His arguments make sense. Arguments to the contrary do not. He basis his arguments on the available evidence, while arguments to the contrary are based on (sometimes far fetched) speculation.
If you take issue with his article, argue against the points he has presented, don't attack him and his motives.
With just a minimum of research, anyone can find out that he's only wrote two articles in the "American Thinker", both of them heavily defending the Kenyan Turd.
I don't have any familiarity with his other article, (I will go check it out.) but I don't regard his argument that the available facts don't support a Kenyan birth as "defending the Kenyan Turd."
His theories have less proof, than I do. No, he's not credible. I respect the American Thinker, but Don Wilkie only has two articles there.
What does THAT prove? William Lolli has only ONE article there, and it is a D@MN good one!
I have looked at the other article; "The Case Against Barack Obama, Sr." How do you get this as being a DEFENSE of Obama? If anything, he's pointing out that everything we've been told about Barack Obama Sr being the daddy is a LIE!
Attacking the Author of articles you don't like won't disprove his points. You need to attack his points directly.
I suspect Mr. Don Wilkie is noting but an Obama enabler, apologist, and his political operative. The ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN CHIEF has forged ...yes, I said FORGED, as in FRAUD, FALSE, ...he has FORGED not one, not two, BUT THREE FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATES. And Don Wilkie wants to cite those FORGERIES for proof?
You are unfamiliar with my writing. I believe that long form birth certificate which Obama has released WAS CREATED by the state of Hawaii, and as such it represents what has been put INTO Obama's legal record. Yes, it's a forgery, but it is a LEGAL FORGERY created by the State of Hawaii under the order of a Judge. It is (I believe) a replacement birth certificate which was created for an adopted child. ( or otherwise a nullification of a previous adoption.)
If this theory is correct, then that document represents what the State of Hawaii regards as the legal truth, though it may not be the "actual truth."
DiogenesLamp, you're destroying your own credibility, constantly promoting the Democrat hack, Don Wilkie, and exposing yourself as one who can't be trusted.
You are not going to brow beat me into accepting the Kenyan birth theory by threatening not to "trust" me. You don't have to trust me. You can think whatever you want about me.
If you want me to accept the Kenyan birth theory, show me why this theory is correct, and other theories are wrong. At this point, all I see in support of the Kenyan birth theory is speculation, nothing tangible. Indeed, the tangible evidence makes the Kenyan birth theory look very unlikely in my opinion.
I am not closing the door on it, just saying it needs evidentiary support before it can be taken seriously.