Replies

My guess as to who his father WAS, is Frank Marshall Davis, ... My basic argument is this. Stanley Ann Was pregnant when those photographs were taken. She was posing for her lover. Christmas Decorations show it was scarcely a month after she became pregnant, and that the room did not belong to a MUSLIM man. The High Heeled Shoes are what I call "Stripper" shoes, and are not ordinarily worn by women for any other reason.

I think we have enough to begin. Thanks for posting this openly. Let's discuss.

(1) You have a meta-creepy interest in researching the sexual activities and interests of Barack Obama's mother, in some kind of ends-justify-the-means desire to dig up information on her to use against our beloved TOTUS. You're not really concerned with the legal implications of the information. You simply think the information can smear Obama, and that's value enough. Your timing in the release was a coincidence. You mean well, but you don't understand how poorly this sort of muck makes us look.

(2) Your side has this information already, not because you're an imaginative internet stalker, but because you're privvy to it. Not wanting to use the information yourself, it was decided to pass it to 'enemies of my enemy', namely, conservative Birthers. Your side fed an unusually trusting Donald Trump information until he ceased to be useful, and now that the Birth Certificate angle is inoperative, you're switching to your next weapon, almost on cue. Bringing it somewhere that you think the 'African mystique' won't sell.

It's entirely possible that you're a lone wolf, just sharing your theory. Given your links, however, you seem to be the pied piper of a greater effort.

So, who out there is close enough to Barack Obama to know all this, yet would desire him to be defeated by people that she thinks are naive, sanctimonious yet sleazy, offended by promiscuity and bi-racial relationships, and will stoop to any level of smear to stop a Democrat? She's have to hate the weapon (us) as much as the target (Barry), because this would damage both sides.

Moreover, who would Mr Trump find plausible? Unless he's new to the internet, he must be talking to someone very respected and established. He even hinted at the level of his sources in speeches. Who started Birtherism? Who released photos of Obama in African garb in the past?

Oh, wait? Did I say she?

Send my regards to HillaryPAC2012, FRiend, but keep your baby-daddy smear-job starter-kit. We're on to you. ;-)

First off, lets start with the obvious. This line of argument is creepy. Bashing people's mothers, even of political opponents, isn't good business. Also, this theory arrives suspiciously hot on the heels of the collapse of Birtherism 2.0. This leads me to believe either one of two things about you and your motives.
(1) You have a meta-creepy interest in researching the sexual activities and interests of Barack Obama's mother, in some kind of ends-justify-the-means desire to dig up information on her to use against our beloved TOTUS. You're not really concerned with the legal implications of the information. You simply think the information can smear Obama, and that's value enough. Your timing in the release was a coincidence. You mean well, but you don't understand how poorly this sort of muck makes us look.
(2) Your side has this information already, not because you're an imaginative internet stalker, but because you're privvy to it. Not wanting to use the information yourself, it was decided to pass it to 'enemies of my enemy', namely, conservative Birthers. Your side fed an unusually trusting Donald Trump information until he ceased to be useful, and now that the Birth Certificate angle is inoperative, you're switching to your next weapon, almost on cue. Bringing it somewhere that you think the 'African mystique' won't sell.
It's entirely possible that you're a lone wolf, just sharing your theory. Given your links, however, you seem to be the pied piper of a greater effort.
So, who out there is close enough to Barack Obama to know all this, yet would desire him to be defeated by people that she thinks are naive, sanctimonious yet sleazy, offended by promiscuity and bi-racial relationships, and will stoop to any level of smear to stop a Democrat? She's have to hate the weapon (us) as much as the target (Barry), because this would damage both sides.
Moreover, who would Mr Trump find plausible? Unless he's new to the internet, he must be talking to someone very respected and established. He even hinted at the level of his sources in speeches. Who started Birtherism? Who released photos of Obama in African garb in the past? Oh, wait? Did I say she?

Send my regards to HillaryPAC2012, FRiend, but keep your baby-daddy smear-job starter-kit. We're on to you. ;-))

My goodness! What Amazing powers of deductive reasoning you have! If only they could be put to good use in Analyzing this issue! On the other hand, perhaps not. Since they are wrong in every particular, I think they would serve to generate more noise than motion.

Think and say whatever suits you, I am unconcerned with your opinion. You should try this perspective as well. You might be amazed at what can be accomplished when you are unconcerned about the political (or social) ramifications of something.

I did notice you didn't put a hole in the theory. Perhaps you should attack the Meat of the argument? Point out a hole and I'll re-evaluate. Complain about how unseemly it is and i'll consider it irrelevant. *I* didn't make it unseemly. The Actors did. I am merely pointing out the script.