Skip to comments.Obama Birth Story Unraveling - Mother In Univ Class In Seattle 15 Days After Obama Supposedly Born!
Posted on 08/08/2009 9:20:49 PM PDT by MindBender26Edited 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 Presidents 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. Corsis 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 Obamas 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 wont he release the one document that would answer all the questions?
It just gets deeper and deeper.
“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”.
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.
It was posted on this thread as 1962. How much more clear can I make it?
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.
so you want to cite the State Department? Try this:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
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
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
look where this takes you!
in 2008 it was registered to
Domain name: BARRYSOETORO.COM
Tharwat Abdul-Malik (email@example.com)
10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
Tharwat Abdul-Malik (firstname.lastname@example.org)
10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
10460 Roosevelt Blvd N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
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!
point taken, long night last night.
Is there a possiblity the timeline is wrong and the cheeky Kenyan bastard was actually born around July of that year?
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.
It took me abut 10 more posts after yours to see that, sorry. :)
When I got to it, none of those errors were there
If your Aunt had balls she would be your Uncle.
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.
I know the argument very well.
In my opinion, your opinion is very weak.
LIKE dude you’re so far out. LIKE Valley Girl? LIKE.... tells me a lot. Next thing it’ll be like YOU KNOW.
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?
Corsi misread a number 9 as 8.
She wasn’t seen in Hawaii after March 1961.
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.
- - - - - - -
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.
Known scammer in the Tampa Bay area. Lists self on “modeling” websites so he can....
Address is a UPS mail drop.
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.
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!
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’.
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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas 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:
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.
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.
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.
Quoting Norman's early post on the mod correcting the intial post concerning Dr Corsi and the Humphreys show.
FReeper David has pretty much debunked Corsi’s timeline. He is extremely knowledgable in this subject and might want to chime in.
Post #7946 and surrounding conversation.
David says the extension classes for which Ann Dunham was registered did not start till mid-September.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
” 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. “
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.