Replies

On Youtube there is an episode of a 70’s TV game show where the answer to a question that today would be “gay” or “homosexual”. But in this show, the “normal and acceptable answer” was “queer”.

But this document reeks of modern modification because of a similar concept: In 1961, blacks were called negro, colored, darkie, and several other less accepted names, but they were NEVER called “African” as Urkel’s father was in this document. An American adult in 1961 would no more have called a negro “African” than they would have called a homosexual “gay”. That alone is enough to raise huge questions about this document.

An within a context of paying millions to hide it only to eventually produce a “completely harmless” document is what is causing so much speculation on the document’s authenticity. And the effort to hide it was made at a time when Urkel said he was going to be more open than any president.

The whole thing reeks. I realized six months ago that the well had been poisoned: That any document he released confirming what he has been claiming could not be trusted and would not be. The window of opportunity to come clean (even if this document is authentic) expired over a year ago. This will never be resolved.

We are reaching that point with the college transcripts. Life is not a John Grisham novel.

Hawaii's racial attitudes were different than those of the rest of the United States. For one thing, nonwhites have always been a majority in that state, a reason some Southern senators were reluctant to grant Hawaii statehood. "Colored" or "Negro" were the general terms used in the early 1960s to designate African-Americans. However, the native Hawaiians and other Polynesians are dark-skinned; they might have been counted as "Negro" in certain states under Jim Crow laws. What would be useful would be to see the birth certificates where one or both parents are African-Americans or sub-Saharan native Africans from Hawaii to determine if the term "African" was used to describe their race.

If this document is a forgery, odds are that it is a very good one. Remember what happened to Dan Rather when he reported evidently forged documents on the younger President Bush's military service. Obama has many ties to the Chicago "Outfit", whose ability to forge is far better than that loser in Abilene, Texas, upon whom Rather relied.