AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

page: 6
349
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
Could it also be because of this mispelling of Obamas name, that this article survived the online cleansing that it's been said occured. ?


That was one of the possibilities I listed.
The very first one.




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
I'm surprised this article wasn't found sooner. I wonder if any more old Obama articles like this that say he was born in Kenya will be popping up on the web soon.


A couple of things I noticed.

At the bottom is has an AP -

That means it came off of the AP wire somewhere.

The second thing I found really odd, it that if you go to the site front page and search "Obama", it pulls up nothing.

I have a hard time believing that there were no stories on Obama for that paper.
So, either there search feature is bad, or several words have been blocked
or the sites have been scrubbed clean and this little one got left behind.

I don't think its full proof evidence, but I find it very funny that the left has to run around and come up with excuses and to lighten it up.

One of the most interesting things, is why would they even know to say that he was from Kenyan in the first place?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
But is it proved that he´s not born in the USA ?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
No way the elite is going to go through so much for Obama. they could just pick someone else.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


The problem is that the Presidential elections were in the mainstream media at that time the OP's article was produced.

This was being buried by all the reports on Bush and Kerry.

Im currently looking at all the other media outlets to see if theres even a squeak, so far none.

Here is CNN's campaign profile for Barack Obama during the governor elections...


Full name:
BARACK OBAMA
Residence:
CHICAGO, IL
Marital status:
MARRIED
Prev. occupation:
ATTORNEY, LECTURER
Prev. political experience:
IL SENATE, 1996-PRESENT
Education:
BA COLUMBIA UNIV., 1983; JD HARVARD UNIV., 1991
Birth date:
AUGUST 04, 1961
Birthplace:
HONOLULU, HI
Religion:
CHURCH OF CHRIST

CONTACT INFO
Web Site:

www.obamaforillinois.com
E-mail address:

info@obamaforillinois.com
Address:

310 South Michigan Ave., Ste. 1720
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone:

(312) 427-6300


web.archive.org...

(you can click the bottom right part with his name for his profile)

web.archive.org...

Adds up alright, but im checking all the media outlets to see once and for all because id personally like to know.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


And this proves what? Its another personal assumption from another author of another newspaper. This is somehow evidence? Can anybody here explain how this evidence again?? You have an Hawaiian state authenticated short form birth certificate sitting online and yet you fellas continue to search and believe what somebody else says? Is it that easy to convince you?

This.... this here shows us how low the Obama-ineligibility movement has gone. This is certainly a text books definition of desperation.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]


I dont think its desperation at all, I think its horse crap that he isnt required nor does not produce the full document, AS SHOULD anyone seeking that position, and I think it should be mandatory and written into a law, there doesnt seem to be a a lack of will to write 100's of other nonsense laws how about ONE that's actually important.
I, just as any other citizen requesting proof, should be provided it, an not just asked to believe blindly. There are way too too many blind followers, believers already. WHERE is the harm in providing PROOF.????????????



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pjoelro

Originally posted by romanmel
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


Wow! So, the Associated Press (AP) is now exposed as a CHARTER MEMBER of the "birther's movement". How unique is that! I'm sure TPTB at AP are meeting now to determine how to spin this revelation. Don't forget to wipe that egg off your face.


Why don't the Obamanites issue the long form? I mean they have had months to fabricate an acceptable certificate that would satisfy enemies of The One by now.


All is not well, even if Obama is forced to resign his position of Annointed One, you know. That means we have a Prez Biden to deal with. OMG, jump from the frying pan into the fire.


...........
.........



it is this mentallity that i speculate that they dont even bother addressing the issue further due to the fact that people will simply say it is ficticous an/or fake altered or something. What proof would it take??? you make it seem that even a long form would not be enough to make you believe anyways, so whats the use to agrue? at least please answer these questions for me. and oh btw i dont like obama either. i am just not blinded by hate or disinformation. it is stuff like this "conspiracy" theory that discredits real ones.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by pjoelro]

Well, I was just saying it like it is. If you REALLY believe he is Kenyan born, no amount of "proof" will suffice and IF he did resign, how would that help (IE: Prez Biden)? Bottom line is this IMO...Lord Obama works for the same shadowy figures Lord W worked for and we are all screwed if we believe otherwise.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


I back searched all of the Web archive that is on, nothing on Obama.

I went to AP wire archive and nothing before Dec 2005 on a search.
Even Oct 2007 had only two stories and already called him a Presidential canidate.

Now, he was already a Senator. The Jack Ryan stories were everywhere at the time. How is it, that the AP is scrubbed clean?

I think I'll see if other non-Obama searches pull up.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


Im going through everything individually.

The search function is useless im going by dates of specific websties.

For example, you type in the web address and click each seperate date that was archived within a range, im looking through 2004 between May and November.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXXN3O
reply to post by j2000
 


Im going through everything individually.

The search function is useless im going by dates of specific websties.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by XXXN3O]


My bad! I entered the date "is" not "before".
Went with Dec 2004 and pulled up 63. I'll see what is in them.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by j2000

Originally posted by XXXN3O
reply to post by j2000
 


Im going through everything individually.

The search function is useless im going by dates of specific websties.



[edit on 15-10-2009 by XXXN3O]


My bad! I entered the date "is" not "before".
Went with Dec 2004 and pulled up 63. I'll see what is in them.


Ah well, I was doing it even longer than that


Ill stick to the way im doing it just in case.




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
No way the elite is going to go through so much for Obama. they could just pick someone else.


Why not? Look at what he has been able to do. The man got the noble peace prize for doing nothing. Name another person that can get that done while he is still in the transission (sp?) period and not even POTUS but POTUS-elect. The man captivates the masses with just the reflections in his voice and not what he says. Dude is mesmorizing when he talks to people. Look at what he did when talked to the people in Germany BEFORE he was elected...the people went crazy for him. Up till then, what had he even accomplished? He was a senator from Illinois. Did he even get anything done while he was in congress?

He is the best at smoothing over the boo-boo's that congress and gov does. That is even more of a reason to why TPTB should go with him.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
i love posting legitimate information and questions and being ignored. did no one really see anything i posted i figured there would at last be some one to at least say stfu or something but people just continue to bicker and blast this that and the other opinion, speculation or other mindless dribble rather then REAL information. simply put, just because a reporter said it doesnt mean anything. where is the real proof. and i mean real, real. not oh i know somene that has this that or the other thing locked in a saffe somewhere. i can quote you law, and fact checking sites, and this other stuff and noone cares about all of that.

Fact 1: there is no legaly recognized definiton for the phrase "natural born": i wil lhowever there are alot of documentation and this that and the other suggest what it is supposed to mean. but no LEGAL definition.

Fact 2: at the very least according to the immigration and naturalization act Obama is in fact a "citizen at birth"

Fact 3: at the time of obamas birth there was no law allowing people from other countries to get an hawaii birth certificate.

So rumor one: being that the short form isn good enough because anyone could get a hawii birth cerificate---- see fact 3

two: He was born in kenya, even if this were true he would still be a "citizen at birth" at the very least, and depending on whos opinion you ask is or isnt the same thing as "natural born citizen ---- see facts 1 & 2

another fun fact is that McCain was born on panamanian soil and is "likely he is a natural born citizen" as stated by congress.

all this hubub 9yeah thats right i said hubub) comes down to one simple thing. we need a legal definition for natural born. in the constitution or whatever, undisputable, un refutable explanation. even if he was born in kenya there is nothing stating that it alone disqualifies him any speculation all comes down to opinion. again i re-iterate there is no legal definition so in my mind i would go off of what there is legal definition for until this can be settled (see fact 2 again)



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Seems like today is the day to dig up old news articles about Zero, here is another one from Hawaii:

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...

" Excerpt: "Very rarely have I met a more impressive person than Tammy Duckworth," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in an article the day before she announced her candidacy Dec. 18. "She just has the poise and exudes the type of character that I think would make her an astounding public servant." Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have "a kama'aina connection." Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively."



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
isn't there a chance that this 'proof' was planted just recently? it wouldn't take very skillful hacker to make a folder by that name in some archiving site and plant the file? isn't there a chance that the story didn't even existed at those times?

when i see the actual factual paper i might start consider that there is something in this... until that, i don't say whether its true or false. in fact, i don't even care...

[edit on 15-10-2009 by Geemor]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
oh wait actual law

btw here is the info again i went and dug it up

Here we go i found the laws specificly defining the situation prviosly described.


IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT: - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH



Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;


(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;


(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;



(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and


(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pjoelro
 


I agree with you. There should definitely be a definition attached to the term and a clear process that happens during a presidential nomination that checks the eligibility of the candidates. 100% agree! I think Congress should make this law and define the phrase NOW before this happens again.


reply to post by expat2368
 


:shk: He certainly is a citizen of the world, isn't he?


What a mess!



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
specificly


(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pjoelro
 


You quoted:

"Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: "

So, where in there does it address "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"?

It really doesn't matter. The country is IN DECLINE. Look that up under oh say, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" We are twittering about proper papers while "Rome" is burning.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pjoelro
 


Those are the facts, and yes they are indisputable, (I assume your talking about this post post by pjoelro
 


But the Birthers will dispute it, because this new information has come to light and as of this post hasn't yet been shown as complete and utter bull #.

God himself could come down and tell us that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, but Birthers will ignore that in favor of an obscure article with no backup found on the Internet.

The point of Birthers is not to find the truth but to find or make up as much crap as they possibly can in order to push their only agenda which is the complete removal of Obama from office. No matter what actual facts are presented, those will be ignored in favor of any scrap of idiocy that is presented to them in a nifty package. I give this about 3 days before it's found out as a hoax or shown as a complete fallacy.

The thing people should be questioning is why is this article only showing in one paper from Kenya? This is the Associated Press. Certainly other copies of this article exist, certainly the writer is known, certainly there is backup information from the Associated Press that can confirm or deny this article.





new topics
top topics
 
349
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join