Posted on 07/31/2009 10:59:02 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
In a recent telephone poll conducted by Research 2000 for the website Daily Kos, 58 percent of Republican respondents when asked if Barack Obama was born in the USA answered "no" or "not sure."
The Daily Kos, which calls itself "the largest progressive community blog in the United States," nonetheless found a reported 527 Republicans and 601 independents to accompany its 743 Democrats in answering the question.
Among Republicans, 28 percent answered they believe Obama was born outside the U.S., while 30 percent answered "not sure." Among independents, 83 percent affirmed their belief that the president was born in the U.S., while an overwhelming 93 percent of Democrats insisted it is so.
Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the question by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
While the disparity between Republicans and Democrats is massive, the poll also demonstrated that where respondents live also makes a significant difference.
(Story continues below)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They'll never make a forgery because they know the pajama people are too sharp for them
Well there’s also a Barry Soetero in there somewhere, where’d that guy go?
What if the number on the BC is 666?
The most logical assertion I have seen is ... his race is shown on the birth certificate as Caucasion. Not an unreasonable assumption since his mother was white and his father was only partially black. He wanted to run as the “first black president” so he could get all the black vote and all the guilty white liberal vote. This wouldn’t have happened if he released the bc before the election. There might be other embarassing factors on the bc, but I think if this one item (race=caucasion) is true, that would be enough for him to fight any release of the document.
I have been a registered Republican since I was 21. I plead guilty, I had never heard of Rodinia.
This “Fossil” is old, but not 300 million years old.
—
From Wiki:
In geology, Rodinia (from the Russian, “rodina”, meaning “motherland”) is the name of a supercontinent, a continent which contained most or all of Earth’s landmass. According to plate tectonic reconstructions, Rodinia existed between 1100 and 750 million years ago, in the Neoproterozoic era.
In contrast with Pangaea, the last supercontinent about 300 million years ago, little is known yet about the exact configuration and geodynamic history of Rodinia. Paleomagnetic evidence provides some clues to the paleolatitude of individual pieces of the Earth’s crust, but not to their longitude, which geologists have pieced together by comparing similar geologic features, often now widely dispersed.
The extreme cooling of the global climate around 700 million years ago (the so called snowball Earths of the Cryogenian period) and the rapid evolution of primitive life during the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian periods are often thought to have been triggered by the breaking up of Rodinia.
omg,there it is. if all continents were connected a few million years ago then it stands to reason we were all born on the same landmass!. brillant!.
i imagine this is a trial balloon for making natural born moot.
thats a real good point. he’d be seen as a fake(well,by more than just the people posting here) and that would have cost him the election. probably the nomination as well.
I was only responding to Steve Van Doorn concerning my ignorance of Geology. Never thought about it that way.
I am very weary of the “Birther” label. It is not stupid to question why the “one” (Zero) has hidden his past. All men have history, and he has some serious baggage.
Eventually it will come out. Unfortunately in the mean time we need and deserve “adult” leadership, which we do not have.
Its a case of grasping for straws. Some Birthers hope some embarrassing data on the long form might be in the long form. For example, it might say Obama is a Muslim.
How in the heck does it say Muslim. My religion is not on my birth certificate. This is insane. How many babies pick the religion they want? Was his mother even Muslim?
People think that the key is “Place of birth”, but it is the doctor's signature-—or LACK OF ONE——that is the key that will tell us if Obama was or was not born in Hawaii.
Hawaii official Dr. Fukino recently publicly said that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate and that it says that Obama is an American citizen.
But what did Dr. Fukino really see?
I bet that this is what she saw: She looked at Obama’s long form birth certificate and saw “Honolulu” in the space for “Place of birth.”
She then publicly announced that Obama was born in the United States.
But Dr. Fukino did NOT tell us about the really important information on the birth certificate that we want very much to see:
1. Is there a doctor's name and signature?
2. Is there a hospital name?
3. Is the information on the birth certificate written or typed?
Please understand this: Way back in 1961, as I understand it, a parent in Hawaii could write in the name of the "place of birth" and other information if a baby was NOT born in a hospital.
But signing a doctor's name when the person was not a doctor could put a person in trouble with the authorities.
So, I think that if Obama’s mother filled out the birth certificate in 1961 , she left the doctor's name and the hospital name blank, because if a baby was NOT born in a hospital and a medical person was not present, then it was, as I understand it, legally alright to leave the spaces blank.
To me, the main reason that Obama is fighting so hard to keep the public from examining his 1961 long form birth certificate is this: THE DOCTOR NAME AND HOSPITAL NAME ARE MISSING.
IMPORTANT: As I see it, one problem that we who live in modern, high tech 2009 have in analyzing the Obama birth certificate mess is this: We view Obama’s birth through the eyes of a high tech society in 2009 instead of looking at it through the eyes of people living in 1961 Hawaii.
For instance, like in many states, I think that many babies born in 1961 Hawaii were NOT born in a hospital, especially babies born among the large immigrant population that was working in the pineapple fields scattered all over the many islands of Hawaii.
Let's try to imagine the Hawaii social environment from 1950 to 1970:
1. There was a large legal and illegal immigration group from places like China, Japan, and the Philippines who were recruited by politically powerful Hawaii plantation owners to work in the pineapple fields. Remember, this was a long time before the recent 9-11 World Trade Center terrorist attacks, so United States immigration rules were pretty lax, especially in Hawaii where pineapple field workers were needed all the time.
2. 1961--- The Mexico-United States border: How lax was the U.S. immigration policy in 1961? In 1961, Mexico-United States border crossing laws were very lax an people easily moved back and forth across the Mexico-United States border. The issue of Mexican illegal immigration was practically NO issue at all like the way illegal immigration from Mexico is a tremendous and heated issue today in 2009.
3. So, you can imagine how much more lax immigration laws were during 1950-1970 in the far away U.S. terrority of Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific Ocean than it is today, 2009.
As long as the flood of Asian immigrants into Hawaii did not spill over into the rest of the United States on the mainland,Washington lawmakers——lawmakers who had NO access to such modern wonders like CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, the internet, and the World Wide Web—— basically let Hawaii officials take care of its own immigration programs.
4. Also, China and Japan were not the great economic powers that they are today. The people were desperate to find any type of work anywhere they could, at home or abroad.
5. So, the Chinese and Japanese governments probably encouraged immigrants to leave for Hawaii-—or anywhere-— to find work, and they were not going to spend valuable time and energy to give passports to all these immigrants,especially when these governments knew that most of these immigrants would never return to China and Japan once they reached Hawaii.
6. I can also imagine that government officials in China, Japan, and the Philippines said something like this to themselves: Let rich United States pineapple plantation owners worry about the paperwork on their end for these mostly uneducated workers, because it is now the United States government problem.
7. NOTE: “Hawaii” by the great American author James Michener is a magnificent book for the average person who wants to learn about the history of Hawaii. Myself, I had a hard time putting the book down because it was so well written and exciting.
8. It is a big book, so plan to put aside a few days to read it.
9. I am not from Hawaii or live there.
10. But I have had a long interest in Hawaii, because I had a deep interest in Father Damien
who traveled from Europe to work with lepers on Molokai, the Hawaiian island where lepers were forceably sent to live and somehow care for themselves.
11. I think that Father Damien is very close to being declared a saint in the Catholic Church.
12. Moving on, let's try to picture Hawaii in 1961 when Obama was born:
a. Hawaii is in the middle of a difficult but exciting transition from being a far away territory in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to becoming a state in The United States of America.
b. At the same time, Hawaii has to find a way to quickly integrate Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino legal and illegal immigrants into legal citizens of the United States, many of whom did not have documents like a passport when they entered Hawaii before 1961, and many of whom were uneducated and could barely speak English.
c. So, how is a recent new state in The United States of America going to integrate all these legal and illegal immigrants in the United States of America, many of whom have wives and babies?
d. One thing that Hawaii did is this: It allowed a parent who had a baby that was NOT born in a hospital to simply fill out a birth certificate and mail it in.
Yes, mail it in. The parent did not even have to show up at a state office to verify what was on the birth certificate.
e. Did a Hawaii official visit the parent's home to verify that the information on the birth certificate was correct? There is no evidence that a Hawaii official did a followup by visiting the parent's home.
f. Rather, the procedure seemed to be that a Hawaii clerk simply stamped the birth certificate as alright and that was that.
g. Remember, Hawaii is made up of several islands that stretch over many miles in the Pacific Ocean, so having government clerks running around all those islands and checking the birth certificates of babies born to all those legal and illegal immigrants from Asia in the middle of Hawaii's 1961 frantic transition from a territory to a new state of the United States of America, well, it probably wasn't worth it.
h. So Hawaii said this: It was alright to have a parent simply mail in the birth certificate and be done with it, if the child was NOT born in a hospital. Obviously, such a system was ripe for abuse.
i. Again, remember that this time period of 1950-1970 was a long way from the recent 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, so Hawaii officials would have no reason to think about terrorist attacks from illegal immigrants way back in 1961.
13. Now, into this very difficult but exciting time in Hawaii's history as described above, we have Barack Obama’s birth in 1961.
14. Did Obama’s mother take advantage of Hawaii's lax birth registration policies in 1961 and mail in Obama’s birth certificate, because Obama was NOT born in a Hawaii hospital? We don't know.
15. But if she did mail in Obama’s birth certificate, she probably did not fill in the DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE or the HOSPITAL NAME, because she probably didn't want to go to jail for forgery if somehow a Hawaii official checked the information on the Obama long form birth certificate.
16. So, while Obama’s mother could easily fill in “Honolulu” for “place of birth” with no problem, I think that she left the doctor's signature blank, and then she mailed in Obama’s birth certificate.
17. My point is this: We must put pressure on Hawaii officials like Dr. Fukino, Obama himself, and Obama spokesmen like press secretary Gibbs to answer this key question: “Is there a doctor's signature and a hospital name on Obama’s long form birth certificate?”
18. If Dr. Fukino says that there is a doctor's signature and a hospital name on Obama’s long form birth certificate, then we should still demand to see the 1961 long form birth certificate in order to prove to ourselves that other items on the long form birth certificate are correct.
19. However, if there is NO doctor signature or hospital name, then we know that Obama was NOT born in a Hawaii hospital, and Obama and Hawaii officials, like Dr. Fukino, have a lot of explaining to do.
I just love hearing the incessant anti-birther war drums in the distance, of course there is absolutely no connection with Sarah Palin, she would never be interested in getting involved with trying to get birther news exposed to the public, since she has all the free time in the world I would say she is off either halibut fishing or getting ready for caribou hunting season.
Sarah Palin, a birther? a secret birther?, thats ridiculous.
He's admitted and asserted having dual citizenship at birth.
The following in reverse chronological order, most recent presented first:
... I should have been more precise. As I understand it, Obama's "Kenyan" citizenship (which really is the Brit-lite citizenship you are talking about) is a result of Britain's Nationality Act of 1948. Technically speaking, Barack Obama Sr. was a British overseas subject resident of what was then the Kenyan protectorate, which status passed automatically (by operation of Kenyan law) into Kenyan citizenship when Kenya became independent in late 1963. If one in this situation is deemed a Brit/Kenyan citizen automatically because his father is a Kenyan, the (now) Kenyan citizenship lapses unless one does something affirmative to claim it. I am no expert in this area, but that's what I think the law is.Andy McCarthy @ 07/30 03:24 PM
... there clearly are potential legal consequences inherent in the circumstance of dual citizenship. It would be incompetent to discuss presidential eligibility under Article II without addressing it.Andy McCarthy @ 07/30 02:50 PM
For now, let's just stick with what's indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen. In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a "natural born" American - an uncharted constitutional concept. ...Suborned in the U.S.A. by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review OnlineAs noted above, we now know Obama, by operation of British and Kenyan law, was a citizen of Kenya (a status that lapsed in 1982, when he turned 21). That's something voters would find relevant, especially when Obama's shocking 2006 conduct in Kenya is considered. But we don't know about his Kenya citizenship because the media thought it was newsworthy. We know it only because of the birth-certificate controversy: Pressed to debunk the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya, his embarrassed supporters felt compelled to clarify his Kenyan citizenship.
Even if he is a bigamist and his marriage to Dunham is void?
I would say that he is the biological father, and if that's what you mean by "legal," I'm in agreement - and that has nothing at all to do with marriage.
I think that's an "it depends" matter. I got one for my wife, not intentionally, but needed in order to prove to the DMV that she was a legal resident, and therefore entitled to a driver's license renewal. We applied to the County of her birth, gave her full name, birthdate, parents names, and paid $10 for what ended up being a photocopy on nice paper stock, embossed, and marked as a true copy of the vital record on file.
An adoptee is apt to have a different reaction, just to pick one example. But given the certainty of parentage his assertion of being born in a Honolulu hospital, and absence of any adoption in Obama's life story, he should be able to get a copy of his record, that resembles the record produced by the Nordyke twins.
I didn't see "insisted it was so" on the poll. Do we have a little editorializing here?
#2 is my guess. Kind of an I’ll-talk-to-yo-mama-outside sort of thing.
How about SR511ers — believers in Senate Resolution 511 and that Obama should be held to the same definition and standards laid out in that relolution or face eviction.
Barack Obama: (No verifiable legal documentation provided as of 8/01/09. “KMBA, your not getting my BC.")
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.