Posted on 06/06/2011 6:28:18 PM PDT by RobinMasters
What does weeks after birth have to do with it? Weeks sounds about right. Sheesh, not like birth is a tragic event. My wife was up and around 2 days after the births of our kids.
ping
I agree, much to do about nothing IMO. My daughter lives overseas (hubby working for the State Department). She came home to give birth. After getting her and baby cleared by the docs she then took said newly born grandchild (age 5 weeks at the time) and then flew back home - OVERSEAS - 20 hours flying in total. Again: With a five week old.
Its done all the time. True 2011 is not 1961, but let's be real here, 1961 wasn't the Flintstone's either.
The point being: Its not incomprehensible that a few week old baby would have been flown from Honolulu to Seattle, or from Mombassa to Seattle. Its not that unusual people!
Yes, but irrelevant.
The legal marriage age has always and everywhere been well below the age of majority - never >16, and often 14 or 15.
Get the book, I don't have time to explain all the Obamah lies.
His whole life story is one big lie!
Regardless of where Barry was born, his father is purported to be a Kenyan and that makes Barry ineligible to be President.
You want to argue that since he was born in Hawaii, he's eligible to be President?
I’d say daddy needed a crutch to stay in the USA. Wonder how much he paid Dunham for the scheme?
Maybe we could do DNA result on Obama put it on Maury Povitch show LOL!
The evidence is much more indicative of a shotgun marriage that didn't work out than it is a sham marraige.
Then why would he marry her? No, your story makes no sense.
First of all, he would have been about a month old, not weeks old. Classes began at the University of Washington on Sept. 19, not August 19th, in 1961. The 8/19 start date that is on SAD's transcript has been verified by the university as being a typographical error. Some clerk typed an "8" instead of a "9" for the month.
Second of all, there's nothing unusual about a mother taking a one-month old baby on a 6 hour flight. It happens all the time.
What Corsi does speculate is that Barry was born in Kenya and his birth registered in Hawaii by Stanley Jr.'s parents which was allowed & common practice at the time.
Yes, I'm aware Corsi claims this. The only trouble is that he has no evidence. He doesn't even provide any evidence that it was "common" for foreign births to be registered in Hawaii at the time.
That is why there is no long form BC., just a bad forgery.
The state of Hawaii says it is authentic. I take their word over Corsi's.
Not unless it was annulled by a court. A marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise. Since there is no record of any annullment, Obama Sr. remains the presumed legal father.
The fact that SAD chose to divorce Obama Sr. rather than annul the marriage is indicative that she may not have had grounds for annulment. It is very possible that Obama Sr.'s first "marriage" was just a tribal ceremony that was not legally recognized by the colonial British government, in which case the US government would not have recognized it, either.
Yes. It usually is IF you have parental consent. Without parental consent, it's the age of majority.
Yes. It usually is IF you have parental consent. Without parental consent, it's the age of majority. http://law.jrank.org/pages/11840/Marriage-Age-Requirements.html
You can't discussing Coris book and claims if you haven't read his book. ..he does indeed cite claims.
The state of Hawaii says it is authentic. I take their word over Corsi's.
Can't help you there! Sad, Very Sad. I didn't know they had Abobe Acrobat software back in the 60's.
So, you also believe even with Barry's father being Kenyan, he's eligible to be President?
You think Barry Soetoro is being "Swiftboated".
Thanks - I remember something (and I could very well be wrong) that if the parents were married, the passing of US citizenship by the mother (who has not resided in the for 5 years continuously since her 14th birthday) is different from non-married parents.
I looked through the link but couldn’t find the relevant parts.
Actually, Hawaii says it might be authentic, or it might be an abstract of something.
That legal disclaimer affixed to the latest production has enough wiggle room to drive an Abrams through the center and not touch the sides.
I haven't read his book, but I've seen the chapter on this. Yes, he makes claims, but provides no evidence regarding the supposedly "common" but illegal practice of registering foreign births in Hawaii in 1961.
Can't help you there! Sad, Very Sad. I didn't know they had Abobe Acrobat software back in the 60's.
Huh? They created a paper copy back in the 1960's, and then they used a pdf writer (it wasn't Adobe, BTW) to create an electronic image of the document a couple months back. Why do you find that so unbelievable?
So, you also believe even with Barry's father being Kenyan, he's eligible to be President?
Yes. As the US Supreme court ruled over 100 years ago, having a citizen father is not necessary for natural born citizenship, provided the child is born in the USA, as Barry was.
There's a reason why no one challanged the eligibility Chester Arthur, Sipro Agnew, and several other presidential and vice presidential candidates.
And no, Arthur did not hide the fact his father wasn't a citizen at the time of his birth, the false claims of birthers notwithstanding.
Couple of points, for more details please read or re-read the Auntie thread. The only verification or source for anything that happened in Seattle is Stanley Ann's friend and a babysitter, and much of what was said initially has been scrubbed or deleted, and most of which was made public after 0bama's peeps got to them. And there is nothing in Dreams about Stanley being in Seattle with a baby. Ayers etc didn't think that info about the mysterious Anna Obama would surface. The story line of Stanley supposedly living in Seattle with the infant BHO only was trotted out after someone found the name Anna Obama in the Polk directory. The entire Seattle story is very interesting and points to someone named Anna, not Stanley, with a baby Obama.
No, they say it's authentic, AND that it might be an abstract. If it's an abstract, then that means it is an authentic reproduction of a subset of the information within the birth record, which makes it no less valid for the purposes of proving birth in the USA than a certified reproduction of the full birth record.
Why on earth would they do that when a simple photocopy would do the same thing?
So you acknowledge that what the public has seen to date is computer generated and not a simple photocopy of the 1961 original document?
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.