As Michelle Malkin herself points out in the story, she isn't claiming it to be definitively true but it's entirely plausible, has substantiated precedent and is sourced FAR better than many that have graced the front pages of the New York Times. She's merely putting the information out there and asking for corroboration, which is something that many other 'reporters' don't seem terribly interested in doing.
I only view it as something worth reading and considering. If I run across another well-sourced article debunking this one then I'll post it in this thread as well.
This thread is typical of many here at FR, which is why I like the site and the community of contributors so much...
A subject gets scrutinized to the enth degree, chawed on, turned inside out, postulated, hypothesized, etc., etc., etc.
One has their mental world rocked occasionally by points/counterpoints not pondered, prior to putting fingers to the keyboard.