Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by Bettybb

I note that you did not respond to my question about our military which is a socialist organization. I presume that you are anti miliary, and anti police, and anti public schools and all the rest of our socialist organizations!

I did not respond to your comments because they are provocative garbage.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by Bettybb

Sure it was... you deleted all the insults!

You really are a twisted sister. I deleted nothing.

Yep, you did. When you cut and pasted your sentences to claim you had not issued insults, you deleted the insults.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by Bettybb

I note that you did not respond to my question about our military which is a socialist organization. I presume that you are anti miliary, and anti police, and anti public schools and all the rest of our socialist organizations!

I did not respond to your comments because they are provocative garbage.

I think you did not respond to my question, because you are not able to. The fact is, we have many socialist instututions here in America, starting with the US military, and including our public school sytems, our police and fire departments, our national parks, our transporation infastructure, our public libraries, our public hospitals and on and on...

The real problem is that the GOP is playing word games...they are using the term socialist as if was the term communist... in order to scare their base, who obviously, does not understand the difference. Talk about manipulation. Talk about fear tactics.

Bettybb, you don't seem to learn very much from your correspondence with others.

These are NOT political issues - they are legal issues.

Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Bettybb, you don't seem to learn very much from your correspondence with others.

These are NOT political issues - they are legal issues.

Have a nice day.

Highlander, I believe it's time to halt further dialogue with Bettybb on this subject. She drank the kool-aid and now she is what she is. Logical arguments won't persuade her to do the research necessary to find out what we now know.

Wow, your people are still trying to get BettyBB to sway!

Give it a rest, she drank the whold jug of koolaid and won't rest until she wins, or at least thinks she has won! My daughter is the same way...

Betty, you won.........now on to more productive talks!

Originally Posted by jamesw62

OKAY EVERYONE

yall need to ease up and calm down

DID YOU TWO NOT SEE THIS POST?
Enough is Enough.

NOW KNOCK IT OFF!!!

JUST A SPECULATION . . .

but interesting, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by [url=http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=811&pageNo=14

In the WorldNetDaily forum, JoePhoto[/url]]DATE of Birth QUESTION
Posted by JoePhoto on Jun 01, 2010 03:45

I have recently discovered an interesting fact.

The ONLY requirement for filing a "Certification of Live Birth", (used for home-births and when born out of state/country, so there is no hospital or doctor listed), is that the "parents" MUST HAVE RESIDED IN Hawaii for ONE "YEAR".

The Certification-of-Live-Birth was used for home births, or out of state/country, (so no hospital or doctor is listed). It is interesting to note that the "baby" does NOT have to be presented as evidence to record the birth, (so no footprint).

Thus [it is] impossible to actually verify the date-of-birth.

Since Barack's mother/family only moved to Hawaii in Aug. 1960, the EARLIEST POSSIBLE DAY a Certification-of-Live-Birth could have been legally filed was Aug. 4, 1961.

This means that Barack could have actually been born earlier, maybe much earlier.

This could allow that Obama could have been born in Kenya even 6 months earlier.

It could also explain how Barack's mother was physically able to have then been in Seattle, found a residence, enrolled in classes, and actually BEEN IN CLASS only 15 days later, (Aug. 19, 1961).

That would also mean that Barack "SR" could NOT have been the father [because they met at the Univ. of Hawaii no earlier than Oct., 1960].

Now may I also present another "interesting" fact for you to ponder ...

Just Last Week .... the Washington Post had an article on Barack Obama and Malcolm-X in the same edition of the paper.

Barack and Malcolm look SO MUCH ALIKE that the photo-editor actually MIXED UP (transposed) the photos.

I also remind you that Barack's mother was "active" in the civil-rights movement, and could have been classified as a "groupie" among the activists.

Note that Malcolm-X HAD BEEN IN SEATTLE a couple of months before Aug, 1960; (when Barack's [mother's parents] suddenly gave up "executive" level jobs and moved, virtually overnight with no notice to any friends/relatives).

Further note that Hawaii was a very "mixed-race" state, and a mixed-race baby would be more accepted there, (than in [Washington state]).

I suggest that [this] scenario is the only thing that ties everything together, and addresses all the questions.

Malcolm X was a U.S. citizen. But even if Malcolm X did happen to be Barack Obama II's biological father, whichever man was named the father on the vault State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth determines the status of the son, by ius sanguinis, the law of blood. But "native of the village," Kenyan-born Barack Obama II was a (Kenyan) British Protected Subject by ius soli, the law of the soil. For conferring citizenship in 1961, the INA of 1952 required five years of U.S. residency after age 14, and ten years total. His mother was 18, too young to confer her U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born son of a Kenyan father.

Either way, he could not have been a natural born citizen, which is, one born in the country of two citizen parents. Barack Obama II would have been a U.S. citizen at birth with Malcolm X as his father, though by Kenyan birth, still ineligible for the Office of President. With Barrack Hussain Obama, Snr., as his father, Barack Obama II was only a (Kenyan) British Protected Subject at birth, and nothing more.

BORN IN THE USA?
Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records
Maintain president should be chased from office if he doesn't come clean
Posted: May 31, 2010 8:37 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND
by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.


President Barack Obama pauses as he listens to a question during
a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington

At a time when Barack Obama is getting heat for stonewalling information about an alleged administration bribery scandal, a new poll shows more Americans than ever suspect the president is hiding information about his own background and want him to come clean.

Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president, exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions, release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden, have been on the radar of a number of top-level investigative reporters and news organizations since before his election.

Essentially, while the Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," none of the questions about Obama's qualifications – or lack thereof – under that requirement have yet been answered.

It's working! Sign the petition that will force Obama to prove he's eligible for office

"Simply put, this question about Obama's legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americas," wrote Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies in an analysis of his results.

"Our latest polling shows a majority of Americans – 55 percent – want Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation," he said.

"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," he said.

The poll said when asked about whether Obama's background documentation – the school records, birth records and others – should be released, the 55 percent who said yes included more than 82 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of independents and nearly 28 percent of Democrats.

Further, another 17.1 percent of Americans said Obama should release some of his documentation, making it nearly three in four Americans who want the president to unlock the steel door on some or all of his background information.

Despite his campaign promises of transparency while in office, there has been no shortage of disputes over secrecy in the Obama administration. He's already argued in court for more secrecy in the White House, claimed his work is "privileged" and apparently got rid of an inspector general who was applying heat to a friend.

The survey indicates Obama's orchestrated efforts to marginalize "birthers" who are raising questions about him and his background have failed totally. The fact that only 65 percent of the members of his own party will agree that he's been transparent is a "red flag," the analysis said.

"When Barack Obama was campaigning for the U.S. presidency, he promised one of the most open and transparent administrations in the history of the country. Sixteen months into his term, a majority of Americans believe he has failed. That a majority of adults nationwide – 56 percent – said he has not run an open administration is a stern rebuke because there is so much power invested in the office of the presidency," said Wenzel.

"Forget that any modern president would have trouble standing up to a comparison with George Washington and other early presidents when it comes to honesty and integrity, Obama has taken steps throughout his administration that appear secretive," he said.

"Once elected, he appointed dozens of so-called 'czars' to oversee various parts of the federal government, which are extra-constitutional in that there is no provision for congressional approval of such appointees. To further complicate things, we have seen a flood of legislation that would make landmark changes to American society, all pushed by the Obama administration before congressional lawmakers had a chance to even read the bills," Wenzel noted.

"Then, when it was clear the public was displeased with the direction in which Washington was moving under Democratic party rule, President Obama ignored the national clamor to slow down. Instead, he pushed ahead with an even more aggressive agenda, even as voters rejected his agenda wherever they had the chance – in such Democratic strongholds as New Jersey and Massachusetts," he continued.

The opinion from only two-thirds of Democrats that Obama has been "open and transparent" is a "flashing red danger signal, but it is unclear the Obama administration is paying attention to such things," Wenzel said.

The fundamental question of his eligibility originally came up during his campaign.

"This is an issue that … is easily put to rest once and for all by his release of his long-form birth certificate," Wenzel said. "His refusal to do so has fed the idea that he has something to hide. Americans aren't asking him to prove a negative here – that he didn't do something illegal – but rather are simply asking that he prove a positive: that he was born on American soil.

"When required, every American citizen produces their birth certificate for a variety of reasons, and it is no big deal. This is why Obama's refusal to produce his is so baffling – and so troubling – to so many people," he said.

Aaron Klein's exposé of Barack Obama's notorious connections with extremists and America-haters is scorching the best-seller lists. Order your copy of "The Manchurian President" today.

Asked specifically if Americans believe Obama was born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens – one accepted definition of a "natural born citizen," as required by the U.S. Constitution for a president – only 38 percent said yes.

Fifty-two percent agreed Obama is hiding something by refusing to release his documentation.

"Asked specifically about their beliefs about the place of Obama's birth, 39 percent said they suspect he was not born in the United States. This belies the efforts of the Obama administration to paint so-called 'birthers' as a right-wing fringe group. Even among Democrats, nearly one in four – 22 percent – said they either suspect he was not born in the U.S. or that they are not sure on the question," Wenzel said.

WND columnist David Limbaugh said even the "liberal New York Times has begun to notice" that Obama "is still playing hide-and-seek with the press."

"Not having a genuine news conference since July would be remarkable for the least transparent administration, let alone one that made openness a signature campaign issue," he wrote just days ago.

Likewise, WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah has noted Obama's secrecy in connection to the developing case of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.

Sestak has reported he was offered a job in the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania senatorial primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

"If he's telling the truth, and can prove it, a very serious crime has been committed by someone in the Obama administration – one that could lead right to the president's door," he wrote.

"Of course, this calls for an independent investigation. A probe of this kind cannot be directed by anyone within the Obama administration. It cannot be conducted by the Democratic Congress in a critical election year. It requires the appointment of a special counsel with full subpoena power. It also requires some transparency and answers from a regime that has pledged to be the most open administration in history."

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Fritz Wenzel <media@wnd.com> about this story, please e-mail.
__________________________________________________ __

See detailed results of survey questions:
[In the original article, each question is linked to its result.]

During his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama pledged to conduct the most open and transparent administration in history. Do you think he has lived up to that promise?

Thinking of Obama, do you believe he has lived up to that pledge with regard to his own personal life?

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans are concerned about Barack Obama's refusal to release his long-form birth certificate, school records, college records, Harvard Law School papers, medical records, travel records, passport records and other personal documents. What do you think he should do?

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: He is unquestionably a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: He is unquestionably a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of at least one U.S. citizen parent.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: He is unquestionably a natural born citizen, but I don't know where he was born or the citizenship status of his parents.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: I don't know, but he is hiding something by refusing to reveal his long-form birth certificate and other documents.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: I think he is eligible, but I am confused about the constitutional definition.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: No one can be sure without public scrutiny of his long-form birth certificate and other documentation.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: He is not eligible because his father was a Kenyan national and Obama was born a subject of the British Crown.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: I suspect he was not born in the U.S.

Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama's own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: We don't know enough about Obama's birthplace, parentage and his residency in Indonesia to say for sure.

If it is some day determined that Obama has been ineligible to serve as president, what should happen? Please choose the following response that best represents your opinion:


If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

JUST SPECULATION . . .

but interesting nonetheless.

Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, Elsalouise

He won't release his records because they would show that he was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1959... days before Hawaii became a state. Obama says he was 10 when he watched the astronauts splash down after the moon landing. That happened in 1969. His SUPPORTERS say he lied when he wrote that, because he was in Jakarta until he was 10. He left Jakarta in June of his 10th year, plenty of time to get to Hawaii to see the astronauts land in July. He says his father left him and his mother when he was 2. His father graduated from the University of Hawaii in 1962, just shy of his 3rd birthday, if his birthdate is 1959. But if his birthdate is 1961, he is not even a year old! Who should you believe? I say, believe Obama himself!