Woops. Typo above. I meant to say, Kenyan trains weren’t very fast in 1961.
Perhaps it is because Obama’s Grandmother who said she was there at his birth, said he was born in Kenya. Perhaps it is because Obama himself declared that he was from Kenya.
Keith Olberman, is that choo?
Birthers are people who ask a simple question: who was the doctor who delivered Obama?
I didn’t know Mombossa was a concrete element of the theory. Pray-tell, where did get that?
Maybe it’s just a simple question and not necessarily a “belief system”.
A real birth certificate would provide all the answers.. but who knows how any birth certificates were handled in Kenya in 1961.
Maybe that’s where birth records were recorded stored or whatever. My guess is any hospital records system in the 60’s regardless of where it was, would be faulty and inaccurate to begin with.
the fact of the matter is we don’t have any idea where he was born.
That COLB is a putup job and we already know he has at two in his possession that of the long form.
That would detail where he was born and a host of other information seen on a long form.
His Long form would provide similar amounts of information seen your BC, mine or that of a friend who is nearly 100 years old.
Barry O. tried to pass of something that was inconsistent with what the rest of have and know to be a “Birth Certificate”.
The so called COLB has many flaws with it:
The best part and even more confusing is why he didn't release any of the three Birth Certificates we know already existed before 2007.
Those were most certainly BC’s and not a COLB. There is no reason to create confusion but, for the fact he is hiding something. That something will be discovered, though and this is a long process. “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.” From “Dreams From My Father” (Pg. 26 last paragraph) So with all these Birth Certificates lying around, why did he feel it necessary to produce a "Certification of Live Birth" that is inconsistent with a Birth Certificate and wholly lacking all of the information you would find, in you know, a Birth Certificate? He seemed to have some emotional attachment to the Birth Certificate found among his mother’s belongings. Why wouldn’t he just slap that one up, for all the world to see? It seemed important that he found a document that is called a “Birth Certificate” and it is highly unlikely he would not know what one looks like.
Hope no one brings up some house fire that vaporized his BC. That was in 1972 and none of the documents listed here would have been affected by that “fishy” event.
The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against John McCain long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.
In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.
Senate Resolution 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?
So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.
As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”
Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.
More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.
Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.
Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?
Because it makes for a pleasing narrative.
For a non story there sure is a lot of it being presented in the media these days.
Why wouldn’t they just ignore it, making it irrelevant, if there wasn’t something there?
They should just go no reporting other unimportant stuff and let this retire on it’s own.
It’s not a theory, it’s a question. Where was he born? Is he a NATURAL BORN citizen? Show the long form, and we will know.
You seem to think there is some type of consensus on where the hell Berry was born? I don’t think there is, you are trying to debunk a moving target. Was Obamas father an American citizen? If not according to the Constitution and all case law so far he can not be a naturally born US citizen can he? If you are going to bother answering I hope you reply with facts.
Also please answer this; Is it true Obama has spent almost 2 million bucks fighting court cases to get him to show his birth certificate? If that statement is true, instead of being the birther buster, how about wondering what the hell is going on here, no matter how you slice it there is something wrong and I am sure you are smart enough to know that.
I think the vast majority of Birthers (why insult people?) could care less where he was born. They just want to know if he is constitutionally disqualified to be President and what he is hiding. There are several ways he could be disqualified even if he was born in Hawaii.
It is mind boggling and a bit creepy that we have someone who became the President of the United States and no one can conclusively prove where he was born.
His Visa and college records are national secrets. Today we find out that his SSN Card was issued in CT, a state he never visited or worked.
It is just creepy, let’s face it. Why wouldn’t people be curious?
“despite it being physically impluasible (requiring around 5 days and five flights, most on propeller planes) and financially impossible (it would have cost about a year of her parents’ combined salaries) for Stanley Ann & Obama Sr. to travel there for her to give birth.”
Hell, Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. traveled all over. How much do you think it cost to travel from Hawaii to the mainland? How did they pay for school. How did they get to Indonisia? I’ll agree with you on one thing. It would be financially impossible for them to have done most of what they did. Unless they had some help that, of course, we don’t know about.
Be careful lumping people into one large pile. There are a lot of folks who want to know more about his birth certificate who don’t necessarily maintain he was born in Kenya, nor do they have any specific theories at all. They just want to know what is on the original birth certificate that he is hiding. In fact I’d say the group you are criticizing here is an extremely small subset of those who are often disparagingly referred to as “birthers.”
Would you also use the epithet “tea bagger”, as you’re using “birther”? Good way to quash debate, by labeling your adversaries (and demeaning them) before the first word is written. Alinsky would be proud.
Obama’s own wife recently referred to Kenya as his country of birth, his grandmother says so as well.
There’s no evidence (that hasn’t been forged, badly) that shows his birthplace anywhere else. Two hospitals in Hawaii orginally claimed that status, adding to the confusion.
As Americans, we have the absolute right to know exactly who our leaders are. Obama was NEVER properly vetted.
Why?
Our Constitution REQUIRES a natural born POTUS. Everything I’ve seen so far on the subject indicates that Obama is a fraud. He’s spent over a million dollars covering up his background.
Why?
Since the MSM has failed dismally to properly investigate Obama’s background, it’s left up to the citizenry to perform that task.
Is that being a “birther”? In my book, it’s just being a concerned American.
What a condescending post. Why should anyone “help you out” when every sentence of your post shows how much you sneer at and look down upon anyone who thinks Obama was born in Mombasa? I have no idea WHERE he was born; I just want to know why he spent two million dollars to avoid having to show his birth certificate and other records.