Main Menu

Archive | Stanley Ann Dunham

Combinations

Let’s say you have a list of things such as: Barack Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham, birth certificate, social-security number, selective service registration, fraud, college records, Frank Marshall Davis, etc. From the list you can pick some number of them to make a combination. This seems to be the process from which yet another Obama conspiracy theory has arisen, selecting the combination of “Stanley Ann Dunham,” “fraud” and “social-security number.”

The social-security number of Barack Obama’s mother is well-known and fully verified. The number, 535-40-8522, appears for example on her 1976 passport application that I obtained via FOIA. It’s also in the publicly available Social Security Death Index:

image

Given the availability of public records about deceased persons, I was more than a little perplexed to see an article claiming that she had a fraudulent social-security number (insinuating that the practice runs in the family). The article, “Obama’s Mama Had a Fraudulent Social Security Number Too!” appears at the We the People of the United States blog.

The basis of this claim is the familiar examination of a low-resolution copy of a document and speculation that there is something wrong with it, in this case, the Stanley Ann Dunham’s application for a social-security number. The writer “Bridgette” obtained a copy of Dunham’s application form from the Social Security Administration. Here is the image published:

orly-stanley-ann-application-for-ss-number-from-ssa

The argument that the application is a fake is based on the revision date on the form, which appears at the bottom.  The claim is that the blurry revision date on this form completed in 1959 doesn’t match any actual revision date of such forms, dates obtained from SSA. The author reads the date as 7-55, 7-65, or 7-68. The SSA response lists 9-42, 7-56 and 7-69 as the SS-5 form revision dates covering the time period. One might argue that birthers see only what they want to see in documents and question the interpretation of the smudgy date, but we can do better than that.

In the article there appears these paragraphs:

Using Ann’s number shown on the form above, 535-40-8522, numbers were checked in the final number sequence.  I started with 535-40-8518 – 28.  Only two people within the sequence died.  One was Stanley A. Dunham,   born  29 Nov. 29,  1942,  and died   Nov. 7,  1995 at age  52 in  96826 (Honolulu, Honolulu, HI)    (last benefit none specified).   SS # issued in  Washington.    She applied on  May 22, 1959 at age 16.

The other person in the sequence was  J. Henriksen with the number,  535-40-8526.  He/she  was born in  1926  and died in  1986.  His SS number was issued in Washington.   That meant he was  33 when he applied for a social security number in 1959 while Stanley Ann was only 16.     (The original Social Security Act  was  initiated in 1935 and was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. ).

This mention of Henriksen, applying for a social-security number probably on the very same day that Dunham applied, and probably at the very same office (given that the numbers assigned were only 4 apart), certainly raised an immediate question in my mind: What form was used for Mr. Henriksen’s application? Apparently this thought didn’t enter the mind of the writer at the WTPOTUS blog, or if it did nothing was published about it. I, however, did not let the matter end there, but requested a copy of Mr. Henriksen’s social-security application and it arrived yesterday. The original copy I received from SSA seems clear enough to me to determine confidently that the revision date is 7-55, the same as was surmised by the WTPOTUS writer for Dunham’s application. Despite what the SSA thinks, the Social Security office in Seattle, Washington, in 1959 was using a form with a revision date of 7-55.

Henriksen SSA-5 Application

The forms appear identical, even to the employee initials at the lower left of the form. There’s nothing whatever wrong with Dunham’s social-security application.

Gilbert child porno movie on Netflix

I saw a tweet about this and checked it out. Joel Gilbert’s film Dreams from My Real Father is available on Netflix for streaming.

As Loren Collins demonstrated, if the nude model in the film is really Stanley Ann Dunham as the film claims, then she would have been 15 at the time those photos were taken, making the film child pornography. I’m not an expert here, but I understand that even picturing an adult model in a salacious context represented as a minor is illegal. See Wikipedia on simulated child pornography.

I have expressed my displeasure to Netflix, and am considering whether to cancel my subscription. What were they thinking?

Is Joel Gilbert’s film “Dreams from My Real Father” child pornography?

It what might be the best piece of investigative reporting encountered in my entire career as Dr. Conspiracy, Loren Collins at the Barackryphal blog has proven beyond question that the so-called nude photos of Obama’s mother where not photos of Ann Dunham taken by Frank Marshall Davis in 1960 as claimed by Joel Gilbert in his film Dreams from My Real Father, but date back to 1958 when they appeared in a porno-fetish magazine. In 1958, Obama’s mother was only 15 and hadn’t yet moved to Hawaii.

If Gilbert is right that these photos are of Ann Dunham, then he is guilty of the sexual exploitation of minors in his film, and so is anyone who has a copy of his film in their possession!

Two films smear Obama

“There is no evidence for any of this”

So says The Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg of Dinesh D’Souza’s book and film, Obama’s America, and it’s claims about Barack Obama’s mother. Goldberg has equally disparaging remarks for Joel Gilbert’s film, Dreams from My Real Father.

Despite their dubious claims, Obama’s America reached the number one spot on the NY Times bestseller list and Dreams is being mailed to a reported one million voters in Ohio and other states.

The title of Goldberg’s article is: “With ‘Dreams From My Real Father,’ Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?” My answer to this question is that Obama haters have been bottom feeders from the beginning, and this is not a new low. I will admit that this latest round is far worse than what I wrote about in my article, “It’s an insult to his mother” back in August of 2009. I can’t help but believe that most Americans will not react kindly to Obama’s mother being portrayed as a “fat whore.”

Personally, I think Obama takes after his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Look at the eyes.

image

Check out Loren Collins’ in-depth look at Dreams at Barackryphal.

The other kind of birther

1234I’ve talked about Birthers, Twofers and Proofers. There is another kind of Obama Conspiracy theorist and I don’t know whether to call them “birther” or not. Those are ones that believe that Obama is a natural born citizen, but that his father was Frank Marshall Davis, someone who wrote for publications that were listed as “communist front organizations” (for what that’s worth).

It’s a conspiracy theory (some say involving the CIA) for sure and it has something to do with Barack Obama’s birth. Beyond the fact that Davis was a family friend of the Dunham’s in Hawaii and Barack Obama mentions him a few times in  his book, Dreams from My Father, as giving him advice, there’s not much more to the facts. Nevertheless a film titled “Dreams from my real father” claims to be proof of it.

Now, reports the Mobile Press Register (my local newspaper growing up) the Alabama Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead, speaking to Eastern Shore Republican Women in Fairhope, Alabama,  says that he endorses the film:

I’ve seen it. I verified that it is factual, all of it.

I should note that Fairhope is on the “right” side of Mobile Bay.

You can read the story at the Register’s AL.COM web site.

Early on in the history of this site, Davis’ son Mark left some comments here about his  father and the accusations that he was a communist. Mark has a 2008 article about what he describes as “red baiting” and his father.

I hasten to add that if Davis were Obama’s father, this proves that not only that birthers are wrong, but they are liars to boot (hmm, that’s true no matter who Obama’s father was). In any case, I saw Obama’s birth certificate and Davis’ name is not on it and without something more than lurid innuendo, that’s enough for me.

Back in 2008 when Jerome Corsi was hawking his book, The Obama Nation, the Obama campaign put out a response, “Unfit for publication,” that talks about the relationship between Obama and Davis.

I was never here

This article’s title comes from dialog in the movie, The Hunt for Red October. The article’s subject comes from yet another wrinkle in the alternative history of Barack Obama courtesy of the birthers. This one came in email, although it’s probably on some birther web site too. The writer claims that Barack Obama, Sr. was never in Hawaii, and neither was his mother at the time the President was conceived!

I’ve written before on the fact that various official documents of Barack Obama, Sr. show two different dates of birth, one in 1934 and one in 1936. The latest birther flap relates to an apparent disparity in the spelling of his given name, “Barack” and “Barrack.” (There are other variants in the name in other documents as well.) Based on this, and some assumptions about what “authentic” documents are supposed to look like, the writer of the email comes to the conclusion that Barack Obama, Sr. didn’t attend the University of Hawaii at all, and “probably never set foot on the islands of Hawaii.” The argument takes the “Barrack” spelling as correct (never mind what it says on his tombstone) and then claims all other documents are fake, including the President’s birth certificate, and the newspaper announcements of a son born to “Barack” Obama.

The writer also seems to be unable to understand that some people (e.g. Stanley Ann Dunham) start college before age 18 and so she must have still been in high school in Washington state when the President was conceived.  (My son started college at 17 and his mother started at 16.)

Following is the email verbatim:

Doc, we know from the release of UK files listing foreign students from Kenya Colony circa 1960 that the correct spelling of Obama Sr is Barrack. >From the Certificates of Eligibility for 1960 and 1961 for Barrack Obama we know his birthdate is June 18, 1934. Those certificates have been altered where it says Honolulu, Hawaii when it should be Honolulu, Oahu, and "the University of Hawaii" or "University of Hawaii" when it should be University of Hawaii and branch.  But not important as those items were made by a different typewriter than the main body and thus ALTERED meaning Barrack Obama never attended the University of Hawaii and probably never stepped foot on the Islands of Hawaii. Same goes for ‘Barack Obama’ who never legally had even the mispelled (sic)Barack name.

The FBI lists records by name and birthdate. Many have the same name but chances of having the same name and birthdate are small1. That would be one chance in 366.

There are no legitimate documents, newspaper articles, photos, birth announcements, birth certificates that place the Obamas in Hawaii in any way, shape, or form. Remember if it doesn’t have Barrack with the double rr and the Birthdate June 18, 1934 or an age calculated to that birthdate it isn’t a legit Obama Sr document. The alleged birthdate of August 4, 1961 is a sure sign that the document is forged. Obama is at least 10 years older than that birthdate implies. But more important Stanley Ann Dunham’s birthdate of November 29, 1942 made her close to age 18 on the alleged conception date November 1960. As her birthstate Kansas has a school attendance cutoff date of August 31th, her high school class was Class of 1961 so she was in attendance at a Washington state high school, Mercer Island High School, on the alleged conception date NOT IN HAWAII.

Furthermore the high school handwriting samples of Stanley Ann Dunham don’t match all of the forged Stanley Ann Dunham signatures on a brace of Obama documents. Google Annwriting1 for the handwriting samples.

Continue Reading →

333333 44444
5555555
6666666