Why do you keep smearing Mark Ndesandjo’s good name? He has a sterling reputation. He is not known as a liar or a con man. Quite the opposite. He has angered most of the Obama clan by correcting Barry Obama’s lies. Barry is said to be “cold” toward Mark. When it comes to a Malignant Narcissist whose lies have been called out and corrected, ‘cold’ has got to be an understatement.
Mark is an accomplished man. His livelihood does not depend on Obama’s goodwill. He has made his own way. In the process, he has built up a reputation as a man of character and integrity. Yet you repeatedly smear him, and allege that Mark doesn’t even know his own brother. You need to knock it off. Alternatively, produce some actual evidence that Mark has a history of spreading lies and deception. Short of that, what you are doing to him is just downright grotesque.
Oh, and while you’re at it, since you are a contributor to TheObamaFile, how about correcting their record. It lists David as a son of Ruth and brother of Mark. TheObamaFile is not an Obot site. It is an anti-Obama site. If you have actual *evidence* that David Obama/Ndesandjo/Obama is a myth, would not the anti-Obama party that runs TheObamaFile like to know about it? Otherwise, according to you, they’re quoting Dreams. How can you let this go on, if you have hard, objective evidence that proves David is a myth?
Oh, and there are numerous genealogy sites that list David as a son of Ruth and brother of David too. Have you tried to correct any of them? According to you, they are perpetrating a fraud. Why not have a lawyer write to each site and recommend they correct the record? Seems the least you could do, if you are so sure David is a myth.
‘list David as a son of Ruth and brother of David too’
=
‘list David as a son of Ruth and brother of Mark too’
I’ve done nothing to ‘smear’ Mark, I’m sure he has his own reasons for misindentifying the children in two photographs and then removing them from his website. Your inability to accept the fact doesn’t reflect on me in any way, it just makes you sound even more hysterical than usual.
A reasonable person might simply say, I don’t believe it. And leave it at that. It’s not compulsory that you see what we see.
The child Mark has identified as ‘David’ is actually zero.
That is never going to change.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3130965/posts?page=483#483
If this progression in the identities and chronology bothers you to the extent that you become hysterical, why don’t you just refrain from replying to any comments I place on the forum?
You’ve either got the wit to do the math or not. I’m not about to recant because the facts make you uncomfortable.
My contributions to the File which Beckwith acknowledges were made a long time ago, so don't make it sound like I'm a current 'contributor' - that's somewhat misleading. What The Obama File is or isn't is hardly what you descibe. IT'S AN ARCHIVE. Beckwith makes it clear, he says:
I don't write this stuff. I cherry-pick it and archive it here. The overwhelming number of items in this archive are from mainstream media sources and what I believe are reliable, if partisan, blogs. I make every attempt to provide attribution and/or links to the original source.
The suggestion that our research should appear on The Obama File would probably be considered quite obnoxious by Beckwith, however, should he wish to publish the content of my comment # 483 he's more than welcome to do so.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_shakystuff/Rumor.htm
Beckwith has a segment entitled SHAKYSTUFF/RUMOR in which you’ll find this entry:
An Alternate Birth Theory
Fred Nerks provides an alternate birth theory:
I might try to explain what I meant. I have grave doubts about that August birthdate. (And about who his parents were)
He shows up in Hawaii at the age of two or three...and no one really knows where he came from.
I see that birth date as being tailored to suit the myth of Stanley Ann being the mother. Anything much earlier than August 1961 makes it impossible for her to have any part in the birth.
But Anna — being a different woman altogether, discovered living in Seattle, had a child that was seven months of age when Mary Toutonghi baby-sat — until she was caught out on it and had to change her story.
Mary herself NEVER said she baby-sat for Stanley Ann Dunham. That was woven in by others.
Anna would have been the mother of a child named BHO2. Born in January.
Zero BECAME BHO2.
He also would have “inherited” the birthdate of Anna’s child. And HER name and MAIDEN name would have been on that birth certificate.
Which served him well — until “Dreams” was written and Stanley Ann was woven into the story...
In 1982, when the Goeldner family visited the Dunhams in Hawaii, the Dunhams told Virginia Goeldner that they were looking after the boy because HIS MOTHER DIED IN 1970.
That’s why it crossed my mind — this could be the reason the entire kindergarten-Noelani period was left out of “Dreams” — and why we will never see any records from that period.
His registration would give the lie to the BIRTHDATE — and the name of the mother...because the BC they were using, belonged to the child of Anna.
You’ll notice that in no way does The Obama File endorse the theory simply by publishing it.
FURTHERMORE THIS LITTLE GEM:
little tidbit Frank Marshall Davis wrote in his biography was the teaser, “...a Kenyan student split, leaving behind TWO pregnant blondes
Might just provide a clue to why there was an ANN and an ANNA, and why they had to both be woven into Stanley Ann Dunham to create the myth of a mother for zero.