Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Birth Story Unraveling - Mother In Univ Class In Seattle 15 Days After Obama Supposedly Born!
Dr. Jerome Corsi / Rusty Humphries Show

Posted on 08/08/2009 9:20:49 PM PDT by MindBender26

Edited on 08/08/2009 9:33:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Jerone Corsi, Ph. D. is about to drop another bombshell, casting further doubt on the stories of President Obama's birth.

Dr. Corsi, whose doctorate is from Harvard, is an excellent researcher and investigative journalist. He was the driving force behind the Swift Boat veterans telling the truth about War Phony John Kerry. He is also the author of "Obamanation."

In his latest research, to be splashed on WND early next week, Dr. Corsi will reveal that he has documentary evidence that the mother of Barack Obama Jr., Ms Stanley A. Durham-Soetoro, began evening classes at the University of Washington in Seattle on August 19, 1961. This is just 15 days after she supposedly gave birth to President Obama in Hawaii.

We are expected to believe that in just15 days, she gave birth, stayed in the hospital for a few days, them packed her things and left her house in Hawaii, moved to Seattle, got established there, registered for, then began classed in Seattle, all the while caring for her newborn.

The new evidence also destroys another Obama legend-lie. According to the President’s autobiography, Obama Sr. and Durhan-Soetoro were supposedly deeply in love and made a happy home together in Hawaii, complete with their baby, until Obama Sr. had to move to Boston to attend Harvard and could not afford take Stanley and baby Barack with him.

According to Dr. Corsi’s new written evidence, Durham-Soetoro was in college classes, thousands of miles away from Hawaii and did not return to the islands until long Obama Sr. left for Harvard.

Dr. Corsi also reveals that a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth requires no proof of any kind and could simply be issued on the sworn statement of one parent.

All of this simply adds to the fast growing uncertainty and suspicion over Obama’s supposed birth stories. Is August 4, 1961, his real birth date? Where was he really born? When he traveled to the Middle East in the 1990s, he did not have a US passport. What country issued him a passport, and why? Why won’t he release the one document that would answer all the questions?

It just gets deeper and deeper.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1961not1962; article2section1; barackobama; barrysoetoro; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; corsi; dunhamnotdurham; impeachobama; kenya; naturalborn; obama; obamafamily; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatruthfile; soetoro; stanleynotsydney; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-429 next last

And she started her courses at University of Washingon, Seattle, on September 19, 1961, NOT August 19, 1961.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and checked the school schedule. Corsi has really screwed up his info.

221 posted on 08/09/2009 2:40:01 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Clintonfatigued

I know he did that but I googled it he also came out as a 9/11 truther.

He’s going on about “iron spheres”. :?

His assertions about Obama’s mother may very well be true but he has shown in the past that he can be extremely wrong.

222 posted on 08/09/2009 2:58:19 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
From reading from that, a child that is born of 2 US citizens abroad would still have US citienship, but, not a " Natural Born Citizen " .....

223 posted on 08/09/2009 3:27:52 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: gigster
“Sydney A. Durham”,when the person’s name is “Stanley Ann Dunham”.

Maybe she registered under a phony name for some reason. Back in those days, before the electronic age, it was probably easy to work the system.

224 posted on 08/09/2009 3:42:37 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: woops
He is hiding it all because there is something very wrong with him.


225 posted on 08/09/2009 3:49:31 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
And she started her courses at University of Washingon, Seattle, on September 19, 1961, NOT August 19, 1961.

Don't most university semesters start in August?

226 posted on 08/09/2009 3:54:59 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
...if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then he is not a US citizen if any kind, since he has never gone through a naturalization process!

W/O a documented history, whether BO's naturalized is unknown....

227 posted on 08/09/2009 4:02:07 AM PDT by 1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

No, his mother enrolled into U. of W. in August 1961 (NOT 1962).

228 posted on 08/09/2009 4:49:28 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Ms. Stanley didn’t need to be in Hawaii to have Obama’s birth registered or have the birth ad put into the newspapers. Her folks probably did that so she could collect welfare more easily knowing that Obama’s parent’s relationship was not stable..... Try born in Kenya then straight to Seattle never setting foot in Hawaii.

229 posted on 08/09/2009 4:54:28 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

My understanding is that stanley ann signed up for classes in sept 1960 in hawaii. but she did not sign up for classes in jan 1961 in Hawaii.

she doesn’t show up in school records again until aug 1961 in washington state.

there is a 9 month gap not a 6 month gap.

230 posted on 08/09/2009 5:17:50 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bitt

the dates are wrong. o traveled to pakistan in 1981 when he still had a dual kenyan/us citizenship.

231 posted on 08/09/2009 5:20:21 AM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Mail order college would explain this easily.

232 posted on 08/09/2009 5:21:06 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Welcome to UW Educational Outreach,
a community gateway to the University of Washington.

UW Educational Outreach started in 1912. For more than 90 years, we have kept current with the ever-changing needs of our students.

At UW Educational Outreach, we have combined more traditional courses with a comprehensive line of educational offerings including online learning, certificate programs, English language classes, fee-based degrees and one of the largest summer quarters in the country, which meet the needs of a very diverse student population.

All of us here at UW Educational Outreach are constantly working to ensure that the programs we develop for you represent the most dynamic, flexible, useful and high-quality offerings possible.

Thank you for your interest in UW Educational Outreach, and let us know how we can help you!


David Szatmary
Vice Provost

233 posted on 08/09/2009 5:27:20 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Admin mod. Please change all years to 1961 and mother’s first name to Stanley, not Sydney. My FUBARS. Sorry, I’ve been up about 60 hours.

Too late. You should have had the post pulled, then corrected and reposted. You've done nothing but add to the general confusion.

Besides, most birthers aren't interested in this information, unless they can fit it into some elaborate scheme about foreign birth or the love-child of Malcolm X.

What is important is that it adds to the steady drip of information which contradicts the carefully-constructed autobiographical myth of current President. It erodes his credibility, but since it's not sensational enough for the conspiracy-minded, it gets ignored.

(And Corsi didn't do this research -- this info has been known for months.)

234 posted on 08/09/2009 5:27:59 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Didn’t he go to the middle east in the 1980’s and not 1990’s?

235 posted on 08/09/2009 5:34:05 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Sorry, but I disagree, and so will countless others.

Without the O, VP Biden does NOT exist in any way, fashion or form and no argument can make him exist. Any argument seeking to keep VP Biden only tries to minimize the damage the O has done to the Dem party and to keep what he has so far accomplished. Personally, I do not care for that party and have not since 1969. The DNC knew full well that the O was not qualified, but they were only interested in winning the presidency, not in right and wrong of how they did so. THEY would put forth your argument in a heartbeat to save their achievement, though it is totally wrong. Sorry, but without the O nothing we have seen so far would have taken place, nothing. Furthermore, I refuse to give any legitimacy to the O or the democRAT party leaders over whatever they have accomplished so far, including who O chose as his running mate.

Let's look at your argument. If we keep VP Biden, then the O (and the DNC) still win because the democRATs keep the current supreme court justice appointment, national healthcare, czars in the white house, cap and trade, etc. Do you REALLY want to keep the status quo????? Dump Biden as potential POTUS and all that unravels, as it should. What the solution is destined to be after the current administration is removed I cannot guess. I just know that ALL OF IT is illegitimate, all of it must go!

236 posted on 08/09/2009 5:42:59 AM PDT by egfowler3 (A poor memory is not the same as a clear conscience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

It’s not just about the birth certificate!!! obama has to release all his records.


Senator Schumer: “When you are running for president, everything should be public including your FULL medical records. I believe in a right to privacy, but when you are running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supercedes it.”

See 22 second video @

barack obama MUST release all his records. Its not just about the birth certificate. Its everthing. There is something very wrong with him and he knows it. Don’t just stare at the computer, DO SOMETHING! Please WRITE to all your government officials and demand, as our right to know, that obama release his records. Send them a link to Schumer’s video. It is easier if you are from a particular state, to contact that senator. You cannot be so passive and sit here and argue about the birth certificate for countless days when it is the WHOLE of NO DOCUMENTATION. Jesus, H. Christ, and idiot can see something is wrong. We have to put tremendous pressure on Washington that this issue is not going away. No way, No how. If it keeps on we have to rally. NO TEA PARTY. This would be solely a “SHOW ME PARTY”.

237 posted on 08/09/2009 5:43:30 AM PDT by woops
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Ok. I have had some eggs and coffee.. so lets start here:

Defining Natural-Born Citizen
By P.A. Madison on November 18, 2008

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King upon birth. Under the American system there was no “crown” (individual) to personally owe an allegiance too. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except that it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1117 (1866))

The phrase “temporary sojourners” referred to those in the country for purposes of work, visiting or business and who had no intention of taking the steps to become citizens, or incapable by law. The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.


I came across this interesting speech by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814:

The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.

Cheves is obviously drawing on the works of Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. Not something you would expect from the Speaker of the House of a Nation that supposedly adopted England’s common law.


Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

238 posted on 08/09/2009 5:45:27 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: gigster

You are entirely welcome to hold that opinion.

My point is that no court opinion has to date agreed with you.

Chester Arthur’s dad was a Brit citizen, and he served as president to high acclaim (after a rough start).

There is even some question, never definitively settled, whether he was born in NY or a few miles across the border.

239 posted on 08/09/2009 6:06:01 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: El Gato


240 posted on 08/09/2009 6:07:27 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-429 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson