Posted on 04/27/2010 5:22:36 PM PDT by as1001
Last week I contributed an article to American Thinker on Obama's origins that evoked a good deal of informed response. In it, I argued that the failure of the mainstream media to document the first year of Barack Obama's life has rendered the media accounts of the year before his birth suspect.
Here is what we know about Obama's first year. On August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama's presumed birth, his mother, "Stanley Ann Dunham," enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle.
The apolitical Washington State historical blog HistoryLink confirms Ann's arrival in August 1961, identifies her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle, names the courses she took, and documents an extended stay by Ann and little Obama into the summer of 1962.
Incredibly, not one of the mainstream media accounts I consulted -- including four book-length biographies, several long-form magazine and newspaper bios, Obama's official campaign biography, and Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father -- places Ann and Obama anywhere other than in Hawaii during that first year.
Given this collective failure and the Obama camp's squirrelly response to questions about his birth certificate, another look at the circumstances leading up to that birth is warranted. To restore logic and order to this investigation, I turn to a structure we know as Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.'' This translates roughly as "Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity." Let me start with the timeline and cast of characters...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
There is a branch of the tourism industry that is designed to obtain US citizenship for the babies of well to do foreigners, typically Asian. "Delivery vacation." The child is taken back to the home country (say, Japan) and is raised there.
Most lawyers will tell you that this child qualifies for the presidency, as being a natural born US citizen. They'll point to the Wong Kim ark case, and the 14th amendment. AND, they'll do all of that with a straight face - IOW, they actually believe the conclusion is the correct read of the case law.
Thanx you guys. Since I made that posting I did some reading and discovered we have this little marvel called “jus soli” that makes this whole anchor baby thing work.
I always wondered what was the legal basis for this concept, now I know more.
All anyone has proven is that she enrolled at the UW extension for the Fall quarter, 1961. Fall quarter classes don't start at the University of Washington until the last week of September.
So there's no reason to believe she was in Seattle 15 days after his birth. It's perfectly plausible that she moved in early September, about a month after his birth, which is plenty of recovery time for an 18 year old mother who experienced no complications when giving birth.
As to caring for a newborn, it is well known that she had friends in Seattle. She went to high school in Mercer Island. I don't see why it's so implausible, or strange, to suppose her friends helped her out with childcare.
As to why she up and left Hawaii so quickly, the obvious explanation is that she wanted to get away from her husband and, possibly, her parents. She wouldn't be the first teen mom to have a falling out with the father of her child shortly after birth. Nor would she be the first teen mom not to get along so well with her parents.
I don't see why everyone thinks this is such a big deal.
She had plenty of friends in the area. She went to high school in the Seattle area (Mercer Island, to be exact), which is about 10 minutes from the Seattle neighborhood (Capital Hill) in which she settled.
Same reason someone from Seattle might want to go to Harvard, or Columbia, or Stanford.
The University of Chicago is a world-renouned institution, and in some areas, especially the social sciences, is considered by many to be the best in the world.
One of those areas happens to be anthropology, which just happened to turn out becoming Stanley Ann's major.
Also, for the record, Hamilton was born in the British Virgin Islands, if I recall correctly.
“Hamilton was born in Charlestown, the capital of Nevis in the British West Indies. He was born out of wedlock to Rachel Faucett Lavien, of partial French Huguenot descent, and James A. Hamilton, the fourth son of Scottish laird Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Ayrshire. (Wiki)”
The conservative British historian Paul Johnson (who authored ‘A History of the American People) believed that Hamilton would not have been eligible to run for President. I think he misread or misunderstood the ‘grandfather clause” in Article II, i.e: “ citizens at the time of adoption.” My American history teacher at college believed the clause was written with Hamilton in mind.
Would love to hear the reaction to 2 photos side-by-side on a BIG billboard.
Maybe someone can get some DNA from his half brother Mark Ndesandjo. Of course that would require a trip to China so that won't be easily done.
As to the above, Mark seems like a good choice for DNA because he bears a certain resemblance to BO.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d29d0cb8-5314-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html
The law has made Arizona the butt of jokes on Americas late night talk and comedy shows, with the comedian Jon Stewart saying on The Daily Show this week that the state had become the meth lab of democracy.
The anti-immigration bill was passed in the same week Arizona sanctioned the so-called birther law, which requires that presidential candidates prove their citizenship by producing their birth certificates.
The state also recently passed another controversial law, which allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit or background check.
But Arizona has often been prepared to go against the grain.
All true, but it seems like quite a coinkydink with all her family’s other connections with Chicago!
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.