http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=7796#7751
On #7796 you replied, ‘I just now see your theory’.
I was trying to point out that IMO too much hangs on Susan Blake’s ‘testimony’.
I was trying to point out that IMO too much hangs on Susan Blake’s ‘testimony’.
_________________
I don’t think Blake’s story is helpful to Obama at all. Her story opened up the door to many questions. If you throw her story out the window, then I would say he was born in Kenya.
That is why it is called a theory. Your post should have gone to the person posting the theory because I had no clue what you meant. I never responded to the theory because the theory came from thinking stanley ann and her parents were normal American citizens. I don’t think that. I think they were radical communist party members. If they were normal Obama would not have hid them and ignore them as they went up through the ranks.
Susan blake I have never given much thought too. When you say hangs on susan blake, I never have felt that. She was someone who may have possibly changed obama’s diaper. Until Susan Blake can proive Stanley Ann gave birth to obama and when, she is just another voice. Stanley Ann could have just given birth or she could have just picked him up as she was the chosen adoptive parent.
I think it is possible obama is not stanley ann’s genetic son. Maybe his BC says he was adopted. That would be why his BC is sealed. When they said he had it sealed, maybe it was already.
anything is possible.
In its original form, it was a video of an interview done live a long time before this ever became an issue. And her testimony sets forth facts that are contrary to the born in Hawaii fairy tale--a significant body of facts.
Further, the body of facts to which she testified was consistent with the airline schedule and routing between Mombasa Kenya and Seattle on the way to an appearance in Hawaii at the time of the birth certificate filing.
So from the lawyer's point of view, she is credible evidence of the most effective kind.