If you could somehow link this back to the AP and find out who really wrote this article (if it's legit), it would be a huge find.

But I remain skeptical. I think it is fishy that this was on webarchive.org all these years, and it was only found now. Could be an elaborate hoax. All of a sudden it appears?

Thanks for the most excellent post! S&F for you!

I have been following this story since early 2008, before Obama was even being considered a serious threat to Clinton for the DNC presidential nomination because he was my first choice for the presidency. And, purely as a life-long activist who usually voted for Democratic candidates after researching their background thoroughly, I can personally attest to the unstoppable determination and incredible lengths Obama's team went to - and continues to go to - in order to suppress this sort of information...in order to keep their candidate viable and, eventually, win the white house.

I have many months of collected research myself, although some of it was lost under suspicious circumstances when my highly protected computer was hacked and I was forced to do "clean" reboots of my system twice early in the election campaign.

And I'm just a somewhat more than active voter...an amateur community activist with an active life outside of politics, at best. (Although I was fairly active, individually, for years in voter registration and in the campaigns of those candidates I supported.) Imagine what must have occurred in the more fervent sections of this election.

It is not difficult at all to consider overwhelming subterfuge and power politics pushing through a politician of uncertain birth origin during a time when change was so desperately sought by so many voters. All the right ingredients were there for this to happen.

I, personally, am absolutely convinced that until Obama opens up his personal records and allows the world free, unhindered, non-biased access to them without the concern for tampering, this issue will not die down or fade away.

Actually, as one of the early activists demanding full disclosure from Obama - and the DNC, I proudly wear my "Pro-Birther" T-shirt to encourage questions from people I meet about how little is actually known - outside of his own biased team's productions -about Obama's birth.

You're encouraged to join in and push the envelope of inquiry even further. All it takes is a will to see the truth regardless of the pressure to be quiet and stop resisting.

Before Obama's candidacy, I actively campaigned for many Democratic candidates, but never again. Now, I truly believe our two major parties are compromised beyond repair. That was a hard pill for me to swallow and I struggled for months to come to terms with it's implications.

Many progressive independents, previous Democrats and Republicans are now fighting to help remove the Electoral College influence on federal elections. Most of us are of the opinion that no real change in US national politics can occur without first eliminating this intervening body.

So, again, thanks for this marvelous find! Good on ya!


!!!

Edit: Sorry about the typos, iPhone doesn't have spell-check. Hope I caught 'em all.

I also haven't had my coffee! 

Namaste.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by LeelaSavage]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by LeelaSavage]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by LeelaSavage]

[edit on 15-10-2009 by LeelaSavage]

given the fact that press reportage has been shown to contain factual error after factual error - why should i , or anyone else believe this ` kenyan born ` statement to be true ???

After well more than a year of intense accusations of Obama being born in Kenya and this obviously smoking gun appears only now? And appears seemingly simultaneously on all the usual suspect websites?

I wouldn't be reading a conspiracy website if I wasn't inclined to be a little skeptical of that just on its face value.

I'm not going to comment on if I think it is real or not, or if Obama is Kenyan born or not, instead, I am going to point out some of the skeptical remarks on this issue.

It seems like every skeptical remark falls into one of five categories

1. Doubt the journalists credibility -- blame the journalist for not fact checking, obviously it is his mistake and not my world view

2. Ask why this article hasn't surfaced earlier. "Why are the birthers just now uncovering this? Surely they would have uncovered this earlier." This is a slick technique, because it is actually complimenting the conspiracy theorist on his investigative means, for example, "CT's will dig up any kind of dirt against their opponents, so why bring this up so late?" On one hand the skeptic is acknowledging the zealousness of the CT, however, even if this article did surface on time, see rule number 1 (deny credibility)

3. It's a hoax! Of course it can be a hoax, however this is a guarantee to at least distract the masses regardless of the facts. It could be real. It could be a hoax. Who knows, but remember, it COULD be a hoax (it also COULD be real)

4. Deny the conspiracy. "It's impossible for so many people to collectively agree to lie about someone's birth, including hospitals, doctors, media, etc." However, it apparently IS possible for different people across the world to collectively pass on a rumor while assuming it is a fact (meaning the birth certificate could be a fake and thus a rumor that's simply passed around).

5. (thankfully I haven't seen this on this post yet, so I'm not accusing anyone of doing this, however it is convenient outside of forums such as ATS) when all else fails: INSULT! call them a tin foil hat wearer or mention big foot.

Look at the replies from the skeptics, and tell me if I'm missing something here. I'm sure someone could come up with some rules as to what birthers follow (1. it HAS to be a conspiracy. 2. I don't like him therefore... 3. The journalists ALWAYS fact check)...

Remember, we're all Skeptics on some level.

if the article was removed, I'll become a believer. The best way to tell if someone is lying is based on how much they try to hide or conceal information. It could have been very easy for the newspaper to simply say it was a careless mistake and reprimand the journalist. Why try to erase it unless you're operating in a 1984 "he who controls the past controls the future" mentality.

Originally posted by whatukno
Why do I get something different than the OP article? Ok this doesn't work for me to link it, I don't know why. But just quote me, then take the space out between the /and the http: and you will get what I am looking at.

The article is there. It's linked under the News Headlines, third from the top.