Michelle Obama is a transexual?

I’ve had this post in draft for MONTHS. I’ve hesitated to publish this because of the gravity of what is being asserted, and the uncertainty of the evidence to support the assertion.

The startling assertion is that the current First Lady of the United States of America, known as Michelle Robinson Obama, is a biological male posing as a woman.

That anyone would make such an assertion is a mark of how much distrust and suspicion the Obamas have engendered, due entirely to Barack’s secretiveness concerning his Selective Service registration, school records (including even his kindergarten record!), and medical records; his refusal to explain why his Social Security number has a Connecticut prefix; and his outright deception about his birth certificate, an image of which he made public on April 27, 2011, but which forensic experts have determined to be a fake. It doesn’t help that the Hawaiian official, Loretta Fuddy, who had signed off on Obama’s purported birth certificate was the only passenger who recently died in a small plane crash.

Startlingly, even the Obamacare sign-up website healthcare.gov cannot verify Barack Obama’s identity! (See also “Investor’s Business Daily editorial asks if Obama’s entire life is a fiction.”)

So I decided to just present what I’ve found and leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions as to whether Mooch is a transexual.

Obama calls his wife “Michael”

In a speech on September 30, 2011, at the transition or change-of-office ceremony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Fort Myer, Virginia, Obama referred to his wife not as Michelle but as Michael.

As you can verify for yourself in the video below, Obama clearly said: “Distinguished guests, men and women of the finest military in the world, most of all, Admiral Mullen, Deborah, Michael and I also want to acknowledge your son Jack who was deployed today, all of you have performed extraordinary service to our country….”

Note: Deborah is Admiral Mullen’s wife.

Bafflingly, even the text of the speech on WhiteHouse.gov says the same thing:

“Secretary Panetta, thank you for your introduction and for your extraordinary leadership. Members of Congress, Vice President Biden, members of the Joint Chiefs, service secretaries, distinguished guests, and men and women of the finest military in the world. Most of all, Admiral Mullen, Deborah, Michael and I also want to also acknowledge your son Jack, who’s deployed today. All of you have performed extraordinary service to our country.”

Admiral Mullen’s first name is Michael. However, throughout his speech, Obama referred to Mullen as “Mike,” not Michael.

Michelle’s birth name was Michael?

Even before Obama’s gaffe, there were bloggers who said Michelle’s real (birth) name is Michael.

As an example, three months before Obama publicly referred to his wife as “Michael,” blogger Matthew B. Glosser wrote on June 30, 2011 that he was contacted by “an anonymous source” who claimed to be a former White House staff member of the Obama administration, specifically “a former member of the First Lady’s personal staff.” The source claimed to have sensitive information regarding a stunning revelation about Michelle Obama and wanted to arrange a meeting with Glosser in person to present the evidence for this claim.

Though initially skeptical, Glosser nevertheless met with the “anonymous source” on June 25, 2011. The source said “the major alphabet networks … are in the tank for Obama and it is network policy to cover up any critical stories regarding the President and his family. The White House has officially created a State media.” Then the source said the following about Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama, First Lady of the United States, was born Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on January 17th, 1964. He was the second son born to Fraser Robinson III, a well known cocaine dealer and union thug for Crime Lord/Mayor Richard J. Daley, and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. He [Michael] was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he accepted a scholarship to play middle linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers.

After finishing a respectable rookie season with 88 tackles and 7.5 sacks, he suddenly dropped out of the school. Fellow teammates observed that Robinson could regularly be heard lamenting over how he is a “woman trapped inside a man’s body”, and on January 13th, 1983, he underwent sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. To hide the shame of his new identity, Michael left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, “Michelle Robinson”. Years later, he met Barry Obama Jr. a Kenyan immigrant who later became aware of “Michelle’s” true identity. They subsequently married and adopted two children.

Writing for Examiner.com, Jan. 11, 2014, Dean Chambers says: “I have been unable to find any proof that a Michael LaVaughn Robinson even existed, and there is reasonable proof that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (later Obama after marriage) has existed. Furthermore, there is no proof of a Michael Robinson playing linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers in 1981 or 1982.”

Pictures of Michelle’s strange crotch

Here are two pictures of Michelle Obama with a strange crotch-level protuberance suggestive of a shrunken penis. I have no way to ascertain whether the pictures are photoshopped. The sources of the pictures are Barack Ovomit and I Hate the Media.

Mooch's weenieMichelle was wearing this aqua blue dress when she gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention on August 25, 2008. One way to verify the pic’s authenticity is to find this image in a video of her appearance at the convention. 

Mooch's weewee2

The Video

The most recent claim that Michelle is a man is this fascinating video that systematically argues that physical traits, including her fingers, shoulders, neck muscles, head-to-body ratio and trace of an Adam’s apple, all point to her being a biological male.

If this is true, it certainly would explain why we’ve seen no pictures of a pregnant Michelle, nor has anyone found birth records of “her” two daughters.

H/t FOTM’s Glenn47, Miss May, and swampygirl.

See also:

UPDATE:

I found the YouTube video of Mooch’s speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention:

A full-figure view of Mooch is at the beginning and at the end of the video. The problem is she was moving so quickly, it’s difficult to spot the weenie. I found a way to slow down the video. Click here or go to http://www.youtubeslow.com/watch?v=sTFsB09KhqI.

Here are some screenshots I took from the video. Mooch’s aqua dress is of a clingy fabric that reveals every bump and bulge. Unlike most women, Mooch has ZERO abdominal fat, but there definitely is something at crotch-level which tugs. No wonder Mooch hasn’t worn another tight clingy dress since. LOL

0:16a mark

0:16a mark

0:16b mark

0:16b mark

0:16c mark

0:16c mark

0:17a mark

0:17a mark

0:17b mark

0:17b mark

0:17c maark

0:17c mark

0:18a mark

0:18a mark

0:18b mark

0:18b mark

0:27 mark

0:27 mark

17:33a mark

17:33a mark

17:33b mark

17:33b mark

17:33c mark

17:33c mark

See also:

~Eowyn

253 responses to “Michelle Obama is a transexual?

  1. Pingback: Michelle Obama is a transexual? | Cmblake6's Weblog

  2. Dr. Eowyn, though my experience as a blogger is not as extensive as your own, I had to dismiss this story early for two reasons, not because I was really concerned with the truth of it, as much as I was concerned with it’s relevance. Please allow me to explain.
    When I started checking into the Obama myth in early 2013, I was first concerned with the controversy of his birth certificate. Since I have lived in Honolulu for 30 years, I wanted to know why it was so difficult to settle the issue of BO’s birth. It was the court martial of LTC. Terry Lakin that aroused my curiosity. As a result of all the holes and lies in Obama’s lifeline narrative. I have since come to the conclusion that he is indeed a fraud. That his wife may have once been a man is interesting, but it pales in comparison to the fact that we most likely have a Manchurian president in the White House, a Manchurian Commander in Chief leading our troops. Then there is this consideration…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.

    So, if Michelle was born a male and had gender reassignment surgery, then she was just pursuing her “right to happiness.” The feeling of living in the wrong body is suffering that I would not wish on anyone.
    Then there are the rediculous observations from those who say that her arms are too muscular for a woman. Obviously, these people do not spend much time in a gym. These days I see lots of women, usually younger, with tatoos and muscular arms.

    How about the ring finger/index finger observation?

    On this one, I have to defend Michelle Obama, because like her’s, my ring fingers are a little longer than my index fingers and I can definately whip out a valid birth certificate to prove that I was born female. I am not gay, nor have I ever been curious about the lesbian lifestyle.

    I am ex military with a background in intel where the source is always considered before any information is credited. So, I traced the claims of this story back to some silly YouTube videos and one highly questionable “report” from Mathew Glosser, whose “evidence” to back up his story is lacking. Not only does he smear Michelle Obama, but her parents as well. If he cannot back up his statements with police records, news clips, etc., then his work belongs in the toilet. Furthermore, Glosser’s ambition to “go undercover and infiltrate the hippie and homogay movements,” tells me much about the path he is on.
    The Obama’s give us enough to worry about without this kind of slime to slip and fall on.
    The only thing that I can agree with Glosser on is that the Press (mainstream) cannot be trusted. Yet, the delivery of his information sounds like that of a gossiping spirit, not very Christian.

    Could this be a case of disinformation, absolutely!

    On the otheer hand, it is certain that if the Obama’s were not Democrats, the biased Press would be all over such speculation of the first lady, in her undie drawer and sending cock roaches into her shower with little cameras glued on their backs to get to the “truth” of her anatomy.

    Claims that Obams’s “gay lovers were murdered” is much more troubling but right now we have enough to keep us busy. That this usurper hasn’t been impeached yet, tells us much about the status of the Republic. Much Aloha.

    Like

  3. To clarify a statement from my above comment,

    “delivery of his information sounds like that of a gossiping spirit, not very Christian.”

    I was referring entirely to Mathew Glosser and the eagerness with which he dispatched his ‘breaking news.’

    Please understand that my criticism was only for Glosser.

    Like

    • Liberty Grace….

      Obama can’t be impeached…he is not a natural born citizen.
      I read this a while ago but it explains why …..

      ​So you want to impeach Obama???

      Let me quote Dr. Edwin Vieira, who wrote about this back in December 2008 before Obama was “sworn” into office:

      If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

      If Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President,” he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

      Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

      If Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4).

      For those who think Dr. Vieira Jr., Ph.D., J.D., is just some run-of-the-mill attorney, let me give you a very condensed bio: He holds four degrees from Harvard. For more than 30 years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States, he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. His two volume tome, “Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution,” is the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective.

      Despite all the noise out there by Obama’s supporters, it is crystal clear the putative president was born with dual citizenship and is forever ineligible to be president.
      Obama seized the office of president through fraud. As a usurper, he’s never held office. That’s what the word usurp means: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right. Since he legally has never occupied the White House as president, he cannot be impeached.

      Now, when I have pointed this out countless times to groups demanding impeachment, I get this response: I don’t care – we just have to get him out.

      Those are people who proudly proclaim they only want to see the U.S. Constitution upheld. Those are people who state unequivocally that the usurper was never eligible to run because he’s not a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

      You can’t have it both ways. In essence, what those folks are saying is we can do the same thing as Obama and his co-conspirators: circumvent the Constitution.

      But, the usurper has committed crimes while in office! Indeed, he has and continues to do so. Knowing he was not eligible to run, the putative president solicited campaign donations to the tune of about $700 million dollars. He can still be indicted for wire fraud.

      Those who demand his impeachment are asking to set one of the worst legal precedents in our history: Any constitutionally ineligible thug can come along and buy his way into the White House. We’ll just impeach him later!

      To impeach would also accomplish this: Every piece of legislation he’s signed into law would remain on the books. Let me quote Dr. Vieira one more time:
      “Perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to a usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

      Besides removing a usurper from office, that should be our second-highest consideration and why the outlaw Congress hasn’t moved against him. All 535 of them allowed this to happen, and now it’s gone so far; they don’t have the courage to take on the mess they’ve made.

      The usurper can be indicted once out of office, but how to get him out? Please take the time to read my column on that process. Will he ever be indicted for his crimes? With enough public pressure, it can happen because his handlers would simply throw him under the bus as a liability.

      There will be a massive push to keep the putative president off the ballot in dozens of states. It will come from candidates who understand the process discussed in my column above. Mark my words, what’s coming will be a nightmare for the DNC and Obama’s handlers. Time is running out for them to find another viable candidate; something will have to give. One way or the other, Obama’s crimes are going to catch up with him, but please stop working toward setting the wrong legal precedent. It’s beyond frustrating, I know, but either we live our words in supporting the U.S. Constitution or we take the wrong road opening the door for another ineligible candidate with enough money and corrupt individuals behind him to seize the office of president.

      http://cmblake6.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/i-just-found-another-brilliant-fb-comment/

      Like

  4. Blessed B.
    Thank you for your detailed reply. Where to begin?
    While I can appreciate Dr. Vieira’s scholarship and find his work “Dare Call it Treason,” very helpful with a study on gun control. I must confess a few problems with the information that you linked me to. Originally posted by someone called “Diane for The Constitution,” (DFTC) there are no direct links back to Dr. Vieira, When did he say this and in what context, where is the original source? Furthermore, though it is easy to pull out Dr. Vieira’s instruction, it becomes unclear just who the speaker is after Dr. Vieira’s bio is presented, which I must attribute to DFTC.
    I don’t want to just assume that the remainder of the testimony is that of Dr. Vieira when I cannot get to the source, because the rest of the text could be nothing more than an opinion by DTFC.
    Having said that, for the sake of discussion let’s just go with what is written.
    I do not agree with the concluding message that the best way to proceed is to just endure and wait until Obama is out of office before we try to indict him on anything. At the time this post went public, Dr. Vieira or DFTC (I am not really sure, which one) argues that,
    “Those who demand his (Obama’s) impeachment are asking to set one of the worst legal precedents in our history: Any constitutionally ineligible thug can come along and buy his way into the White House. We’ll just impeach him later!”
    Yet, that is just what happened, in 2008 and 2012, because we did nothing! Furthermore, if we do not address this, we encourage those who do not want their authority to be checked on any level to go for the gold. After all, what is to fear about the possibility of criminal charges after the fact, when the Constitution has been abandoned long enough to allow evil actors enough time to restructure the social and political order to transform “justice” in their favor?
    This makes about as much sense as,
    “in order to control outbreaks of Ebola in West Africa, we must continue to allow individuals from infected areas, including medical personnel who have had direct contact with sick individuals the right to enter the United States.”
    That Obama doesn’t want to offend any of these people with quarantine, (unless they are military, of course) reveals just one more calling card of indifference, if not hostility, to those he has sworn to “serve and protect.”
    Again at the time this post was written, the author’s suggestion for the biggest offence that Obama could be charged with was,
    “the putative president solicited campaign donations to the tune of about $700 million dollars. He can still be indicted for wire fraud.”
    Are you kidding me?
    This “putative president” would be in charge of our national security, he could sell us out to our enemies, which I suspect he has done on numerous occasions. He could send our troops to war zones, our allies are at greater risk, the list goes on and on, that is why I cannot just assume that this advice came from Dr. Vieira without further verification.
    Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand why calling for impeachment against such a fraud as Barack Obama (BO), would be misguided and detrimental to our Republic in the long term. If Dr. Vieira did not actually say this, then perhaps Ms. DFTC is an agent of disinformation!

    So where to find common ground, if possible?
    That Dr. Vieira clearly proclaims Obama’s status as a constitutionally unqualified candidate and president with no legitimate authority is understood. Yet, such knowledge brings little comfort when reality bites from that “unqualified” individual who is not supposed to be there in the first place, but nevertheless does hold power to inflict pain and suffering through policies both foreign and domestic, as well as persecution of his critics.
    That these activities have been allowed to continue for so long against a revelation of simple facts that should have been respected as flashing red lights is simply not acceptable. What should be and what is, are two different things and it is high time to face a hard reality, because now Obama is starting to take off his mask.
    With the extra leverage that the Republicans gained in the 2014 midterms, we can start by demanding an investigation into Obama’s identity, his records must be unsealed because we, the American people, have every right to know who this person is.
    In an interview with Alex Jones last year, when Obama wanted to send our troops to Syria, Dr. Vieira advised that only through public outcry can Congress start to move on Obama and allow the American people to regain control of the engine of government.

    I have struggled with an appropriate term for Barack Obama and “usurper” is just one of the kinder words that I use for him in public forums. Perhaps “De Facto President” is a more appropriate term since the De Facto Officer Doctrine was used successfully by the Prosecution at LTC. Lakin’s court martial to squelch any argument that even if Barack Obama did fail to meet all eligibility requirements as defined by the Constitution, a provision does exist to make such a president’s orders lawful, if only temporary.

    The defacto officer doctrine, recognized by the Supreme Court in Ryder v. U.S., 515 U.S. 177 (1995), dictates that actions taken by an ineligible President under color of office are still valid.

    As a result of it’s previous use in a court of law, this doctrine could be used as a useful tool by Obama’s defense attorneys, should he ever stand trial on charges of treason, which I will not hold my breath for. After all, they could also claim that BO was up front from the beginning about the status of his father, or the man who signed off on his birth certificate any way. Furthermore, Obama’s campaign managers did refer to him as a “native born” citizen during the 2008 election.
    That the terms “native” and “natural” born citizen have been interchanged so often by Obama’s handlers, drones and a complicit Press over the last 6 years to blur the difference of distinction and confuse the American people, many of whom have grown weary over the argument, is disinformation at it’s finest.

    One more thing, different topic.
    In reference to the story about Michelle as transgender, the pics in the green dress are interesting. However, if Michael wanted to become Michelle, why on earth would he leave the tell tale sign? I mean what is the point? This is the first question that popped into my head but somehow got missed?

    Like

    • “However, if Michael wanted to become Michelle, why on earth would he leave the tell tale sign? I mean what is the point? This is the first question that popped into my head but somehow got missed?”

      Pre-op transgender?

      Like

  5. like it used to be in the military, “don’t ask don’t tell”. Please let sleeping dogs lie. what you purport to expose is acceptable in American society after all.

    Like

    • It would be acceptable if not for the overall deception and demonstrates a glaringly obvious pattern of deception is at work here, It’s another lie in a ever growing string of lies designed to dupe the American public, It’s also going to embolden America’s adversaries because if you think foreign intelligence agencies aren’t keyed in on Michael Obama and developing a psychological profile for his husband Barack you’re naive. Do you ever wonder why Barack gets taken to the cleaners every time he negotiates on behalf of America on the international stage? Could it be possible that foreign intelligence agencies have some damaging intelligence to dangle over his head? If your claim that First Ladies with wieners is acceptable then what is the purpose of the elaborate deception complete with children used as props? I though “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a reasonable policy regarding military personnel but the Chief Executive should be held to higher standards and should at the very least be able to provide the public with basic bona fide identity documents, Hostile foreign intelligence agencies must be laughing their gonads off at America and plotting exploitative measures. Perhaps there’s more to the 5 Taliban field commander exchange for a single American traitor than meets the eye, more to Obama’s secret letter to the Ayatollah, more to the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine, more to the secret arms deals, the list goes on. Maybe you think having a chief executive susceptible to embarrassing blackmails isn’t potentially dangerous to America’s better interests, some of us don’t see it that way, Obama’s numerous anomalies most assuredly do not bode well for the future of America or for the greater free world at large either, We need to expose all Progressive lies before this obscene fundamental transformation takes hold and the lives of all Americans for generations to come are ruined, Michael’s gender issue is fair game and if a Conservative President was gallivanting with a transgender on the QT you can bet the ranch that the media would have exposed it very early on into the deception, Here we are now well into the second term and most of America still believes that Michael is a natural female, I suppose you also believe that obvious transgenders like Venus and Serena Williams should be accepted as legitimate female tennis champions and deserve to make all that money whipping the tar out of real women tennis players and are acceptable female athletes to represent America in the Olympic games, Did you ever take notice of how heartily Michael and Venus and Serena socialize together? How many real biological women have you seen endear themselves to that degree with the “First Lady?” Deception is hostile in it’s very nature and exposing major deceptions is what politics is all about,

      Like

  6. I could believe that he’s gay and that she’s a tranny, and Joan Rivers accused them of it also b4 she died … and said… “Everyone knows about this!” But these photos of her in the dress are TOTAL BULLSHYT!! The male-bulge is a really BAD photoshop job, and also – the argument itself is totally illogical! How can she have a huge ‘bulge’, when the accusation is that she had transgender SURGERY?? Idiots! smh :-\ (eye roll) And why am I the only person I’ve seen that caught that contradiction?? Seems like maybe there’s another agenda here?? HMmm…

    Like

  7. I too have my doubts relating to “Michael”. First of all the sexual reassignment surgury was allegedly carried out long before she ever knew Soetoro. In such surgery if it is male to female it is the practice of surgeons doing the surgery to utilise the extremes of the male genital, and use it in crafting the female genital. ………..in which case there would be no such bulge in any dress,unless she was wearing some form of sanitary pad. People who have such surgery sometimes experience a little bleeding after coitus.I personally think that if the bulge in the dress was real it was probably created by a sanitary pad. She would NOT HAVE BEEN a pre OP as First Lady. She was a preop YEARS before her stint as first lady. While I see it as unusual,such a person is NOT GUILTY of any crime,and should probably be left alone. I do not necessarily see Michael or Michelle,as any threat to the security of the White House,and for her to have been first lady was arguably, not her fault to begin with. Sadly her husband, is really still legally Barry Soetoro,since there is no evidence anywhere in America that he legally filed a petition for name change,nor has there ever been a legally adjudicated name change granted for Barry Soetoro,by any Superior Court in the US. Name change can only be executed by the Superior Court,by petition,after which if granted the name change becomes PUBLIC INFORMATION……and easily found! Note…..a petition for name change must be accompanied by a CERTIFIED Copy of a LEGALLY valid birth certificate,at the time of filing for the name change action.

    Like

  8. God, why do people care, I mean barrack is EVIL, but I see no threat from “Michael”

    Like

  9. This post is absolutely disgusting and should be deleted. Michelle is in NO WAY a transsexual.I have met her and no way in hell is she anything other than female. Stop taking potshots at people with whom you disagreed politically. I don’t like it when similar idiotic claims are against Ann Coulter. Just stop it.
    ,

    Like

  10. You must be suffering from all sorts of mental illness.
    No one could possibly get away with being in a political office and think they could get away with fooling people because people who knew her growing up would have already come forward with that information.
    You are such a bigot!
    If it causes you pain that Mr. Obama is President, take into consideration that suicide is always an option.

    Like

    • “If it causes you pain that Mr. Obama is President, take into consideration that suicide is always an option.”

      To zFashionizta:

      I consider what you wrote to be a threat.

      It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication containing a threat to injure the person of another, via the Internet and e-mail (as well as the telephone, beepers, and other means of communication). Should any reader of this blog threaten harm to our writers, we will report you and your IP address to the police.
      The following information on commenter zFashionizta has been turned over to law enforcement:

      IP address: 66.87.116.134 in Brooklyn, New York
      E-mail address: zFashionizta@*****.com

      If you doubt that LE will come after you, read this:

      http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/obamabot-pleads-guilty-to-arpaio-death-threats/

      Like

  11. Simple logic to know if she is male or female,, they have been going to Hawaii for long for vacation, or other vacation, why u never saw her swimming or on a beach swimming, check it out

    Like

  12. How deep the illness lies in mean spirited people like you

    Like

    • How deep the malice of people like you who scapegoat and cannot tolerate Americans exercising their First Amendment right of free speech and free inquiry. Makes me wonder of what you’re so afraid.

      Like

  13. We have seen Obama in the water splashing around many times while on his grand vacations, but NEVER Mooch! As far as leaving a telltale sign that she is a male… I happen to think Obama did not WANT that telltale sign removed. What is the point of having a male parading around as a woman with the president of the United States and acting as first lady if he lacked the parts that Obama wanted to be there. It is not like he never had relations with men before in all those bath houses. If he wanted a woman with female genitals, he sure would have got one. I have never seen baby pictures of these girls or heard this “woman” speak of them as toddlers or infants..and I find that very unusual! The earliest pictures of these children are when he got SELECTED to be president. A few pics of some baby in a stroller with Obama pushing it is not a picture of their child, it is a picture of A child in a stroller. Nothing before that has ever been shown. Not even pics of her holding either of those girls as babies.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s