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.
or, his REAL father is:
Communist Frank Marshal Davis!
I'm a little confused, did you or did you not, at least theoretically, need to start attending class in late September or around the first of October?
I do tend to think, based on the image of the transcript, your statement, and an investigation of class start dates at U. Washington going back to 2000, that the classes started 9/19/61, not 8/19/61.
However that still doesn't give Stanley Ann much time to recover from the birth, a few days at least, get plane reservations, pack for Seattle, find housing, find a babysitter for the times/days the two classes met, and otherwise get settled. Do-able, but pushing it. Now, if she already had decided on attending, already had a place to live, plane reservations, etc, (or was already in the general area, but not at the University yet, before BHO was born, and only needed to find a babysitter, that would have made it a piece of cake.
Reports from one of her friends puts her and Baby Barry in the Seattle area in mid to late August of '61, with her not really not knowing how to change his diapers. (No trivial thing to learn for an only child in '61, no pampers in those days, just cloth, plastic pants, and diaper pins.).
The story has now been changed.
But, it now states her name was “Durhan” and “Durham”.
Crap, can’t these people get, at least, the characters’ names straight?
I’d like to see a reference to US law in 1961 that the child of a US citizen and a foreign citizen is not born a US citizen. I suspect this is inaccurate.
Without Obama, there could be no Biden. Biden was vetted by the O's people, then put forth as the O's VP choice and then approved by the DNC during their convention. If O's eliminated, then so is his running mate, since he was the O's pick, not the convention's.
It matters not what congress wants if every law, appointment, signed document, et al is argued before the courts of our nation as null and void. All those folk out there in FR-land are right when they say this is going to produce a constitutional crisis. And the longer that (ahem) man is in the WH, the worse that crisis is likely to become.
Salamander and I could add a rumble seat to our Rail-built-for-two if you would like to join us on our ride out of town, tastefully attired in tar and feathers...
“Natural Born Citizen” is the OPPOSITE of “Naturalized Citizen”.
If you are a citizen at birth, you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!
Congress has the power to set standards for citizenship.
The laws at the time Obama was born are the laws that count.
I do agree that the 14th Amendment is not helpful here. The 14th is INCLUSIVE and NOT Exclusive. It tells us that the people covered by the 14th ARE citizens, it clearly does NOT say that those who are not covered, directly, by the 14th, are NOT citizens.
Ah, a youngster.
I started on a 360 at college, but also used a discrete transistor 1620 in engineering class. Was an operator on an 1170 which was replaced by a System 3. My hours got cut way back then, because my primary job was running a big sales report on Friday night, and then backing up the single platter non removable hard drive *to cards* sometime latter in the weekend. The System 3's printer was much faster, cutting back on the time to print the report, and had a removable as well as fixed drive, so we would back the fixed drive up using the removable one. Again, much faster than the card pucnh, much, much faster.
By that time I had an AFROTC scholarship, which included $100/month in addition to tuition and books. Also that year I still had one year left on my National Merit Scholarship, a whopping $500/year, which the University refunded to me when the Air Force paid my tuition. Since my wife was teaching full time I quit, and never worked during the school year after that, I did work in a Goodyear factory during the next summer, as I had previous summers.
Actually, you’re both wrong. The Constitution doesn’t recognize political parties or their procedures.
Only the electors, as determined by state law, count. How the electors decide to vote is entirely up to them, and they can in theory elect anyone they decide is qualified.
Somewhat of a legal fiction, to be sure, but it is still true that nominations by parties are quite outside the constitutional provisions.
You are WRONG, completey WRONG, and you need to study the issue before you state something so obviously false:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant’s birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
1997
American Citizens Services
lol
Oh, and by the way, I never “did” Sydney.
But not the University of Washington. See my post #114, and #89 by rawcatslyentist who was a student at U. Washington in '62.
BOTH of McCain’s Parents were US Citizens.
BOTH of McCain’s Parents were old enough to pass AUTOMATIC citizenship to John McCain, even if McCain had been born on Mars.
Comprehensively irrelevant, even if true.
1. Communism isn’t genetic in character.
2. In every state I know of, the husband of the mother is the legal father, quite apart from issues of actual biological paternity. In most states this assumption cannot be overturned even with indisputable DNA evidence.
ZOT!
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years —
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
1997
American Citizens Services”
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Sorry gato, you are not exactly on target with your analysis.
I agree with you, but a whole bunch of people around here don't. To them there are three classes of US citizens:
1. Natural-born citizen at birth.
2.Citizen at birth but not natural-born.
3. Naturalized.
The criteria for #2 varies wildly between posters.
I've yet to see anything from US law or administrative decisions that would constitute proof category 2 exists. Those arguing for such a category usually fall back on quotes from an 18-century Swiss lawyer who was talking about civil law, not even the English common law on which the US legal system is based.
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.