Is Obama Legal?
May 4, 2011
Is arrogant narcissistic Barack Obama illegally occupying the Oval Office?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The question is jarring, surreal and intensely controversial: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president?
Repeated national polls – even after Obama's recent release of his "long-form birth certificate" – suggest tens of millions of Americans don't believe he is legally eligible. And while the mainstream press continues to ridicule "birthers" as conspiracists, kooks and racists, dozens of lawsuits cite Obama's dual citizenship and other problematic parts of his past as unequivocally disqualifying him from the U.S. presidency according to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.
Into this already incendiary political drama now comes mega-author Jerome Corsi – both of whose two previous No. 1 New York Times bestsellers have profoundly impacted the U.S. presidency – with "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President." Published by Washington, D.C.-based WND Books, a division of online news giant WND.com, the book launches nationally on May 17.
But a month before its debut, it had already rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon's bestseller list.
In fact, Obama's release, after years of stonewalling, of what is purported to be his long-form birth certificate, was a preemptive strike against this book. As the Washington Post has documented, it was April 21 that Obama had his team of lawyers contact Hawaii about releasing the document. That would be exactly one day after "The Drudge Report" featured Corsi's book, propelling it to top bestseller status. Obama's preemptive move was understandable: Presidents and presidential candidates have been afraid of Corsi ever since "Unfit for Command," coauthored with John O'Neill, thwarted John Kerry's presidential ambitions in 2004.
In this controversial new book, going far beyond the issue of birth certificates, Corsi documents conclusively that no legal authority has ever verified Obama's legal eligibility to be president, that glaring inconsistencies, blackouts and outright fabrications in his life narrative have generated widespread doubts, and that, in fact, a compelling body of evidence says Obama is not a natural-born citizen as is required of all presidents by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.
An expert on political violence and terrorism, Corsi received his PhD. from Harvard in political science in 1972 and currently serves as senior staff reporter for WND. Also an economics expert, he is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. He is the author of two No. 1 New York Times bestsellers, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (2004, with co-author John O’Neill) and "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" (2008). "The Obama Nation" so upset the '08 Obama election campaign team that its operatives immediately published a 40-page rebuttal.
In "Where's the Birth Certificate?," you'll read how:
- Obama was born a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States, a circumstance the Constitution's framers considered an iron-clad roadblock to the presidency.
- As a boy, Obama was officially registered in school as a Muslim and Indonesian citizen, another barrier to U.S. natural-born citizenship.
- The press and blogosphere reported that Obama was born at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu – before deciding he was born across town at Kapi'olani Women's and Children's Hospital.
- The Congressional Research Service, a public policy arm of Congress, officially admits no one in the government ever vetted Obama's constitutional eligibility.
- In preparation for the 2012 election, more than a dozen states are considering legislation to force all presidential candidates to prove they are constitutionally qualified before they can be placed on that state's ballot.
And that's just the beginning. One of America's top investigative reporters, Jerome Corsi ferrets out previously unknown facts, documents the law, connects the dots, champions the clear intent of the Constitution's framers and in so doing pieces together a devastating indictment.
The result of three years of exhaustive research involving investigative trips to Kenya, Hawaii and points in between, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" establishes the case not only that Barack Obama isn't legally qualified to be president, but that, aided by his media co-conspirators, he has conducted one of the most audacious cover-ups ever perpetrated at the highest level of American politics.
Read more: Is Barack Obama illegally occupying the Oval Office? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=295117#ixzz1LVA95TXX
Why does Obama have 2 different birth doctors?
Buffalo News, Snopes, Hawaii disagree on attending physician
Posted: May 03, 2011
The White House release of a copy of Barack Obama's long-form Hawaian birth certificate continues to raise more questions – since the name of the president's attending physician differs from previous published reports.
The name on the purported birth certificate lists Dr. David Sinclair as the obstetrician who delivered Obama in 1961.
But reports by the Buffalo News and supposedly confirmed by the hoaxbusting website Snopes.com indicate the name of Obama's birth physician was Dr. Rodney T. West.
Here is an image of what the White House claims is Obama's official, long-form birth certificate, with Sinclair's name listed as the doctor.
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
Yet a report that West was the attending physician – and not Sinclair – comes from Snopes.com, the self-described "definitive Internet reference source":
Snopes reference to Obama birth physician
The name was originally identified in a news story by reporter Paula Voell of the Buffalo News in upstate New York:
The previous reports, which date to Jan. 20, 2009, quote a New York woman, Barbara Nelson, who said she "remembers" the birth of Barack Obama. Her statements later were cited by the Democratic Underground website under the headline "Independent Confirmation of Obama's Birth."
The references continued to appear online as late as this afternoon. WND could get no on-the-record response from the Buffalo newspaper. The Snopes report appeared to be based on the newspaper report.
In 2009, Obama supporters jumped on the Buffalo paper's story, which quotes Nelson saying she may be the only person left "who specifically remembers his birth."
The report said: "When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible today to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu."
The report continued: "'I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,' said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98."
However, Nelson later told WND that her knowledge of the birth came only from West, with whom she was dining, and the subject was brought up because of the mother's novel name and the "musical" name of the son, Barack Hussein Obama.
She told WND at the time that the conversation also was memorable because Obama's mother's name was Stanley, named after her father, and the son also was named after his father.
However, Nelson told WND, "I don't know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth."
Nevertheless, the reports continue to cite the reference to West as "the obstetrician who had delivered him."
Nelson explained that West was a leader in the development of obstetrics services throughout Hawaii before Obama was born.
However, she said the assumption that West delivered the baby, or that she said that, were wrong.
"Being one of the leaders in obstetrics in Hawaii, he could have had physical or informational access to all of the obstetrics [on the islands]," she told WND.
The discussion centered on the "peculiarity of a woman named Stanley," she said.
"I just said tell me something [that has happened]," she said. "And he says Stanley had a baby, and that's something to write home about."
He also told her the father was the first African student at the University of Hawaii, "another interesting local thing," Nelson told WND.
"[West] never said to me, 'I delivered a baby,'" Nelson said.
At the time of the claim, a blogger at ObamaCitizenshipFacts.org pointed out that West could not possibly have delivered Obama since, according to a Hawaiian Pearl Harbor history website, he retired in 1956, five years before Obama's birth. "December of l956, after delivering at least 5,000 babies ... he retired from the practice of medicine," said the Pearl Harbor Survivors Project website.
This hasn't been the only controversy over conflicting information about Obama's birth.
Previously, organizations including United Press International and Snopes reported that Obama had been born in Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
But both sites suddenly changed the birth hospital to Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children.
At the time, Snopes sent WND a statement reading, "A number of readers have written to us to point out that Wikipedia previously updated their Obama-related entries to resolve the same discrepancy, so we included a similar clarification in our latest round of updates."
The same phenomenon happened with UPI.
Read more: Why does Obama have 2 different birth doctors?
Is Wikipedia doing a little 'sanitizing' so the illegal doesn't look so, well, illegal.
Wikipedia has undergone further sanitizing of the philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires for U.S. presidents, the latest in an ongoing "edit war" at the online encyclopedia.
In the most recent development, an unnamed "editor" deleted in its entirety a section of a Wikipedia entry for Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, whom Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin have credited for his influence on early American policy formation.
The deleted segment, titled "USA Constitution," had included a reference to de Vattel's 1757 treatise "The Law of Nations," which defined natural-born citizenship as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
The now-removed section also had noted the U.S. Constitution's use of the phrase "the law of nations."
Wikipedia's de Vattel entry likewise paired the phrase with the philosopher's citizenship definition followed by the Constitution’s overall candidate requirements for the presidency.
According to an auto-generated Revision History accompanying the entry, the anonymous editor deleted the USA Constitution section on May 2.
The editor justified changing the separate, de Vattel entry with this brief explanation: "Removed misformatted section, misapplying a quote to provide NPOV support to birtherism."
The person who changed the listing sought additional affirmation for his or her decision, inserting in the Revision History page the extra comment, "Moderator support requested."
That same editor first modified the de Vattel entry on April 30, denouncing the paired inclusion of constitutional presidency requirements and references to de Vattel as "a naked attempt to validate Birtherism (and therefore NPOV)…"
A request made to Wikipedia for comment on this process was not answered as of press time.
The back-and-forth process of deleting and re-inserting the same information has been a source of angst for some of Wikipedia's volunteer citizen-editors.
Indeed, one commenter on the history revision page exhorted participants to cease this information – or disinformation – campaign with the simple cry: "Let's stop this edit war."
Read more: 'Natural-born citizen' targeted, in more Web sanitizing
WND has photos of the changes...