Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-429 next last
To: dalight
You have proved, only, that many in the past had trouble with the definition, just as we do today.
You have NOT definitely, legally, established the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” in any way, shape or form.
For starters, the actual statute that you bring up was a Reconstruction Era statute which was later made unnecessary by the 14th Amendment. Both that Congressional Act, and the 14th Amendment, are NOT exclusive of other means of citizenship, they simply RECOGNIZE the citizenship of former slaves.
Absolutely and totally irrelevant to the current debate.

“Natural Born Citizen” means Citizen at Birth.

Your post DOES agree with me in part, in that it state that “Natural Born” means “Not Naturalized”.

251 posted on 08/09/2009 6:38:12 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: egfowler3
The end does not justify the means.

You are corrupting the law to bring about outcomes that YOU desire.

That is just as bad as what the Libs do, all the time.

Biden is now VP.

Biden will become President, if Obama, for any reason, can not serve out his term.

End of story.

You do not have a leg to stand on, historically or legally, with your ridiculous argument.

252 posted on 08/09/2009 6:41:50 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Please read:

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html


253 posted on 08/09/2009 6:48:06 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

It was posted on this thread as 1962. How much more clear can I make it?


254 posted on 08/09/2009 6:48:32 AM PDT by Norman Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

bttt


255 posted on 08/09/2009 6:50:28 AM PDT by petercooper (GOP: Big Tent Party??? Not if you are a CONSERVATIVE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I didn’t get anything wrong and I’m not the only one. Peruse through the first twenty or thirty postings and you’ll notice that other freepers oscerved that the piece on this thread was posted with the incorrect date of 1962 (among other mistakes) and shortly corrected by a moderator. I was never talking about the link to the article but what was actually posted on this thread. I didn’t get anything wrong.


256 posted on 08/09/2009 6:52:24 AM PDT by Norman Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Keep digging. There's something he's hiding. No one rational can deny that.
257 posted on 08/09/2009 6:53:32 AM PDT by McGruff (Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency - Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

so you want to cite the State Department? Try this:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes


258 posted on 08/09/2009 6:55:05 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
From the Application for US Passport,see section 1.b.) 4: Image and video hosting by TinyPic
259 posted on 08/09/2009 7:09:42 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
From the Application for US Passport,see section 1.b.) 4: Image and video hosting by TinyPic
260 posted on 08/09/2009 7:09:43 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26; All

look where this takes you!

http://www.barrysoetoro.com/

in 2008 it was registered to

Domain name: BARRYSOETORO.COM

Administrative Contact:
Tharwat.com
Tharwat Abdul-Malik (tharwat@gmail.com)
+1.7272140240
Fax: +1.7272140240
10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Suite 289
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
US

Technical Contact:
Tharwat.com
Tharwat Abdul-Malik (tharwat@gmail.com)
+1.7272140240
Fax: +1.7272140240
10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Suite 289
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
US

Registrant Contact:
Tharwat.com
Tharwat Abdul-Malik

10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Suite 289
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
US

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2059717%2C48


261 posted on 08/09/2009 7:11:33 AM PDT by bitt (I don't believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I think, first off, that your post is largely supportive of my argument.
Second, I think STATUTORY citizenship at birth is VERY strong evidence of Natural Born Citizenship status.

As you say, no court has ever ruled, but I think that, given the opportunity, SCOTUS will rule as I have stated here:

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth!


262 posted on 08/09/2009 7:15:26 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

point taken, long night last night.


263 posted on 08/09/2009 7:16:31 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: All

Is there a possiblity the timeline is wrong and the cheeky Kenyan bastard was actually born around July of that year?

Just wondering.


264 posted on 08/09/2009 7:23:35 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You obviously have not been following this debate for the last year...there are numerous at length discussions on Natural Born Citizen for Constitutional purposes. Lawyers argue both sides and Judges decide. According to your idea, a person born to two illegal alien parents who just happen to drop the baby on this side of the border and he resides in the US for 14 years maybe with still illegal parents is eligible to be President of the US. I think not and if that is the case we need to know so we can fix it.

While they are at it they should end the misinterpreted 14th amendment in the jurisdiction of which currently is interpreted to allow for Anchor Babies, a miscarriage of Justice, Its like saying if you break into a bank and get caught you get to keep the money, we should have stopped you before you entered the bank. Ridiculous.

265 posted on 08/09/2009 7:23:39 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

It took me abut 10 more posts after yours to see that, sorry. :)

When I got to it, none of those errors were there


266 posted on 08/09/2009 7:34:26 AM PDT by RaceBannon (OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE IS SHOVEL READY...FOR SENIORS!!:: NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: john mirse
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.

If your Aunt had balls she would be your Uncle.

267 posted on 08/09/2009 7:41:23 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I don’t want to make light of the responsibilities of a new mother, I just wanted to correct the general impression given by the article that she was attending the UW as a full-time student only 3 weeks after giving birth. I think another month of breathing room makes a difference, along with the fact that night school classes aren’t the same as being a full-time student. We know where she was 2 and 1/2 weeks after the birth. We still have no proof of where she was when he was born.


268 posted on 08/09/2009 7:46:48 AM PDT by Sicvee (Sicvee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I know the argument very well.
In my opinion, your opinion is very weak.


269 posted on 08/09/2009 7:49:36 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

LIKE dude you’re so far out. LIKE Valley Girl? LIKE.... tells me a lot. Next thing it’ll be like YOU KNOW.


270 posted on 08/09/2009 8:23:55 AM PDT by dusttoyou (Remember the Alamo Tea Party - PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: No Surrender No Retreat

A presidential candidate should have to pass the requirements of a SBI for a Top Secret Clearance

########

I agree...thats why I wonder if these requirements were side-stepped, & those who did the side-stepping should be held accountable. Is my thinking correct on this?


271 posted on 08/09/2009 8:31:47 AM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Corsi misread a number 9 as 8.


272 posted on 08/09/2009 8:44:18 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

She wasn’t seen in Hawaii after March 1961.


273 posted on 08/09/2009 9:00:48 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

NOPE.


274 posted on 08/09/2009 9:05:03 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

Comment #275 Removed by Moderator

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator

To: bitt

But this was posted a year ago:
- - - - - - - -
Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 12:41:17 AM by Crimson Elephant

Not sure what it means, but BarrySoetoro.com redirects to the John McCain website. Interesting....worth posting? I don’t know, but I couldn’t resist.

- - - - - - -

Huh?


277 posted on 08/09/2009 9:08:49 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Never Kick Leftists When They Are Down. Let Them Halfway Back Up. You Get Much Better Leverage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: FTJM
It’s an 8, not a 9

I immediately saw it as a '9' adjacent to a divider line, as did several other people independently in the first thread I saw about this. Despite the line, you can tell the number is a '9' by the slant on the lower part.

It would be better if there were a higher resolution image, but there are other ways you can tell the number must be a '9'. The fall quarter at the University of Washington always starts in the latter part of September. I checked to see if UW was on the quarter system in 1961 and it was then also. Reading this number as an '8' would mean the fall quarter was almost 4 months long, which doesn't make sense. It's clear on the transcript that the following quarter of classes ran for less than three months.

There was a summer quarter in 1961 which was still going on in August. This would have had to be extremely short to fit in between graduation in June and the arrival of students on campus for the fall term if fall classes began on August 19th. The fact that 1961 graduation was in June is another indication that all the other quarters were just under three months long.

BTW while doing research on this I found out that 1961 was the 100th anniversary of the University of Washington. President Kennedy gave a speech there on November 16th.

278 posted on 08/09/2009 9:20:12 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Tharwat Abdul-Malik

Known scammer in the Tampa Bay area. Lists self on “modeling” websites so he can....

Address is a UPS mail drop.


279 posted on 08/09/2009 9:39:03 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Never Kick Leftists When They Are Down. Let Them Halfway Back Up. You Get Much Better Leverage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
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.

I didn't write that bit, I just put it up for Kansas to chew on, I am seeing references to this stuff but its deep, life is too short to follow this unless I have good reason rather than this being a distraction.

So my advice is to have it out with the guy who wrote that piece.

280 posted on 08/09/2009 9:48:37 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

It is an 8, not a 9. Zoom in somehow (I just hold the Control key down, and the scroll wheel lets me zoom). You can see that the first digit consists of two ovals one on top of the other. You can clearly see the indentation in the right side between the ovals. Then take a look at the 9. No indentation. It is an 8!


281 posted on 08/09/2009 9:48:41 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

I used a graphics program to zoom in. I did not see what you saw. What I did see is that Dr. Corsi should have published a higher resolution image and I wonder why he did not. As I have explained in detail, there is no way the fall 1961 quarter started on August 19th, so assuming the University of Washington knows that ‘September is the 9th month, the number must be a ‘9’.


282 posted on 08/09/2009 10:00:43 AM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: john mirse
As Polarik and other have brought up, I think the chances are also fair that there is NO original birth certificate on file. Although the Hawaii Dept of Health (DOH) surely has internal procedures to "recognize" people as citizens when this happens, it would be damaging to Obama as the public would demand further investigation.

Notice how the wording changed in 9 months, both from carefully-worded prepared statements.

On Oct 31, 2008, DOH director Fukino said she had "...personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

On July 28, 2009, she said she had "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen." An index card pointing to a non-existent birth certificate is part of a "vital record".

It's important to note that Fukino semantically picks the phrase "natural-born American citizen" instead of "natural-born citizen". Abercrombie wouldn't even go so far on July 27, NOT using the word "citizen" of Hawaii, and certainly NOT "natural-born citizen" in H.R. 593, only "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...")

If you ask a native trying to get land through the Dept of Hawaiian Home Lands office, they will tell you the DOH is notorious for LOSING originals. In the book, "In the name of Hawaiians" by Rona Tamiko Halualani, the author interviews many Hawaiians who voice frustration with the Hawaiian Health Office and the DHHL for sloppy record keeping of Vital Statistics. Here's an excerpt:

Missing Hawaiian birth certificate - excerpt from In the Name of Hawaiians

283 posted on 08/09/2009 10:01:57 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

One point I haven’t seen brought up is that the definition of who is a natural-born citizen, if based on parentage, has necessarily changed since the Constitution was written.

At the time a married woman had no existence in law, as husband and wife were quite literally considered “one flesh” in the legal sense. This was true under common law, civil law and US law.

So when Ann married Barrack, Sr. she immediately lost her US citizenship and became a British and/or Kenyan citizen, if we use the legal principles in force at the time the Constitution was written.

This is untenable in today’s world, as we have significantly modified the legal position of women, especially married women. So any definition of NBC must be modified to reflect these realities. The question is how to modify it.


284 posted on 08/09/2009 10:08:29 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
Quoting your post I replied to previously.

Late arrivals. The mod changed it.

Well, I did tear myself away on seeing that virtually everthing was corrected except the Durham for Dunham part. Had a good night's sleep, cos' of your post.

Most unfortunate the misreadings, but as for myself, I learn something every day here.

Back to the fray- laughs.

285 posted on 08/09/2009 10:29:25 AM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
There might have been....prior to January 20, 2009......

*snort*

286 posted on 08/09/2009 10:30:33 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Actually, John McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital, outside the Canal Zone, while his father was serving in the Navy, in the Zone.

During the campaign, someone brought up McCain's eligibility, because of that fact, and IIRC, someone on FR posted the text of some legislation, passed in the 1930's or so, that declared that children born to US citizens serving in the military, outside the US, WOULD be considered 'natural born citizens' for constitutional purposes.

287 posted on 08/09/2009 10:35:45 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra; Norman Bates
Whoops, my bad. Posted to myself and not Norman Bates.

Quoting Norman's early post on the mod correcting the intial post concerning Dr Corsi and the Humphreys show.

288 posted on 08/09/2009 10:42:06 AM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26; David

FReeper David has pretty much debunked Corsi’s timeline. He is extremely knowledgable in this subject and might want to chime in.

Please see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts

Post #7946 and surrounding conversation.

David says the extension classes for which Ann Dunham was registered did not start till mid-September.


289 posted on 08/09/2009 10:47:56 AM PDT by Jedidah ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You have proved, only, that many in the past had trouble with the definition, just as we do today.

Not really, and this piece which carried the reference at the head, was written by a fellow who has been after this for a while.. and I wanted to use this to start explaining the background of why things are so. Because, you are lost in the question of citizen by birth rather than the constitutional test that was written into Article II which has no practical purpose other than to define who may assume the office of the President of the United States.

TO LAY WASTE TO THIS NOTION THAT THE TWO ARE SYNONYMOUS,

I call upon the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs

7 FAM 1130 Page 8 of 103

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

290 posted on 08/09/2009 10:48:30 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner

Remember the efforts made by leftists to DE-LEGITIMIZE Bush? Selected not elected and all that crap? This serves to accomplish the same purpose.

If nothing else it makes him look like a complete liar when the facts surrounding his life are shown not to line up with what he put in his books.


291 posted on 08/09/2009 10:56:08 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Kansas58

It does matter and it’s very likely that Sr. isn’t the father and the odumbo knows that he isn’t. If you would have followed the BC threads and read some of the research done, you would get it. I don’t know if he’s the father. It does matter and you are just wrong about natural born. The reason that ONLY the president has to be natural born is so that he will have no divided loyalties.
obama does and you see where we are heading. He saw his father once when he was about 10 years old, yet he( or more likely Ayers), writes an entire book about his father? Not his mother, not the grandparents that raised him. He obviously identifies with his father and Africa. He hates America and resents it.


292 posted on 08/09/2009 11:03:44 AM PDT by mojitojoe (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for the people to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
I was on the University of Washington campus almost every day between around 10 August and around 15 September in 1961. There weren't any classes in process and there wasn't any real physical attendance anywhere either.

This 48 year old supposed nonspecific recollection from some guy named David supposedly debunks Corsi's written documentation with her signature on it?

Not even close.

293 posted on 08/09/2009 11:10:53 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Never Kick Leftists When They Are Down. Let Them Halfway Back Up. You Get Much Better Leverage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: BP2

” chances are also fair that there is NO original birth certificate on file.”

Any theories on what “ birth certificate “ Obama claims he saw hidden in his grandmother’s paperwork when he was a teen ager ?
Dreams From My Father, page 22.
If he found a Kenyan BC or something shocking on a legitimate US BC ,
that could that have been the genesis of his teen age downward spiral into cocaine, pot, alcohol and school truancy.

“...the author interviews many Hawaiians who voice frustration with the Hawaiian Health Office and the DHHL for sloppy record keeping of Vital Statistics. “

Great research.
I think of Hawaii 50 years ago ( when they were just organizing as a state ) as a tropical frontier.
Even today, tourists are told that Hawaii is on island time , it does things in it’s own way.
The federal and state bureaucracies on the mainland that have been in existence for over 200 years are often times a mess.
It is highly likely that the state govt of Hawaii was stumbling and fumbling it’s way into the new era of statehood ,
without today’s technology and organizational framework and oversight.
Disorganization and record keeping chaos had to be part of the equation fifty years ago.


294 posted on 08/09/2009 11:20:24 AM PDT by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, Section 1401 defines natural born citizen.

I won't get into a whole legal discussion here, but simply say that “natural born” is not synonymous with “native born,”. In fact, some people born on US soil to parents who are here legally are not US citizens at birth, while most children born here to mothers who are not here legally are US citizens at birth!

The basic concept is that a person can become a citizen in two ways; 1, "naturally,” at birth or 2, later, by application and operation of law. Then they can be become citizens as if (with a few exceptions) “natural” at birth. That operation of law allows them to become “naturalized,” i.e. as if natural.

Of course, the really interestingthing is that if Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he is not a citizen at all, because he never applied to become naturialized!

295 posted on 08/09/2009 11:23:45 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Never Kick Leftists When They Are Down. Let Them Halfway Back Up. You Get Much Better Leverage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah; LucyT; MindBender26
FReeper David has pretty much debunked Corsi’s timeline. He is extremely knowledgable in this subject and might want to chime in. Please see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts Post #7946 and surrounding conversation. David says the extension classes for which Ann Dunham was registered did not start till mid-September.

Close.

If it was an extension class, there was no physical classroom attendance requirement; she could do the work anywhere and mail it in.

If it was a regular attendance class, it didn't start until the last week of September--late in the last week of September.

Nothing in her class registration provides any evidence of her physical location on August 19--or specifically: She wasn't "in university class in seattle 15 Days after . . . "

Beckwith obtained from the University of Washington, a letter which says that the class for which she was registered was in fact an "extension class"--which she could have taken from anywhere. I got the Goggle list of his topics, found the item and it says that page has been removed.

Beckwith transmitted a copy of the letter to another freeper who sent a copy to me however I can't come up with it.

The essential point is that there wasn't any classroom attendance at Washington after the 10th or so of August (end of finals for the second half of summer quarter) until classes convened for Fall Quarter at the end of September--she just wasn't there.

I guess I will go a little further since I have already done so twice: I was on campus almost every day between August 10th and September 30th; I can't swear to August 19 although I can swear to August 20 and 21; there weren't any classes in process anywhere; the place was dead as a doornail; the liabraries were closed most of the time.

296 posted on 08/09/2009 11:30:14 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Whatever.

This subject was hashed and rehashed on the various B.C. threads last week — in which you apparently didn’t participate.

And “some guy named David” has been on this for a very long time and knows more than either of us do. Sure, he speculates — we all do. But he also has nailed-down facts amidst the opinions. You might want to go back and read previous comments.


297 posted on 08/09/2009 11:34:09 AM PDT by Jedidah ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: David

I’ve been going back and re-reading old posts and am increasingly interested in Fred Nerks’ assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever that Ann Dunham set foot in Hawaii until she went there with Barry 0 as a toddler. Do you have a take on this? Should Chicago connections be looked at more closely?


298 posted on 08/09/2009 11:37:53 AM PDT by Jedidah ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue; All

No indication about that birth certificate in the made up book. But you bring up a good point ... other than the letter that Abercrombie presented on Jan 24 saying Obama was born at a hospital in Hawaii, supposedly signed by Obama (which I’m beginning to doubt) ...

Has Obama himself ever said he was born in Hawaii, or has he only used his proxies for deniability?


299 posted on 08/09/2009 11:47:51 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah; MindBender26; LucyT
Well I love Dr. Corsi. After I made the above post, I read the article. What this really is comes from MindBender's recounting of what Corsi said--he is going to . . . "

I'm uncomfortable being on the other side of such positive statements. On the other hand, for various personal reasons, the period between August 1 and September 30, 1961 on campus at the University of Washington is pretty clear in my memory.

We think there is some evidence that she was registered for "extension" classes for fall quarter. The University of Washington runs, or at least ran then, a number of different kinds of credit classes in addition to full or part time regular classes.

One kind was where you got a course outline and books from the "extension school" and worked through each section of the outline, then taking a quiz on the material, even sometimes having to go to the University during regular sessions and take the quiz; did the rest of the course work. And got credit for the class.

The other kind was "night school"--the University ran an extensive night program parallel to the regular day program. Full credit courses with classes, attendance, and exams. In theory same substance as the day school version.

Night school session ran fairly close to the day school sessions--night school may have started the week after day school started; maybe a day or two off schedule one way or the other. But I do not ever remember running night school a month and a half off the day school schedule--I just don't think it happened.

Further, I was using library facilities and meeting with other people on campus regularly during this period--there just wasn't anything going on that was consistent with a regular class schedule in anything--certainly not upper campus as the courses for which Stanley Ann was registered for were.

300 posted on 08/09/2009 11:51:55 AM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-429 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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