Begin at # 111 and read to end of thread; please check out all of David's comments.
Thanks, David.
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.
Obviously not or maybe you're just too stupid to figure it out?
I'm smart enough to know recognize that you won't answer a benign question.
Not really.
Yes, really.
Funny how some people believe that everything can only be proven with links.
I'm not asking you to "prove" anything with a link. I'm asking you to "provide" a link if the info is in the public domain. You won't provide a link so the info is not available to the public.
Apparently "the proper parties" don't feel the public needs to know what has been found and turned over to them by the "researchers" as there is no public Internet access.
Or perhaps they don't find any merit to what was turned over to them and they won't release the info for fear that they'll be seen as fools for believing what was presented. I don't know. I can only speculate.
If there is no public Internet link even after it has been released to "the proper parties" then that means someone is indeed sitting on the info and they don't plan to release the info at this time. Whether or not it will be released in the future is the question you won't, or can't, answer.
How so?
In your own words...maybe you're just too stupid to figure it out, even when it's spelled out for you.
lol, you remind me of...
Go on, you can say it. Don't hold back now!
You've, basically, already called me stupid and that hasn't phased me so comparing me to someone else won't phase me either.
Just say it.
Begin at # 111 and read to end of thread; please check out all of David's comments.
Thanks, David.
Thanks, that’s very nice of you, but this entire issue goes further back than you could be aware of. Someone I will not name circulated via private mail, a number of items of research material that was to remain private. That person had offered to keep research results off site for safe-keeping.
Instead, the results were circulated (WITH MY SCREEN NAME STILL ATTACHED)to a ping list of over a hundred people. And the information those messages contained was used to denigrate me and the research group of nine freepers who remained nameless throughout and will continue to remain nameless.
When this rotten deed came to light, my original reaction was to close down the entire effort, and wipe all our results.
To be then told THIS IS OUR COUNTRY was the last straw.
Ultimately, maybe even unwisely, I decided to fight back. The material our group collected, much of which has not been published here, is in the safe hands of a number of people, AND WE ARE STILL ADDING TO IT.
So Seizethecarp and Hoosiermama, and LucyT, aside from the plain ridiculous charges against me that I am a subversive -there are NINE freepers whose names you will never know, who contributed. And THEY know how far off the truth of the matter you are.
But I am a ‘make lemonade’ sorta guy...the three of you have done more to draw attention to what is probably going on, than I ever could without you, so keep it up.
432 posted on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:21:43 AM by Fred Nerks
Please note, little jeremiah, your name appears only because it was to you that I replied, not that you were in any way implicated in what I had to say, and hoosiermama it would seem you may have had a change of heart, because you have been very polite to me of recent date. But regret fully, Seizethecarp seems to have swallowed the accusation that I AM A SPY with such zeal, it's quite breathtaking. And Philman, I really thought you had more sense, but the way you attacked me over the ridiculous images of the nude model showed me, you have the same bees in your bonnet that Seize has. I'll try to tell you again. Our research materials were compiled for the purpose of handing them over to someone who could access more searches than we could, our material could in no way be conclusive, WE PROVIDED LEADS that show a PI or a posse WHERE THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING. And as they do that, during which process we don't even expect them to contact us, there'll be NOTHING revealed here. Got that? So frikken BITE ME!
NOW WHY ON EARTH WOULDN'T WE TRUST YOU? I SUGGEST YOU ASK THE PERSON WHO SENT YOU THE PRIVATE MAIL THAT SET YOU OFF. IT'S BAD ENOUGH NEEDING TO KEEP SOURCE LINKS FROM THE PRYING EYES OF OBOTS - BUT TO BE DOUBLE CROSSED BY ONE OF YOUR OWN AND TOLD 'IT'S MY COUNTRY' THAT WAS TOO MUCH.
And now, you may carry on with your usual programming, because heaven help me, the one thing that stands out like a sore thumb is NEITHER OF YOU HAVE PROVIDED ANYTHING ORIGINAL, IT'S JUST GRIPE, WHINE, ACCUSE AND BELITTLE AS YOU GO. AND WHEN I DO TRY TO BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE TABLE, I'M ACCUSED OF THREAD HIJACKING. NICE BUNCH YOU ARE.
Seize, get off my back, go away, do some research, bring back something interesting, your spittle and spite is dead BORING. You'll do yourself an injury, your hatred isn't healthy.
Oh I get it- you are an obamabotOk then, show me Stanley Anne’s signature on the registration book when she should have entered the hospital to give birth ! OH WAIT they wont let any one see that book
OK show me a hospital bill- oops none again
OK so you have records of her travel - it would have been odd for a very pregnant girl to get on a flight from kenya to USA and then travel to seattle a few days after giving birth
So... You have verbal accounts from friends and relatives? show them
I guess that phony birth certificate(s) he presented (twice) were just for fun... and he spent $3million in lawyers fees to keep the issue out of court because he had extra money he didnt feel he needed...
ANd the records indicate a shotgun wedding? thats interesting - I didnt know type of wedding was listed on the form- can I see that please?
Mr. K, when Rush today played the clip of Harry Reid demanding Mitt Romney release tax records, I called Mitch McConnell's office and gave the young lady the long version.
We know nothing of Hussein.
Everything he's said, every document, every supposed eyewitness account, all false.
Let him produce his transcripts of Occidental, Columbia, Harvard. All the documents relating to birth, marriage, citizenship.
All we have are photoshopped photos and forged documents, witnesses whose stories change--
And, David, you show Corsi was given forged documents--completely outside the authentic format, demonstably so.
We are given some dog and pony show of an airlift that didn't airlift a guy who admitted in 1962 he hadn't been in Kenya for seven years.
We've got Ayers in Dreams saying one thing but Maraniss (as Rush phrased it) "tried to help" and only succeeded in showing "Obama made stuff up"--
--which is not accurate: Ayers made stuff up.
The Genevieve who Hussein admitted didn't happen--gee, could we tell from Balloon-Head with her in the photo?
Some cling to the official propaganda like Ishmael to Queequeg's coffin in Moby Dick.
Others have Ahab's obsession with the white whale vis-a-vis Frank Marshall Davis and woman in high heels who isn't SAD.
There is a reason the puppet must be protected from exposure.
And yet in these pages he is revealed.
First...STOP YELLING! That's what "all caps" is...you yelling! I may be partially deaf, but I'm not blind.
Second...Nobody sent me any private mail that divulged anything and nobody's mail "set me off".
There have only been one or two times in my entire history here that I've ever revealed anything that was sent to me in mail and that was only to expose the denigrating thing that the retreaded troll had said in private. So you can BITE ME in that regard. I don't divulge squat if I'm asked not to.
I don't get a lot of mail to begin with so your assumption that I received something is BS. In case you didn't know I'm not exactly "liked" around here as I have a tendency to speak my mind no matter what and some people have an aversion to that so my "list of correspondents" is rather small. Except for alerts by LucyT and Brown Deer my mail is very limited. I predict that those may stop as well now.
Third...I've conceded that I understand the desire to keep the information obtained close to the vest.
All I'm asking is if the information is ever going to be released to the public! I don't give a flying "you know what" if I'm told beforehand or not. I don't care! The public deserves to eventually be told what was found, don't they? Or is it that it was all useless info after all?
I thought that asking such a thing was harmless and yet I see panties getting all bunched up over such a benign question.
And as time runs down it seems more and more likely that the information isn't going to be released to the public and that's a shame as none of the work that has been done will see the light of day. The objective was to prevent a second attempt at office for this man, wasn't it?
And Philman, I really thought you had more sense, but the way you attacked me over the ridiculous images of the nude model showed me...
You need to provide a link to that. I believe we disagreed on the picture of the two young boys.
And if you're so petty as to hold a grudge against someone for one disagreement then you're a pretty pathetic example of a human being.
Seems that you're the one that's having a hissy fit.
Wrong again. I'm merely wondering why such a benign question is causing you such angst.
So you believe that there was never any information available to the public until 20 years ago?
Have I intimated such a thing?
It's not me, moron.
You're right. I'm a moron for thinking that you would answer a benign question.
So you've yet to tell me...who is it that I remind you of?
I went to bed shortly after that reply. I was in sore need of my beauty sleep. I’m one ugly cuss.
Just like the day you asked me if I was trying to out a FReeper.
The tenor of your reply revealed your attitude then as well.
The material our group collected, much of which has not been published here, is in the safe hands of a number of people...
What exactly do you mean by "much of which" (not "all of which") hasn't been published and it's not here?
(rhetorical and illustrative of how a curious mind might function so there is no need to actually answer)
Since something, judging by your words, is published then you're implying that it's available to the public. And if something is "published" where is it published? Is it in a book or magazine? Is it on a website?
I don't get it. Or are you using the wrong words to express your thoughts?
“But I am a ‘make lemonade’ sorta guy...the three of you have done more to draw attention to what is probably going on, than I ever could without you, so keep it up.”
Very well, then. Here is a cross-post of a Mal-Val “researcher” narrative subsidiary claim which is that not only was Stanley Ann never in HI before 1963, but she never graduated from or even attended Mercer High in 1960!
By removing Stanley Ann from their secret narrative it would seem that Barry is protected from exactly his most vulnerable point of exposure and that is “Where was Stanley Ann when he was born?” Intentionally or unwittingly, the Mal-Val narrative PROTECTS Barry from what the most competent credentialed forensic researchers have found which is that Stanley Ann graduated from Mercer in 1960, went to Hawaii to the U of Hawaii that fall and became impregnated by a man of African heritage and that she was in Seattle at the U of WA with baby Barry beginning in Sept. 1961. Period.
But I digress. Here is the Fred Nerks contribution to the Mal-Val “remove Stanley Ann as Barry’s mom” narrative”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908395/posts?q=1&;page=1445
To: bgill
I don’t know if you noticed, but the entire point of the exercise goes back to the very first group image I posted on this thread; I wanted to know if anyone else could see what we could see, that it was impossible to be certain that Stanley Ann Dunham actually did -
a. Attend Mercer Island High School
b. Graduate in 1960.
From what we can see, it’s possible she was there when she was 15, according to the image supplied by her good friend Maxine.
There are more images to come from screencaps when we can convert them to post here. It aint over until it’s over, stay tuned.
1,445 posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 2:30:48 AM by Fred Nerks (Fair Dinkum!)
...the entire point of the exercise...
Is "the exercise" a fact finding mission or a mission to divert?
Just curious as the words you use are curious.
Sure I have, but you're too ignorant to figure it out.
Once again...prove it, don't just say it.
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.