AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

Originally posted by whatukno
Or... And stay with me here... This is complicated...

He has a freaking COUNTRY to run and can't be bogged down with Bleach blond Real Estate agents/Dentists who take a freaking correspondence course in law and think they are a lawyer. I don't know, maybe he has something more important to do?

*sigh*

Come on now Whatukno, you're smarter than that. All of this started before the elections, and there have been multiple lawsuits filed by multiple people not just by Taitz. My only point was exactly what I said in my first post to you. Obama is a lawyer. Unlike someone who has no background in law he wouldn't lose just because he didn't hire a lawyer.

So what happens if Obama is found ineligible to be president because of this article? Does that mean he loses the Nobel prize as well?

reply to post by Jenna

Come on now Whatukno, you're smarter than that.

You are the first person on this board to ever accuse me of that. and I demand that you be banned immediately for posting such untrue statements about me personally

All of this started before the elections, and there have been multiple lawsuits filed by multiple people not just by Taitz.

Right, and what happened in each and every single one of these lawsuits?

My only point was exactly what I said in my first post to you. Obama is a lawyer. Unlike someone who has no background in law he wouldn't lose just because he didn't hire a lawyer.

It really doesn't matter. A lawyer will hire another lawyer to defend him. Hell judges will hire lawyers to defend them. They will work with that lawyer and provide for themselves legal counsel and representation. It's just smart. If the best lawyer in the world was being sued, they would get legal council. It is a person's right in this country and a person is smart to obtain legal council.

Do you honestly expect the President of the United States to walk into a court room without legal counsel? To me and anyone who has ever dealt with the court system that man would be the biggest idiot on the face of the Earth.

Even before the elections Obama would have had legal counsel. Michelle Obama is an attorney and if she walked into a court room she would have lawyers with her.

Do you honestly demand that our President have to forgo legal representation that is a right to him under the Constitution? You honestly want to deny a person in this country the right to representation?

reply to post by Mr Knowledge

So what happens if Obama is found ineligible to be president because of this article? Does that mean he loses the Nobel prize as well?

Is this Oslo Norway?

[edit on 10/16/2009 by whatukno]

Seeing as how we don't have any evidence that this article was written by the AP (there's NO indication except the 2 letters at the bottom, which could be the writer's initials or stand for African Press or something else entirely), and while all other articles in the paper list the writer, while this one is absent, I'm going to conclude (with the possibility of being wrong) that these few papers that have Obama listed as "Kenyan-born" fall under explanations 2, 4 or 5 of my initial post in this thread.

It's either a plant, a mistake or national Kenyan pride, equating Kenyan descent or being "a son of Kenya" with being Kenyan-born. In my opinion, each could equally be true.

What I don't think is that this is some kind of solid evidence of Obama being Kenyan born.

And I totally support the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" being legally defined and a new process by which presidential candidates are checked in the future.

Unless and until more compelling information comes to light, I will continue to believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural born US citizen and is our legal president.

Originally posted by neformore
And as I said above, rational thought has gone out of the window.

Fully aware that I have been irrational in the past (during the latter Bush years) I would have to agree.

Originally posted by whatukno
You are the first person on this board to ever accuse me of that.

and I demand that you be banned immediately for posting such untrue statements about me personally

I'm sorry and I take it all back. Can you forgive me?

Right, and what happened in each and every single one of these lawsuits?

Lack of standing.

Do you honestly demand that our President have to forgo legal representation that is a right to him under the Constitution? You honestly want to deny a person in this country the right to representation?

Nope. I was just pointing out that he is a lawyer and would be in a better position to represent himself if he wanted to than someone who hasn't had any type of education in the legal system.

reply to post by Jenna

I'm sorry and I take it all back. Can you forgive me?

Ill forgive you this once, but don't let it happen again.

Lack of standing.

Standing or locus standi is the term for ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.

en.wikipedia.org...(law)

To put this in layman's terms.

In order for the President to face the birthers, they have to prove to the court that they have been harmed by him being in office. Him just doing his job as the President does not harm Birthers in general.

Also as the point of fact that no American votes directly for the President, but for electors they cannot be directly harmed by the mere fact of place of birth. As origin of Birth is not capable of directly harming anyone, it's kind of hard to proceed in this legal case as it is cited. See, you don't vote for the president, the electoral college does, you vote for electors, they in turn vote for the president. You are not directly responsible for nor are you directly harmed by the president being the president. (as far as what laws he enacts, that is a different story)

Also in order to remove a sitting president you have to go through congress which is what Taitz and the Birthers fail to realize. The Supreme Court cannot remove a sitting president. It just can't happen under the Constitution. Only Congress has that ability.

Nope. I was just pointing out that he is a lawyer and would be in a better position to represent himself if he wanted to than someone who hasn't had any type of education in the legal system.

Well it's a good thing he hires lawyers right?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unless and until more compelling information comes to light, I will continue to believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural born US citizen and is our legal president.

Originally posted by neformore
And as I said above, rational thought has gone out of the window.

(Taking off my ATS-owner/admin hat to spew some personal opinion.)



With this "natural born controversy," we are bearing witness to a highly-complex contemporary conspiracy, happening and evolving in real time. And as this controversy evolves, the birth status of Obama is but one aspect of many larger issues.

The complexities of this issue run deep and are as varied as any other high-profile political conspiracy. If we completely strip away the question of his "natural born" status, we're left with a rich tapestry of political maneuverings, cover-ups, story scrubbing, story spiking, fraudulent documents, partisan attacks, historical conflicts, bureaucratic chaos of a new US state, and much much more. The point being, there is plenty of compelling and important conspiracy fodder if we never once consider Obama's eligibility to be president.


My contacts, who I trust without hesitation, are telling me this particular story was run elsewhere as an AP article... verbatim, just as seen in the Archive.org stored page. However, the story is nowhere to be found in the AP archive available to the media (which is much more expansive and searchable that what's available to the public). Granted, I'm trying to get confirmation, and until then it's just an unconfirmed rumor... but another datapoint in the complex arc of this compelling conspiracy theory.

Also, in combination with the above, in a matter of hours we witnessed the alteration of news on the Honolulu Advertiser before our eyes -- and without any editorial notation of the change or correction. So we must ask, what else is happening that we didn't notice?

I leave that up to you good folks.



(Putting back on my ATS-owner/admin hat to go back to boring site code, reports, and planning.)

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

My contacts, who I trust without hesitation, are telling me this particular story was run elsewhere as an AP article... verbatim, just as seen in the Archive.org stored page. However, the story is nowhere to be found in the AP archive available to the media (which is much more expansive and searchable that what's available to the public). Granted, I'm trying to get confirmation, and until then it's just an unconfirmed rumor... but another datapoint in the complex arc of this compelling conspiracy theory.

I don't mean any offense but, your contacts, I trust about as much as I trust a pedophile watching my son.

A news report is one thing, but compelling evidence is another. News reports are just written by people, they are trusted to bring the truth, but as most of us here on this site have come to realize over the years. Reporters are about as trustworthy with the truth as a dog is with guarding a steak.

Originally posted by whatukno
Ill forgive you this once, but don't let it happen again.

Never again. I promise.
And if it does I will figure out how to make the text really tiny first so you won't notice. Which I tried to do here and failed miserably at.

In order for the President to face the birthers, they have to prove to the court that they have been harmed by him being in office. Him just doing his job as the President does not harm Birthers in general.

I know, which is why several lawsuits have been put forth by members of the military because they are the most likely to be able to claim harm since Obama is the Commander in Chief and the ultimate decision maker when it comes to the military. If anyone would have standing it should be a military member who has received mobilization orders. I don't recall any of those lawsuits being from people who fit that entire description, but there have been too many lawsuits to keep them all straight in my head.

Also in order to remove a sitting president you have to go through congress which is what Taitz and the Birthers fail to realize. The Supreme Court cannot remove a sitting president. It just can't happen under the Constitution. Only Congress has that ability.

The argument about that, as I understand it anyway, is that if he were proven to have been born outside the US he would be ineligible and being ineligible couldn't hold the office of President. And being unable to hold the office would mean he couldn't be impeached, so it wouldn't be up to Congress. That's if I understand it correctly.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by whatukno
A news report is one thing, but compelling evidence is another.

the disappearance of a news report without explanation is pretty compelling, don't you think?

i thought there was nothing to this birth cert stuff at first but all this apparent scrubbing is messed up!!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


SkepticOverlord --

It's possible (as I pointed out in a post on the previous page) that the original AP wire article never mentioned "Kenya-born" in the story, and that was only added by the Kenyan Newspaper linked by the OP.

It's the newspaper -- not the article's author -- who decides the headline. Furthermore, the Kenyan newspaper could have added the "Kenyan-born" line in the first sentence to make the AP story more relevant to it's Kenyan readers. This is a common practice.

What I'm saying is that the AP search for the article may be difficult depending on the search terms -- i.e., the words "Kenyan-born" may not be valid search terms, since those words may have not been in the original article.

Was the search done looking for other key phrases from the article, other than "Kenya"?


[edit on 10/16/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Admittedly I dont follow the Obama birther debate as closely as some, i have read and seen what has to be said on the subject but do not obsess. What I do see however is a bigger issue in regards to the Birther debate. As long as this is a question to a majority of Americans the current American government cannot succed to the masses. In my mind it is not a question of whether Obama was born in Kenya or not ( i agree that is a very important question) but more so a question of the Constitution.
With the previous administration taking such liberties against the constitution in regards to the Freedom of Speech and the privacy that it entails, this current government had a chance to re-instate some trust in the Constitution. This question of his Birth has given credence to more suspicion on how the government views the Constitution.
In my opinion, and i believe most Americans opinions, the Constitution is an unwavering set of freedoms guranteed to an American civilian and either all of the Constitution is adhered to or none of it is. No-one can logically think that just because one or two constiutional rights have been violated that they are doing relatively okay because they have the rest. It does not work like that, Americans either have them all or none of them matter.
I saw a poll (numbers are from memory and best recollection) that pre 9-11 some 30% of people believed in giving up some civil Liberties in the pursuit of being more safe, post 9-11 the number jumped to close to 60%. I know that all this has been discussed and debated on here but to me it all falls under the same giant umbrella.
Either America as a country follows the Constiution on which it has been founded or it is no longer a "United State" country. Without the Constitution for which America stands there is no America, the government has hijaked the term America to represent 50 states living harmonisouly when in actuality America is defined in the constiution. That piece of paper literally spells out what America is and what it is NOT, with the constitution NOT being fully adhered to currently there is no longer an America, theres 50 states living in relative peace.

WOW don't you know that reporters never make mistakes? Isn't it possible that particular reporter found out he was mistaken about the birthplace?

What about the birth certificate? I suppose that's a fake? & if so, how can you prove it?
If it is a fake, I'd sure like to know!!

Originally posted by BG43214
WOW don't you know that reporters never make mistakes? Isn't it possible that particular reporter found out he was mistaken about the birthplace?

What about the birth certificate? I suppose that's a fake? & if so, how can you prove it?
If it is a fake, I'd sure like to know!!

I contend that perhaps it wasn't the article's writer at all who mentioned "Kenya-born". That phrase could have been added to the AP wire story by the Kenyan Newspaper to make it more relevant to the newspaper's Kenyan readers.

The fact that he's Kenyan-born doesn't seem to be relevant to the rest of the article, and it seems "shoehorned-in". That's what makes me think that perhaps the original author didn't include those parts.

Perhaps we should blame the editor of the Kenyan Newspaper for the mistake, not the AP wire article's author.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Was the search done looking for other key phrases from the article, other than "Kenya"?

It's my understanding that "Kenyan-Born" was in the headline seen on the microfiche versions of the two print editions.

We're attempting to find our own version to corroborate the (as yet unfounded rumor) report.

Even still, if proven, the possibility of reporter error or unfounded conclusions is still exceptionally strong.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The point being, there is plenty of compelling and important conspiracy fodder if we never once consider Obama's eligibility to be president.

I agree. That's why I said (don't know which thread it was) that this particular conspiracy theory could be the work of the "left" to keep the Obama detractors "busy" and invested in something that they REALLY feel strongly about - the Constitution. The very bedrock of our country's laws and rules. Something that touches the very heart of our pride and love of our country! What an emotional hook!

If all the brains and effort being put into this birthplace theory were to be put into some of the issues you mentioned, or better yet, into the idea that Obama - this well-spoken, charming, intelligent, young agent of change - was placed in this election against John McCain - the oldest and cruddiest of candidates - coupled with Palin - a crazy, right-wing extremist - and then left America to vote on which one they wanted... making it look like America made the choice... the outcome of this presidency might be quite a bit different. I mean the best way to get what you want from someone is to make them think it was their idea...

If the "puppet" theory is true, then the PTB made America think they voted for who they wanted, when it was all a set-up and extreme manipulation. That seems like a much more valid and important theory to be investigating to me. Maybe it would be harder to prove. But proving that Obama wasn't born in the US is going to be impossible, IMO. It's a never-ending road that will last throughout his presidency.

As it is, people just want him out and the birthplace issue seems to be the fastest and easiest way to get what they want, in my opinion.

My contacts, who I trust without hesitation, are telling me this particular story was run elsewhere as an AP article... verbatim, just as seen in the Archive.org stored page.

Sorry, I missed your previous statement on that. Thanks. So it looks like it probably IS an AP article.

Also, in combination with the above, in a matter of hours we witnessed the alteration of news on the Honolulu Advertiser before our eyes -- and without any editorial notation of the change or correction. So we must ask, what else is happening that we didn't notice?

I didn't see that in this thread. I saw the story yesterday, but didn't realized it had been changed - and without notation? Someone's screwing up. Of course, it could be that the paper saw the article come up in the Blogosphere yesterday and simply went in and changed it with no nefarious purpose. It's not OK to do that, but it's a possibility. Has anyone contacted them?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

i initially assumed the same thing and went looking.

here's the AP archive availabe to the public.

personally, i've used a raft of terms around the sex scandal element of the story and i can't find anything even approaching being similar to the east african standard's story.

i also tried the same thing on a few different search engines and came up blank.

that's the first time i've ever come across a single source story on the web, that in itself is just weird.

something else occurred to me when i was looking, bearing in mind that, at the time BO was an fairly unknown, there's no reason for the paper to pick up on the story except if they were scanning the wires for releases related to kenya.

the fact that they ran the story only makes sense if "kenya" appeared in the AP headline.

[edit on 16/10/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
...something else occurred to me when i was looking, bearing in mind that, at the time BO was an fairly unknown, there's no reason for the paper to pick up on the story except if they were scanning the wires for releases related to kenya.

the fact that they ran the story only makes sense if "kenya" appeared in the AP headline.

[edit on 16/10/09 by pieman]

Another explanation is that editor of the Kenyan Newspaper who ran the headline was under the [perhaps false] impression that Obama is Kenyan-born, and was very familiar with Obama's senate quest. So when he saw the article on the wire about Obama suddenly becoming the front-runner, he picked it up.

That's perhaps the time that he (the Kenyan newspaper editor) added the headline and the first two words "Kenyan-born" to the original AP wire story.

Except for the first two words, the story is not about being Kenyan-born. That's why I think it could have been added by the Kenyan newspaper editor.

[edit on 10/16/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Youre correct, and another explaination is he was born in Kenya, with a Kenyan father and an American mother and nothing will ever be done about it because all avenues to any answers or justice are owned / blocked by more money and power than nations and it is what it is.
Its moot, done, over and even "if" it got close to being exposed through the main stream you better believe that h1n1, iran, iraq, currency, fema, afganistan, north korea, global warming, some un-named new and improved B.S. scare press release 2012 planet X Larry King American Idol force fed breaking news kat tass trophy would wipe it from ever seeing daylight.

game over!



[edit on 16-10-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Bspiracy

 

I know, I mean how hard would it be to put his verified and certified COLB on the internet for everyone to view right?

Awesome.. now to settle this crap once and for all it should be made mandatory that the damn thing be displayed AT the White House in a glass case that every dern retard that wanted to look at it could. With as much debate as this has generated, how else would you end this crap.

THEN maybe a birther or ten would be quelled.

so so so so sad but true.

b