WND's Corsi looks at the signature and reads a twisting of: ukulele
As he sees it, Corsi comments further on the registrar's name:
"...appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele"..."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292717#ixzz1L11AQk1y
We look at the signature and read Vick Lee.
Seriously, folks, all the professional document analysts, forensic document analysts, and researchers a phone call - email - or text message away and available to Corsi, and not one has pointed out the registrar's name could be as short and sweet as Vick Lee?
Unfortunately, not surprisingly, Corsi, the author of the WND article, also has a book coming out in late May, entitled: Where's The Birth Certificate...
But if Dr. Corsi misses a more than equally viable observation of the registrar's name on the Obama birth certificate, (Vick Lee vs ukulele) what else has Corsi missed?
We are simply after the truth. We're not playing politics or games.
Corsi may believe that by using the word "appears" before the claim "a forger's signature joke" gives one room to be wholly inaccurate will pass the smell test (in this case the buy and buy more test), but it shouldn't.
Fortunately, we never buy books other than used and discarded ones from second hand bookstores, or charitable organizations selling used books, where we're sure we'll find Corsi's latest sooner rather than later for about 15 cents.
Exactly what Corsi's Where's the Birth Certificate will be worth should Vick Lee turn out to be the local registrar who penned signature to Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate back when in August, 1961.
Pondering and dismissing the noted "ukulele" assertion as made by Dr. Corsi by no means negates the serious questions that that are to be pursued regarding the meaning of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' clause as it pertains to qualification requirements pertaining to a President of the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
The issue of a President-to-be's citizenship status could crop up in the near future, with a scenario arising such as a candidate seeking the office of the President of the United States having been born in the U.S. but found to be the child of an "undocumented" (illegal) immigrant and potentially one parent being a legal citizen.
With the federal Moter Voter Act Law (making it difficult to remove names from state Voter Registration Lists/local voter registries for years after an elector may have been deceased, or moved out of the voting jurisdiction), and many states issuing applicants driver's licenses based on sketcy documentation, (making it easier for illegals to gain access to the election process)(for instance, see Georgia requirments), and lax or non-existent review precesses to cull local and state voter registration lists (challenges to purges abound), it is not out of the realm of possibility down the road that such a scenario may arise.
The United States also may have precedents of sorts with presidents after the adoption of the original Constitution being born on other than United States soil.
Questions arose, not only with Barack Obama (initiated during the Democratic Primary campaign by supporters of Hillary Clinton) (use search features), but as well with Senator John McCain (use search features).
Moreover, legitimate questions arise out of our history textbooks. That is if such even contain any highlights of former 'Founding' presidents as the trend seems to be veering away from Foundational principles in our political history textbooks.
A few postings in the comments section to Newsbusters piece,
CBS and MSNBC Both Falsely Claim Obama First President to Have Citizenship Questioned" caught our attention recently as well and are deserving of scrutiny.
I seem to remember reading,
Submitted by irishguy on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:52pm.
I seem to remember reading, years ago, that there were questions of whether or not Andrew Jackson was born at sea and therefore would not have been eligible to be POTUS. If memory serves, it was a book by Allen W. Eckert, perhaps "the Frontiersman"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/28/cbs-and-msnbc-both-falsely-claim-obama-first-president-have-citizenshi#ixzz1L1Ds9J00
#11 No. It was real people talking about a real issue.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:44am.
Here is the thing. Real people look at this issue and they come to a conclusion. The term "natural born citizen" was mentioned in the Constitution but was never defined in the Constitution nor by any Congress since. And the issue has never been adjudicated before the Supreme Court. So there is still some interpretation open as to exactly what is a "natural born citizen". It is not settled. It will not be settled until either the Supreme Court rules on it or there is an Amendment to define the term.
This is the way real people look at it. Real honest people. John McCain had two American parents but he was born on foreign soil. Barack Obama had only one American parent but was born on American soil. Both ran for the Presidency. The issue was brought up. But was largely ignored. Why? Because the weight of the argument is "natural born citizen" is that you were born into citizenship. And you gained that born citizenship by way of one or more of your parents citizenship. The question was asked. People looked. Said, eh, not that big a deal and we had an election.
And yes. Real people. Honest people had a duty, a right, to look and deem it not a big deal. They look, and say, OK, not completely settled but it is not worth the big national debate to settle this once and for all during a campaign fight. No. It was not racist. But it was worth looking at both of these candidates. The question was brought up and the question was found wanting.
That leads to why, why these birther trolls come here, going on 28 months after the fact, and look honest people, real people in the face and act as though the matter of the definition of "natural born citizen" is settled law. Look at these people. Every single one. Every single act as though their definition of the term IS A FACT. And they will argue and argue and argue as though they have the 11th commandment in stone and the 11th commandment is their definition of "natural born citizen". It is enough to make a grown man cry. The stupidity. The crassness. The rudeness of acting as though this is settle law when in fact it is not.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/28/cbs-and-msnbc-both-falsely-claim-obama-first-president-have-citizenshi#ixzz1L1IN1Lx1
What we need is the truth. In order to be taken absolutely seriously on legitimately questioning the meaning of "natural born citizen" internet musings must sort fact from fiction as quickly as possible.
In fact, we're pondering as well the Framers' placement of a comma after "No person except a natural born Citizen," and before, "or a Citizen of the United States" and rather than using the word "and" use of the word "or" with the word Citizen.
Pondering that will be left to another day.
No matter whom the truth hurts, it must be told, and accuracy must reign.
The saying "one rotten apple spoils the bunch" is as true anywhere and no less than in the case of journalism, and citizen-journalism as well, and we contributing to, using, and consuming from the Internet must ensure the truth doesn't become spoiled by the rot.
No matter where the rot appears to be found.
Net the Truth Online
A tale of two birth certificates
'Rosetta Stone' documents provide comparison
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
That Obama's birth certificate lists a registrar that appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele" is not the only peculiarity observed in comparing the president's record with other long-form Hawaiian birth certificates that have been fully authenticated.
The question is whether the Obama birth record the White House released Wednesday is an authentic photocopy of an original 1961 vital record or a modern-day forgery.
Read more: A tale of two birth certificates http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292717#ixzz1L0xZaPtf
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292717
1 comment:
UK Lele (ukelele)is only a TINY portion of the FRAUD that is the ObamaFRAUD "birth certificate." What was posted on the White House website is a MULTI-Layered document that was NOT the result of a SCAN, but clearly was ASSEMBLED. It is a FRAUD. Many, though not yet all, understand this. It is as big a fraud as is the Phony Osama KILL. It is Embarrassing to say the least. Americans are being lied to every time they turn around...but they are WAKING UP. It is NOT a matter of what color you are or what Party you favor. Americans are beginning to Reject the BS. Thank God.It's about Time! Just as GW Bush, Obama is serving his Wall Street Masters. This has to End.
Post a Comment