OBAMA TOLD CAITLIN CLARK “DON’T LOSE THE JOY.” MAYBE SHE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM SOME COMMON-SENSE ADVICE IN RETURN.

Fever Allstars with the Former President in Chicago on WNBA Allstar Weekend.

THE OBAMA RUMOR MACHINE: DNA, “BIG MIKE,” SECRET LOVERS AND DEATHS — WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE? The “Big Mike” rumors, Obama's sexuality, his daughters, DNA, Joan Rivers, Tafari Campbell and Epstein have produced an extraordinary internet mythology. HE asks why the rumors persist—and separates provocative questions from actual evidence.

Recently, Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark received some advice from former President Barack Obama in Chicago. Obama met Clark and other WNBA stars at the Obama Presidential Center during All-Star weekend and reportedly offered Clark a simple message about navigating fame and relentless public attention: “Don't lose the joy.”

Good advice.

But perhaps Clark, one of America's most scrutinized young celebrities, could have offered the former president some common-sense advice in return: when millions of people are questioning your family's history, distinguish what can actually be answered from what deserves to be dismissed—and recognize that silence rarely kills an internet conspiracy.

• 

• 

• 

Easy peasy just address the rumors, right?

Instead you are shamed for asking the quesiton. Called a racist or answered with something Trump did, but never the proof needed. Early pictures are too few to proof much. Where are her hundreds or thousand childhood photos, and where are her pregnancy photos?

These are something every womon has, right? Is she really a man? Could any of it actaully be true? HE wonders more about their children being biological and than any issue surrounding a sex change, if any. HE wants to know how much she was paid on the South Side of Chicago and whether there was "learing center fraud" in her own activities setting up medical clinics.

We all have heard the rumors about Barry aka Barack in Chicago cabs doing the unspeakable with a man. Now you can't go on the Internet without more and more posts from the haters or truth seekers, depending on your politics.

The Obama family has been subjected to some of the strangest allegations ever attached to an American president. Former First Lady Michelle Obama has for years been called “Big Mike” by people claiming she was born male. Others insist Barack Obama is secretly gay or bisexual. Still others question whether Malia and Sasha are biologically their daughters.

Darker corners of the internet connect the family to the deaths of Joan Rivers and Obama chef Tafari Campbell or circulate sensational sexual allegations involving Jeffrey Epstein.

These claims range from questions about private matters to allegations of serious crimes, and they emphatically do not possess the same evidentiary foundation. HE's examination finds no credible evidence establishing that Michelle Obama was born male, that the Obama daughters are actors, that the Obamas killed Rivers or Campbell, or that Barack Obama participated in the alleged Epstein conduct attributed to him online.

That should be stated plainly as her official bio: Long before she became one of America’s most recognizable women, Michelle Obama was Michelle Robinson, a bright and determined girl growing up on the South Side of Chicago. Raised alongside her older brother, Craig, by Fraser and Marian Robinson, she grew up in a close-knit family that placed enormous importance on education, hard work and staying grounded. Her father worked for the Chicago Water Department, while her mother devoted herself to raising their children and creating a loving home filled with family, learning and strong values.

As a young student, Michelle quickly developed a reputation for being exceptionally hardworking and ambitious. She attended Whitney M. Young Magnet High School, where she took advanced classes, participated in student activities and graduated as salutatorian in 1981. She then went on to Princeton University, studying sociology and African-American studies, before earning her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1988. Her journey from a modest Chicago home to two of America’s most prestigious universities reflectfed the determination and confidence she had developed from an early age.

Michelle’s youth was ultimately about more than academic achievement—it was about becoming a woman who understood the value of family, perseverance and service. Her parents’ sacrifices, her close relationship with Craig, and the lessons she learned growing up in Chicago helped shape the person she would become. Before the White House, before becoming a mother and before meeting Barack Obama, there was simply a young Michelle Robinson working hard, dreamfing big and building the foundation for an extraordinary life.

But dismissing false or unsupported claims isn't the same thing as pretending the rumors don't exist. They exist on an enormous scale. The more interesting question is why?

Michelle Robinson Is Not a Mystery

Start with something frequently presented online as though somebody has uncovered a secret identity.

Michelle Obama's maiden name really was Robinson.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson was born in 1964 and grew up on Chicago's South Side with her older brother, Craig. Her father was Fraser Robinson III and her mother was Marian Shields Robinson. She attended Chicago public schools, Princeton University and Harvard Law School before joining Sidley & Austin, where she met Barack Obama.

The New National Archives' Obama Presidential Library documents that biography, but only a part the history or biography, why?

There are also childhood photographs. The Obama Foundation, for example, publishes a photograph explicitly captioned as young Michelle Obama, then Michelle Robinson, with her brother Craig. So, why are so many doubting their authenticity even while viewing them in Chicago.

So the claim that photographs of young Michelle simply don't exist isn't correct, if you can see the photos, just like seeing the bright certificate, maybe.

Nor is “Robinson” evidence of a mysterious man named Michael Robinson. It is her family name.

Yet the “Big Mike” theory survives, when it could be addresses so easily. Just set the record straight, so to speak.

What About the Pregnancy Pictures?

This is another question commonly raised online: Where are Michelle Obama's pregnancy photographs?

Compared with the staggering number of photographs documenting the Obama family after Barack Obama entered national politics, pregnancy photographs of Michelle aren't prominently represented in the major public archives that HE reviewed.

But chronology matters.

Malia was born in 1998 and Sasha in 2001, years before Barack Obama became a national political celebrity and long before smartphones and social media transformed ordinary people's lives into continuously photographed public records. The absence of easily searchable pregnancy photographs therefore cannot reasonably be converted into proof that

Michelle Obama was never pregnant.

It is a question conspiracy advocates ask. It is not an answer.

And even a pregnancy photograph wouldn't establish biological maternity. If someone genuinely wanted scientific proof of parentage, DNA testing—not photographs—would be the relevant method.

That brings us to the obvious question.

Why Not Just Take the DNA Tests?

The Obamas certainly could voluntarily submit to independently administered DNA testing demonstrating biological relationships among Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha.

Michelle could also voluntarily undergo genetic testing if she wanted to respond to claims about her biological sex.

Would that silence some people? Probably. Would it end the conspiracy?Almost certainly not.

The laboratory would immediately become part of the conspiracy. Someone would allege that samples were switched. Somebody would investigate the technician's political contributions. Someone else would claim the documents were fabricated.

We have seen this movie before. Just like his birth certificate, many still don't believe it.

Barack Obama's birth certificate became perhaps the defining political conspiracy theory of his early presidency. Additional documentation was eventually released, yet the controversy didn't simply evaporate.

There is also a principle involved that should make conservatives as uncomfortable as liberals: Should Americans have to surrender their DNA because strangers accuse them of something?

The burden of proof traditionally belongs to the person making the allegation.

That remains a pretty good rule, but no reply makes the rumors go on and on. Then there are the "Mike and I" statements.

“Mike and I”

Another favorite exhibit circulated by believers in the theory consists of recordings in which Barack Obama supposedly calls his wife “Mike.”

Individual clips deserve to be examined in their complete context rather than through edited social-media snippets. But HE could not substantiate the broader assertion that Obama “always” or routinely refers to Michelle as “Mike.” That matters. Or it is a way of getting attention and appealing to the LBGTQ+ set somehow. Sick if so. Equally sick if the rumors are true.

If there is an authenticated recording in which Obama unmistakably says “Mike,” report exactly what he said, when he said it and what surrounded the remark. A verbal stumble would be interesting because of the existing rumor.

It still wouldn't constitute a chromosome test.

The internet has a tendency to begin with a conclusion and then reinterpret every ambiguous syllable, photograph and gesture as confirmation. Journalism is supposed to work in the opposite direction: collect evidence first and determine what conclusion, if any, it supports.

What About Barack Obama's Sexuality?

Here the historical record contains something more substantial than a misheard syllable.

Larry Sinclair publicly alleged that he had a sexual encounter involving Barack Obama in 1999. Sinclair's allegations are real in the sense that he really made them.

That doesn't make the underlying story true. Investigations have not independently substantiated his central allegations, and reporting on Sinclair has documented credibility problems and a criminal history involving fraud.

Separately, biographical reporting has discussed a letter written by a young Obama containing reflections about homosexual fantasies. That is legitimate biographical material and can be reported as such.

But neither fact proves every subsequent internet claim about Obama's sexuality.

And suppose Obama were bisexual. So what?

The relevant historical question wouldn't be whether America's 44th president experienced attraction to men. The question would be whether he materially misrepresented matters relevant to his public duties or whether credible evidence establishes conduct of legitimate historical significance.

Sexual orientation isn't corruption. Lying about official conduct can be. Those are different questions.

Epstein Requires Evidence, Not Imagination

Jeffrey Epstein's relationships with powerful people deserve relentless scrutiny. Every authentic flight log, visitor record, financial transaction, photograph, communication and witness statement should be investigated regardless of whose political reputation might suffer.

But that standard cuts both ways.

HE found no credible evidence substantiating the sensational online allegations about Barack Obama and sexual activity with “cabin boys” on Epstein's island.

Repeating an accusation 50,000 times doesn't transform it into evidence. If authentic documentation emerges, publish it. Until then, don't manufacture history from memes.

Joan Rivers and Tafari Campbell

The same evidentiary discipline becomes even more important when conspiracy theories accuse living people of murder.

Joan Rivers died in 2014 following complications from a medical procedure. Because she had previously made provocative comments about the Obamas, internet theories subsequently connected her death to those remarks.

No credible evidence establishes that Barack or Michelle Obama caused her death.

Tafari Campbell, a former White House chef who later worked for the Obama family, drowned while paddleboarding near Martha's Vineyard in 2023. His death likewise became material for elaborate online theories.

Again, suspicion isn't evidence. Timing isn't evidence. A collection of unanswered internet questions isn't evidence of homicide.

If somebody possesses credible evidence contradicting the official account, take it to law enforcement and journalists and subject it to scrutiny. Until that happens, accusing identifiable people of murder without evidence isn't courageous investigative journalism.

It is an unsupported accusation.

THE REAL OBAMA STORY MAY BE THE CONSPIRACY ITSELF

That leaves HE in an unusual position. We aren't interested in protecting Barack Obama from scrutiny, but neither are we interested in pretending that suspicion constitutes proof. Michelle Obama's childhood is documented, and childhood photographs exist. Michelle Robinson was a real person long before America knew the name Barack Obama. The available historical record does not substantiate the claim that she was secretly born “Michael Robinson.”

Likewise, the absence of famous pregnancy photographs doesn't establish that she wasn't pregnant, an ambiguous “Mike” clip doesn't establish biological sex, and the existence of allegations about Barack Obama's sexuality doesn't establish that every allegation is true. Claims involving Epstein, Joan Rivers and Tafari Campbell require substantially more than internet speculation because they imply serious misconduct or criminality.

There remains a fair broader question about famous public figures and history: How much transparency do former presidents owe the country? HE's answer is plenty when it concerns the exercise of governmental power. Presidential papers, official decisions, political relationships, foreign policy and the use of federal authority deserve aggressive historical scrutiny. Private genetic information is different. A former first family does not acquire an obligation to submit to DNA testing simply because a sufficiently large number of people repeat an accusation.

Perhaps that is the common-sense advice Caitlin Clark could have offered Obama in Chicago. Fame means people will scrutinize you, dislike you, invent stories about you and sometimes uncover things you would rather keep private. Answer legitimate questions when evidence warrants an answer, correct the record when facts are wrong and accept that no amount of documentation will satisfy everyone.

Obama told Clark not to lose the joy. Fair enough.

HE would add another piece of advice for everyone still chasing the Obama mysteries: don't lose the evidence. Skepticism is healthy, questions are legitimate and presidents deserve scrutiny. But extraordinary allegations don't become historical facts because they are repeated loudly enough.

Bring the photographs. Bring the documents. Bring credible witnesses. Bring authenticated records. Bring DNA if somebody voluntarily provides it. Then follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Until then, a rumor remains a rumor. And CC should have told him out to stop the conspiracies.  His failure to do so already feeds the rumor mill, and he wasn't a good basketball player...most pot smokers and cigarette smokers aren't.

For readers who want to examine the archival photographs themselves, the National Archives maintains public Obama Presidential Library photo galleries, including separate collections for Michelle Obama and the Obama family. Ironically the link provided is broken much like the Obamacare website...(Obama Presidential Library)