Fred, the fact is that your research has an historical context based on the way things happen, as reflected in documentation. The other side of the debate does not have that, just a series of facts with out a consistent context. Their contexts keep[ changing to fit outrageous leaps of logic without context.
Thats why Seizethecarps conclusions are not correct.
No one knows really who Obama’s mother is. We only know who she was not. And we certainly have no evidence that Obama was related in anyway to Malcolm X , other than a shared ideology of black nationalism and socialism ( fascism).
If we could see Obamas and Michelles client lists when they were practicing attorneys, that would be useful, because we would have real people to interview.All that is also sealed
just to keep anyone from proving the truth that the Oval Office is occupied by a usurper of the Constitution.Obamas conduct has proven that anyway, the only question is now how we rid ourselves of him.
“Fred, the fact is that your research has an historical context based on the way things happen, as reflected in documentation.”
link please to a single verifiable document (FOIA verifiable, for example) that Fred Nerks’ Mal-Val narrative is based on either refuting Stanley Ann as Barry’s mom or supporting a Filipina alternate wife in Seattle named Anna S. Obama or providing legally substantive confirmation that Valerie Sarruf is Barry’s mom and Malcolm X is his dad.
Verifiable circumstantial documentary proof establishes to a legal certainty that Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom. These documents are cross-corroborating in multiple instances to form a consistent narrative.
The so-called evidence that Stanley Ann is not Barry’s mom not only isn’t corroborated anywhere but doesn’t exist.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fred Nerks claims that Stanley Ann never completed HS in WA and never set foot in HI until she arrived to be Barry’s nanny and secret adoptive mother circa 1964 so he claims she never met BHO Sr.
Fred Nerks has declared all evidence in support of the following to be forged:
SAD graduated HS in WA
SAD went to HI in mid 1960
SAD was in Russian class at U of HI in fall 1960
SAD was reported made “hapa” by BHO by U of HI officials
SAD and BHO were married of Feb 2, 1961 reported by U of HI officials to INS confirmed in HI vital index and HI 1964 divorce
SAD and BHO were discussing putting baby up for adoption per INS docs
SAD intended to attend college in WA in fall of 1961 per INS docs
BHO named Ann S. Dunham as wife in August 1961 per Ins DOCs
SAD’s numerous friends say she arrived in WA in late Aug 1961
SAD confirmed living at home with parents at address in newspaper birth announcements
SAD’s U of WA transcript shows she attended fall 1961 and spring 1962 and confirm Toutonghi apartment as does Polk with “Anna S. Obama” tiny name variant.
SAD’s U of HI official state archive record picks up U of WA courses
SAD’s U of WA final two transcripts obtained by Corsi (microfilm of final hardcopy and computer printout dated Feb 2, 1009) confirms HS graduation, Russian credit in HI in fall 1960, 1961-62 attendance, U of HI bachelor and master degrees are noted typed in on lower right
Candor7 and All:
Apart from claims of forgery of ALL of the above verifiable (producible in court) archival documents, what POSITIVE documentary evidence or evidence of any kind is there to support:
1. Anna S. Obama being a Filipina wife of BHO who took her baby (the future Roman Obama currently of Ghana) to Seattle in January 1961 to be babysat by Mary Toutonghi at that time and be person recorded by Polk at the same address on Stanley Ann’s transcript a year later.
2. Roman Obama was born the son of BHO and Filipina wife Anna S. and take to Seattle, then spirited to Kenya by BHO to be raised there in Nairobi by him and Ruth Baker and appearing as the “dark boy” (actually verifiable to be Mark Ndesandjo) in the picture of Mark and David Obama.
3. Any verifiable evidence or witness testimony fro anyone that David Obama didn’t exist.
The list goes on...
forgot to ping you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2955775/posts?page=382#382
I think the problem is that I deal in people, real flesh and blood human beings, I follow the tracks they leave as they move through their lives, tripping up, making mistakes, telling lies...and I collect photographs which ultimately fall into context almost all by themselves...I don’t take documents that have been created to cover who and what and where they might have been, as gospel. The paperwork is there to go with the myth, I don’t trust the validity of anything presented nowhere else but in cyberspace...
I look for the mistakes they made, the contradictions, the obvious lies, because that’s what real people do. They are as cunning as chimpanzees and about as trustworthy...except you and I of course...LOL!
And PS - a little humour goes a long way. I am most suspicious of those who do not have any.
THINK ABOUT IT:
During our first interview, Mary referred to Stanley Ann Dunham as ³Anna² not knowing that it was the same name as what was listed in the Seattle City Directory. This verified for us that indeed Mary had known Ann Dunham.
NOW CHANGE THE NAMES:
During the initial interview, the witness referred to Tom Dick Harry as George, not knowing that it (George) was the name as what was listed in the Seattle Directory. This verified for us that indeed, the witness had known Tom Dick Harry.