Posted on 03/31/2014 10:55:40 AM PDT by ethical
Thanks for the ping. I haven’t been following the discussions lately, so it was very helpful.
I gather that one of our more beloved Freeper/Birthers is under fire for promoting a ‘nutty’ theory. It’s safe to assume, then, that the Mal-Valers are under fire for their psychotic theory, correct? After all, there is at least claimed evidence of frogmen; of Malcolm X as Obama’s father, of Valerie Sarruf as his mother, and of the nonexistence of his half brother, David Ndesandjo, there is NOTHING.
Jack Cashill having adeptly and devastatingly disposed of the ‘Malcolm X as father’ idea, let’s have a look at where the ‘David never existed’ claim stands.
According to Mal-Valers:
David’s brother Mark posts a photo of David on the Net, & this means David never existed.
Mark posts a photo of the same child-David-~three yrs older, posing with Mark, and this means David never existed.
Ruth Ndesandjo consistently affirms that she had a son named David Opiyo Ndesandjo, Mark’s full brother, and this means David never existed.
The Ndesandjos’ neighbors, in extensive interviews, affirm David’s existence, and this means he never existed.
Sally Jacobs, who conducted most of the interviews, affirms David’s existence, and this means he never existed.
David Maraniss, famed for his exhaustive research techniques, affirms David’s existence, and this means David never existed.
The largest newspaper in David’s hometown affirms his life and death, and this means he never existed.
The second largest newspaper in David’s hometown affirms his life and death, and this means David never existed.
Several genealogy sites list David as Mark’s younger brother, and this means David never existed.
No person, not a single one, who actually knew the Ndesandjos has ever claimed Mark never existed. In fact, there is no record of anyone, other than the Mal-Valers, making this claim.
So which is more believable? The frogmen, that at least a couple of people claim see, or David’s nonexistence, which flies in the face of ALL countervailing evidence? [For the record, I don’t believe in the frogmen. However, it is a fact that more evidence, such as it is, has been put forth to argue for their existence than has been put forth in support of the claim that David Opiyo Ndesandjo never existed.
So, which is the nuttier theory?
[And for the record, Seize, of course you never claimed to be an Obot. I don’t know why people are allowed to smear others this way. It’s not conducive to maintaining a fully functional, cohesive conservative community, nor does it serve any good purpose. It’s just a smear, pure and simple.]
For those who have never read Cashill’s tour de force take down of the wacky Malcolm X as Obama daddy theory, here’s an excerpt and the link:
‘The Malcolm-as-father proponent usually begins with photos of Malcolm and Obama. (Yes, they do look vaguely alike.) He then builds a case by adding any random detail that might support his thesis and ignoring those that don’t. The latter category includes just about everything known about Malcolm X’s character and history.’
http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/no_malcolm_x.htm
Thank you Tillie, the “nuttery”, like so many, many of us being nutterized lately!
I have often “nuttery” referred to the “secret” meeting at SCOTUS on January 14, 2009, ONE week before the W.H. illegally was stolen from the American People, conducted by the “Chicago-Godfather-Thugs” whispering something softly in John Roberts’ ears...IF...Then...and I don’t know if Roberts have horses, but from that date on everything changed. Suddenly Sean Hannity stopped chasing the Khalid al-Mansour and the Sutton stories and FAUX news and guests started calling people crazy by referring to the NBC issue. ALL the Medias including alternative media print/talk “refused” to mention the NBC issue = Article II. Section 1. Clause V. You see what Roberts was told trickled down to lower courts and States, Municipalities, even the military could NOT honoring their OATHS to the Constitution.
ALL those things you mentioned occurred by being threatened as Mark Zullo puts it!!
But when we Constitutionalists stir up the pots for getting to the truth, we are called “Birthers” and ‘Nuts” or “Conspirators” not only in the MSM but also on F.R. where certain things not allowed, but their attack dogs come out in full forces, and you can wonder and speculate..... WHY???
I do think I know WHY. Even on the left leaning Facebook, mostly our 1st Amendment is still honored and not censored!!!
P.S. Isn’t kind of odd, that after Roberts been visited, the “smartest” S.C. candidate ever found to the bench, could NOT do the swearing in correctly when looking into a criminal Devil’s smiling eyes, and after he and his team publicly scolded/humiliated at a SOUA with standing ovation from the DNC ass-clowns, “surprisingly” ruled from the bench the obamaScare legit, hmmm???
They know and you know WHO they are, and in the good “old” days others were warned NOT to feed the SPs!!!
What’s an “SP”?
Interesting, saw the other day on Facebook that Lucas Smith was arrested in Dominica Republic IIRC? and sent to Kenya, hmmm!
Lucas Smith is AKA Inspector Smith claiming having the real B.C. with a small foot print on. Looks very real, but F.R.’s attack dogs(SPs) were unmerciful to him and eventually he was thrown out to the wolves from F.R.!!!
Wasn’t he the guy with the fake sideways video of some black kids on a balcony?
I’m warned not to feed them!!!
Well by all means then don’t feed them, whatever they are.
And certainly not after midnight.
You were around here when he was chewed up, don’t pretend!!!
I know. It was pretty funny.
I’m glad you understand the “whink,” finally!!!
Smith has not been sent to Kenya. He says that he was arrested in the DR because Kenya wanted him extradited for bribery.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2465278/replies?c=809
Yeah, it was such a "secret meeting" that it was reported in the press and photographed. And you do know that Presidents Reagan and Clinton also met with the Supreme Court justices before their inaugurations?
“He has said that when the political winds change, he will always stand with the Muslims. And that is about the only true thing he has ever said.”
When did he say that?
Here is the only thing I can find,
Is there another statement somewhere?
Reagan, it was probably to discuss The Constitution, with Clinton, it was probably to party, Obama? Show the Supremes what Chicago style politics looks like. (who really knows what goes on behind closed doors)
Thank you for correcting me, but there WAS something about extraditing him in what I saw!!!
Did Presidents Reagan or Clinton make any “funny” decisions AFTER their meetings and were those meeting not disclosed in some details. Interesting, IIRC, one justice was not present and stood up at the mentioned SOUA whispering “NOT TRUE”???
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.