It’s got to be something deeply psychological, the only ‘evidence’ there is that Stanley Ann Dunham was in any way related to zero comes straight out of ‘Dreams’ and yet the very people who will tell you that the book is a myth, cling to her motherhood like it was a liferaft.
He shows up in photographs in Hawaii for the first time with Stanley Armour Dunham on the beach and with Stanley Ann at the zoo, when he’s around two and a half to three years of age, and there’s nothing of him with his ‘grandparents’ ...
WHERE DID SHE HIDE THAT CHILD FOR TWO TO THREE YEARS, IF SHE WAS HIS MOTHER? AND WHY DID MADELYN TELL HER RELATIVES THAT THE BOY’S MOTHER HAD DIED IN 1970?
I’m not asking for too much...am I? All I am asking is, think about it. What can anyone show me that makes Stanley Ann Dunham the mother? WHAT!
A divorce decree that gave her custody of an unidentified child is all we’ve got.
Deeply psychological - because to jettison a fictitious fairy tale WRITTEN BY BILL AYERS in order to know who and what Zero REALLY is, means to walk on thin air, in a sense. It’s like giving up belief in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus.
It also means, at this point, having to say “Wow, I was wrong wrong wrong”. And that is something few people like to admit.
When I see someone willing to admit they were wrong - it is evidence that that person wants to know the truth more than they care about others’ opinions of them. A thirst for truth is the most precious possession anyone can ever have, and no one can ever take it away from you.