[galveston]

Here is something for all you researchers to get your teeth into. Check this out and get back to us, please.

AP declared Obama “Kenyan-Born”
(The Post & Email)
What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.
How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
The AP reporter stated the following:
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.
The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama: because if you search for “Kenyan-born US Senate” you won't find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.
For those who believe what they see, here is the screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 — Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive:

Readers should take note that this AP story, was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide. If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story. You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.
Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm. However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.
It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.
Duckworth working to win | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper
A Chronology of Deceit
One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough: “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”
Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:
1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)
2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.
3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)
4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)
If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.
In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.
Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:
June 25, 2004 — FOXNews.com - Ryan Drops Out of Ill. Senate Race - You Decide 2004
June 26, 2004 — Bellview News Democrat
June 26, 2004 — AP Online Story by Michael Tarm
June 25, 2004 — AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan
(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)
(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

[tomder55]

I wonder if " AP " has a spell checker... this article has the President's 1st name spelled BARRACK .
My best guess is it's a hoax.

Readers should take note that this AP story, was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide. If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story. You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.

Correct it should be in the archives of the Standard if it was real. But the archives for that date show no such article.

If I want to give them the benefit of the doubt ;It's also possible that AP did indeed distribute this story from one of it's affiliates without doing due diligence of fact checking and spell checking .

But let's assume this is true... he'd still be eligible to be President because he is born of an American mother .

From the U.S. Code
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12–IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I–Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States
At birth:
………
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
Alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
The birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
Not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining
The age of fourteen years.

The reason I continue to address this nonsense is that birthers somehow get linked to conservatives by the left as proof that we are fringe. The President was born in Hawaii. There is a birth certificate and announcements in 2 Hawaii newspapers saying so . And even if he was foreign born ;he is still eligible because his mom is American . End of story .

[paraclete]

I wonder if " AP " has a spell checker....this article has the President's 1st name spelled BARRACK .
My best guess is it's a hoax.


Correct it should be in the archives of the Standard if it was real. But the archives for that date show no such article.

If I want to give them the benefit of the doubt ;It's also possible that AP did indeed distribute this story from one of it's affiliates without doing due diligence of fact checking and spell checking .

But let's assume this is true ....he'd still be eligible to be President because he is born of an American mother .

From the U.S. Code
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12–IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER III–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
Part I–Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States
at birth:
………
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining
the age of fourteen years.

The reason I continue to address this nonsense is that birthers somehow get linked to conservatives by the left as proof that we are fringe. The President was born in Hawaii. Thre is a birth certificate and announcements in 2 Hawaii newspapers saying so . And even if he was foreign born ;he is still eligible because his mom is American . End of story .

Tom what do you think the words "natural born" mean, it doesn't say anything about parentage or the citizenship of his parents. The whole debate is a furphey anyway, if there were serious evidence he was not eligible it would have been presented by now.

[tomder55]

Tom what do you think the words "natural born" mean, it doesn't say anything about parentage or the citizenship of his parents.

That's why our laws spell out clearly who is a natural born citizen .

if there were serious evidence he was not eligible it would have been presented by now.

Of course! McCain's campaign researched this thoroughly .

[speechlesstx]

Again, can we please drop this birther nonsense? Geez, enough is enough, it's a non-issue.

[paraclete]

That's why our laws spell out clearly who is a natural born citizen .



Of course !! McCain's campaign researched this thoroughly .

Those laws are not part of that constitution document

Apparently not thoroughly enough

[tomder55]

If the birthers want to challenge the constitutionality of the uniform code's definition of natural born they are free to do it. That they don't leads me to believe they accept the definition as written in the law.

But what the founders believe qualified as natual born has been documented in their own words. The only modification to their original intent was in the amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War. I'll concede the point that the founders realizing that things evolve as it were gave Congress the power to define natural citizen in the code.

On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen"

Let the birthers also know that any movement to change the Constitution has not been in favor of a more restrictive defining of the President's eligibilty. There have been numerous proposed amendments to do away with the restriction altogether... you know... to get us a President Ahhnooold .

The birthers should mobilize to make sure the President is a one termer and give up these fantasies of removing him from office. It isn't going to happen.

[paraclete]

If the birthers want to challenge the constitutionality of the uniform code's definition of natural born they are free to do it. That they don't leads me to believe they accept the definition as written in the law.

But what the founders believe qualified as natual born has been documented in their own words. The only modification to their original intent was in the amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War. I'll concede the point that the founders realizing that things evolve as it were gave Congress the power to define natural citizen in the code.

On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen"

Let the birthers also know that any movement to change the Constitution has not been in favor of a more restrictive defining of the President's eligibilty. There have been numerous proposed amendments to do away with the restriction altogether ....you know ...to get us a President Ahhnooold .

The birthers should mobilize to make sure the President is a one termer and give up these fantasies of removing him from office. It aint going to happen.

This is a strange argument you know where a nation which prides itself on democracy disenfranchises its citizens in one important particular. Why should not any citizen be entitled to become President, what is unique about a natural born citizen and is why this disenfrancisement not extended to Governors, representatives and senators? What you hold up as something good about the founding fathers thinking is actually to create a class system. These guys weren't so great you know, they were slave owners

[tomder55]

You are judging 18th century people with 21st century standards.

The reason I think it is a good idea is to prevent foreign intrigue. It works for us. It is a relatively easy process to go from resident to citizen here ;as I read it same there . Perhaps your system is different in the power given to the national leader .But here the President has the power of being the Commander in Chief .Not a position you want to give to a foreign agent.

[paraclete]

You are judging 18th century people with 21st century standards.

The reason I think it is a good idea is to prevent foreign intrigue. It works for us. It is a relatively easy process to go from resident to citizen here ;as I read it same there . Perhaps your system is different in the power given to the national leader .But here the President has the power of being the Commander in Chief .Not a position you want to give to a foreign agent.

No I am judging them by their own standards, they knew slavery was passing away but they passed a piece of legislation, the constitution, which basically said not in my life time and you want to hold this piece of legislation up as morally incorrupt and worthy of guiding today's thought. They still looked to their states within the union as sovereign, a position which led to a civil war some eighty years later, but today you don't hold that position

This is all very commies (read British for the eighteenth century) under the bed and it demonstrates your paranoia. I don't think you need to be beware of foreign intrigue, you need to beware of the intrigue of the native born, look where the intrigue of Bush and his cronies got you. We don't have trial by media here in the way you do, but we have have a system where the national leader must explain himself, checks and balances, in rigorous debate

[tomder55]

they knew slavery was passing away but they passed a piece of legislation, the constitution, which basically said not in my life time

Politics is the art of the possible . They knew they could not forge a nation if they took a hard position on slavery. They put into the Constitution the means to change it .

and you want to hold this piece of legislation up as morally incorrupt and worthy of guiding today's thought.

I do not consider it morally incorruptible ,but yes it is indeed worthy of guiding today's thoughts because the founders knowing humans are flawed creatures devised a governing principle that assumed that that the government that governs least governs best.

They still looked to their states within the union as sovereign, a position which led to a civil war some eighty years later, but today you don't hold that position

I still hold that position that States are sovereign in our system. The Civil war was indeed about slavery ;but the constitutional position disputed was a states right to disband the union. As for the spark that caused it ;I still mostly blame the Supreme Court for acting imperial . Had they let the Missouri compromise stand slavery would've peacefully withered on the vine.

This is all very commies (read British for the eighteenth century) under the bed and it demonstrates your paranoia. I don't think you need to be beware of foreign intrigue

Fine I hope a jihadi immigrant gains control of Australia's government . Perhaps in your system with a weak executive it is of no concern. But in our system the executive is also Commander in Chief so indeed there are national security issues at stake in the provision.

The only thing I have to say about your inane rant against Bush is that every move made was transparent and debated excessively and thoroughly in our Congress ;in the courts ,and in the media. I would remind you that your PM ;who must explain himself, checks and balances, in rigorous debate...was part of the coalition of the willing.

[paraclete]

.

Fine I hope a jihadi immigrant gains control of Australia's government . Perhaps in your system with a weak executive it is of no concern. But in our system the executive is also Commander in Chief so indeed there are national security issues at stake in the provision.

The only thing I have to say about your inane rant against Bush is that every move made was transparent and debated excessively and thoroughly in our Congress ;in the courts ,and in the media. I would remind you that your PM ;who must explain himself, checks and balances, in rigorous debate...was part of the coalition of the willing.

Speaking of insane rants, whatever I may think of Americans and their misguided government I would not wish Jihad and over through of their order on them. Your rant demonstrates how childish you are. Our executive is not weakened by having to explain itself, it is strengthened and just like yours our head of state is commander in chief. That role is largely ceremonial except in time of war and is not used as an excuse for unilateral action.

Every now and again we have a politician who says me too. I don't doubt John Howard's judgement was upset by being in Washington on 9/11 and being infected by the hysteria of the American people and he was a very able demigog, a highly experienced parliamentarian but supporting you in Afghanistan is one thing and being lost in the momentum in Iraq is another. Many were taken in by the lies concocted by Bush and his cronies. In any case Howard was bought with an FTA

[tomder55]

That role is largely ceremonial except in time of war and is not used as an excuse for unilateral action.

How can you say we acted unilaterally when we had Australia as an ally ?

Many were taken in by the lies concocted by Bush and his cronies.

The coalition acted on consensus opinion based on the best intelligence available at the time. NO ONE disputed the intel ,even the opponents of the action taken . What we call that in America is Monday morning quarterbacking .It's a football analogy .Everyone is an expert in hindsight.

This conversation has drifted from the silliness of questioning the current POTUS constitutional qualifications to a silly Bush rant. BDS must be a chronic pandemic .

[paraclete]

How can you say we acted unilaterally when we had Australia as an ally ?

The coalition acted on consensus opinion based on the best intelligence available at the time. NO ONE disputed the intel ,even the opponents of the action taken .

.

Now I see why you wanted us along for the ride. I can see how a thousand troops make a big difference in a desert.

Who is NO ONE. We had an Australian in the defense department tell us it was all nonsense.
Andrew Wilkie - Independent Candidate for Denison
What you are saying is Bush cronies and I include Tony Blair and John Howard in that group didn't dispute the intelligence because it suited their purpose

[galveston]

Clete, it's clear you don't like Bush.

Do you love Obama?

[paraclete]

Clete, it's clear you don't like Bush.

Do you love Obama?

I'm just watching, he has a silver tongue, I'm waiting for him to achieve some of the rhetoric. I don't think he has proven he's not part of the party machine yet.

I think he is right on health care, everyone has a right to at least basic care without having to take out a mortgage. Whether he could get that without materially altering the structure remains to be seen. As to the stimulus, how is this different to the usual boondoggles and subsidies?

As far as Bush is concerned, I believe he did the wrong thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, too much of daddy's unfinished business and besides he wasn't smart, not true leadership material. A smart leader would have made sure he finished off Bin Laden before moving to another theatre. We shall see if Obama has learned anything

[tomder55]

What you are saying is Bush cronies and I include Tony Blair and John Howard in that group didn't dispute the intelligence because it suited their purpose

This is all more Monday morning quarterbacking . Even leaders who opposed the war like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Egyptian President Hosni Mubark were convinced that Iraq had WMD .If there was solid evidence that there were none then why wasn't that presented in the long runup to the war ?
We didn't even hear a peep out of most people until the war became difficult.

[paraclete]

This is all more Monday morning quarterbacking . Even leaders who opposed the war like German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Egyptian President Hosni Mubark were convinced that Iraq had WMD .If there was solid evidence that there were none then why wasn't that presented in the long runup to the war ?
We didn't even hear a peep out of most people until the war became difficult.

Come on, Tom, you know that they didn't want to know, Saddam Hussein wasn't a serious threat except in his own mind. Bush bought the rhetoric and the bill of goods sold to the US by the Iraqi in exile. You and I both know there was more to this and we have debated it in various forums for eight years. There were people like Wilkie but they were told not to rock the boat. Bush had his own agenda and unfortunately the platform from which to launch it. So Saddam may have been doing some research but whatever he had he got rid of long before the invasion. According to one of his generals it is buried in the Syrian desert so there were no WMD in Iraq and no reason for the invasion

[excon]

This is all more Monday morning quarterbacking

Hello again, tom:

Yes, it is. But, speaking of Monday, your quarterbacking is off kilter, too...

You throw up your hands, look around wide eyed, and proclaim that the whole world believed he had WMD's... But, you don't blame the guy who was IN CHARGE when that BOGUS intelligence got produced and then got relied on.. Bizzaro, really.

Then you count the days AFTER we were attacked and say, look, he kept us safe... All the while pretending that he wasn't IN CHARGE when we were attacked...

It's just kind of funny how you look at stuff...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

Yes, it is. But, speaking of Monday, your quarterbacking is off kilter, too...

You throw up your hands, look around wide eyed, and proclaim that the whole world believed he had WMD's... But, you don't blame the guy who was IN CHARGE when that BOGUS intelligence got produced and then got relied on.. Bizzaro, really.

Then you count the days AFTER we were attacked and say, look, he kept us safe.... All the while pretending that he wasn't IN CHARGE when we were attacked....

It's just kinda funny how you look at stuff...

excon

Ex it's all ancient history now but Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. This is sad but true. He was actually an object of fun with a TV show lampooning his life in the White House. A leader held up to ridicule. Now they want to tell us he changed overnight from buffoon to statesman.

Another truth is that whatever is on the leadership comes down on the people, so the spirit of slumber that afflicted Bush also afflicted his people. I'm not surprised when I find some are still slumbering on.