I don’t have to tell people that I have no love for 0bama, I actually warned people about taking his election lightly because once elected, he would be difficult to get rid of him.
The problems with the “eligibility issue” is that
1. Jerome Corsi has screwed it up so badly that no one actually believes he has any credibility anymore. One minute Obama is born in Kenya, the next his father is not even Obama Sr. Which is it Jerome?
2. Inconsistancy - One minutes it was Obama’s birth certificate then Emmerich de Vattel. Most of the birthers who bring up Emmerich de Vattel had never heard of him three years ago and now they are experts on the subject.
I welcome all opinions or debates on the subject, but there are people who never have stepped into a classroom let alone a law school claim to be experts on “Hampersnett” and know more than a Mark Levin on the subject.
Re: I welcome all opinions or debates on the subject, but there are people who never have stepped into a classroom let alone a law school claim to be experts on “Hampersnett” and know more than a Mark Levin on the subject.
Well FRiend, maybe you could enlighten me on Harrison J. Bounel. See grapic:
http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/08211ONE.jpg
Sorry it’s from a Corsi article. I found it from a quick FR keyword search of “SSN.”
Corsi is hardly alone on the issue.
Look forward to hearing from you on the matter. (I will be out of the office until tomorrow.)
P.S. I have the greatest respect for Levin, but he told us George Allen was the only chance Republicans had of beating Tim Kaine for U.S. Senate last month. Allen was the least conservative of the 4 primary candidates. Kaine won anyway.
Best Regards,
P
At least you gave Orly is an idiot a rest.
“Jerome Corsi has screwed it up so badly that no one actually believes he has any credibility anymore. One minute Obama is born in Kenya, the next his father is not even Obama Sr. Which is it Jerome?”
IMO, Corsi reported extensively on the claims of Joel Gilbert (Dreams from my Real Father) in Corsi’s capacity as a journalist without personally advocating on behalf of those claims.
Corsi always made it clear that these were Gilbert’s claims and not his own personal claims.
My reading of the tealeaves is that Corsi, like Trump and Arpaio, was basically told to sit down and shut up and drop their own investigations and advocacy in anticipation of a Romney win and in the hope of preventing attacks on the GOP for being racist for going.
Corsi still had to earn a living for himself and WND, so he took pleasure in poking a stick in Obama’s eye by reporting on Gilbert’s video.
At one point when Corsi came back from HI he seemed to be wildly excited by “evidence” he had found but then only small incremental information was released. I don’t think Corsi was faking his earlier excitement. Only time will tell what comes out next.
Trump took a big risk, too, and with Romney’s loss Trump is exposed to all kinds of retribution from Obama unless further efforts, such as the impending attack on Obama teased by Carl Gallups, come about:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2966793/posts
It's not about being an "expert" ... Levin may have a learned opinion, but it is just ONE opinion. There were 9 Supreme Court justices in the Wong Kim Ark case that could not agree on whether the 14th amendment trump an international treaty. They did agree that birth on U.S. soil by itself was NOT sufficient to automatically make someone a U.S. citizen. They made a material distinction by quoting the UNANIMOUS Minor v. Happersett decision that all children born in the country to citizen parents were natural-born citizens and those who were born to alien parents BUT who had permanent domicial and residence were 14th amendment citizens by birth. Both these conditions inherently preclude Obama from any natural birth citizenship. They made a positive declaration of natural-born citizenship based on birth to citizen parents and they made a specifically NEGATIVE declaration that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Further, the Luria v. United States decison several years later declared that Minor and NOT Wong Kim Ark was the precedent for Article II presidential eligibility. Again, Levin is entitled to his opinions, but these SCOTUS cases are pretty clear and self-explanatory for anyone who is honest enough to read them for what they actually say. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone pretending to be an expert.
