The Birther Truth

[jane333]

I guess I don't get it. These are properties owned by one or more unrelated Barack Obama's, Mr. Barack's and Mr. Obama's both, and the current resident's/owner's ssn's appear as identifiers? I sure don't know.

How does a legitimate researcher get other people's ssn's in the first place? And attached to an address?

There's not a lot we can tell from whoever posted this info. I'd be inclined to call it baloney.

[flourbug]

jane333, one is President Obama, and one is his wife Michelle. The others are people who have registered as Barack Obama, have SSN's assigned to them, and voted in the 2008 election as Barack Obama.

Barack is a unique name. Barack's father spelled his name Barrack, and pronounced it "BARR-ik" not "Buh-rock". Both spellings are an Anglicized version of the name "Baraka". I would expect a lot of babies have been named Barack since Obama became a public name, but it is very surprising to find any adults at all with such an unusual name.

I don't know what the list of Barack Obama's with SSN's implies... I just threw it out because I came across it a few minutes ago and remembered someone here asked about SSN's assigned to Barack Obama. It is my understanding the official list in the SS records actually shows 49 different SSN's assigned to "Barack Obama".

[flourbug]

Good read about the Breitbart revelation that Barack Obama was promoted in 1991 through 2007 by his professional agency as an author "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/..._the_hood.html

[Lars]

Originally Posted by dyrt

The elephant in the room is that the fraud surrounding Obama's birth information is only the top of the iceberg. I think there are many people that are enemies of Obama and know the truth but are afraid to say what they know . . . yet. As his robes of gold are not seen any more and his power crumbles, there is going to be an avalanche of damning facts. We live in dangerous times.

Rodger that. If this man weasels into office again, the vast unraveling will just accelerate. Our only defense will be congressional gridlock and whatever dirt that can be dug. "Transformational", indeed.

[jane333]

Originally Posted by flourbug

jane333, one is President Obama, and one is his wife Michelle. The others are people who have registered as Barack Obama, have SSN's assigned to them, and voted in the 2008 election as Barack Obama. ....

I don't know what the list of Barack Obama's with SSN's implies...... It is my understanding the official list in the SS records actually shows 49 different SSN's assigned to "Barack Obama".

Where is this information about people who've registered as Barack Obama? Not on the page I saw. And what is the "official list" you speak of? Do you have a link for either of these?

FWIW, I found a 'book review' at WND.com in which the book's author gives even a third pronunciation.

"....Jacobs notes that senior Obama pronounced his first name BEAR-ick” as in army barrack. In “Dreams from My Father” Barry tells a friend she can call him “Barack” only if she can “say it right.” Barry, however, has always said it wrong as buh-ROCK.

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fra...t_obama_sr.htm

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Obama Sr.'s name change:

"...Obama Sr. was raised in a Muslim family,[16] but converted to Christianity and changed his name from "Baraka" to the more Christian-sounding "Barack" when he was about six years old at the insistence of the Christian missionary schools he attended.[17] He became an atheist as a young man, before meeting his second wife, Ann Dunham.[4]"

Further conflicting information about Obama Sr.'s name.

"....Barak Obama Sr.---And yes the spelling is correct; Obama senior had no C in his first name. Barak Obama Sr. was a graduate student in the economics department at Harvard He was, in fact, an urbane, Western-oriented intellectual -- of a modestly leftist bent, to be sure, but much like many Indian, Pakistani and other Third World exchange students who studied economic development. Obama was playful, jested a lot and had histrionic gifts that he frequently displayed in his deep voice.

Barak’s father, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. Barak was a child of privilege, not poverty. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman. 'Hussein.' is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa...."

Found at http://www.howdypodna.com/baraksr.html

My caveat: I know nothing about these websites.

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by jane333

Where is this information about people who've registered as Barack Obama? Not on the page I saw. And what is the "official list" you speak of? Do you have a link for either of these?

The "official list" is the database maintained by the Social Security Administration. If you know the number, you can look up the name associated with that number here: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/ssnv.htm

Accurint, Merlin, KnowX, LocatePlus and TLO are lookup services that find SS numbers by name, but most require demonstration of permissible use.

FWIW, I found a 'book review' at WND.com in which the book's author gives even a third pronunciation.

I have found older articles, such as those reporting on the Kenyan Student Airlift, list him as Barrack or Barak. It is my understanding he used Barrack and the first syllable was dominant. BEAR, BARE, BARR... my American ear might not catch the nuance of someone speaking with a heavy accent, so I am not hung up on any variation. The British Foreign Office listed him as Obama, Barrack.



Sometime during his stay in Hawaii, the spelling changed to Barack. It is possible that quoted articles on the web have had the spelling "corrected", if for nothing but SEO purposes. But there's a photo reproduction of a letter of complaint about sr from Harvard that names him Barack. So I believe he started to use that version of the name himself at some point after his son was born.

I don't think confusion about spelling or pronunciation is uncommon with foreign sounding names. Ellis Island was famous for shortening and anglicizing names and cousins with the same name in the old country would end up with half a dozen different last names in the US.

My point was, the name is unusual. If you are on Facebook, look up John Kennedy or William Clinton. You'll be flooded with returns of people who are not the former Presidents. I would expect many returns in the Social Security database for those names too. But AFAIK, there is no living person named "Barack Obama" besides our President. I would not expect dozens of people to have social security numbers under his name that were issued prior to his entry on the public stage. That is more than suspicious. It is a smoking gun.


.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by jane333

Where is this information about people who've registered as Barack Obama? Not on the page I saw..

hey sister "It's Memorial Day", why don't you give it a Rest.


~

[jane333]

flourbug,

I'm glad you found this list. Honestly.

And I'm really very curious....that you claim to 'understand' that an official SSN list shows 49 Barack Obama's on it, yet you've not been privy to that list. Theoretically, NO ONE ELSE HAS either except Social Security officials. And maybe this one unnamed internet persona who posts uncorroborated information online.

I find it suspicious that an unnamed person claims to have access to ssn's, and then makes claims about them being those used by PRESIDENT Obama. And then links them with some addresses in the U.S. But with part of the address not visible so it can't be corroborated. Real or not? OK, maybe not suspicious, but certainly fictitious.

I can make a list. Anybody can.

Barak Obama SSN ***-**-8376, address: 446 ******* Cincinnati, OH
Barack Obama SSN ***-**-9665, address: 20 ******* Seattle, WA
Barrack Obama SSN ***-**-4344, address: 1147 ******* Burbank, CA
Obama Barack SSN ***-**-2009, address: 310 ******* Lake Havasu City, AZ
....and so on

I guess what I'm saying is that there is NO WAY to corroborate the claims of the unnamed internet persona who posted this information. To read it and believe with a capital 'B' is patently silly. No smoking gun. Nothing. Just words on a screen.

Contradictory spellings and pronunciations imply a larger problem with information gathering and corroboration, as well. If even conservative/anti-Obama websites that fairly well agree on their agenda can't agree on a trivial detail, then why would anyone trust them for any other piece of information?

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by jane333

And I'm really very curious....that you claim to 'understand' that an official SSN list shows 49 Barack Obama's on it, yet you've not been privy to that list.

You misunderstand.

I HAVE seen lists of Social Security numbers attributed to Barack Obama, which have been obtained from Social Security Administration records by investigators. I have posted links to at least a half dozen here on TBM.

Here's a whole page of info with links and court submitted affidavits and screen shots. http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SocialSecurity.htm

Theoretically, NO ONE ELSE HAS either except Social Security officials.

The information is available to law enforcement, investigators, attorneys, skip tracers, banks and financial institutions, anyone who needs such information in their line of business. Attorneys routinely use investigators to find public information on behalf of their clients, including alternative identities and social security numbers.

And maybe this one unnamed internet persona who posts uncorroborated information online.

The unnamed persona who authored the PDF I posted as a link, is Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. Commander USNR (Retired) I copied the pdf from a link and failed to attribute it properly.

I find it suspicious that an unnamed person claims to have access to ssn's, and then makes claims about them being those used by PRESIDENT Obama. nd then links them with some addresses in the U.S. But with part of the address not visible so it can't be corroborated. Real or not? OK, maybe not suspicious, but certainly fictitious.

Commander Kerchner was one of the first people to challenge Obama's eligibility in Kerchner et al vs Barack Obama & Congress et al. The lawsuit and Kerchner's essays are available on Scribd. His essays are very interesting - http://www.scribd.com/collections/27...erchner-Essays

I can make a list. Anybody can.

Yes, you can. The difference is, your list is made up and the lists presented to the various courts as evidence come from the Social Security Administration database.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is NO WAY to corroborate the claims of the unnamed internet persona who posted this information. To read it and believe with a capital 'B' is patently silly. No smoking gun. Nothing. Just words on a screen.

It absolutely can be verified. They have been verified. The lists come directly from searches of the government database.

Contradictory spellings and pronunciations imply a larger problem with information gathering and corroboration, as well. If even conservative/anti-Obama websites that fairly well agree on their agenda can't agree on a trivial detail, then why would anyone trust them for any other piece of information?

That has been addressed at the link I provided above for theobamafiles.

[jane333]

I'm sorry to harp on this. I don't know how to say it any other way. ANYTHING posted online can be fabricated. ANYTHING anyone asserts can remain unproven. This includes lists, photos, screenshots, what have you. If a SSA list was presented to the court, and that is available at a .gov or other court-administered website, that would be of interest to me. Can you provide a link?

Re. Kerchner: Here's what the appellate court (United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit) ruled regarding the final disposition of the case. It seems pretty clear to me that this case, one among many, has been found to have no merit. Taken from caselaw.findlaw.com:

..."Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that “[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” “The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration.” Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir.1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion ․ as a matter of justice to the appellee.” Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir.2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An “important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources.” Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir.1993).

...Plaintiffs' claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' frustration with what they perceive as Congress' inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.

Id. at 483 n. 5. We agree."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1530129.html

[flourbug]

I'm sorry to harp on this. I don't know how to say it any other way. ANYTHING posted online can be fabricated. ANYTHING anyone asserts can remain unproven. This includes lists, photos, screenshots, what have you.

I agree with you.

If Justia can change Supreme Court rulings, then Scribd can change legal documents on their site. (There's no evidence they did, mind you... it is just that they could.)

Everything is suspect, jane333. Even when the people posting it bear titles of authority and SWEAR it is unadulterated and authentic. Which is why it is so important to have forensic and document experts examine the original records at the Hawaiian Dept of Health.

Re. Kerchner: Here's what the appellate court (United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit) ruled regarding the final disposition of the case. It seems pretty clear to me that this case, one among many, has been found to have no merit.

Very few courts have allowed the subject of the birth certificate to go to trial. The judges have dismissed cases before hearing any evidence, saying the Plaintiff did not have standing, or there was no merit to the case, or used other excuses not to hear arguments. Federal judge James Robertson threw out a lawsuit questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, because “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court” He refused to hear the case.

There has NEVER been a judge who was willing to subpoena the original records that are in the possession of the State of Hawaii - or let forensic experts examine those records, or even allow Plaintiffs to have access to the records.

Even the AZ Secretary of State didn't ask for those records. He got a letter saying the birth certificate released to Obama was an authentic representation of the records held by the State of Hawaii. How do we know the pictures Obama posted - which absolutely show the effects of tampering and manipulation - in any way resemble Hawaii's records?

We don't.

This whole thing smells BAD... and that is the whole point, isn't it? We have elected a man who REFUSES to reveal the truth about his background. He has created a fantasy and demands we believe it.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" ~ 1984

[jane333]

To subject Obama to a higher level of scrutiny than all other candidates and presidents because someone waves a flag and says, "I think he isn't eligible," is apparently NOT required by the courts or the Constitution.

Democracy in action may change that. It may inspire new law to require forensic analysis of birth documents. That's what America is all about. I can see that coming down the pike.

But let's not pretend that this particular internet hullabaloo isn't about Obama's ethnic origin. Conspiracy theorists hold up their OPINIONS as facts, for political reasons. That smells bad to me.

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by jane333

To subject Obama to a higher level of scrutiny than all other candidates and presidents because someone waves a flag and says, "I think he isn't eligible," is apparently NOT required by the courts or the Constitution.

jane333, I do not know where you get the idea that Obama is being held to a higher standard. The one thing even the liberal media now admits is Obama was never properly vetted. He was never even held to the same standard as other candidates.

Obama hid his birth records and his adoption records, sealed all of his college records, and his client list when he was an attorney, and all of his medical records, and his passport records - and a lot more. We find out his "autobiography" was ghost written and contains composite characters and events. His resume is full of bogus claims. He gave up his law license to avoid charges of providing false information on his bar application. He has denied friendships with convicted felon Anthony Rezko and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, and only disavowed the anti-American Rev Wright under political pressure.

But let's not pretend that this particular internet hullabaloo isn't about Obama's ethnic origin. Conspiracy theorists hold up their OPINIONS as facts, for political reasons. That smells bad to me.

There are many people who voted for Obama because he identifies himself as black. There are many people who did not vote for Obama because he identifies himself as black.

But this particular hullabaloo is all about the Rule of Law. You see, jane333, the Constitution is not a Chinese menu. It is the basis for all laws in the United States of America. It can be changed, and has been changed, when enough people believe part of it is outdated. There is a process for doing this that requires us to take time and consider what we are doing, so we do not rush into too many fads we later regret (remember Prohibition).

In the time between Obama's election to the Illinois State Senate, and the day he announced his candidacy for President, there were over a dozen pieces of legislation submitted to Congress seeking to change or eliminate the natural born citizen clause. EVERY ONE OF THEM was voted down.

For a reason.

The learned men and women of the Congress know that they can't redefine words and terms found in the Constitution, nor can they change the Constitution by legislation. It takes an Amendment. But that didn't stop Obama et al.

In 2007, Obama co-sponsored a bill that "recognized" John McCain as a natural born citizen. The problem with that is, a natural born citizen is a form of citizenship that cannot be created, negated, or changed by legislation. If you are born on the soil to parents who themselves are citizens, no other country can lay claim to your loyalties and you have no responsibility to any other country than that of your birth.

McCain was born in Panama. Not on a military base or a hospital in the US sector - he was born in a Panamanian hospital in Colon. Even though his parents were citizens in service to their country, even though he had a distinguished military career, he was NOT eligible to be President. Legislation cannot "make" him natural born, or "recognize" him as natural born.

Marco Rubio is not eligible. Bobby Jindal is not eligible.

But wouldn't it be convenient if both parties could just ignore that Constitution, ignore laws based on the Constitution, and just do whatever the hell they want - and if you object, they will call you a racist.

Remember that, when they come knocking at your door. Those silly ideas that you can be safe in your home and secure in your property.... or not held without trial... or not forced into involuntary servitude....

[jane333]

I'm not privy to the process used to 'vet' a candidate for U.S. President, and I'll bet I'm not alone. I can't imagine what kind of 'evidence' you've seen posted online that it didn't happen. Or that the 'liberal media' agrees with your claim. I probably shouldn't even ask for links.

But I have a little firsthand experience with records.

What does it mean to 'hide' birth or adoption records? What does it mean to 'seal' college transcripts? Obama was born and adopted. His records exist. They have been referenced time and again. The hubby and I were both born, or so I've been told. We adopted our kids. We generate medical records at every dentist, gp and specialist. Can just anyone walk into an office somewhere and get Xeroxes of any of those records?

No.

Can I write to your university that I want to browse through your college transcripts, and they will then oblige me with a copy of them for my personal files? Should I be able to? And don't I remember from some tv show that attorney client lists are privileged information, by law?

Honestly, flourbug, I don't doubt that Obama's detractors love it when allegations of bogus-this and false information-that circulate the internet. He has bad friends? He makes bad decisions? He suffers from bad breath? Who can distinguish fact from fiction??

Despite the sheer hubris of the allegations against him, NONE have anything to do with Obama's eligibility to run for president.

[jane333]

A fairly thorough description of the undetermined nature of McCain's citizenship and eligibility to run for president appears at snopes.com The paragraph about the 2008 Senate resolution (cites the framers of the Constitution) gives me hope that we will not, as a people, construe that document as exclusionary rather than inclusive in the final analysis.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

[gsgs]

most law experts seem to think that Rubio,Jindal are eligible

[flourbug]

What does it mean to 'hide' birth or adoption records? What does it mean to 'seal' college transcripts? Obama was born and adopted. His records exist.

jane333, in all of the political campaigns in which I was involved the candidates were more than happy to produce any and all records, including those that validated their eligibility. Candidates for Congress and Senate (and often Governor) made their educational, work, and personal records available through their campaign, while candidates for State offices published a resume and complied with any media requests for further information with the appropriate documentation. I was often personally responsible for obtaining those records and disseminating the information. While I never realized the lofty goal of managing a Presidential campaign, I did work closely with those campaigns and can assure you that they often provided Too Much Information. No one really cared about the moles Reagan had removed, or Clinton's nasal allergies. But they did make those doctor reports public.

A fairly thorough description of the undetermined nature of McCain's citizenship and eligibility to run for president appears at snopes.com The paragraph about the 2008 Senate resolution (cites the framers of the Constitution) gives me hope that we will not, as a people, construe that document as exclusionary rather than inclusive in the final analysis.

I agree. I agree that it is absurd that McCain would be ineligible. Personally, I think any child who was born here or brought to this country before the age of two, whose parents immigrated with the intention of breaking all legal ties with the old country and becoming permanent residents and citizens of the US and followed through with those plans, and which child then lived in the US continuously until the age of majority, is probably every bit as loyal as a natural born citizen.

But I don't make the laws. We have an existing law - and it is not mere legislation that can be changed at whim. This law is written into the original body of our Constitution. It was well discussed by our Founders at the time it was written, and they left us a body of historical evidence explaining their logic in limiting the office only to natural born citizens.

I have no problem with changing the law, if it is done properly. That would be through an Amendment that clearly states the new requirements for the office of President.

But until then, it IS the law - and NO ONE is above the law. Or, no one should be. Because once we give the Government the unfettered ability to pick and choose which laws they follow, I assure you that you will get exactly the type of growing authoritarianism that tramples the rights of the people that we are seeing now. The root is one and the same.

gsgs, when you read those experts, take note if they say a candidate is a "citizen" or "natural born citizen". To quote jane333's link at snopes, "the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is an important one" when it comes to Presidential candidates. Many journalists do not seem to understand that the two terms are not interchangeable, and will present a strong argument that the candidate is a citizen - and therefor eligible.

You are a man of logic. Ignoring your feeling about the law, lets take this step by step.
Given: "natural born citizen" is something more than "citizen"
Given: anyone born on US soil is a citizen
Problem: what ELSE is necessary - what other factor is needed - to be a natural born citizen?

[jane333]

This article appears to explain the origin of the fiction about Obama and 'his' supposed many social security numbers.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...ma-27-numbers/

Here's a short excerpt. Plenty more at the website.

"...Other clear errors find their way into Sankey’s list — the frequent misspelling of Barack Obama’s name is one and the placement of the White House in the states of Maryland and California is another. My favorite is the record which places Barack Obama’s residence at 1234 Happy Street, a street in Covington Washington that does not exist.

Finally, what does Neil Sankey think of his own list? The Guardian asked him:

Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president…"

[jane333]

flourbug,

"Any and all records?" Can you be certain? How would you have known that any possessed evidence that invalidated their candidacy if they NEVER PRESENTED IT to you?

A resume is a list of employers and education, a fluid document and not written in stone. Neither is it a single document; I have several resumes each slanted toward the type of position for which I might apply. Maybe you are still uncertain about Obama's work history and education despite copious information which appears in printed and online sources. It's not a requirement of his presidency that he remedy that. FWIW, here's what Wikipedia has to say about Obama's early career and education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_l...rn_to_Ha waii

Your experience in political campaigns must certainly prove something, but not that President Obama has withheld information. You may have read that somewhere on the internet. Go ahead and blame him for having more propriety than those candidates from whom you've gotten "too much". It's as good a claim as any.

You may make inferences about what the founders of the Constitution hashed and rehashed. The reality is that no one alive today was present during those discussions. The Constitution gives short shrift to this topic, for whatever reason. How we interpret it today may or may not be how they interpreted it 200 years ago.

None of it makes Obama ineligible for the presidency.

[flourbug]

jane333, the site is owned, and the article written by one Jonathan Cook of Trumansberg, NY. He is a Democrat, a contributor to Democrat politicians, a supporter of Barack Obama, and during the last campaign he made an income from another site he owns, http://progressivebumpersticker.com/ That site is now down but I encourage you to put that domain name into Google and click on the Images tab to see the Pro-Obama bumper stickers he sold.

What I got from Mr Cooks opinion piece is, the two professional private investigators who submitted evidence to the court and claimed, "There is only one Barack Hussein Obama according to the U. S. Census and he has 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases." used NexusLexus and other sources that banks and attorneys commonly use when searching for public records, and there MAY BE errors in those records.

Okay. I can buy that. I have used commonly known credit report agencies to run my credit reports, and I have found errors. Which is not surprising seeing my ex married a woman who has my same first, middle, and last name - and she and I are the only two people in the Census with that name. I have to regularly go down the list and that bill is hers, and so is this one...

But 80 different aliases? At LEAST 27 Social Security Numbers? ALL of them on the books BEFORE Obama ran for national office?

Nahhh.... that's a bit much.

[flourbug]

Originally Posted by jane333

"Any and all records?" Can you be certain? How would you have known that any possessed evidence that invalidated their candidacy if they NEVER PRESENTED IT to you?

Because, as I have stated numerous times before, they were obtained from the appropriate governmental agency, with a stamp of certification and a letter of authenticity signed by the issuing agency.

Congressional and Senatorial candidates must be citizens, born or naturalized. Birth certificates were not pulled out of a family Bible. We called up the county Department of Records and had them send the documents to our office by courier. They arrived in a sealed envelope. Not spitlick sealed. Sealed with a paper stamp over the flap in the same manner it would be delivered to the court.

Maybe you are still uncertain about Obama's work history and education despite copious information which appears in printed and online sources. It's not a requirement of his presidency that he remedy that.

Work history is irrelevant to eligibility. I only brought it up because a great deal of his educational, employment, and private life has been kept from the public, and information released by Obama and his campaign has been found to be inaccurate or outright fabrication.

Your experience in political campaigns must certainly prove something, but not that President Obama has withheld information.

A few weeks ago a teacher in South Carolina was talking to her class about reports Romney bullied a gay classmate when he was in high school. A student asked the teacher how that was different from the statement in Obama's autobiography where he admitted bullying and physically pushing a female classmate when he was in school. The teacher flew into a rage.

There's a LOT of negative information about Obama. Really terrible stuff. A small fraction applied to any conservative candidate would immediately knock them to the sidelines. But when it comes to Obama, even if it is right under our nose (or in his autobiography) the general public doesn't know about it. People are wholly invested in the shining light and halo that was manufactured for Barack Obama, with the express purpose of landing him in the White House. His supporters can't handle the truth. They come up with all sorts of excuses of why he is justified, nay, noble for hiding his past.

You may make inferences about what the founders of the Constitution hashed and rehashed. The reality is that no one alive today was present during those discussions. The Constitution gives short shrift to this topic, for whatever reason. How we interpret it today may or may not be how they interpreted it 200 years ago.

What MATTERS is how they interpreted it 200 years ago! Definitions change over the years. Words take on different meanings. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. The Constitution MUST be interpreted as the Founder's intended. Unfortunately they didn't think to create a dictionary with a full definition of every word and term. As Wong Kim Ark says, "we must look outside the Constitution" to figure out what the Founders intended when they wrote natural born citizen. Fortunately, the Founders, including who wrote the Constitution, were learned men who lived in a time when correspondence was mainly through letters and published works, rather than sound bites on tv or internet blogs. They left a HUGE body of work that told us exactly how they felt on a variety of subjects.

We have accurate records of the YEARS of debates, wrangling, and considerations in Congress, by the men who quite literally started with nothing when they defined our form of government. Before it was ratified there was a huge public relations campaign that produced thousands of pages of documents, by both the authors of the Constitution and those who opposed what was in it. If you read the Congressional records, you will find a strong argument by some who wanted an elected Monarch - a well respected citizen who would serve for life - because the large number of foreigners and children of foreigners did not yet have the adequate nature of fidelity they sought in their leadership. Of course, they had George Washington in mind.

The Federalist Papers are 85 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay promoting ratification of the Constitution, and explaining the concepts that informed the authors of that document. John Jay talks about Foreign Force and Influence in 2 through 7. Those pertaining to the Executive Branch are found from 67 through 77, and were all attributed to Alexander Hamilton. In response, the Anti-Federalist papers were published, along with speeches and writings of Bryan, Clinton, Lee, Yates, and Henry. This should get you started. http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

After ratification, and until the death of the various Founders, they were prolific in their writings, their letters to each other, and records to their personal libraries and the fledgling government (Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams were all in Europe during the Revolution as Ambassadors). In their correspondence they further explained their reasons for setting up our form of government.

Most pertinent is the letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787, after Congress drafted the Executive eligibility requirements (from Hamilton's draft) to state "citizen of the United States".

Jay suggested a change: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

The very same day, July 25, 1787, James Madison stood before Congress and gave a speech warning about the infiltration of foreign "intrigues and influence" who would want a man who was favorable to their interests at the head of our government.

A subcommittee met and discussed the importance of having none but a natural born citizen to avoid any possible foreign influence on the highest office. On September 4, 1787, the Congress took the recommendations of the subcommittee to a vote, and the eligibility requirements for President were written, 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S.'

It is obvious, in a historical context, that the Founders who wrote the Constitution included the term "natural born citizen" because they did not want anyone with foreign citizenship serving as President. Otherwise, Jay's suggestion does not make sense. If "citizen" is the same as "natural born citizen" then why say citizen for Congress and Senate, and natural born citizen for President and Vice President. No, Jay was specific, Washington carried the request to Congress, and Madison made the argument on the floor. It was written into the Constitution so that no one born with foreign citizenship by virtue of being born on foreign soil, or by virtue of having a parent who passed foreign citizenship to their child, or by naturalization by a foreign nation, would ever become President.

None of it makes Obama ineligible for the presidency.

If you say so.

[jane333]

Here's another pretty thorough bio for Obama from the Gale Group. It's a print source found at my library reference database, but apparently also appears online. This took me five minutes to find. Print sources like this exist at public libraries in every city, I have no doubt.

EXCERPT:

...."Born: August 04, 1961 in United States, Honolulu, Hawaii
Nationality: American
Occupation: President (Government)
Selected worksBooks
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Crown Publishers, 1995.
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Crown Publishers, 2006.
Business International Corporation, research associate, 1984-85; Developing Communities Project, director, 1985-88; Sidley Austin, summer associate, 1988, 1989; Harvard Law Review, president, 1990; Miner, Barnhill & Galland, attorney, 1991-96; University of Chicago Law School, lecturer and senior lecturer in constitutional law, 1992-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2004; U.S. Senator, 2005-08; President of the United States, 2009--.

Recipient 40 Under 40 award, Crains Chgo. Bus., 1993; Monarch award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994; Chmn.'s award, NAACP, 2005; Harvard Law Sch. Assn. award, 2005; Howard Blake Walker award, Christopher House, 2005; Lifetime Achievement award, Detroit, Mich. chapter NAACP, 2005; Congl. Leadership award, Nat. Urban League, 2006; Best Spoken Word Album, Grammy Awards, 2006, for Dreams from My Father, and Best Spoken Word Album, 2008, for The Audacity of Hope; Person of the Year, Time magazine, 2008; The Top 25 Market Movers, US News & World Report, 2009; The World's Most Powerful People, Forbes mag., 2009; Biography of the Year, Galaxy British Book Awards, for Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, 2009; Nobel Peace Prize, 2009.

Born Barack Hussein Obama Jr. on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, HI; son of Barack Obama (a Kenyan government economist) and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (an anthropologist); married Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (an attorney), October 18, 1992; children: Malia Ann and Natasha. Politics: Democrat. Religion: United Church of Christ. Education: Occidental College, 1980-81; Columbia University, BA, political science, 1983; Harvard Law School, JD (magna cum laude), 1991. Memberships: Center for Neighborhood Technology, board member; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, member of the founding board of directors; Cook County Bar Association, member; Cook County Bar Association Community Law Project; Joyce Foundation, board member; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, board member; Woods Fund of Chicago, board member. Addresses: Office--The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20500. Website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...."

Much additional info regarding Obama's career can be found at the website.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/bic1/Refe...4418&mode=view

Another thorough bio at this website below. This is page 2, listing Obama's early career:

http://millercenter.org/academic/ame...ys/biography/2

[flourbug]

jane333, posting Obama's bio du jour (Kenyan born yesterday, US born today. University professor yesterday, part time lecturer today. Named girlfriend yesterday, composite female today. Gave up smoking yesterday, uh... ignore the smoke, nothing to see here.) is very nice, but really, most of us are way past that point in the discussion.

[Pablo Escobar]

So, where did obama work between 83 and 89? No one remembers him.

Where did obama work after Harvard law? No one remembers him.

Shit. I'm not important, but old friends have tracked me down, and I refuse to use social media. Obama doesn't exist.

Obama has never, ever released any pre-running for office historical information about himself that third parties can independently verify. The only information we have is what is given for consumption.

Name me one, just one, republican or democratic candidate, in the last 200 years, that refused to release school records. Refused to release tax records. Refused to release employment records...

Just one.

Jane, you can't. Because no one has hidden their illegal past before. When anyone asks for Barak to perform to the same standard as other American citizens wanting to be president, people like you scream "Tha's Razis". Huh?

If Barak has nothing to hide, he shouldn't be afraid. The fact, repeated over and over again, by Barak's own lawyers, that he does want to hide his past, is enough to convict him, justly, by rational, thinking adults.

[flourbug]

Talk about hiding his past. I've been following the NJ case of Purpura et al vs Obama, which has made it to the NJ Appellate Court. (This is the case where Obama's attorney said no one has to prove they are eligible, Mickey Mouse could be on the ballot and be elected).

Obama argues that since he personally did not put his name on the ballot in NJ (the Dem party did) he is not responsible for proving his eligibility and in fact never has to prove his eligibility.

Here's the link to the Plaintiff's response: http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/951953...-FILED-5-29-12

Do you believe this? Our President is in court, spending a fortune, to REFUSE to prove he is eligible.

btw, former NY Governor Paterson is in the news. During a discussion about Romney's need to distance himself from Trump, with NBC Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, Paterson proclaimed, “You know, even if he wasn’t born in the United States at this point, it’s kind of like he got away with it. A lot of people get away with a lot of things.” (For those who do not know, Paterson is black, and a Democrat.)