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.
Apparently you failed to notice I didn’t
post the thread.
Regardless, it would be wise to cool down.
It's only of interest in that it *could* affect his citizenship status.
And because it could also have affected his chances of being elected if it had been known, for certain, before the election. We might have had President Hillary. :)
I agree, but only to the extent that it has nothing to do with "natural born" citizenship. Just citizenship.
IF YOU HIDE SOMETHING, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE
It’s not just ONE document. We have to see them all. Look at this 22 second video by U.S. Senator from New York Chuck Schumer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0
He says:
“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.”
Please, write to everyone you can. We need medical records, school, passport, birth certificate. EVERYTHING, because noone knows who he is.
For example: he could have been treated for mental illnes, or he could have been a u.s. citizen and applied for and got foreign aid or scholarships (maybe it was easier for a foreign aid student to get money).
It’s not JUST about the birth certificate. He is hiding it all because there is something very wrong with him.
Turns out not to be quite correct. The state department has said that the issue is not settled as a matter of law. So while it's not been recognized that there is a difference, it's also not been recognized that there is not.
No, he's one of the guys who "outed" John F'n Kerry. He is thus responsible for the term, whether used derisively or in admiration, "Swift Boating".
You earned a check of your past postings. You think you are the first genius to come up with this stuff? Anyway, you pass a troll check. So, one day I will take the time to bring you up to speed. But as its 4 am, thats not today.
I never said that I wasn’t a “Citizen”.
I am not a ‘”Natural-born” Citizen, as my parents had a allegiance to the British Crown.
Your interpretation, based on faulty logic. What they overruled was the idea that he could not be a citizen at all. The minority could have stated a lot of things, some of which the majority would agree with, some they would not. What they actually ruled is what counts. They ruled that he was a citizen under the 14th amendment, with no mention, in the ruling, of him being natural born, since that was not at issue.
Never said you were "natural born", but since no court has ruled on the subject, it would not quite be true to say you were not. I think you were not, you seem to think so as well. But, it's not an issue, unless you want to run for President or Vice President, and you don't sound anywhere near crazy enough for that.
First, I tried to say its late and I don't want to get into this now. Its obvious you have come here for an argument, and I have wasted to many words and to much time saying not now.
You act as if the rest of the world doesn't have a clue. This subject has been debated here for about one whole year. As you have been around since 2005, I expect that you would have got this out of your system back in 2008.
If you want to know the facts, I encourage you to spend the time to chase the threads already posted on this subject. If you don't care about the facts, and just want to yell, we can handle that too.
Researched yes, but never they were never able to prove he was not born on the Naval base, rather than in Colon, Panama. The two Birth Certificates floating around showing him born in Colon, are likely as fake as Obama's COLB. He and his mother, who you'll recall was on the platform with him on election night, maintain he was born on the base. Home birth, especially of the grandson of the Admiral, would not be unusual in 1936. It would have been just a little over a decade latter, but not in '36 especially in Central America. My mother was born in the late 20s, and she was born at home, on her parents' farm. My father in law was an exception, born the same year as my mother, but in a hospital "in town". But he almost wasn't born at all, had to be delivered by C- section, which made him an only child, even though his mother, bless her soul, wanted a large family. She did get 5 grand kids, and whole passel of great grand kids, some of whom she even knew before the dementia hit, including her #1 great-grandddaughter, my daughter, who also remembers her.
Interesting, I have never seen this in any discussion thus far. The certificate discussed in the Washington Post article was provided by McCain himself if memory serves. I have a hard time with accepting the charge that he provided a forgery.
Rewrite a new thread on this....
Stanley Ann Dunham was named for her father, Stanley Armour Dunham, who had wanted a boy.
This information comes off of legal documents, such as her divorce decree, and theobamafile.com.
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.
I know he did that but I googled it he also came out as a 9/11 truther.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yCfI3VmL88
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.
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.
Rehab?
Don't most university semesters start in August?
W/O a documented history, whether BO's naturalized is unknown....
No, his mother enrolled into U. of W. in August 1961 (NOT 1962).
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.
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.
the dates are wrong. o traveled to pakistan in 1981 when he still had a dual kenyan/us citizenship.
Mail order college would explain this easily.
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/uweo/about/
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!
Sincerely,
David Szatmary
Vice Provost
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.)
Didn’t he go to the middle east in the 1980’s and not 1990’s?
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!
It’s not just about the birth certificate!!! obama has to release all his records.
IF YOU HIDE SOMETHING, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.
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 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6iLuyCAx0
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”.
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.
UPDATE:
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.
UPDATE II:
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.
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.
Agreed.
Supposedly born? As opposed to what? Hatched? Cloned? Created by a hologram projector?
I posted this as sarcasm last December, but it may be main stream birtherism by this Christmas.
... in the Holiday spirit, I would like to give those Freepers trying to flog life into this dead horse a couple of ideas about other avenues to pursue.
1. Is BO a Human??? Maybe he is a cyborg. Maybe he is of non-terran origin. Have you seen the DNA tests showing him to be a human? Has anyone? Why won't he release samples of his DNA to independent labs?
2. Fourteen years a resident of the United States??? The Constitution requires that the President have been a resident of the United States for the past fourteen years. But BO has, for the past four years, been living in no state at all, but in the District of Columbia. And before that? Texas has people who think that, because of some paper work foul up in the Annexation in 1846, Texas is not a State, but still an independent republic.What of Illinois? Maybe there was some paper work foul up with the Treaty of Pairs in 1763, and Illinois is still a French Colony. Has anyone looked into that?
Are either of these issue meritorious? No. But they aren't much worse than the birth in Kenya, or Canada, or wherever argument. And at least they make for a change of pace.
Obamanation is a good book.
Tough crowd, eh?
No worries...it more meat to be chewed...;)
What not he’s an Astronaut.
A presidential candidate should have to pass the requirements of a SBI for a Top Secret Clearance. Odumbo would be shining shoes in Mombossa, if these requirements were implemented.
Molon Labe,
Yes. And I'm sure Justice Sotomayor will reverse all of this. WHAT? Supreme Court nominations matter???? Someone had better Tell the GOP!!!!
This will come as a great shock to all the attorneys in the group. They've always been under the impression that US law is quite explicitly based on common law except where modified by statute or constitutional provision.
The only State that uses civil law is LA, a hangover from its period under French control.
If there is no hospital named, there should be an address or other description of where he was born. Someone has to sign as witness to the birth, in place of a doctor or midwife, someone like Grandma Toot.
*******
Yes, if there is no hospital name but Grandma Toot signed the birth certificate as a witness, then Obama and Hawaii officials would have a lot of explaining to do.
Again, that is one key reason why we need to see Obama's 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate: We need to make sure that Obama is who he claims he is by checking to see if a hospital name is listed, and if there is no hospital name, then we need to see who signed the long form birth certificate as a witness.
So, if Obama's grandmother is the one who signed the long form birth certificate as a witness to Obama's 1961 birth, then I say that Obama is in a lot of political trouble.
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.