1962. They do this to preserve the crucial illusion of an Obama family – crucial because it helped Obama get elected president.
To discover the truth, these authors merely had to read the Wikipedia page on Ann Dunham: “She took classes at the University of Washington from September 1961 to June 1962, and lived as a single mother in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle with her son while her husband continued his studies in Hawaii.”
Wikipedia cites five mainstream newspaper articles for this information. WND had posted Dunham’s U of W transcripts as early as 2009. In finessing the timeline, these authors have moved seamlessly from biography to propaganda, and their clueless mainstream reviewers did not even notice.
Each of the three claims to have interviewed hundreds of Obama friends and family. If they were willing to ignore what they learned about Obama’s first six months, might they also have suppressed what they learned about the last six months of Dunham’s pregnancy?
This possibility seems more likely than not.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/332021/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.