Posted on 01/09/2010 1:34:54 PM PST by Red Steel
Polls show that 51% of Republicans and 30% of the general population do not believe that Obama was born in the U.S. These percentages would be higher still those who had questions or doubts were added to the total.
So, it appears that you're saying that 70% of the U.S. does believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now, from what I've seen in political matters (i.e., voting and such on issues) when you get more than 66% of the population going one way on an issue, that carries the day...
However, for me, just to have 70% of the voting electorate going one way wouldn't carry the day for me. What does it for me is, very simply, I've got the official statement from the State of Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii. They're the ones who have the records, and they're the ones who produce certified copies of any birth certificate requested in that state. If anyone knows the answer -- the State of Hawaii does... :-)
There is **NO** possible way that the Dems and Repubs can tip toe around that great big stinking carcass in the road on the way to the elections.
The simplest way to solve that problem, is to have a state law requiring a candidate to show his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot -- then your problem goes away... :-)
That's a crooked answer.
It happens to be a real answer...
Do you take medication? Prozac perhaps.
The following is the **reality**!
I just looked at the "reality" that you supplied -- and if I understand it right (and I think I do) -- it says to me that 70% of the population of this country believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But, for me, what makes a difference is not that -- but rather -- that the State of Hawaii, who holds the records on Obama's birthplace, says that those records say that he was born in Hawaii. And since it's the State of Hawaii who produces any certified birth certificate for someone who requests it there -- that means that they do know what they're talking about (I mean, they keep, maintained and certify the birthplace...).
That's all I have to know...
No - the real and honest answer is that Obama has something to hide. There is nothing stopping Obama to voluntarily show his birth certificate to a court of law to prove that he was born in Hawaii. You cannot bring yourself to say it.
Do you take medication? Prozac perhaps.
I can give you the answer but I'm wondering why you would believe that, when you don't believe who I voted for? ... LOL...
The answer is none at all of any kind... except for vitamins and aspirins from time to time...
Reality sucks sometimes, doesn't it... :-)
Another reminder from NRO piece by Andrew McCarthy(former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman) from last July...
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.
Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”(snip)
The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. 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.(snip)
How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in 2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem, displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos?
A MUSLIM CITIZEN OF INDONESIA
The aforementioned Indonesian interval in Obama’s childhood is instructive. Obama and the media worked in tireless harmony to refute any indication that he had ever been a Muslim. It’s now apparent, however, not only that he was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world’s most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia.(snip)
Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child(snip)
By contrast, the question whether Obama ever was an Indonesian citizen is still unresolved, as are such related matters as whether the foreign citizenship (if he had it) ever lapsed, and whether he ever held or used an Indonesian passport — for example, during a mysterious trip to Pakistan he took in 1981, after Zia’s coup, when advisories warned Americans against traveling there. By the way, many details about that journey, too, remain unknown. Obama strangely neglected to mention it in his 850 pages of autobiography, even though the 20-year-old’s adventure included a stay at the home of prominent Pakistani politicians.(snip)
There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam.(snip)
cont. reading full article here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
There is nothing stopping Obama to voluntarily show his birth certificate to a court of law to prove that he was born in Hawaii. You cannot bring yourself to say it.
And there's nothing requiring a birth certificate to be shown, either... so it looks like a so-called "Mexican stand-off" (as some people say).
Of course, I've already proposed the solution to this kind of "Mexican standoff" -- by way of enacting a state law that requires all candidates to produce a birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state.
I would suggest getting that going quickly in your state. I've worked in it in my state, already (as a citizen here). So, it would pay other citizens in other states to do the same.
Oh, your a good candidate for Abilify.
Try reading the link.
51% of Republicans do not believe Obama was born in the U.S.
30% of the general population ( that would be Dems, Repubs, and Independents) do not believe Obama was born in the U.S.
These are not insignificant numbers, and I fully expect them to grow as Obama’s popularity continues to drop.
Also...From my understanding of the article, respondents were not asked if they had questions or doubts about Obama’s natural born status.
( I am among those with questions. In my opinion the evidence can not prove where Obama was born or who is father is. An original long form birth certificate is needed to make a determination about his place of birth and paternity. Also, Fukino’s statement was based on having seen “vital records” which could be almost anything, and she is not qualified to make any judgment about his natural born status. Only the Supreme Court can do this. )
Anyway...These are NOT insignificant numbers. And..There is NO way Obama will get to tip toe around them.
However, a lot of concerned people, including both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals are getting fed up with this obvious obfuscation and won't be putting up with this crap from Obama for 3 more years!
According to another FReeper's post here -- you're talking about 30% of the population, according to the information he supplied.
So, unless you get more of them on board, Obama will be running for election once again... I would say.
The best solution to this problem of getting him to show his birth certificate is to have several states enact legislation to require that any candidate show his birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot of that state.
With that ... "problems solved"... :-)
Try reading the link.
You quoted the relevant number...
30% of the general population ( that would be Dems, Repubs, and Independents) do not believe Obama was born in the U.S.
I'm trusting that you're supplying the information correctly... :-)
Oh, your a good candidate for Abilify.
I see you've got some kind of "hangup" on drugs... but sorry... I don't imbibe... :-)
Unemployment by some reports is now greater than 17% and expected to grow higher. Nearly everything Obama and the Dems are doing is driving confidence out of the market. Those thinking of expanding their business or in starting a new one are justifiably very nervous about investing the time or money to do that.
As unemployment rises there are going to be some really **TICKED OFF** people. Don't be surprised when they start demanding that Obama produce documents about his past.
As I said...I don't think this issue is going away. Nope! That dead elephant rotting in the living room gets more bloated and stinkier by the day. Maybe the conservative and Marxist media will ignore it but today we have the Internet and Twitter.
It is not true. There was a state department travel advisory, but no travel ban to Pakistan.
I thought I would put down the numbers that showed up in this graph, so it would be easy to see here, on Free Republic. I'm using their numbers that they've gathered from public information from the government, along with the dates.
These numbers are not necessarily accumulative for each month, but stand for the total numbers during that particular one-year period of time. It's a "sliding one-year picture" of what's happening with the overall gains and losses here.
And then, also, I've put in the "Amount of Change" from the one-year rolling numbers -- to the following month and its one-year rolling numbers. The "Amount of Change" shows which way things are going, either up or down.
-- From 2006 to 2007 Amt Change Numbers Gain/Loss One-year Period running -- Bush Administration (blue is "gain" and red is "loss") -- [ xxx,xxx] 2,625,193 jobs gained (from January 2006 to January 2007) [- 298,315] 2,326,878 jobs gained (from February 2006 to February 2007) [+ 70,059] 2,396,937 jobs gained (from March 2006 to March 2007) [- 652,634] 1,744,303 jobs gained (from April 2006 to April 2007) [- 76,451] 1,667,852 jobs gained (from May 2006 to May 2007) [- 83,174] 1,584,678 jobs gained (from June 2006 to June 2007) [- 43,030] 1,541,648 jobs gained (from July 2006 to July 2007) [- 689,269] 852,379 jobs gained (from August 2006 to August 2007) [+ 406,589] 1,258,968 jobs gained (from September 2006 to September 2007) [- 831,750] 427,218 jobs gained (from October 2006 to October 2007) [+ 475,364] 902,582 jobs gained (from November 2006 to November 2007) [- 866,785] 35,797 jobs gained (from December 2006 to December 2007) -- From 2007 to 2008 Amt Change Numbers Gain/Loss One-year Period running -- Bush Administration (blue is "gain" and red is "loss") -- [+ 730,616] 766,413 jobs gained (from January 2007 to January 2008) [- 282,854] 483,559 jobs gained (from February 2007 to February 2008) [- 290,723] 192,836 jobs gained (from March 2007 to March 2008) [+ 835,152] 1,027,988 jobs gained (from April 2007 to April 2008) [- 564,156] 463,832 jobs gained (from May 2007 to May 2008) [- 365,996] 97,836 jobs gained (from June 2007 to June 2008) [- 142,705] 44,869 jobs lost (from July 2007 to July 2008) [- 44,384] 89,253 jobs lost (from August 2007 to August 2008) [- 640,611] 729,864 jobs lost (from September 2007 to September 2008) [- 62,975] 792,839 jobs lost (from October 2007 to October 2008) [-1,312,591] 2,105,430 jobs lost (from November 2007 to November 2008) [- 475,884] 2,581,314 jobs lost (from December 2007 to December 2008) -- From 2008 to 2009 Amt Change Numbers Gain/Loss One-year Period running -- Bush Administration/Obama Administration (Obama took office January 20th) -- [-1,353,106] 3,934,420 jobs lost (from January 2008 to January 2009) -- Obama Administration (blue is "gain" and red is "loss") -- [- 262,951] 4,197,371 jobs lost (from February 2008 to February 2009) [- 827,409] 5,024,780 jobs lost (from March 2008 to March 2009) [- 61,101] 5,085,881 jobs lost (from April 2008 to April 2009) [- 217,053] 5,302,934 jobs lost (from May 2008 to May 2009) [- 258,098] 5,561,032 jobs lost (from June 2008 to June 2009) [+ 21,849] 5,539,183 jobs lost (from July 2008 to July 2009) [- 14,452] 5,553,635 jobs lost (from August 2008 to August 2009) [- 393,556] 5,947,191 jobs lost (from September 2008 to September 2009) [- 215,645] 6,162,836 jobs lost (from October 2008 to October 2009)
SOURCE: Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Article - When Did Your County's Jobs Disappear?
If we added to these percentages those with questions and doubts the numbers would be even higher.
And...1 in 3 of the general population is not an insignificant number.
Slightly more that half of all Republicans. Do you honestly think these Repubs ( especially when those with doubts and questions are added) will allow their Republican candidates to ignore this issue? I dont’ think so.
Do you honestly think these Repubs ( especially when those with doubts and questions are added) will allow their Republican candidates to ignore this issue? I dont’ think so.
We'll see... by how many states enact a law requiring all candidates to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot.
If this cannot be passed in any state -- then that will be your answer...
Those who defend the Constiution are working on as you type. But...They can also chew gum and walk at the same time. They will not allow this issue of Obama’s eligibility fade.
In my opinion...for all the reasons posted above...Obama’s eligibility will continue to grow in importance.
Good. I wonder why he has not taken to releasing all the records people are complaining about? It would seem so logical just to release the information instead of letting it be used in negative ways..just wondering?
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.