> Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he was traveling with a British passport, that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on Aug. 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
Why is that so? I have a British passport that I acquired thru being born to a British parent. I applied for it and received it in the country where I was born, which was not the United Kingdom. Why could Obama not have done something similar?
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe he was born in Hawaii and it would be great to prove he was born elsewhere, but traveling on a British passport isn’t going to necessarily prove he was born in Kenya. He and I are about the same age and the same rules for eligibility for a British Passport are likely to have applied to both of us.
(DRAT! Back to the drawing board for you, mate!)
If he attended as a foreign national then he claimed foreign citizenship, raising a myriad of questions. If he did, and now claims he was not a foreign national, then he is guilty of embezzelment.
This is not true. There was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981.
It falls apart right there. Pakistan was not and has never been on a State Department "no-travel" list. As Freepers who travelled there in the 70's and 80's have attested. Obama could have easily gone there on a U.S. passport.
If he was born in Hawaii then he became a natural born citizen in 1961.
ping
Obviously false. This kind of casual dishonesty is why the Birthers are not taken seriously.
Not true. There was a "travel advisory" for Pakistan in 1981 but that didn't mean you couldn't go there. Pakistan wasn't Cuba or North Korea or North Vietnam. It was even our ally officially. You can see a PDF of the advisory here.
You would have needed a visa in advance from Pakistan to go there. It says so in the advisory. Just how hard or how easy it was to get one, I don't know. But Pakistan was not on a State Department "no travel" list for US passport holders in 1981.