Obama born in Kenya?

The Obama birth certificate. Why is this still accepted as valid? The Birther movement still matters, for the precedent.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Was Barack H. Obama born in Kenya? The international press suspected that in 2008, before the election. Today, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s team tried to find records that could answer that question once and for all. And they cannot find them.

Obama born in Kenya – Israel said it first

One of the first international news organs to suspect that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as he claims, was Arutz-7. On October 12, 2008, Arutz-7 published this article, quoting Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side as saying that she was present when Obama was born—in Kenya.

Someone is lying.  According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims.  His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room.

Tamar Yonah investigated further. She found two separate statements on the Internet, saying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but in two different hospitals. One was Kapiolani, the hospital that the Obama birth certificate document lists. The other was Queens Medical Center. Two separate interviews by Barack Obama’s sister turned up the same discrepant answers. (Note: one of the links in Yonah’s article leads to an HTTP 404 error on Google.com. The other leads to the cache of a Wikipedia article on Queens Medical Center, dated March 5, 2012, three and a half years after the original article in Arutz-7.)

On the other hand, she ran this Google search on the hunch that the family of Stanley Ann Dunham did not accept Barack H. Obama, Senior, on account of his race. Then she printed this quote:

Obama’s family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama’s grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii.

Airline travel was still relatively new in 1961, but becoming more accessible outside of “The Jet Set” by then. Still, no airline would allow a nine-months-pregnant woman on board.

Obama born in Kenya – or where was he born? And when?

Barack Obama: was Obama born in Kenya after all?

Barack H. Obama. Photo: Pete Souza, January 13, 2009

Fast-forward to the present day, and the report of the Cold Case Posse of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. They reported that the Obama birth certificate document, the one saying that he was born in Hawaii, had many discrepancies and could not possibly be trustworthy. They also reported that seven days’ worth of records of persons on flights returning to the United States are missing from the National Archives. The dates are August 1 through 7 inclusive, 1961, seven days that bracket the alleged date of Obama’s birth, August 4, 1961.

WND gives this more specific quote about the missing records from the Cold Case Posse Report:

The microfilms that were found for the time period include “NARA Record Group A3573, Reel 184, INA records from July 28, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961″ and “NARA Record Group A3573, Reel 185, INA records from Aug. 8, 1961 through Aug. 12, 1961.”

However, “Remarkably, all INS records for the week of Obama’s birth, Aug. 1 – Aug. 7, 1961, were missing from the end of Reel 184 and were not discovered anywhere on Reel 185, or any other microfilm reel in the record group,” the report said.

“The National Archives confirmed in a letter written on National Archives stationary that the INS records for foreign flights arriving in Hawaii during the week of Obama’s birth were missing, not only on the microfilm reels examined, but also in the primary database itself,” the report said.

The problem: Stanley Ann Dunham Obama did not land in Honolulu before August 1, 1961, during the time for which records are available. And that any airline would let her fly three days before Obama was born is inconceivable.

There is more. Obama might have been born before August 1, 1961. In which case, perhaps Dunham brought her infant son back to Hawaii during that seven-day interval and got a witness to register his birth in Hawaii. (See below.) If anyone ever finds those seven days’ worth of records, they might then show Stanley Ann Dunham flying back to Honolulu with a child in her arms and not as a pregnant woman about to deliver any day.

To reply to repeated references to birth announcements in two separate newspapers saying that Obama was born in Hawaii, WND says this:

The Cold Case Posse dismissed so-called evidence of two newspaper announcements in Honolulu citing Obama’s birth, explaining that those same announcements also listed foreign infants as Hawaii-born, as well as listing 3-year-olds as newborns.

Furthermore, CNAV has already pointed out that newspapers always rely on the parents to submit information for birth announcements. And they never, never “vet” this information. Nor do newspaper reporters work the “Labor and Delivery Beat,” jotting down birth dates and times in local hospitals. That was not the practice in 1980-1985, when this correspondent attended Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX, and served as an obstetrical clerk in a busy charity maternity hospital in Houston. And it certainly would not have been the practice in any hospital in Hawaii in 1961.

On March 7, 2012, Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University, published this article in the English version of Pravda. In four pages, she sets out background on Obama’s birth and Arpaio’s investigation. Cotter points out that:

  1. Long before 2008, Obama sought to amend the Constitution to supersede these words from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: “No person, except a natural-born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of President.”
  2. The United States Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett (1876), clearly defined a natural-born citizen as one born in-country to two citizen parents. (Barack Obama, Senior, was a British colonial subject.)
  3. The letters of the Framers of the Constitution expressed their concern about a Commander-in-Chief of questionable loyalty. Those letters inevitably referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, and his definition of a natural-born citizen. The key: Minor v. Happersett defines “natural-born citizen” in the same way as Vattel did.
  4. In those days, anyone could register a birth in Hawaii on the strength of the signature of one witness.
  5. Hawaiian law said that anyone born in Hawaii after April 30, 1900 was a citizen of the United States at birth regardless of whether that person was subject to United States jurisdiction. Hawaii became a State in 1959, so perhaps this matter is moot. Or is it?
  6. Administrators of the site Justia.com systematically scrubbed references to Minor v. Happersett in many other case citations. Cotter cited two articles that documented the changes. Cotter also confirmed the changes independently.

Conclusion: Obama is hiding something, and the American media are also hiding it. They are hiding not only where Obama was born but also the relevant Supreme Court case law.

So: was Obama born in Kenya? Can anyone blame anyone for thinking he was?

Related:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

 

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

40 Responses to Obama born in Kenya?

  1. It is common knowledge that Obama made some huge campaign promises in 2008, prior to charming enough of the voting electorate to vote him into the White House Office. One of the many major promises that bit the dust was the promise of transparency within his Administration. Part and parcel of this broken promise of transparency has been the lack of background information of Barack Hussein Obama, himself. Both political parties, nor did the mainstream media ever insist upon Obama’s personal transparency – even today. It has taken some independent news media and committed individuals to slowly pry the lid off Obama’s personal background.

    But, be that as it may, Obama does not qualify for being a legitimate US president by virtue of him not meeting the major requirement of being a “natural born citizen.” That alone is evident by virtue of his father’s parentage and foreign nationality.

    I’ve stated it for sometime now, that the actual conspiracy behind this whole Obama birth and Constitutional requirement issue, is the reality of all those who have turned blind eyes and deaf ears. They are the true conspirators. Their conspiracy is “CTDAS.” They are “Conspiracy Theorists of Denial, Arrogance and Silence,” over the whole issue of Obama’s legitimate presence in the American White House. They (and they are legion) are like the gutless and cowardly people depicted in Hans Christian Anderson’s tale of the “Emperor with No Clothes.” For whatever variety of reasons these gutless and cowardly people choose not to acknowledge and face realities regarding Obama’s legitimacy to be a genuine US president, there can be no honest excuse.

  2. Apart from the Constitutional reality that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a “natural born citizen,” and that Obama and company are (apparently) forgers of fraud, I think that Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation is very legitimate.

    One of the results of the sheriff’s investigation dismisses the two Hawaii newspaper clippings which defenders of Obama have relied upon to help create their allegation that Obama was born in Hawaii,- although to this day, either alleged hospitals fail to acknowledge that Obama was born at their particular venue. As such, the newspaper announcement clippings don’t evidence what the Obama people wish they do. According to the investigation, the two newspaper announcements illustrate the common practice of family reporting their child’s or grandchild’s birth to the newspaper, of which personal family announcements were then printed, without verification. These printed newspaper announcements included “foreign infants as Hawaii-born, as well as listing 3-year-olds as newborns.”

  3. rpeh says:

    Betteridge’s Law of Headlines states that “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word ‘no'”. This article is another good data point in support of the law.

  4. rpeh: Re: Your March 10, 2012 at 3:33 am comment:

    I don’t know about “Betteridge’s Law of Headlines,” but I do know that laws are broken every day. I’ll give you an explanation for this commentary article’s question mark.

    Birchers, Constitutionalists or whomever that question Barack Osama’s Constitutional credentials to be legitimate US president, are, by and large polite and decent people. They are willing to go out of their way to give the benefit of the doubt. To my understanding, that is [was] the intention of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigative team, until the evidence forced them to conclude otherwise.

    • Correction for previous posting:

      It’s “birthers,” rather than “Birchers.”

      • rpeh says:

        I don’t know how you can claim that about the so-called “Cold Case Posse”. There are refutations for every single piece of “evidence” they introduced, but their attitude has been that anything contradicting their preconceived notions will be immediately rejected.

        There is plenty of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii: there is none that he was not. I have no idea why you keep clinging to disproved material.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Well, I do know why you keep perpetuating a lie-agreed-upon about Obama’s origins. You know perfectly well that if he be found never qualified to be President, then all his acts, appointments, and other actions are therefore null and void.

          • rpeh says:

            No. They aren’t. Obama was sworn in as president and is therefore the president. If he is impeached and removed from office, all acts passed during his term remain in effect until revoked in the usual legal manner. I know you have your own opinion on this, but it’s wrong.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            But if he turns out never to have qualified, impeachment would not be the remedy. Removal of an illegal occupant of the office would be. The oath isn’t the qualifier; the oath is simply another requirement. (“Before he enter…”)

          • rpeh says:

            That’s what I meant by my “you have your own opinion on this”. You’re simply wrong. The fact is that Obama was recognised as President by the House, the Senate and SCOTUS: you aren’t denying the recognition I take it?

            If you really want to stick to this slightly silly POV, have you considered the harm it will do? It’s not just the things YOU want to repeal that will disappear (2 SCOTUS appointments, the ACA, etc). With your view, every single thing Obama did as President will have been illegal. That means, for instance, the killing of Osama bin-Laden would be murder; every US soldier that killed anyone under orders during Obama’s term as Commander in Chief will also have been guilty of murder… need I go on?

            Luckily, as I said, you’re wrong. None of this will happen. Firstly because Obama is your President and qualifies for the role given his birth on US soil; second, your personal interpretation of the law would be laughed out of court – just as all other birther claims have been.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Now you know why several US soldiers have refused orders—for precisely the reason you raise. Happily, some of that falls under the heading of “de facto officer” or the equivalent. The rest, a proper court can always adjudicate, if need be.

        • rpeh: Re: Your March 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm comment:

          You stated the following:

          <<<<<<>>>>>>>>

          Do I need to remind you that a “refutation” does not equal evidence?

          Furthermore you make the glib value judgment without evidence about the Cold Case Posse’s “attitude.” If you would come up with that cheap assertion in a court of law, the judge would over-rule you and tell you to substantiate your personal inclination claim with some credible evidence.

          rpeh: I really think that you are the one who has “preconceived notions,” – else you would be more open to where all the investigation and evidence is taking Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation.

        • rpeh: Re: Your March 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm comment:

          You stated the following:

          ………There are refutations for every single piece of “evidence” they introduced, but their attitude has been that anything contradicting their preconceived notions will be immediately rejected……

          Do I need to remind you that a “refutation” does not equal evidence?

          Furthermore you make the glib value judgment without evidence about the Cold Case Posse’s “attitude.” If you would come up with that cheap assertion in a court of law, the judge would over-rule you and tell you to substantiate your personal inclination claim with some credible evidence.

          rpeh: I really think that you are the one who has “preconceived notions,” – else you would be more open to where all the investigation and evidence is taking Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation.

          • rpeh says:

            Do I need to remind you that evidence that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny isn’t really evidence either? All this “investigation” has produced is the same tired nonsense.

  5. B.Steadman says:

    Barack Hussein Obama II, illegal President, was born August 4, 1961 at the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and NOT in Hawaii as he claims.

    A high resolution copy of OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE is available for free download at: http://www.WasObamaBornInKenya.com

    Lucas Daniel Smith obtained a certified copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate from the birth hospital in February 2009. His amazing story is told in a VIDEO that is also available for viewing at the same website.

    • B.Steadman says:

      The full, correct link should read:

      http://www.WasObamaBornInKenya.com

      Sorry!

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      And also uploaded to YouTube, and now available on CNAV‘s channel in the “Obama Eligibility” playlist.

      For everyone’s information, the Lucas Smith video is dated May of 2011, shortly after the release of the Obama birth certificate document.

      If the Cold Case Posse hasn’t taken the opportunity to view the PDF document, it should.

      There’s just one problem with the timing. The seven-day gap in the returning-flight records in the National Archives brackets the August 4 birth date rather neatly. What might not be quite so neat is suggesting that Stanley Ann Dunham would have returned to the USA with a three-day-old newborn in her arms. But even that is more credible than the thought of a woman flying overseas in that era, while pregnant and about to deliver any day.

      Here’s the problem: there is no record of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama ever having returned to the United States before or after the period of the Seven-Day Gap. That strongly suggests that she returned during the Seven-Day Gap. The question, again, is whether she returned nine months pregnant, or returned with a child in her arms.

      Whoever this witness is, I recognize the woman identified as “Dr. Orly Taitz” from the live-stream video from the administrative hearing in Georgia v. Obama held in the beginning of February.

  6. JT says:

    The thing I find laughable about this “investigation” is that the right-wing media tout Arpaio’s Cold Case squad as being linked to Maricopa County, with places like WND saying “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse” and even Zullo describes himself as “Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Chief Investigator, MSCO Cold Case Posse”

    However, the “posse” is made up of volunteers and has no links to the county at all. So there seems to be some blatant misrepresentation going on. Zullo himself is described as a “retired detective from New Jersey” – but not if he’s ex-police, or just a gumshow.

    And then there’s the book that Zullo couldn’t wait to release (co-authored with Jerome Corsi – the WND writer fired from his job for making stuff up about HSBC.) Funny that – how long does it take to write a book, and what would he have written if he found the certificate to be real?

    It must be nice to live in a Shambala where you believe everything you’re told, but it only takes a bit of thinking to realise you’re being fed a pack of lies.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Maybe you don’t understand what a “posse” is. It is a group of deputized volunteers. They have sworn an oath to follow the sheriff’s orders, but they are not on the sheriff’s payroll. And because they are volunteers, their investigation does not cost Maricopa County taxpayers anything.

      • rpeh says:

        I’m sorry, but I still can’t find evidence about this. There is absolutely no detail about the oath sworn, or about those who allegedly swore it.

        There’s a HUGE difference between people sworn in as representatives of US law and people sworn in to follow a vendetta by a racist sheriff.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          The only people alleging that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is racist, are the suspects that he happens to be prosecuting, and those who, purely out of political motive, sympathize with said suspects.

          It is not racist to enforce a law that members of a given race just happen to break out of proportion to their numbers in the population. Si usted no puede hacer el tiempo, no cometa el crimen.

          And I repeat: members of the Cold Case Posse are sworn representatives of the law. Just because they serve as volunteers does not diminish their authority in the slightest. Posses were all the rage in the American West, and they are still valid.

          • rpeh says:

            The allegations of racism happened first. Things have reached the point where even the local GOP is ashamed of the man.

            You have still supplied nothing to prove that the members of this posse are sworn deputies. Please do so.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Well, frankly, sometimes the local Republican establishment in any county is often an embarrassment to the memory of Abraham Lincoln and those who started the Republican Party with a view to bringing about a passionately desired reform. I wouldn’t own their shame as mine.

            And I don’t think I have to prove anything to you. I’ve told you over and over what a posse is. If you want to challenge their word, why don’t you write to the Sheriff’s Office of Maricopa County, Arizona, and ask them yourself.

  7. JT says:

    I somehow doubt these people were sworn in – is there any proof of that?

    You also ignored the fact that the lead investigator immediately publishes a book, with the man who himself has written a book about the birth certificate, and thus has a financial reason for pushing this.

    It hardly makes Zullo seem like an objective, independent investigator.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      That’s because, to you, “sworn in” necessarily implies “paid,” and especially “salaried.” Members of a posse typically are not paid. But they must still take an oath to uphold the law.

  8. JT says:

    The fact that they’re called volunteers implies they are not paid, as I stated. I’ve still seen no proof that they swore any oath.

    And what about the book? Hardly an impartial lead investigator.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      He wrote that book after he and his fellows developed evidence that the birth certificate was not what it purported to be.

  9. JT says:

    And before anything is done about their report? It’s a bit like OJ’s prosecutors writing about the murder of Nicole, before the trial commences.

    And he has time to meet up with Corsi, write the book, arrange e-publishing and sales on Amazon, etc, all in the short period after Arpio make his findings public?

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. The man’s credibility is questionable at best, as is his impartiality. Name one other police investigation where the investigators write a book before any official action is taken.

    It’s just another chance for Corsi to make money out of peddling his crazy idea – especially now that he’s been fired from his day job.

  10. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  11. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  12. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  13. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  14. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  15. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  16. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  17. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  18. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

  19. […] was born in Africa, not America. (Actually, it is enough that his father was a British East African colonial subject. […]

  20. […] Obama born in Kenya? […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.