And while you're spouting off your own logical fallacy's [sic]
Now we're down to the bald assertion. This is generally resorted to when the losing party of a debate has no rational answer to the points that have been made by the winner, and is desperately trying to paint the winning party with some kind of label, simply to distract from the fact that he or she has no answer and has lost the debate.
Try post #520... try researching the source citations.
I've had a brief look at it. It falls under my post above.
A single informal reference on some unknown and completely unauthoritative web site by people who don't even necessarily claim to be from Kenya! ("The Ogiek.org Website is a partnership of human rights organizations and groups around the world who support the rights of the Ogiek, an indigenous People in Kenya.") does NOT constitute any proof whatsoever that ANY official government document of the period referred to Kenya as "the Republic of Kenya."
Show me a copy, in print, of where the GOVERNMENT of Kenya was officially a Republic (or used the name) BEFORE they DECLARED themselves a Republic, and we've got something. Until then, it's all very improbable.
Not surprising you won't research or accept any proof to the contrary. I think its now pretty clear which 'camp' you're falling into. Don't count on that check from Rahm though, you may be thrown under the bus very soon.