Posted on 08/01/2012 11:18:33 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
"Meet The Parents....of alias Barack Obama. Black Sunni Muslim father and White Lebanese Christian mother. Born in the ME, raised in Indonesia, became BHO II in 1982." Dr. Ron J. Polland
The “Mal-Val” youtube video at the link was posted by FReeper Polarik (Dr. Ron Polland) in August of 2011 and while morphing the image of a woman named “Val” into an image of Obama, he insinuates that “Val” is Obama’s mom. One year later this youtube has only 1,150 views.
In July 2012, two FReepers associated the woman, “Val,” in Polarik’s Youtube with Lebanese actress Valerie Sarruf and have posted multiple images of her at various ages on FR eligibility threads. I am opening this thread to invite discussion of and links to any evidence that either supports or refutes a claim that Valerie Sarruf is Barack Obama’s mother, with or without Malcolm X being his father.
Where could Malcolm X and Valerie Sarruf have been in 1960 when baby Barry would have been conceived? Is there any evidence that Sarruf could have been pregnant and delivered a baby in 1961? In what country could the baby have been delivered? How and when could the alleged Mal-Val baby have been inserted into the identity and life narrative of the person we have come to know as Barack Hussein Obama?
Full disclosure: I refute categorically all of the Mal-Val narrative as wildly speculative and unsupported by any evidence that I have seen so far.
For several years now a shadowy coterie of FReepers styling themselves as “researchers” has gone onto nearly every FR eligibility thread to aggressively refute all evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham was Barack Obama’s mother. They have actually declared flat out that she was never in Hawaii before 1963, contrary to the voluminous evidence including INS FOIA documents!
Requests for links or any evidence that Stanley Ann is NOT the mom have been frequently met with abusive ad hominem attacks and accompanied by claims that ALL documentary evidence showing her to have been in Hawaii in 1960 and 1961 is forged, but no credible evidence of forgery has offered. I make this observation as a retired Certified Fraud Examiner and CPA.
For years the “researchers” had claimed mysteriously to have conclusive evidence that a different woman is Barry’s mom, but refused to reveal her name or any evidence other than her picture because the “researchers” claimed it would disappear from the net and/or from hard copy archives of the records. But this month, the “researchers” appear to have slipped up and revealed that Valerie Sarruf has been the woman whose identity they have been “protecting.” They have since attempted to walk back the revelation, but it is clear, IMO.
The “researchers” claim that they earnestly want to remove Obama from office. But wouldn’t revealing ALL EVIDENCE of a foreign mother and foreign birth (which they also claim) be the most logical approach to removing Obama rather than hiding the identity of this alternative mother for years while attacking FR threads that sincerely attempt to find out where Stanley Ann Dunham was when she gave birth to Barry?
In my opinion, the best evidence that Valerie Sarruf is NOT Barry’s mother is the mountain of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham IS his mother, which the “researchers” have totally failed to refute.
Again, please use this thread for discussion of and links to any evidence that either supports or refutes a claim that Valerie Sarruf IS Barack Obama’s mother with or without Malcolm X being his father.
FReeper Polarik IS Dr. Polland!
See this FR thread about Polland up by Polarik (himself):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2557490/posts
FN is on the thread...
That’s so true, but some people still haven’t figured that out.
Are you talking LIES about people behind their back?
If you don’t have the gonads to address me, in your sissy gossip about me, then don’t be posting nonsense BS about me!
Oh, I think things will be made more clear in a short while.
Looks like some people can't tell the difference between a studio shot, one tinted, one black and white, in which she's wearing the same dress, and an outdoor photograph that is a still from a video and subsequently poor quality and somewhat distorted? She's tied her hair back that's all, and she's only a few months older, she's as much older in that centre image as the child she is holding, is older.
They can call that child whatever they like, he's still simply the son she had in Kenya in 1965, and the dark boy standing with them looks at least five or six years old.
Thanks for the link. I’ll have a look when time permits. So not to be dense, but if Polland is Polarik, why the two names? Is there not something a little sneaky about going by two different names...or did he have a good reason for the alter ego?
“If La Loggia thinks that she has the right to demand and desist that my article be pulled or edited from your site, then I also have the right to demand and desist that Ms. La Loggia remove the slanderous comments and patently false statements that she made of me on her website, and which still appear where I originally found them.
She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name, whereas her name is nowhere to be found on her website, on her comments listed here, or ON THE REGISTAR DATABASE.”
For those who missed it:
“She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name”
Looks like it’s his real name. Or so he says:
But he wasn’t finished disposing of the fake ‘pseudonym’ issue just yet. In case some might still be confused into thinking ‘Polarik’ wasn’t his real name, he clarified the issue right here on FR:
“Walden claims that, in a video, I said that my last name was a pseudonym. Unless he thought I said “pseudonym” onstead of “last name,” Fibber Walden here needs to wake up from nappy time and learn to look, listen, and for take notes - lots of notes because you can’t handle the truth — or recognize it if it ever bit you. I never said that Polarik was a pseudonym. My critics and detractors did, and you can join the club.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2232051/posts?page=41#41
One more:
‘””Anonymous pseudonym” is an oxymoron, and given that my name, Dr. Ron Polarik, is known around the world, I am hardly “anonymous.” Krawetz uses the term, pseudonym, as a pejorative to imply that I am a “fraud.” The truth is that “Dr. Ron Polarik” is the first person to blow the whistle on Obama and Factcheck”’
He says ‘Dr. Ron Polarik’ is his “name”. Not his screenname, not his pseudonym—his *name*. Okay; I take him at his word. It’s his name.
http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/2008/12/bad-stridence-proof-positive-that.html
[Just for the record, I have never claimed that ‘Fantasywriter’ is my real name/not a pseudonym. Otoh, my “critics and detractors’ have indeed identified it as a pseudonym. Perhaps they didn’t realize, at the time, that while I’ve always identified it as a screenname, Polarik by contrast did indeed claim that ‘Polarik’ was his real name. A not so subtle difference, bound to be missed by those with a long history of missing the obvious.]
One more thing. I saw where, right here on FR, Polarik said he had it on good authority that Obama never attended Punahou. Is this something else Mal-Valers believe? Of did Polarik get taken to task for saying something so stupid? If he did, maybe someone could give me a link. That is a take down I’d enjoy reading.
The grade school age picture shows that David existed at the SAME TIME as 0.
Can’t get around that.
Also in 1963,0 was with SADO in Hawaii,so he can’t be with Ruth in Kenya.
And in 1963 Mark wasn’t born yet,because bho SR hadn’t met Ruth.
“Is there not something a little sneaky about going by two different names...or did he have a good reason for the alter ego?”
Well, most of us use an anonymous name on the web, don’t we...and for good reason!
True, Seize. But you have never claimed your screenname is your real name, nor have I. Polarik did so on multiple occasions. Here’s just one example:
“She still does not get it that Ron Polarik is a real name, NOT a screen name”
Post the waybackmachine link to marks website that had the toddler pics.
Fred Nerks wrote:
“The dark boy is simply the eldest,he was born early in 1961,he’s less than a year older than zero, and his brother was born in Kenya in 1965.
You can call him what you like.”
Am going by what Mark called them:
Tilted-head toddler per Mark is Mark.
Toddler on left per Mark is David.
Family pic per Mark has Mark standing and David held.
Going by what Mark said.
“..... The above image of the family group is a photograph originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo,the photograph shows the kenyan and Ruth, the older,darker child appears to reach to Ruth’s waist,and must be in the range of sixyear of age or there-abouts. ....”
This phrase stood out:
“... Originally copyrighted by Mark Ndesandjo ...”
Couple questions arise from this:
1)was permission sought, AND GRANTED, to post that picture here, since its copyrighted?
2)if its copyrighted, wouldn’t the copyright owner know who is in it?
IIRC, Polarik was some kind of name that the Polland family used back in Poland or something like that, which was changed at Ellis Island or some such according to Polland. So Polland says, somewhat disingenuously, that he could claim that Polarik was a “real name.”
BTW, I chose not to ping Polarik or other FReepers who have posted intentional lies or abuse and, sadly, Polarik falls into that category, whatever the value of his research into reverse-engineering the SFBC. This is the same reason that I do not reply to FN or BD.
Polarik made false claims about the origin of a certain baby footprint image on a certain BC on a thread that got pulled (and on which I was zotted).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.