Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins
The American Thinker ^ | April 27, 2010 | Jack Cashill

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last
To: fightinJAG

I think that he was born in BC at the single mothers home in victoria..

Remember, daddy is a british subject and Canada is british soil therefore I would think she would have been eligible for care


51 posted on 04/27/2010 9:09:35 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: West Texas Chuck
Illegals come here regularly just to have an "anchor" baby. The law is written so that, yes, if the child is born here, no matter where the parents are from, they can claim US citizenship. That didn't used to be the case and we need to change that law. Parents need to be at least legal residents, and I would be for changing the law to having at least one citizen parent.
52 posted on 04/27/2010 9:09:53 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: devere

It could mean he was born before Aug 4th


53 posted on 04/27/2010 9:12:34 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: as1001

obumpa


54 posted on 04/27/2010 9:27:50 PM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
Well if someone can get a DNA sample from his half sister (known to be Ann’s daugther)

Known? How? Have we seen her Indonesian BC? Or even her supposed Hawaiian CoLB?

There is that picture, of the 4 of them, but then again there are some rather odd pictures of Stanley Ann with a big headed Toddler Barry as well. What was it Churchill said about Russia?

a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma;.

That's our guy Barry.

55 posted on 04/27/2010 10:21:13 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity

read when awake


56 posted on 04/27/2010 10:37:05 PM PDT by TruthNtegrity (RIP Tony Snow. - praying for his family and friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: estebeta
What does the year before his birth have to do with the issue? The Constitution doesn't require the President to be of legitimate birth, only a citizen by birth (most of the Founders assumed that Alexander Hamilton, an illegitimate son, would be President sooner or later).

Acutally not a "citizen by birth", a natural born citizen. Not quite the same thing. But of the first 9 Presidents, only 1 was natural born US citizen. But all of them were citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. (Martin Van Buren was born in 1783, after the revolution but before the Constitution was ratified. As was Zachary Taylor, the 12th President,born in 1784. They were natural born citizens and citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. But "citizens at the time" would have included Hamilton, should he have been elected rather than killed by sitting VP Burr.

57 posted on 04/27/2010 10:40:33 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: West Texas Chuck

All people born in the U.S. are native born, but only those whose parents are U.S. citizens can be considered ‘Natural Born Citizens’ AND native born. What makes it even more confusing is that NBC is not a form of citizenship, merely a circumstance of birth.

Please note the capitalized quote in the following:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens (unable to become naturalized U.S. citizens because of a treaty with the Emperor of China). He claimed U.S. Citizenship as he was born in the United States. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS, BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

If you were correct in your interpretation than any anchor baby born here of illegal aliens can become President, well, that is definitely false!

In addition, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT a type of citizenship! It is but a circumstance of birth, and the only place it appears in U.S. law is in the U.S. Constitution as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President.


58 posted on 04/28/2010 3:19:55 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mack Truck

May be sent there by Baby Barry’s Kenyan grandfather to get her away from his son.


59 posted on 04/28/2010 5:08:54 AM PDT by jonrick46 (We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fabian Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: masadaman

“Also, for the record, Hamilton was born in the British Virgin Islands, if I recall correctly.”

Yes, other than the dual allegiances factor, Hamilton was the personal reason the Founding Fathers put in the NBC clause. They didn’t want him to be POTUS.


60 posted on 04/28/2010 7:14:51 AM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: West Texas Chuck
-- Let's say a couple is visiting here from Garbanzola and the female is preggars. She spits out the progeny while in-country here. Is that baby an American, or a Garbanzolian? --

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.

61 posted on 04/28/2010 8:01:41 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: calex59; SatinDoll; Cboldt

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.


62 posted on 04/28/2010 8:38:13 AM PDT by West Texas Chuck (US out of the UN - UN out of the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: as1001
From what I have seen, there is no proof Mama Obama was in Seattle by mid August.

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.

63 posted on 04/28/2010 9:38:07 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abby4116
BUT, I cannot imagine many new mothers, of any age, being able to undertake caring for a newborn without lots of help early on.

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.

64 posted on 04/28/2010 9:40:40 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Why would a girl who grew up in Seattle have her heart set on going to the University of Chicago of all places?

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.

65 posted on 04/28/2010 9:46:56 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

“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.


66 posted on 04/28/2010 10:09:08 AM PDT by shadowland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: relictele
stopped by your post. funny.

Would love to hear the reaction to 2 photos side-by-side on a BIG billboard.

67 posted on 04/28/2010 12:56:53 PM PDT by urtax$@work (The best kind of memorial is a Burning Memorial.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
"Find a male Obama relative that is a child of Obama Sr"

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.


68 posted on 04/28/2010 1:37:32 PM PDT by Mila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mila

As to the above, Mark seems like a good choice for DNA because he bears a certain resemblance to BO.


69 posted on 04/28/2010 1:40:23 PM PDT by Mila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: as1001

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d29d0cb8-5314-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html

The law has made Arizona the butt of jokes on America’s 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.


70 posted on 04/28/2010 4:30:07 PM PDT by rosettasister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

All true, but it seems like quite a coinkydink with all her family’s other connections with Chicago!


71 posted on 04/29/2010 9:23:28 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Sic semper tyrannis! Stop spending. Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-71 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson