And that comment came along with one about no one seeing Stanley Ann pregnant, which combined with the statement about Obama, Sr., made me think you were questioning whether S.A. was Obama, Jr.'s mother. Hence the confusion. Hence my remark about the discussion being "off track." You intended one thing; I read another. When I realized that, I said to disregard my point about the author as it no longer applied.
But, even then, at the same time as I was alluding to Janny Scott, I noted it's really a tangential point:
"There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there. I don't recall the piece offhand. But until the 800-pound gorilla in the room (Hawaii's attestation of Obama's birth there) is acknowledged, I don't feel a whole lot of need to go chasing it down."
And here we are, countless posts later, and you are still trying desperately to ignore that 800-pound gorilla.
Comincal.
Yes, I am well aware that you made several nasty, false assumptions about me on the other thread. Anti-birthers do that to birthers a lot. It’s like Obama & his famous straw-men. He can’t answer his opponents’ real objections, so he sets up flimsy falsehoods that no one believes, and then expects praise when he knocks them down. He’s a sad, pathetic but extremely, extremely destructive person.
It is just an amazing ‘coincidence’, isn’t it, that at the very time when some—certainly not all—but some birthers believe Stanley Ann was in Kenya, there is no trace of her in HI. As they say in the literary world, “coincidence, coincidence—WHAT a coincidence!”.
Hook, are you capable of noting the STRANGENESS of this coincidence? It would be one thing if anti-birthers could produce both witnesses and evidence for the period in question—not for the prior or succeeding period, but for the mos in between—and birthers simply disputed the validity of the evidence. But the striking feature is that anti-birthers have no evidence at all. None. They simply assume Stanley Ann was there. That assumption is necessary to their narrative.
But what if the assumption is wrong? Lacking any & all evidence...it well could be.