Skip to comments.Where Was President Obama Really Born? Can This Issue Finally Be Settled?
Posted on 08/10/2010 5:20:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Over twenty-five percent of Americans, say that President Obama's 49th birthday is not this week. A poll called where were you really born that day? summoned this up into question.
The persistent theory boosted heavily by conservative activists that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but that he was born outside of the country of the U.S. The CNN/Opinion research Corp. survey said 27 percent of responsive people doubt that Obama's father is telling the truth or that his birth certificate is real. 42% have no doubts, 29% said he probably was born in Hawaii, but couldn't give a sure answer. Democrats backed Obama more than Republicans. 14 percent of Republicans said he was NOT born in the United States. This issue began over Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign and has become a topic of interest with Rush Limbaugh and the so called 'Birther' movement. Hawaii has already released a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate. The 1961 archives of two local newspapers in Hawaii also show his birth announcements! Snopes.com has also checked into it.
When the time is right they'll prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where he was born, and bury the eligibility issue behind that smokescreen.
I don’t think he was born. /s
I’m beginning to believe he was born in hell. Only a spawn of satan could try to destroy the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Lol - wishful thinking! ;o)
Everybody knows hussein dunham was born in Kenya. Grandma Sarah witnessed the birth along with other relatives.
"Im beginning to believe he was born in hell. Only a spawn of satan could try to destroy the greatest nation in the history of the world.You get my vote for the post of the day.
Are we the only people that even realize this? It seems so freakin' simple to me, I can't understand why anyone is falling for the smoke (no pun intended).
“Snopes has checked into it”.
Oh, well - that certainly settles it then.
The notion that qualification as a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens is very much a minority opinion. Very few jurists, legal scholars, or politicians believe this to be true. If this belief were widely held, a challenge to Obama would have certainly been made before he was sworn in as President.
My opinion is this: Obama was born in Hawaii, as he has said and as the Governor of Hawaii has confirmed. The reason that he has spent over $2 million to destroy or conceal records of his early life, including his birth certificate is that he was later adopted by his Indonesian step-father and became an Indonesian citizen. When he was past the age of 18, he either obtained or renewed his Indonesian passport in order to use that document to gain entrance as a foreign student to either Occidental or Columbia, or both. By taking this action, he unknowingly renounced his original citizenship and even though he has certainly has his citizenship reinstated, he no longer can claim to be a natural born citizen, but rather he is a naturalized citizen.
However, even if my theory were proven to be 100% true, Obama would still be the legitimate President of the United States. His election was certified by the Vice President and by the Congress and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. The only ways that he can be removed from office involuntarily before the end of his term is through the impeachment process or incapacitating illness.
The Birther Brigades will disagree with my opinion and they are quite welcome to hold their own. But, they are not entitled to insist that their opinion is correct and they are not entitled to demand that I accept their view. They will toss any number of silly insults my way for disagreeing with them.
I hope they know that Snopes is a husband-and-wife outfit that they run out of their homes. It isn't some investigative outfit or a newspaper-affiliated resource.
Thank you. I am honored!!
Chris Matthews said Dunham was born in Indonesia, if that helps any.
Do your homework or STFU! I have posted this to you MANY TIMES and you are too stupid to check the facts or can’t read! The British Nationality Act of 1948 granted BRITISH CITIZENSHIP to and child born of a BRITISH MALE CITIZEN!
Bambi was BOTH BRITISH and AMERICAN at birth. So, cut the BS and stop wasting our time, Obama TROLL!!
Sorry Jim! This guy really PO’s me off!
This is hilarious.
They’ve begun to fight this.
And all of them will start with these stale talking points.
WRONG -- 'You' cannot impeach someone who was never LEGALLY elected.
Totally untrue statement. TOTALLY UNTRUE. (LIE) He released nothing, others produced a forged Certification of Live Birth. No one has produced a shred of evidence of what hospital he was born in, who the physician that delivered him was and because of the lack of an original birth certificate we don't even know for sure what his real name is/was. FACT.
“Are we the only people that even realize this? “
The process is being managed by experts in the fields of PR, propaganda, and shaping public opinion. It’s being done well, so it’s no surprise.
When The 0ne pulls some magic document out, there will be four or so days of nonstop coverage then it will never be mentioned again (imo) except for the “these people are nuts” articles about the Birthers.
“and even though he has certainly has his citizenship reinstated,”
So there is yet another withheld document, or he never had it re-instated.
There would be naturalization documents.
Since I’m sure that you can’t provide a citation of the U.S. Constitution or appropriate case law, I’d have to say that you are incorrect. I am quite amazed at how the Birther Brigades claim to be such defenders of the Constitution, but are more than willing to conjure up all sorts of extra Constitutional methods to remove a sitting Presidents. Do you fall in that category, or are you just confused how the Constitution works in the current circumstances?
His mother was a jackal!
Oops, though I don’t disagree with you, I forgot the silly insult!
Um, you spongehead!
I’m stating my opinion. You are perfectly free to agree or disagree. I would love to hear any evidence that anyone in a position of authority agrees with your view. I wonder why no challenge on this point was not made by John McCain, the Republican Party, any of the 50 States, the Electoral College, the Congress, the Vice President after the 2008 election and before the Inaguration? Perhaps they don’t agree with you.
Your tedious insults do nothing to support your view, rather they make you look rather silly. But, please, do continue.
I would think that he would have taken steps to undo and paper up his citizenship problems. His actions suggest that he has gone to incredible lengths to keep certain facts and documents from the American people. I’m just guessing about all this, which is what everyone else is doing too. I’m just honest enough to admit it.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
In his book, Dreams from my Father, Mr. Obama admits that his father was a Kenyan and never held American citizenship, therefore, there is no way that our de facto president is a natural born citizen. Snopes is a lefty couple that live in a trailer and Factcheck is funded by the same people that hired Mr. Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers in Chicago. Nice try, though!
Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation
Annenberg Challenge Recognizes Chicago School Reform With $49.2 Million Grant
There is nothing wrong with your point of view, especially from an original intent perspective, which was, after all, specially aimed at those who might bear allegiance to the King of Great Britain. And you are quite right that Barack Obama II is the acknowledged son of Barack Obama Senior, a British subject with all that follows from that fact. No one, including Barack Obama himself would disagree with that.
I am just pointing out that our legal system, our politicians, and our Constitutional scholars take a different contemporary view that anyone born on the soil of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, are natural born citizens. Now, we have know ruling that specifically addresses this issue in regard to Presidential eligibility and until someone with standing brings a case, we may never know.
That’s just the unfortunate state of affairs that we find ourselves in today. I don’t like the fact that Obama is President. I supported McCain with my vote and my pocketbook even though I have not cared for him for years. But, I did understand the consequences and we are now having to live with those consequences.
There is no magic undo button. Your arguments have merit, but I don’t think that they would every prevail in court. The 2012 election is only remedy available to us.
For the record troll. Marxists like Bill Ayers and Barack Obama had taken over functions of the Annenberg Foundation using its money to fund leftist causes.
So what. None of those actions make an ineligible person magically eligible. If he's not eligible to the office, he cannot hold it.
The actions of the VP and Congress concern the votes, not the eligibility of the candidate. The Constitution doesn't require the Chief Justice, or anyone else to administer the oath, merely that it be taken before entering into the office. It's not a coronation ceremony, but it is a ceremony, not a Constitutionally significant action, except in so far as it satisfies one of the requirements laid out for being President. The counting of electoral college votes satisfies another group of requirements. Bu the bedrock requirement of being 35 or older and being a Natural Born Citizen still must be satisfied or the person is not and can never be President.
So if your theory is correct, we have usurper in office, not a President. Impeachment is for Presidents, not usurpers.
“I wonder why no challenge on this point was not made by John McCain, the Republican Party, any of the 50 States, the Electoral College, the Congress, the Vice President after the 2008 election and before the Inaguration? Perhaps they dont agree with you.”
Actually, mass confusion. Some insight
The issue of vetting was discussed in several of the suits. An interesting article or book can be written on the collapse and failure of the vetting process in this election. Try some research on your own - really not too difficult, you just have to set aside your prejudices.
Briefly it seems as though nobody knew what to do, misinformation, bad advise, confusion and a news media that would never investigate anything about this candidate - merely gush about how wonderful he was.
A person not eligible cannot be a President, let alone a sitting one. Not eligible means not President.
True, but like many foundations, it's original purpose and the intentions of its founders have been perverted by left leaning "management" of the foundation.
It's one that promulgated by a lot of people on this site who are not "Obama's people."
So, were any of these plantiffs granted standing. I think not. In fact, I believe that we are currently at 71 suits, all of which have been dismissed. I have followed this closely since 2008. I was prepared to believe the born in Kenya theories, but have since come to the conclusion that there’s no there there.
As for these lawsuits, they illustrate my point. The courts are not going to let any of these go forward, they don’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole. The politicians, likewise. None of them, including the Republicans value the Constitution above their own political careers. I would suggest that where we disagree is that I think that the people who count knew what they would need to do to stop Obama’s candidacy, they just chose not to do it. Now that he is installed in office, the only Constitutional remedy left is impeachment. The Congress is not about to do that, so we can only look to the 2012 elections.
I’m not prejudiced about all of this, I just think that most of these objections are wrong on the facts and are not going to go anywhere as a matter of practicality. I’ll revise my opinion when I see evidence that warrants.
You were doing okay until you brought out this old bit of birther fantasy.
So, in the end, you consider that the law (the constitution) cannot stand against a misinterpretation of the law? He got away with it - so the actual content and intent of the law matters naught? Your argument says that the fact that he was installed makes the foundation of the office moot - his qualifications don't matter, because someone said he was President.
I hope we have more of the rule of law in us than that, honestly.
You, too, have no right to demand obeisance to your opinion.
Not necessarily. You better check the law on birth out of wedlock.
Bingo, and Team Obama wishes now to thank Orly Taitz and WND
You are conveniently ignoring the Constitutional mechanisms for removing a President. No one on this planet, including you, can now declare him not to be President. Who would that be? The Supreme Court, the Congress, the Park Police, Simon? It can’t be done as a matter of law. The Senate, however, could act on an article of Impeachment delivered by the House stating that the President was ineligible for office and therefore should be removed. The Senate could hold a trial and remove him. I just don’t know of any other mechanism, including one that I have heard that suggested that it be done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s called a military Coup d’Etat and I don’t think that will happen.
What is the mechanism for removing usurpers, if not through impeachment?
Unlike others, I am making no such demand. You, and all the others can freely reject my opinion. I'm not presenting it as fact, and I'm not suggesting that its the only one allowed.
If remedies other than impeachment are available to us at this point, I'd like to know what they are. I've heard some doozies: The D.C. police, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Federal Marshals, but I don't know of anything except impeachment that could stand Constitutional scrutiny. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them.
He does have a team of lawyers challenging efforts to release records. Are they working Pro Bono?
Faulty Premise. If one is "Natural Born Citizen" that status cannot be removed by adoption, or traveling on a foreign passport.
The notion that qualification as a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens is very much a minority opinion. Very few jurists, legal scholars, or politicians believe this to be true.
Ditto. (a) Jurists, legal scholars, and politicians are wildly different beasts. (b)No one has ever polled them.
Courts have avoided the issue like the plague. I predict the issue will resurface with a vengeance in 2012.
You are missing a key concept in British law and that is the one of legitimacy. British citizenship law was quite complicated.
You can start with scrolling down to the definitions section of the Act.
“It’s one that promulgated by a lot of people “
A good PR campaign, then, if it can pull in lots of people who repeat it.
DeBeers hired Edward Bernays a while back to bolster diamond sales. He came up with the idea to make a diamond the ONLY stone a man could give a woman when they got married. This public relations campaign is now part of American culture (and for all I know Europe too). DeBeers still spends money on it, but it is maintained individually every time some guy brings The Rock in to the shop to show The Guys, and then the girl shows The Rock to her Gal-Pals. Very few choose a ruby or Tanzanite, a diamond is the vastly socially accepted gemstone for engagements. All fom a public relations/opinion shaping project.
There is a readily available set of “facts” about Obama that is used to support the various birth theories, and lots of people repeat them. Snopes and FactCheck are thankfully coming under increased skepticism.
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.