Re:"Mal and Val - not Ann and the Old Man" Any evidence Valerie Sarruf is Obama's mom? (vanity)

"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.

From the family research pdf link at the Ancestry.com/Obama, below is the official, certified conclusion of four genealogists. Courts rely on competent expert witnesses to form and state expert opinions, and so do I, when persuasive:

http://www.ancestry.com/obama

Conclusion: The Bunch Progenitor and Immigrant

Due to the destruction of records, no one can definitively prove or disprove the conclusion that John Punch was President Obama’s immigrant ancestor. One can only come to the most logical conclusion based on the evidence that does survive and compare that conclusion to possible alternative explanations. Parsimony is the first basis that should be used to determine a final conclusion.

Research was conducted with the highest standards, exhausting what has survived, properly interpreting it in the light of the law, correlating the whole, and resolving conflicting data. There is no substitute for the expertise decades of experience working with the same families and records in this period provides. Short of finding John Punch’s body, digging it up and conducting yDNA tests, one could never be 100 percent certain of relationship.

Of what can research be absolutely certain? It is certain that Paul Bunch and John Bunch II are brothers who had a father of Sub-Saharan heritage who resided in Virginia in the 1650s. It is also certain that the Virginia Bunch progenitor was among the first Africans who settled in the Virginia colony,64 and was among the first hundred or so Africans brought to the shores of Virginia.

Taking the whole into account, exhaustive research in surviving records justifies a conclusion that John Punch was the progenitor of the Bunch family. He is the only known African man of that time and place with a name in any way equivalent to Bunch, an extraordinarily rare surname in England and America. He lived in the same locale as Paul and John Bunch II at a time the African-American population was extremely small. It just happens that he is also the first known African-American male sentenced to servitude for life. Only history could assert such irony in a profoundly powerful way—that the first African-American President, Barack Obama, would also be the 11th great-grandson of the first African to be enslaved for life in America.

You wrote: “I find the certification by the four Ancestry.com genealogists based on solid circumstantial evidence consisting of records and DNA to be persuasive when they concluded that Barry descended from the slave John Punch.”

Did they “certify” the relationship? They have no DNA to prove that John Punch was the father of John Bunch. Their circumstantial evidence is anything but “solid.” I have shown how these “genealogists” (seems that only two have genealogy credentials) have put forth assumptions that anybody with common sense can PUNCH holes in (pun intended). You’re free to accept their assumptions or not. I don’t. Their hypothesis is full of holes. I take note that you do not address any of the holes I’ve punched. Telling.

Even their “fact” that Punch was the first slave is in dispute. He was an indentured servant. He was not a “slave” in the sense most consider an American black slave to be: That he was captured in Africa and brought here against his will, in the hold of a ship as cargo (as in the Middle Passage), sold in the US as a slave.

That they are going to such lengths to create a slave is also telling. It reminds one very much of how “it all depends on what the meaning of is is.” This is circumstantial evidence that they are seeing what they want to see.

You wrote: “The FOIA INS documents are uncontested by any competent expert and confirm Stanley Ann to have been reported to the INS to be pregnant in April 1961 by U of HI officials presumably by BHO Sr. U of HI also reported that they married on Feb 2, 1961 and subsequently that she was intending to go to school at a university in WA.”

Nope. Not a university in WA. Washington State University. But she didn’t go there; she went to the University of Washington. Two different schools. If we’re going to hew to the accuracy of these INS documents, then either they are true or they are not.

When has anybody seen these “documents” to contest? Has ANY “expert” had them submitted to him or her for authentication? Probably not, so it means nothing that they are “uncontested”.

The fact that you qualify further by saying “competent expert” is rather telling, imho.

Like so much else, these “documents” are digital images, subject to modification. The original source would be what needs to be examined. To use Ancestry’s word, “PRIMARY” sources. Those are the best sources.

You wrote: “Numerous subsequent newspaper, INS, passport and divorce documents confirm SADO as Barry’s uncontestd mom.”

There have been NO DOCUMENTS presented, much less “numerous” ones. A woman can be a “mom” without having given birth to said child. The newspaper announcements named neither child nor mother. Since the senior Obama had at least two, possibly three, wives in 1961, it’s anyone’s guess who that “Mrs.” was.

That is, if the announcements are real. Has ANYONE seen a paper version? btw, an INS memo from July 1964 appears to say that he had “over two wives now.” That’s before he married Ruth, because the memo discusses Ruth’s plan to marry him, despite his “over two wives now.” Who was the third? The “wife in the Philippines?”

SAD’s passport files are contradictory, missing, or locked away.

You wrote: “Absence of evidence (baby photos etc.) is not evidence of absence.”

Presence of digital images is not evidence of documents. Presence of photoshopped images is not evidence of a family.

It’s not our job to prove a negative. It’s Obama’s job to prove a positive—that he is who he says he is and that he’s qualified under the Constitution to hold the office he holds.

It’s also a genealogist’s job to present and use the best evidence available and not to make conclusions based upon an “absence of evidence,” which also means that one cannot invent evidence one wishes existed, when it does not exist.

You wrote: “The FIOA INS docs are solid, verifiable (can be forensically examined) evidence that Stanly Ann is absolutely Barry’s mom.”

Yes, they certainly can be forensically examined. Will anybody allow anyone to examine them? His birth records, his college records, his selective service records, his social security records, his passport records, his state senate records, the port of entry records—all can be “forensically examined,” except for the fact that nobody can pry any of these original documents out of the public repositories where they allegedly reside (or should reside) and this person will not release any of them for examination.

The INS questioned the “bona fides” of the marriage. Right there in the “documents” released. Nothing in the record reports whether they ever investigated further and, if they did, what they found.

You wrote: “There are no documents whatsoever that support a different mother for Barry that I have seen. No BC, passport, baby pics for a different mom for Barry, such as Valerie Sarruf available on the web that I have seen.”

There are no documents that support THIS mother for Barry. Where are they? DOCUMENTS. Circa 1961 paper documents. We don’t know WHO his mother is.

Ok, so let’s accept that SAD had a child in August, 1961. Given that those INS documents state that she was arranging to give the baby up for adoption, how do we know that she didn’t? How do you know that the man who claims he is SAD’s son IS the child that she gave birth to in August 1961?

Up until citizen researchers discovered the lie about the family being together until Barry was two, nobody mentioned that SAD was in Seattle, going to college, only weeks after she gave birth. Now that would be consistent with a woman who gave a child up for adoption. Getting on with her life in a new place. Away from the father.

Suddenly, now, the official biographers “find” and reveal what’s already been revealed with no explanation as to why they didn’t discover that truth on their own, during their initial research (as if they did any).

“The only evidence missing is proof of where Stanley Ann was when she gave birth to Barry.”

Nope. We could be missing the evidence of when she handed that baby over to the Salvation Army.

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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.