Quite possibly, but very doubtful it’s anything that would have bearing on the “natural born citizen” issue. The evidence is overwhelming that he was born in Hawaii, and that settles the natural born citizen question.
Was his mother actually only 16.5 years old when he was born, making her a statutory rape victim? Maybe. Was she legally married at the time to someone other than the man he knows/claims as his father? Maybe. Did she originally list somebody else as the father? Maybe. Did she originally list the father as “unknown”? Maybe. Was he actually one of a set of twins, the other of which disappeared in infancy under mysterious circumstances? Maybe.
Lots of possibilities, but most are the sort of thing that one would hide to save other relatives from embarrassment, or to avoid bringing out negative information about someone who is no longer living — not the sort of thing that would have any bearing on his eligibility to be POTUS.
If he was some sort of total impostor, producing the original long form birth certificate wouldn’t shed any light on that anyway. Maybe the Barack Soetoro on the birth certificate died in infancy, and the death was unreported, and some relative gave Stanley another baby from Kenya/Indonesia/somewhere to raise in his place. Face it, birth certificates are just pieces of paper. Until they start carrying DNA data, they’ll never really prove anything about anyone. Until fairly recently (maybe still, in some states) birth certificates were routinely issued showing adoptive parents as the birth parents, so that the child would never know s/he was adopted, even in adulthood.
Frankly, I think the whole “birther” thing is a dangerous distraction that’s being orchestrated by Democrat party operatives. It’s amazing how many conservatives are devoting most of their anti-Obama energy to pursuing this nutty idea that they can get him hauled out of office for not being a “natural born citizen”. Now who do you suppose would want conservatives to be focusing their energy and attention on this hopeless cause (while they leave issues like socialized medicine and RKBA and union power ignored on the back burner)?
Really? where is it? have you seen it? All there is is a COLB, and that is not proof of being born in Hawaii.
Why is there the assumption that conservatives can only deal with one issue? There is only so much we can do on any issue, as a rule, and after the letters are written, the letters to the editor are submitted, often, we are on to the next issue. It is not unusual to be addressing a half-dozen issues at once, whether we post that here or not.
That a few have spent a great deal of time and effort to keep the rest of us informed is a good thing. It not only keeps us informed, it frees the rest to pursue other issues and keep the rest of us informed.
That is one of the strengths of this site, that some know considerably more about a particular issue or item than others, and lend that expertise so that the remainder might get up to speed. As a result, we are not duplicating efforts nearly as much as we might if we were all doing every bit of research from the ground up.
“Quite possibly, but very doubtful its anything that would have bearing on the natural born citizen issue. The evidence is overwhelming that he was born in Hawaii, and that settles the natural born citizen question.”
NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!! If he father is a Kenyan, never a U.S. citizen, then in the ORIGINAL meaning of “Natural Born” at the time of the constitution’s creation, he is NOT “natural born” because he father was not or ever a U.S. citizen. BOTH parents had to be U.S. citizens.
Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise (ignoring it doesn’t count), HE IS NOT “naural born” following the ORIGINAL intent of the constitution. His parentage creates divided loyalties, which is what “natural born” was ALL about.