Obama Descendant Of African Slave, According To Genealogy Research

Originally posted by TKDRL
Are their really people stupid enough to let something ridiculous like this effect their opinion of him? I mean is there really people out there that dislike obama, gonna turn around and like him, or vice versa because of this kind of irrelevant information?

There surely are.

I have spoken to people that voted in a presidential election, and two months afterward when I mentioned one of the candidates by name, they asked who it was that I was talking about. That is a tad uninformed.

A lot of people swing with whatever breeze the mass media blows by them.

reply to post by Star128


Dr. Martin Luther King was hated by all races. If anything he proves that just because a person is a certain skin color, does NOT mean people of that skin color will go along with him. Mainstream history has martyred him, and many black people still don't like the guy.

It's kind of funny because he's been made the focal point for african american history month.

Obama is trying to avoid what happen to Dr. King in regards to public opinion. When working class people realize that he's really not one of their own, it's all over for him.

I posted on this issue in the other thread about it here.

In that post, I explain why the article is a bunch of bunk and why there is no DNA "evidence" for anyone except the Bunch/Punch family line and all that does is generally trace that family back to "sub-Saharan Africa." At best, it's a haplotype or haplogroup for the Bunch/Punch family which really just traces someone to a *region* of DNA and/or a certain people within that region - not a specific person. Further, it is a biological impossibility for a man's DNA to pass to a woman (the President's mother) then to him 14 generations later, which is what would have had to happen in order for the President to be his 11th great-grandson. (14 generations: 1st gen: Punch; 2nd gen: Bunch, his son; 3rd gen, Punch's first grandchild; and then add the 11 "greats" in the grandchildren department as cited in ancestry.com's article).

You can certainly disagree with my opinion on it; however, my facts are there and they are well sourced.

I'm very disappointed with ancestry.com for this as the entire article is nothing but speculation. Admittedly records were incomplete/lost/untraceable, so they are some how confident that because one man's name was Punch he was 'likely' the father of another man named Bunch? Nothing but supposition.

The whole thing is nothing but vote pandering just as all politicians pander for votes. The more desperate the politician (or his/her supporters), the more obvious and pathetic the pandering. Seems to me that someone high up at ancestry.com has their own personal political agenda and used their name to get it out there.

Obama or Romney? Could we PLEASE have a 3rd and even a 4th option?

Originally posted by AnarchysAngel
reply to post by Star128

 

Dr. Martin Luther King was hated by all races. If anything he proves that just because a person is a certain skin color, does NOT mean people of that skin color will go along with him. Mainstream history has martyred him, and many black people still don't like the guy.

It's kind of funny because he's been made the focal point for african american history month.

Obama is trying to avoid what happen to Dr. King in regards to public opinion. When working class people realize that he's really not one of their own, it's all over for him.

O_o Where do you get your information? Lol. The black people that did not like Dr.King were most likely followers Malcolm X. They believed that King was too passive in his approach and was following a "white" religion. None of the people that criticized him did so because they felt he was not really working class.

reply to post by Star128


Crickets.
mm
Have a blessed day.