Birthers Try Out a New Line of Attack

April 27th, 2011 at 9:40 pm David Frum | 246 Comments |

| Print

A historical curiosity:

Some birthers are falling back on a second line of defense: even if President Obama was born in this country, his father was not. Obama is accordingly disqualified as a “native-born” but not a “natural-born” citizen.

This distinction is a recycled Democratic talking point from the election of 1916. The father of the GOP candidate, Charles Evans Hughes, was born in Britain. A Democratic lawyer, Breckenridge Long, wrote a pamphlet arguing that Hughes was accordingly ineligible. I’m amazed to see that the pamphlet is available online.

The Long argument did not pass muster. A dozen years later, the Republicans again nominated a candidate with a foreign born parent, Herbert Hoover. (Hoover’s mother was born in the village of Norwich, Ontario, Canada, about 80 km west of Hamilton.) This time the “native-born” candidate won – and was duly inaugurated. Issue closed. Or so it was assumed until now.

Breckenridge Long went on to serve as President Franklin Roosevelt’s immigration commissioner, where he made it his personal mission to exclude from the United States Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany and occupied Europe.

Recent Posts by David Frum

246 Comments so far ↓

  • Frumplestiltskin

    TRS, that is right, I forget how you have “defamed and slandered” the good name of…well the good moniker of nhthinker, you should be sued for a gazillion dollars. I did forget just how wacky that was.

  • indy

    Hey, did our racist little piece of shit denise get the boot? Do they do that here?

  • pnumi2


    Denise had a date with WillyP tonight to see “Birther of a Nation.”

  • pnumi2


    Answering a question with a question.

    Is that your definition of arguing fairly?

    Because if it is, you are the moron that everyone here thinks you are.

    I must have been the last holdout.

    • nhthinker

      You weren’t addressing any questions to me. If you did, then I would have answered them honestly, as I always have.


    “Birther of a Nation.”


    nh”thinker”: Your protestations of eternal honesty would be much more credible if they were not posted on page 5 of a thread where page 4 is full of evidence of you lying your ass off. Just a thought.

    • nhthinker

      You spin a false yarn. You have yet to quote me directly to establish your assertions of lying.
      You always feel a need to throw in a dishonest paraphrase to make your false points.

      What about the UPI story?

      Chicken about that as well.

      Yes, compare me to Goebbels, you lightweight fool. Is the UPI story the work worthy of Goebbels too?


    “Yes, compare me to Goebbels…”

    …he complains about, in the same post where he claims I haven’t quoted him to show that he’s lying. When I did that just a few hours ago. It’s on page 4.

    The Big Lie — a classic that never fades among the disinformation crowd. If someone quotes you to show that you’re lying, no problem — just deny that it ever happened.

    • nhthinker

      I clearly pointed out the parts of your accusation that were flawed and were not supported by any quotes from you.

      You have yet to take a quote in context and identify any falsehood.

      What is amazing is your stubbornness to embargo the UPI story. You know as long as you pretend it does not exist, you can put on airs of indignation that my characterization of “unsure or worse” is beyond the pale. As soon as you acknowledge the UPI story all the air deflates your fabrication of rationality to your yarn.

      You have to continue to pretend you don;t see anything about UPI and Trump.
      It’s really quite hilarious.

  • indy

    nhliar is the most pathologically disturbed and intellectually dishonest person I have had the misfortune to bump into.

    • nhthinker

      …So says the self admitted clown.
      Your misfortune was to lose an argument by making stupid assumptions repeatedly after being told otherwise and then running away and licking your wounds.

      • indy

        See, now I think you’re just angry at me because I moved the dunce cap from you to squeeky. Don’t worry, I don’t think she has the stamina, so you’ll probably get it back.

        • nhthinker

          Sure- make stuff up to make you feel better about yourself.
          I’m not angry.
          You’re a self-admitted clown.
          And a loser.
          Those are the facts. No anger needed.

        • indy

          You can angle to get it back all you want, but until squeeky runs out of gas, it stays put.

  • pnumi2


    You weren’t addressing any questions to me. If you did, then I would have answered them honestly, as I always have.

    That’s true. You always have.

    So, tell me why you made such an issue about Obama’s BC, when the real issue is whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen?

    • nhthinker

      As I’ve told you before: Politics is hardball.

      Would you want me to overlook an opening just because he’s African American?

      I’ve had close African American friends in my life. My experience is that almost all don’t want to be treated differently. There are some things that are different.

      I remember when I was in second grade, I went to a upscale school and the African-American son of a judge was one on my two best friends, let’s call him: Bill. My other best friend was the Polish Doctor’s son,: let’s call him Pete. One day, the Polish friend had the idea of playing a joke on Bill.
      Pete whispered to me and three other friends; “Let’s give Bill a cherry belly when we get in the bathroom”. Having older brothers and neighbors, I had received several cherry bellies myself and initially thought, sure “cherry bellies” done in a proper fashion are a good way for guys to bond and have a laugh after.
      Well, once in the bathroom and 4 white guys said “cherry belly” and grabbed Bill: I immediately saw terror in Bill’s eyes- The other 3 guys were still trying to expose Bill’s belly. I immediately yelled to stop and pulled hands off Bill. There were tears in his eyes. I realized in that moment that there were some things that were reminders of historic persecution that white on white actions of the same type would never be perceived as typically improper. I was 7 years old. I liked Bill and he liked me probably much better than the rest of his classmates. My widowed mother taught in an all African American public school. I was not raised to be racist, but to be fair, and not coddling.

      Obama’s in the big leagues. He should grin and bear the same types of probing scrutiny and innuendo that the press heaped on Bush. He shouldn’t want nor accept any special favors for fear of someone stepping on racial toes.

      His mufti- country “citizen of the world” perspective gives him advantages with some voters. It can fairly be used as an issue that other voters would have question and concerns about.

      George Bush got several “cherry bellies” from the press. Obama is strong enough to take his- he’s a lot older than Bill was and I believe he’s strong enough too. The press being overly protective of Obama makes him look weaker to a lot of Americans.

      • indy

        So you being a slimy little puss ball around here is nothing more than a lesson in race relations for Obama? Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Slide

    Obama is blessed to have detractors of the likes of nothinker. What a sad lying pathetic un-American sack of dog excrement.

  • Chris Balsz

    I guess since everybody in the USA has been born since the 1890 ruling, we’d all be grandfathered in as “natural born” –which would still cover Obama– but why change a birthright de facto citizenship with a de jure federal grant? I was born in Phoenix, I have my birth certificate, I’m a citizen. If this change were adopted, our children would need 1) their own certificate, 2) their mother’s, 3) their father’s. Our grandchildren would need those three and 4) Maternal grandfather’s and 5) maternal grandmother’s and 6) paternal grandfather’s and 7) paternal grandmother’s, because if 1 parent wasn’t a “natural born” citizen then their offspring wouldn’t be, either; unless we wanted to invent a rule that a “native-born” citizen could upgrade their children, if that makes any sense; or worse of all, we skip the family history and rely on some federal bureaucracy to determine citizenship for all residents — hope they don’t lose your file.

    I suspect we have no clue what “natural-born” meant to the Founders, since none of the first 5 president’s were born in the “United States”, they put an age restriction that kept such a candidate from being eligible for another 20 years from the Convention, and they didn’t put in any exemption for that situation into the Constitution either.

    In 1890 the Court cut the Gordian Knot and gave us an elegant, libertarian system that probably acknowledged what states were doing anyhow– it would be a graduate research project to prove, but I bet by 1890 the children and grandchildren of the refugee immigrants of the 1840s and 1850s were full citizens, voters and officeholders right alongside fifth generation Americans.

  • pnumi2


    Your story brings to mind a remark made by Thelma Ritter, Bette Davis’ housekeeper/dresser in Joseph L. Mankiewicz’ Oscar winning film “All About Eve,” after hearing Eve tell the story about how she came to New York.

    “What a story. Everything but the bloodhounds snapping at her rear end.”

    Of course, it wouldn’t have been blood hounds snapping at Bill’s rear end, but we’ll save that for another post.

  • pnumi2


    Have you or any of your allies ever considered the implications of constantly disrupting the Commander of the Ship of State as it passes through the roughest waters in its 235 years?

    If you think WW I and II were rougher or the Civil War or the Great Depression, you’d be wrong.

    Because you’re in denial about how bad the situation is. And the joke is you’re making it worse when you make Obama take his eye off the global economy ball and look at his BC ball..

    Remember, nh, this is how it goes: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

    Obviously, you’re still in denial.

    • nhthinker

      So, I honestly answered your question and you evaluated I’m in denial of my alleged personal racism.
      That’s your prerogative to have that opinion.

      I have asked you a question about the UPI story that you, nor none of your cohorts that are attacking me here, are willing to address.

      I would appreciate an honest answer, but I would understand if you don’t have time nor interest in continuing this. Have a nice life.

      • pnumi2


        I’m sorry to disappoint you but I haven’t read the UPI story and only know about it from your constant reference to it. I don’t have television, get a paper and I recently stopped listening to NPR. Thus the only news I get is from google and FF.

        Now I may have this UPI story wrong, but how can you compare 1 story a few weeks ago? with the 2 year long drum beat of the Republican propaganda machine about Obama’s BC?

        • nhthinker

          Here’s the UPI story, no need to buy a paper…

          “Now I may have this UPI story wrong, but how can you compare 1 story a few weeks ago? with the 2 year long drum beat of the Republican propaganda machine about Obama’s BC?”

          I’m not making that comparison. I’m only talking about my use of statistics to make a characterization and your and others’ reaction that the characterization was a lie and beyond the pale and some even said inherently racist.

          The UPI story demonstrates an organization that claims “over 100 years of journalistic excellence” writes a headline and a story that are pretty much the same characterization for the Trump poll that I made about the Obama poll. That is the only aspect of the story I was comparing to.
          Obviously, Obama has had to put up with many more hardball attacks than Trump has. Bush had to put up with many hardball attacks.

  • Slide

    What is the world does a UPI poll about Trump have to do with anything nothinker? You always do that, try to get off on tangents and DEMAND answers to your nonsensical questions and then then when others don’t take the bait you use that as some sort of evidence of the fallacy of their argument. And if they do take the bait then we are off and debating some other irrelevant issue. It is a tactic you use when you are hopelessly losing the argument. You did it with me when discussing the unconstitutional AZ law. You wanted to debate whether police officers were dishonest or not, as it that was the question at hand. (BTW the courts have seemed to agree with me on the unconstitutionality of the law so far)

    Nothinker, if nothing else you are rather transparent. Everyone knows your “act” by now. You are an object of derision and scorn by 99% of the people that have listened to you. That must hurt and I know you feel it necessary to lash out in your pain but why don’t you try alcohol or drugs instead of the FF? It would be much appreciated by the rest of us.

    • PracticalGirl

      It’s fitting, though, that subscribers to lunacy are using the Moonies as a news source.

      Next up: World Nut Daily polls their readers. 99% agree: The world will end on May 21, and it’s all Barack Obama’s fault.

    • nhthinker

      The UPI Poll makes a characterization by adding numbers in a survey together to indicate most voters are unsure Trump was born in the US.

      Earlier, when I made the characterization by adding numbers in a survey together to indicate most voters are “unsure or worse” Obama was born in the US, I was pilloried by the peanut gallery here that my characterization was beyond the pale and therefore must be inherently racist.

      I argued onto deaf ears that my characterization was factually correct and just a different way to represent the numbers from a different point of view.

      A few days later, the UPI poll comes out and does the same basic thing. Everyone who pilloried me is unwilling to even acknowledge that I brought up UPI.

      I find it’s a typical ploy of the left: pretend that contrary data that is being shoved in your face does not exist. Even to the point of ludicrousness.

      They know they can’t say one word about the UPI poll or their house of cards attack on me would just come tumbling down.

      • pnumi2


        With respect, with his orange hair in a classical 19th century combover and whale blubber cheeks wobbling from his skull, Trump looks like nothing more than an Austo-Hungarian Burgher or Viennese Beer Garten proprietor, who wants to tumble one of his beer maids but he can’t remember where he left his Viagra.

    • nhthinker

      “It is a tactic you use when you are hopelessly losing the argument. You did it with me when discussing the unconstitutional AZ law. You wanted to debate whether police officers were dishonest or not, as it that was the question at hand. (BTW the courts have seemed to agree with me on the unconstitutionality of the law so far)”

      Trying a little history rewrite? You tried to describe the AZ police sheriffs as only saying what they were told to when they indicated they could enforce the law in a fair and nondiscriminatory fashion. You were basically calling them dishonest. I took issue with your characterization of them.

      I expect it to get to the Supreme Court soon enough. The Bush appointed Judge indicates partial concurrence and partial dissent… The final Supreme Court ruling is likely to be more consistent with his view than the older liberal judges whose opinions get bounced more than a paddleball.
      [i]SCOTUS smacks down Ninth Circuit again

      Supreme Court unanimous reversals of the Ninth Circuit are becoming so common as to be almost yawn inducing.

      Today comes the latest reversal of a Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of a sex offender who attacked a 72-year-old woman. In short, the big bench once again was forced to remind the S.F.-based court that it is supposed to defer to local court decisions.

      If you’re keeping score, this decision represents the sixth unanimous reversal involving seven cases.

      I love the part where Justice Ginsberg gets to write some of the opinions for the unanimous reversals.

      Here’s a quote from Justice Noonan on the 9th:
      “It is my contention , developed in dialogic form in the following two chapters, that the Supreme Court, as a devotee and the hitchhiker of history, has embraced with mistaken enthusiasm a dotrine of state immunity that is overextended, unjustified by history, and unworkable in any consistent way.”

      He has the nerve to call the SCOTUS: a hitchhiker of history with mistaken enthusiasm, unjustified and unworkable!! Ballzy!

      Idiotic? of course, but ballzy just the same.

  • Nanotek

    “I wasted hours debating him about a stupid poll having to do with voters doubting that Obama was born in the U.S. Never again.”

    pnumi2 … it’s like talking to a barn … time is too precious … “Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    frumforum has its share of bright conservative posters, like abj, but lord the crazies we have in WillyP or nhthinker. What nightmares they must be to personally know (or maybe they are viewed as hilarious oddballs, who knows)
    I am thoroughly exhausted by his stupidity.

  • PracticalGirl

    Trump the Batsheet Crazy Birther has had his 15 minutes of lunatic fame. The Birthers themselves will go down as an historical skid mark. And The Onion NAILS it.,20250/

  • Slide

    You had to love the President the other day joking about the whole issue. He was at his best with that big smile and finding humor in the ridiculousness of the birthers. He is a master of Jiu Jitzu. I hope for his sake that the nothinkers of the world continue their attack on him as not being a “natural born” citizen. It could only work to Obama’s advantage.

    So nothinker, tell us once again why Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States of America? I can’t get enough.

    • nhthinker

      I never asserted Obama was not eligibile. I asserted he might be ineligible dependent on his potential for multiple citizenships and how the SCOTUS might decide the definition of an natural-born-citizen.

      Can a citizen that can walk away from a military draft due to their dual national citizenship status count as a natural-born citizen ?
      The English common law definition of natural born citizen did not recognize the legal standing of dual nationality- If you were conscripted, you served, or were shot for treason, with no regard nor allowance for going before a court and discussing for dual allegiances.

      If dual national citizenships were not recognized in American law as a means of declining on obligations to the US citizenship, then dual citizenship would be meaningless and there would be no difference between native citizen and natural born citizen- as it was for British common law.

      Note: for Naturalized citizens, there is no question. They have to renounce their non-US citizenships as part of the process.
      They can’t get out of military drafts.

      Basically my argument is the same as Breckenridge Long’s:
      “”Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the United States.”"

      If it’s decided he is not an NBC, he might be able to re-virgin his NBC status.
      He might be able to become a NBC by publicly renouncing any hidden citizenships that he now may have. Like a naturalized citizen has to do. All this is hypothetical.

  • pnumi2

    “if… a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the United States.””

    How can anything that happens to a person after he is born, have any affect on the nature, description, or legal definition of his birth?

    • nhthinker

      A “natural born citizen” is considered a present tense evaluation , not an evaluation at time of birth.
      It certainly could not include anyone that has renounced their US citizenship. A preponderance of people would agree that people that renounced citizenship are no longer considered NBC in the present tense even if they were NBC at the time of their birth.

      The concept that Brekenridge Long advocated and I conceptually agree with, equates NBC with foreign citizenship virginity or US citizenship purity.
      You are potentially born with it, but you can lose it. It may come up for the SCOTUS to decide.

  • pnumi2

    A “natural born citizen” is considered a present tense evaluation , not an evaluation at time of birth.

    As the Founders chose those words, did they also consider it ‘a present tense evaluation’? Is there any independent writing or correspondence which corroborates your statement? If today there is a gaggle of experts who agree with you, are they more of the high school graduate persuasion or are they law school types? While I’m at it, is it a conservative/liberal thing? Did it spontaneously appear when Obama beat McCain?

    I’ll put a case to you:
    If I am a felon because I have been convicted of purjury and the President pardons me, have I ever been a felon? Have I ever been convicted of purjury?

    Just asking.

    • nhthinker

      I think the founders would have considered someone who had been convicted of treason or otherwise lost citizenship would not be considered a natural born citizen under Article II of the Constitution and thus ineligible to become President.
      Breckridge Long made the argument long before Obama was born. The potential issue of NBC have not applied to most candidates since then. I can not recall any major candidate for which there was any question, other than McCain. Note, Congress decision that McCain was eligible likely does not have complete constitutional standing. If the SCOTUS reviews, they need to decide constitutional definitions and whether Congress can refine terms without requiring an amendment for the interpretation. Likely, the SCOTUS would view Congress’s interpretation of American born in a US military hospital elsewhere in the world to two US citizen parents is an NBC.

      In 2007, Lawrence Freidman (certainly well past HS graduation wrote)
      “An Idea Whose Time Has Come – The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement For the Presidency”

      It has been called “the Constitution’s worst provision”.[Robert Post - What is the Constitutions worst provision (1995)]
      It is the “unresolved enigma” of the United States Constitution. [Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma (1968)]
      It embodies “striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity”. [Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, "Natural Born" in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why we need to Fix It (2005)]

      Justice Blackmun commented in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) “The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child’s alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child’s own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father’s allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary. “

      For your hypothetical, If the President pardoned you for a felony, then any law that indicates a felon can not do somethin: that law no longer applies. The felony is supposed to be expunged like it never happened. So, in the legal sense, you were never convicted of perjury.

      BTW, here is a lawsuit from a Democrat challenging McCain’s NBC status: politics is hardball…If you can render an opposing candidate ineligible due to a technicality you do it: Just like Obama was willing to do in Chicago.

      Birther argument pushed by NYT…
      “The New York Times reports on an analysis by Gabriel Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona, that focuses on a 1937 law conferring citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904.

      Chin argues that the law came too late to make McCain a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement specified by the Constitution.”

  • pnumi2


    A “natural born citizen” is considered a present tense evaluation , not an evaluation at time of birth.
    It certainly could not include anyone that has renounced their US citizenship. A preponderance of people would agree that people that renounced citizenship are no longer considered NBC in the present tense even if they were NBC at the time of their birth.

    I’d call them “natural born citizens with renounced citizenship.” Isn’t it more accurate.

    “The concept that Brekenridge Long advocated and I conceptually agree with, equates NBC with foreign citizenship virginity or US citizenship purity. You are potentially born with it, but you can lose it. It may come up for the SCOTUS to decide.”

    As you probably know, the founders did not have cable television, dvds or the internet. All they had, aside from a few Gilbert Stuart portraits and Mozart sonatas, were the quill pen, the printing press and paper. And they were wordsmiths. They knew that words have meanings.

    Thus if words have meanings, why in the name of reason would they use the expression “natural born citizens” to mean any citizen born in America, unless that citizen kissed a foreign flag, got down on one knee before a foreign sovereign or marched with the Grande Armee and Napoleon conquer Russia?

    There are so many other words that the authors of “when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and to assume among the powers…”could have used to mean foreign citizenship virginity. In the quote I just used , there is not a false word, or false meaning.

    According to Long’s and your crackpot theory, equivocation is what we should expect from the authors of the Constitution.

  • nhthinker

    “I’d call them “natural born citizens with renounced citizenship.” Isn’t it more accurate.”

    I don’t call mothers: virgins with renounced virginity.

    “According to Long’s and your crackpot theory, equivocation is what we should expect from the authors of the Constitution.”

    Long had a law degree: I think that is one more than you and I have combined.

  • pnumi2

    Is Long deceased? It’s a pity if he is.. He’d have made a better argument than you.

    Btw, I may not have a law degree but I went to law school for a couple of months. And while the blood of William Blackstone does not run in my veins, the blood of my father does and he was such a respected lawyer that Lyndon Johnson appointed him to a commission to revise the patent system in 1964.

    All of my inherited legal ability and cross questioning passed you by like a crowded bus in the rain.

    No matter. You absolutely lost this one.

    What silliness next?

  • nhthinker

    I’ve looked a bit more into it and I think the potential of the dual-citizenship angle on the part of Obama is extremely unlikely.
    Especially in light of the INS records regarding Obama Sr and its open conflict with the Obama nativity story.

    Here’s why I’m now skeptical that their is much chance for a dual citizenship ever being used: Obama has two known “opportunities” for citizenships other than American:

    1) Indonesian-
    The Indonesian husband to his mother might have adopted him; but Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenships: his mother would have had to give up Barack’s American citizenship to become Indonesian. That seems too implausible. As best can tell, Stanie never lived with Barack Sr: at least no according to INS official records of Barack Sr. available this week, That makes it fairly clear that Barack Jr was raised completely as an American by his mother and his grandparents at least until the time he went to Indonesia… Note this is much more believable than the story told in Dreams of My Father. Reports are that Barack Sr second wife indicated that Stanie’s Dad was trying to get Barack Sr kicked out of U of HI. That would explain why Stanie and Barack seemed to be “exiled” to Washington State until after Barack Senior left HI.

    I think the grandfather probably made most of the decisions in the the early years.
    And that after that, there was no realistic way that giving up an American citizenship to get an Indonesian citizenship would make any sense.

    I would surmise that Obama may have called himself “Indonesian” or “Kenyan” on college applications without actually being formally a having a document that indicated he was a citizen of Indonesia, or Kenya or a British Citizen. He may have even finagled a “foreign” scholarship out of it. But even if a person implies they has a foreign citizen when they don’t, it does not tarnish their legal citizenship status ( although voters knowing such factors might not be as tolerant as the law seems to be).

    2) By virtual of his Kenyan father, Britain and/or Kenya, and Obama, may have had opportunity to claim each other. Unless Obama did something overt: and nothing springs to mind unless he actually traveled under a non-US passport: The lack of evidence of an official marriage between his parents, coupled with the seeming official indication that his father never lived with him, would probably be more than convincing that Britain and Kenya had no claim on Obama.

    Based on this new information coming to light to me today:
    1) Obama Sr INS file
    2) Study of Indonesian law on not allowing dual citizenship

    I think the NBC angle is no longer worth any time.

    If Obama wants to release passport records, that would slam the door on it.
    Especially since he already registered for selective service; There is an unsubstantiated internet rumor that he gave them a bogus SSN when he registered but that would not void his citizenship even if it were true. Certainly not worth pursing without facts.
    Even if the SS proved to be bogus, some would assert it might have been an innocent or at least forgivable mistake of youth.

    Legally, Obama was probably born to an unwed mother and not entitled to British nor Kenyan citizenship. And Obama likely never overtly attempted nor was granted other citizenship.
    Dual Citizenships are likely to be judged as non-disqualifying as NBC especially if never acted upon.

    If more FOIA come out, it might be worth picking up again: but I doubt it.

  • pnumi2

    What do you know? This whole charade about Obama’s BC was only to embarrass him before the world as a bastard child, born out of wedlock. I had suspected that was the case but had no interest in persuing it.

    Will more Obama supporters become disgusted at his unmarried parents and out of wedlock birth and join the birthers or will more voters on the birther side who wanted to see the BC, now having seen he’s an NBC, move to the Obama side? And where will the No Opinions go?

    A majority of Americans have always had a soft spot for the unfairly abused even when half black.

    To suggest that his mother would even consider any citizenship but American, without documentation, is over-the-top desperation to make an unprovable point.

    But what will become of you, nh, without this windmill to tilt at? Please pardon the gender comparison, but don’t end up like Miss Haversham in “Great Expectations”. Waiting for the next FOIA tidbit. Remembering the glory days when a majority of Americans doubted Obama’s birthright.

    • nhthinker

      “This whole charade about Obama’s BC was only to embarrass him before the world as a bastard child, born out of wedlock.”

      What a wild ass assertion that has absolutely no support… Just because that was the only thing that was seemingly found, that does not mean that that was the only thing being looked for.

      Someone wrote:
      [b]“The trickery, deceit, and double dealing of statecraft has not changed at all since the purjury of Potiphar’s wife, who accused Joseph of rape (Assange’s lawyers should call her as a hostile witness).

      And it serves no purpose to think that our legislators and administrative officials are all more virtuous than the Vestal Virgins.”[/b]

      I guess you disagree with that person when it comes to all matters of Obama. In your view, Obama must be assumed immaculate and untainted by the negative influences that are typically associated with politicians.

      Or maybe its just that you have difficulty looking at things in a fair and balanced manner?

      Was it beyond the pale for Democratic operatives to try to uncover and expose George Bush convictions during his drinking days? Or for some of them to speculate if he was a dual citizen with Mexico?

      You seem to have trouble seeming obvious equivalencies.

  • pnumi2

    “What a wild ass assertion that has absolutely no support… Just because that was the only thing that was seemingly found, that does not mean that that was the only thing being looked for.”

    Summer 2008. The American Economy was in self destruct mode. Andy Martin and the Birtherboys were on to something then. Blow jobs, Blood Libel, and now Bastards. This is the coinage of Republicanism.

    “NEW YORK News Conference:
    Obama Panics: Andy Martin’s book forces Obama to admit he is illegitimate
    Executive Editor

    ‘Factually Correct, Not
    Politically Correct’









    (NEW YORK)(July 14, 2008) Legendary Chicago Internet columnist and Obama author Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Monday, July 14th to drop the first of several bombs on the Obama campaign: Obama is illegitimate and his parents were never married.

    For the past four years one man has made Obama miserable: Chicago writer Andy Martin. Martin’s accurate original article is cited as the source of later rumors concerning Obama’s Islamic family roots. Martin has relentlessly and accurately investigated Barack Obama’s lies.

    “Obama knew we were working the ‘illegitimate’ story, and we were preparing a series of news conferences in conjunction with my book Obama: The Man Behind The Mask,” Martin will state. “The Obama campaign also knew we were planning a lawsuit over his illegitimate birth. So they tried to use Obama’s wife to do damage control. It was one of the most cowardly gestures in American political history.

    “Jesse Jackson does not have to perform surgery. Obama is a ‘girly man’ who used his wife to ooze out the truth about his lies and his parents’ lies. What kind of a commander-in-chief would the cowardly Obama be? Who would follow a leader into battle that was afraid to admit his parents were not married?

    “Barack Obama, Senior, and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won’t lie.

    “Through the past several decades Obama has pretended he ‘didn’t know’ the facts about his illegitimate birth. He thought he could get away with the big lie. And he almost did get away with it. But we kept digging. And we are still digging. We have more to come.

    “We plan two weeks of news conferences and other Obama-related disclosures, all timed to coincide with release of my book. The book was mailed to some Washington media last Friday, and Monday afternoon it will be delivered in Midtown to Fox News, MSNBC and others. Demand for review copies has been so heavy we have already had to reorder. We expect the first truckload of Obama books to reach the warehouse early next week, depending on production schedules at the printer.

    “The release of my book and attendant publicity has prompted Obama to panic. My book is the literary equivalent of a bone-jarring tackle in football, causing the ball carrier to fumble. Obama has been forced to drop the pretense his parents were married. It is time he told us the truth. His parents were never married, he knew his parents were never married; he repeatedly lied about his lack of knowledge concerning his parents’ non-marriage. He should admit that is why he keeps his white grandmother virtually imprisoned and away from any media contact. He should beg the American people for forgiveness. Otherwise, his campaign is bakacht.

    “If Obama had simply told the truth, the matter would probably be forgiven. But he repeatedly lies and pretends he ‘doesn’t know.’ The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Jesse knows the truth. That is why Jackson has contempt for Obama.

    “I criticized Obama for running a bogus campaign ad saying he grew up with a ‘strong family and strong values.’ The whole commercial was a lie. His father was a rake who never married his mother, and his mother showed abysmally poor judgment in being impregnated by a married man. Hardly a ‘strong family’ and certainly not ‘strong values.’ Quite the contrary. Shameful values is more like it.

    “His mother was promiscuous and had a child out of wedlock, in 1961, when that was still scandalous behavior. Is this Obama’s idea of ‘family values?’ Obviously, he has been deceiving the American people and hoping his advertising lies could overcome the truth. He has failed. My book is only the first step in our organized effort to deconstruct the mirage Obama created for the Democratic Party, and is now trying to re-create for the American people. Ironically, we’re running a better and more focused campaign against Obama than John McCain is.

    “We will have more to say about Obama later in the week,” Martin will state.

    REVIEW COPIES: A second printing of review copies has been ordered. Media requesting a copy can do so by e-mail to:


    Internet Columnist-Author/Editor/Andy Martin


    Andy Martin discloses Barack Obama’s parents were never married and Obama has concealed his illegitimate birth for decades.”

  • pnumi2

    “I guess you disagree with that person when it comes to all matters of Obama. In your view, Obama must be assumed immaculate and untainted by the negative influences that are typically associated with politicians.”

    “Or maybe its just that you have difficulty looking at things in a fair and balanced manner?”

    I’m probably the most fair and balanced person here. Who else says that the very meaning of America as you and I know it is in the balance? There is no ‘denial’ in my repertoire.

    What I said and will continue to say is that Obama is entitled to the same privacy that JFK and Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Harding were. Is that too much for the “win at any cost” Republican neo dirty trickster weasels to comprehend? Or are they still gloating over the White Water Fishing Trip?

    But that’s not fair. Those dogs get their ‘hire and salary’ from high up in the GOP ranks.

    • nhthinker

      “What I said and will continue to say is that Obama is entitled to the same privacy that JFK and Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Harding were.”

      You go back 50! years to find Obama’s privacy entitlement? JFK was rumored to be a womanizer, are you saying if Obama was a womanizer, he should be entitled to privacy for his womanizing?

      Why didn’t you pick any presidents from the last 20 years? Is it because you think Obama deserves more privacy than they got?

      Fair and balanced? Not quite.

  • pnumi2

    “Any presidents from the last the last 20 years.”

    Can you give me some names? I’m drawing a blank.

    Speaking of drawing a blank, for 50 years I have puzzled about the meaning of one of Hamlet’s speeches. It’s the latter part of the speech in Act 1 Scene 4 and goes “…. I am native here and to the manner born”

    The most renown Shakespeareologists can’t agree on its meaning. Well, thanks to our little discussion, I now know what Shakespeare, through Hamlet, is describing: The educated and otherwise decent Birther.

    23   ”So, oft it chances in particular men,
    24   That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
    25   As, in their birth—wherein they are not guilty,
    26   Since nature cannot choose his origin—
    27   By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
    28   Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
    29   Or by some habit that too much o’er-leavens
    30   The form of plausive manners, that these men,
    31   Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
    32   Being nature’s livery, or fortune’s star—
    33   Their virtues else—be they as pure as grace,
    34   As infinite as man may undergo—
    35   Shall in the general censure take corruption
    36   From that particular fault. The dram of evil
    37   Doth all the noble substance of a doubt,
    38   To his own scandal.”

    The Bard of Avon strikes again. When it comes to the Birthers, he hits the nail on the head.

    If you have trouble with this just quote me the line number and I’l try to help.

    • nhthinker

      Who gives a dam if a person has a legal father at time of birth?

      The issue comes in if a person tries to fabricate a story to make people believe something that is not true.

      It’s one thing to tell a little innocent lie when asked a question. It’s another thing to write it into a book.

  • nhthinker

    “Can you give me some names? I’m drawing a blank.”

    So you don’t think any of the presidents of the last twenty years deserved the level of secrecy you are now demanding for Obama? You want him to be treated with the fawning respect that Kennedy got. If he’s treated with the same level of suspicion you expect for Vestal Virgins, then the person doing it must be a racist, either knowingly or unknowingly.

    Thanks for straightening that out. You have been exposed as highly biased.

    I didn’t get the memo that trust in politicians had to revert 50 years just because we got an African-American President. Would you please forward a copy of yours to me? Or just post it here: we would all enjoy it.

  • pnumi2

    You obviously haven’t read the last post on page 5. Please do me the courtesy of reading it, after rereading your post above it.

    That will prove the notion that your recollection of the truth is often clouded by $1000 worth of wine a year.

    Biased? Ha. There’s not a biased corpuscle in my body. I’m such a biased liberal Democrat I voted for Kenneth Keating when I determined Robert Kennedy was carpetbagging. Have you ever voted for a Democrat for Federal office or Governor? Why even ask?

    If you have stopped raving and the wine has mellowed your mood, let me say I don’t disagree with you about the secrecy surrounding Obama’s birth. If the public record shows that his mother was 17 when she gave birth to her son and that she wasn’t married when he was born, I believe the public has a right to know.

    If you had put that question to me in its proper form without the rancor and disdain that is the trademark the birthers have for all life but their own, you would have had my immediate concord without wasting all this time.

    You have been pussy footing around the COLB, BC, NBC issue ad nauseum, when all you wanted to do was to get a video camera into Obama’s underwear drawer.

    Now that you and Andy Martin have besmirched his mother’s name and humiliated Obama, for trying to prevent that heinous act, you can put your feet up on your desk and wait for the next Democrat whose character must be assassinated.

    The Republicans can now put motherhood in the drawer containing all those items they talk about as important, but don’t hesitate to kick down the stairs.

    • nhthinker

      Thanks for pointing me back to the previous page.
      I do not ever remember hearing of “Andy Martin” before you wrote your posting.
      So some guy thought he had proof that Obama was illegitimate and wanted to sell a book.
      You are accusing me and everyone else that was had at least some doubt of Obama’s birthplace that the true purpose of getting the long form was to prove he was illegitimate.
      He wanted to discredit Obama. Obama didn’t want any seeming mistruths in his books to negatively impact his reputation.

      AFAIK, his long form did absolutely nothing to confirm nor deny his illegitimate status.
      It was his father’s INS records that pointed to evidence in that direction.
      But the MSM has not covered it.

      Andy Martin wants Obama discredited. Andy’s batty. He makes a huge number of assertions, most of which have been discredited.

      You would try to convince us to believe that the reason he got the illegitimacy story right is that Andy was so smart and cunning to know in advance that the illegitimacy story was the only correct story and everything else was a ruse to get at the illegitimacy story.

      Have you looked this guy up on wiki? He’s a nut case.
      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      It was the liberal BOSTON GLOBE that filed the freedom of information request for Obama Sr. info. Are they abettors to Andy Martin? I don’t think so. So am I an abettor to Andy’s intent to get the illegitimacy story but the Globe is not?

      Your connections and blame seem very irrational.

      None of the nativity story made sense to me. If Obama Sr had been close to Staney and the grandparents as the story goes, then he may have had significant influences on Obama’s early choices in citizenship. Since it turns out to be a ruse, the probability of a clandestine citizenship basically drops to zero.

      I was suspicious of Obama’s story first because his mother left for Washington state only 14 days after he was born. That’s basically unheard of for a normal loving family. In the 1960s, it was relatively normal to hide unwed teenage pregnancies by shipping daughters to places where the family reputation would not be embarrassed.

      Are any other assertions of Andy correct? Do his assertions seem to have truth to them or just random garbage? To me, it’s garbage.

      Do Americans deserve the media to scrutinize and try and uncover as many records for Obama as they did for Bush? I say “yes” and you say “no”.

      BTW, $1000 of wine is about 1.5 glasses a day. Not exactly enough to be clouding.

      I don’t remember that I ever called you a liberal or a Democrat. I did call you biased. You want Obama treated differently than other modern presidents. And by modern presidents, I don’t mean half a century ago.

      “Democrat whose character must be assassinated.”

      Lies intended to help someone get elected or to get some groups of people to like someone more, should be exposed by journalists. That’s their job. The scrutiny should occur for both Democrats and Republicans.

  • pnumi2

    With respect, I sincerely doubt you limit yourself to 1.5 glasses of wine a day. Your argument suggests a quotidian 1.5 bottles.

    As far as Andy Martin goes, no, I haven’t looked him up on wiki. I’ll take your word on him. Methinks, nhthinker doth protest too much.

    Am I biased? I would say I am probably the least biased person I know. Or you know. Or anyone knows. I have read in works of fiction characters who may be less biased than I.

    I can not get into it about whether Bush’s records of his drunk driving (and you must be more concerned with your children riding their bikes along the roadside) and his Houdini-like exit from the Texas Air National Guard — wasn’t Bush Sr. a U.S. Congressman from Texas at the time? — were overdone.

    To compare Bush’s mysterious disappearance from the Guard with Obama trying to salvage his dead mother’s name smacks of heartofstoneness.


    Most boys and men choke up when they hear those words said together. I’m not sure what your gender is. But if you’re a man I would hope you know what I mean. Even if your mother was Lizzy Borden, to what lengths wouldn’t you go to make sure she could rest in peace?

    • nhthinker

      “With respect, I sincerely doubt you limit yourself to 1.5 glasses of wine a day. Your argument suggests a quotidian 1.5 bottles. ”

      So you are willing to makes disrespectful vile suggestion about me being an alcoholic without evidence. Is that just hardbard? Are you spinning your fabrication for political gain or because you have hate or anger you are trying to placate?

      What evidence at all do you have that the nativity story was for his mother?
      To me, it seems more plausible that Obama was acting on his self-admitted identity crisis.
      In college, he said he discovered who he was: As part of his time when he would not associate with Caucasians and reprimand African-American that were not as radical as he was: it was likely at that time he was trying to find or fabricate as much connection to his father as he possibly could. And continued that when he wrote “Dreams of my Father”.

      My mother was a saint, BTW. I don’t know if she fornicated out-of-wedlock.
      At 31, her 36 year-old husband died of a massive heart attack and she had to raise her 6 chilren by herself. She had been a college educated stay at home mom because of the importance she placed on putting her children first.
      She was much too proud to go on welfare and she worked as a teacher in a city district that was all African-American and had riots in it while she worked there. I was taught to be color-blind. That there were many people that acted with honor in both the Caucasian and the African-American communities.
      She highly respected Martin Luther King, Jr and she expressed how wrong she thought the people were that would use rioting to express their anger with the unfairness of life. She continued to work even after the doctors ripped out her large intestine when she was 38. I, as a 11-12 year old, then watched her succumb to colon cancer at 39: both of us knowing how much her passing was going to cause upheaval to the peaceful family and hiding all the foresight of pain from each other.

      I then entered my “Mr Spock” creature of pure reason stage of my life.- Emotion was much too painful for many years. I set my self on track to someday build a happy family while secretly praying to God he would grant me the wish of the opportunity to die saving someone else.

      As to bias- You still have not discussed WHY you think Obama deserves secrecy and deference standards from half a century ago and you can;t think of any other president since then that deserved such standards from the media.

      You would rather suggest that I am a drunkard and have a mother like Lizzy Borden than actually addressing a reasonable question put to you.

  • pnumi2

    “If you had put that question to me in its proper form without the rancor and disdain that is the trademark the birthers have for all life but their own, you would have had my immediate concord without wasting all this time.”

    You should read my replies more carefully before you continue on your accusatory way.

    Didn’t you, appropos of absolutely nothing, tell me that you could no longer drink $4000 worth of wine a year and were down to a pittance of $1000?

    Now you’re all vicitimy about my humorous remark to try to take your mind off the way things were. I know plenty of people who drink more than a bottle and half of wine a day, and don’t get all whiney and sloppy with their punctuation. The words ‘alcoholic’ and ‘drunkard’ are yours not mine.

    While I don’t hesitate to call a spade a spade, I don’t call people alcoholics without observing their movements, hearing their speech, sensing the pungency of their breath and perceiving a red glow on the tip of their nose. How can this be done on the internet?

    The well of the right to secrecy and defense accruing to Obama is becoming as dry as the oil wells upon which the entire scheme of Capitalism runs.

    I would love to know why every conservative thinker, writer and pundit I have ever read is bereft of a “sense of humor”? Do you have any idea?

    • nhthinker

      “Didn’t you, appropos of absolutely nothing, tell me that you could no longer drink $4000 worth of wine a year and were down to a pittance of $1000? ”

      No, maybe the $50 bill’s worth of gin is blurring your vision. The $4000 to $1000 change was gasoline use: not wine.

      So it was all in jest. OK. Ha ha! Good one.

      So which presidents in the past 50 years deserves the deference to secrecy that you expect for Obama? Carter? Ford? Reagan? Bush?

      • pnumi2

        In the spirit of’ pax vobiscum’, why don’t you say this before you go to bed at night.

        “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.”

        It pains me to say it, but you’ve changed nothing in the birther debate. And now your wisdom is in serious doubt.

        Did you like the little quote from “1984″?

        Much more apropos than your observation about the price of wine.

        • nhthinker

          “So which presidents in the past 50 years deserves the deference to secrecy that you expect for Obama? Carter? Ford? Reagan? Bush?”

          So why not answer a reasonable question to someone that has answered every one of yours that you have stressed?

          Do you want me to grant you the deference to secrecy that you are advocating for Obama?

  • pnumi2

    May 1 7:56pm pnumi writes:

    “If you had put that question to me in its proper form without the rancor and disdain that is the trademark the birthers have for all life but their own, you would have had my immediate concord without wasting all this time.” (Concord here is not the Capitol of New Hampshire.)

    I never want to see either party have advantages over the other, whether it is in cash or secrets. If you can show me any other president whose right to hold office was challenged after his election and the evidence that supported that challenge, please do.

    If not, cease embarrassing yourself by thinking that there is some legal authority in a mob of uneducated people shouting, “Where is the BC?”

    It is analogous to nothing less than that crowd of ancient Jews, who demanded of Pilate, “Give us Barabbas.

    You birthers had no compelling reason at law to demand to see Obama’s COLB after he was elected. Hearsay evidence must be supported by something more. AND YOU HAVE NOTHING. Before the election you and the MSM might have moved him to ‘voluntarily’ release it. But all of you were too dim to do so.

  • nhthinker

    “So which presidents in the past 50 years deserves the deference to secrecy that you expect for Obama? Carter? Ford? Reagan? Bush?”

    Where is the rancor and disdain? Is it because I did not ask “please”?
    You admit you can’t identify drunkenness through the Internet but you are sure of rancor and disdain?
    Would you please let me know how you identify “rancor and disdain” ?
    I will honestly tell you I have no hatred nor malice toward you. I might be frustrated by some of your answers, but I have no ill-will toward you even after you’ve called me a denying racist.

  • pnumi2

    In spite of what everyone says, nhthinker, you are very good at what you do.

    You can take any jot or tittle in the argument of the antagonist of the moment and raise it to the level of a ’cause celebre’ in your reply. It’s a version of bait and switch, which I call ignore and switch. By assuming the role of the hurt and affronted innocent, the person with whom you are arguing immediately drops his attack to salve your Pecksniffian feelings.

    Gadzooks, man/woman, you are blogging with people who, like yourself, throw around disagreeable words like children throw peanuts at the monkeys in the zoo.

    If your dainty sensibilities can not not endure the severity of the game here, “get thee to a nunnery.” (Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1)

    • nhthinker

      I can handle the words, fine. Heck, anybody that at 12 can watch his mother die for a year isn’t likely to be have his feeling very hurt by a anonymous person on the Internet. My assessment is it’s actually you that is trying to change the subject.

      I try not to write in code. Yes, I know my writing is ugly. But my first intent is to be candid.

      When I actually know a person outside the Internet, I’ll use less candid language.

      I still would really like to know the answer to my question to you: would you please consider letting me know why you only listed presidents that haven’t served in 50 years to compare with Obama for the level of deference?

  • pnumi2

    Don’t be too self-critical, nh. I don’t think your writing is ugly; I think you are an excellent writer. Your prose here is as good as the best.

    Forgive me for saying so, but it’s your content that’s ugly. Your disposition. Your tendencies. You came here to take up arms against a sea of very sharp liberals, and — with all due respect — you’re not doing too well.

    “But my first intent is to be candid.” Otto, Watusie, the Frumples, TRS, lessado, armstp, in fact everyone one liberal side of the street would say: ” My first intent is to be correct. To be honest.”

    I don’t blame you for for your political deformities. It happens all the time. A father with unpleasant Democratic experiences. A priest or rabbi who thinks they have heard God’s Republican Word. That’s all it takes to get some little boy or girl off on the wrong foot. Short of a well placed bolt of lightening, I’m not sure you’ll ever see the light.

    “Why you only listed presidents that haven’t served in 50 years to compare with Obama for the level of deference?”

    America the Country is, with the exception of some modern edifices and conveniences, the same country as it was 50 years ago. America the People isn’t quite the same. Only in my opinion. of course.

    The most important thing about Obama’s presidency is just the fact that it happened at all. It’s laughable to talk about his young mother, his black father from Kenya, the short form and the long form, the peripatetic behavior of his family, the schools he attended, the grades he achieved, the churches he worshiped at the elections he lost and won.

    No, there is only one lesson that Obama’s election instructs: that 235 years after America was founded with slavery, 150 years after the Civil War was fought to emanicipate those slaves and 50 years after segration was ended, enough Americans saw the rectitude of putting a black man like Obama into America’s highest office.

    And then we hunkered down to wait for the counter attack from the forces of… (you’re the writer. what word would you use?)

  • nhthinker

    “America the Country is, with the exception of some modern edifices and conveniences, the same country as it was 50 years ago. America the People isn’t quite the same. Only in my opinion. of course.”

    50 years ago the journalism industry was much more deferential and respectful to presidents.
    Americans were more trusting in Government. As cynicism grew, as shown in the following graph and now you want us to revert to 50 year ago trust levels because Obama is President. Instead of answering the question why, you answer a completely different question.

    Again, I respectfully ask WHY does Obama deserve the deference that Kennedy got as opposed the more suspicion that every President since then has gotten? It seems that your answer is, to paraphrase-”because there are racists”. Is that your answer?

    As to nativity like stories: The Boston media during the 2008 campaign attacked Mitt Romney for saying George Romney marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King, Jr.. They implied that Mitt Romney made the story up to show more connection to MLK,Jr than he deserved directly for political gain. They indicated that there was nothing in the record that said it happened nor any indication that George Romney had ever said it.
    Some issues about nativity stories is not the facts, but whether the politician potentially fabricates parts of the story to make himself more pleasing to a group he is trying to impress.

    When a politician clearly fabricates a story that does not hold together, you want us to assume a priori, in the case of Obama, that it’s:
    1) only out of respect for persons other than himself;
    2) there can not be any citizenships other than US involved;
    3) that he wouldn’t fabricate stuff to make his history more pleasing to certain voters.

    Such assumptions are not consistent with 2010 sensibilities and trust in politicians: neither for Caucasian nor African-American politicians.

  • pnumi2

    October 28, 2009

    Michelle Obama contradicts Barry’s “nativity” story.

    Topics: Political News and commentaries
    More proof that our president is, at the very least, willing to distort the facts to suit his own purposes – if not an outright liar, and it turns out that Michelle Obama confirmed it back in July 2008 by contradicting Barack’s fairy tale birth story.

    Via WND:

    In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

    The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

    As the WND article goes on to point out, despite what Barack wrote on page 22 of his autobiography “Dreams from My Father,” it isn’t clear Obama’s parents were ever married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published. And in addition to questions about Dunham’s marital status, WND previously uncovered documents strongly suggesting Barack Obama Sr. and Dunham did not live at the address listed in birth announcements in two local papers – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu.
    Email this • Technorati Links • Save to • Digg This! • Share on Facebook

    What were you doing in July, 2008? Not paying attention, apparently.

    If, as God says,”Husband and wife are one flesh.” then Obama confessed, in July 2008 through his wife Michelle, to all the crap you accuse him of denying and keeping secret.

    You might as well fault Ronald Regan for not telling the American People that he would soon succumb to the ravages of Altzheimer’s, instead of letting Nancy do what the American People had every right to expect that Reagan himself should do.

    Instead of looking like the perfect wuss.

    You do believe that husband and wife are one flesh? Do you feel that way about your husband/wife?

    I will finish off your pathetic argument later in the day.

  • pnumi2

    I may be wrong. So…

    Show me date after July 2008 where Obama contradicts his wife assertions.

  • nhthinker

    You’ve been all over the map on this thread and you still are avoiding the answer to my question regarding why the deference and secrecy you expect for Obama should be equivalent to that shown to Kennedy 50 years ago and why you would not name a single president or presidental candidate of that last 50 years that you also think should have been given that deference standard.

    We get “DEAD MOTHER! DEAD MOTHER!” emotional pleas and then just a few posts later you are indicating that his own flesh (wife) was throwing his mother onto the out-of-wedlock fornication bus.
    Does Michelle have the sensitivities of Lizzy Borden daughters?
    You seem to be arguing on both sides of everything and not addressing my question.

    BTW, why would ANY rational person quote WND without providing a second corroborating source?
    WND been wrong too many times to count.

  • pnumi2


    [applause][cheers] Thank you so much. You guys, please. Sit down, rest your feet. [laughter] This is a round table for working women, so I don’t want you standing up anymore than you have to. You work hard enough as it is. [laughter] Even, even the men that are here, you can sit down. [laughter]
    I want to thank Susan [Montee] for that wonderful introduction. It, it has meant so much for us to have strong early supporters in this candidacy. And have people who came out a year ago when nobody knew who Barack Obama was, really. It, it means a great deal and we are grateful to have her support.

    I also want to thank Chancellor Bailey here at the University of Missouri for opening up this institution to us. I got an opportunity to meet him and the student body president. Would you gentlemen please stand up so that we can just say, “Hello.” [applause]

    But I am just delighted to be here in this state to have a conversation about what’s on so many of our minds. I know it’s, it’s on my mind. And in this issue of balancing work and family and making sure we all have an opportunity to create sane home lives for our kids and keep ourselves together at the same time. I know that there’s so many people here like me who wear so many different hats. And I’ve done that all my life. I am not just the wife of a presidential candidate, which is like eight hats, [laughter] but I am a professional, still I had a job, [laughter] another job that, but I’m a daughter, a sister, a best friend, but the roll that I cherish most is, is the role of mom. That role means so much to me. [applause]

    [garbled] Like so many of you my little precious girls are, are all that I think about. They are the first things I think about when I wake up in the morning and the last, the last things I think about before I go to bed at night. And it, it doesn’t really matter what I’m doing. In the whole, talking to folks, they are on my mind, whether I’m campaigning or working. I am constantly worried about how they’re doing, how they’re feeling, are they being loved, are they having fun. So, for me the policies that support working women and families, it’s not just about politics for me, this stuff is personal. these are the issues that I have mulled around my head my entire life. And no matter what the outcome is of this election, I’m gonna to continue to work and talk, and fight to make sure that we put women and families in a better place in this country. [applause]

    And I don’t know about you all, but I’m, I’m always amazed at how different things have, are today for working women and families s compared to when I was growing up. As Susan alluded to, I’m the product of a working class community. I’m a proud product. I talk about it everywhere I go. But back then, a man like my father, who was a city worker, he worked a shift, could raise a family of four on a single city salary. And allow my mother to stay home to take care of me and my brother. And today one income, let alone the kind of income that would come from a man like my father, just doesn’t cut it anymore. [voice: "That's right."] What we’re finding in this country is that working families are finding that two people have to be working to make ends meet. And I don’t how people do it when there’s only one parent, a single parent in the household. But people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. And that’s not even including the kind of jobs that you do once we get off of work [voices: "Right." "That's right."] and I know as women the truth of the matter is, is that those jobs still disproportionately fall on our laps. Those jobs like getting laundry done, making lunch, signing field trip form. I can tell you what I did before I got on the plane to come here, ’cause no matter who’s in the house, a grandma or me, the kids come to me for all of that. They look straight to me.

    And then as those bills pile up, and the tasks seem to get harder and harder, we all have the job of late night worrier. And like many of you I have wished in, in those late hours that I had this magic machine that create more time [laughter] in the day that would allow me to get a little more sleep at night. Or maybe duplicate myself, once or twice, so that I could be at three places at once. But even as I dream in, in those late nights I, I do know, Barack and I know, that we are blessed. We are fortunate. We are among the lucky ones because we have the resources that we need to make sure that our family can hold it together. And I, of all people, have the most important resource of all. I’ve got my mom who lives near by me and is there to take care of my girls when I’m not there. And I’ve said this around the campaign trail, there’s nothing like grandma. When you were [applause], and I know that more and more families are finding it hard to have that informal support structure. When jobs are drying up in states and cities all over the, this country young families have to move away from grandma and great aunts. And they’re left to fend for themselves. So there’s so much more that happens when an economy crumbles. It’s not just the loss of jobs, but its the break down of those informal support structures. So, Barack and I know we’re blessed.

    But we know that so many of families around this country are not as fortunate. As I’ve traveled around the country for the last year and a half I’ve heard stories, so many stories of families that are doing their best to keep it together. I’ve heard from so many mothers who are struggling to make ends meet. And were gonna talk to some of those mothers today. Folks who are seeing their income stagnate as prices continue to climb, making decisions about putting gas in the car or getting the grocery bill paid. And then there are the women who find it difficult to take time off of work to care for a sick child for fear that they’ll be penalized. Or mothers to be that don’t want to let their bosses know that they’re pregnant because they’re afraid of losing their jobs. And then there are the women who are working hard every single day doing some of the same jobs as men but they’re not getting paid the same thing. [applause]

    And then there are military families. That’s a group of families that I’ve just begun to talk to as I’ve traveled around the country. And you just imagine all the struggles that the average families are dealing with and you take that struggle and you double it and you triple it and you add on two, or three, or four consecutive tours of duty. So these young families are struggling just as well trying to make it on one paycheck when there used to be two. They’re still dealing with the questions of how to cover the cost of child care, trying to get mental health support for their families and for themselves. And they welcome their loved ones home with open hearts, but often find that the government just isn’t there to provide the support to honor the service that some of these men and women have given.

    So those are some of the struggles. These are the types of struggles that we hear all over the country. And the struggles aren’t new to me, not new to anyone in this room, but I want people to understand these struggles certainly aren’t new to my husband, Barack. He understands the struggles. He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister. And he saw through her struggle essentially what she tried to teach him, that you can do anything with a little hard work in this country. But he also saw her struggle to make ends meet, sometimes relying on food stamps. And the pain, that it effect, that hit her, the pride of ask, having to ask someone else for help. He saw his grandmother. who is now in her eighties, was the primary breadwinner in their household. Held the family together. He saw her rise from being the secretary at a bank to being a senior level executive. This woman in her eighties, a ground breaker in her own right. But he also [applause], but he also saw her hit that proverbial glass ceiling that even with her abilities and her hard work there was only so far that she’d be able to go. And he also sees me, his wife, who struggles every day with that guilt we all hold deep in our heart as women. That guilt that you don’t have the choice to stay home, and even if you do you feel guilty, you’re working. When you’re working you’re not with your kids, so you feel bad about that. And when you’re with your kids you know you need to be doing more somewhere else. It’s a guilt that we all hold. He has seen me struggle with this my entire life, so trust me, Barack, Barack understands the struggles of women. Because the women he loves the most in his life, he has learned these lessons from. So Barack, you have to know, carries our stories as women in his heart every day. And they have affected who he has become as a man. And they’ve impacted the choices that he’s made over his entire life.

    That’s why, when Barack graduated from college, he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer, working on the south side of Chicago and some communities that had been devastated by the closing of steel plants. He saw the struggles of single parent mothers, grandmothers raising grandchildren, and folks who had given up hope that the government could help them. He came into those communities and worked for years trying to help folks find their own power to build a life, better life for themselves and their children. That’s why Barack, when he became an Illinois state senate, worked to pass welfare reform law. That would move people from welfare to work so that generations of children would have a better life. And that’s why in the Illinois senate he fought to pass legislation to give three hundred thousand more women protection from paycheck discrimination.

    And that’s why he’s been fighting so hard in the U.S. Senate to pass legislation to help women hold their employers more accountable when they’re not paid fairly. And that’s why as President of the United States Barack has determined to change Washington so that we don’t just talk a good game about family values, but we actually develop policies [applause], real policies that have meaning to working women and families.That help us raise our children, to care for them. And to insure that we;re not just surviving, but that we’re thriving.

    Right now in this country thousands of women don’t have any family leave, nothing. And for those who do many of them don’t take it because it is unpaid. And people can’t afford to do something unpaid. Right now in this country [applause], twenty two million working women don’t have a single paid sick day. Not a single paid sick day. And that’s, it’s not only unacceptable, it’s unrealistic. [voice: "Right."] In this country families shouldn’t be punished because somebody gets sick or there’s a family emergency. That’s why Barack is going to be working hard to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, so that millions of additional Americans will be able to take a little time off when they need to. Maybe take care of a sick child, or elderly parent, or go, heaven forbid, to a school play or a parent teacher conference. Or just spend a few hours reading to your child, that they need a little extra attention. Barack is going to require every single employer to make sure that all their workers have at least seven paid sick days a year. [applause]

    Barack has also put, to committed to insuring that women are paid fairly for the work that they do. And today although a majority of women are now the primary bread winners in their households, women still earn seventy seven cents for every dollar that a man earns. And a recent Supreme Court decision made it actually harder for women to hold employers accountable for paying them less for the same amount of work. And that’s why Barack was a proud supporter of legislation that would overturn that Supreme Court decision. And let me know, just want to let you know as president Barack is gonna keep fighting and working hard until that gap in equity is closed once and for all. [applause]

    So in my famous Michelle Obama honesty [laughter] that sometimes gets me in trouble [laughter] I have to say that when Barack approached me, when he was seriously considering this run for president I said, “No way.” [laughter] “Absolutely not. Please don’t.” Because the truth be told it’s, I thought politics was mean rough business. I don’t know that I feel any differently about it today. [laughter] But the last thing in the world that I wanted for my girls was to have their lives turned upside down. I mean, you can understand that. {voices: “Uh, huh.”] I couldn’t bear the thought of them being in the public eye or hearing their parents being criticized on national TV. Or having their dad away from them for weeks on end. It broke my herat just to think about it. I, I wanted, like all mothers and parents, do I want the best possible life for my girls. But then I had to take a step back. And I had to take off my me hat. And I had to put on my citizen hat. And I started thinking more broadly about the kind of world that I would want my girls to grow up in. And I thought about a world where when they grew up they’d be paid equally and fairly for the work that they’d do. A world where they could choose a career and not have to worry about choosing between their kids and earning a living. I wanted them to be in a world where they could dream as women without limitations and imagine anything for themselves. And then I realized that’s the kind of world that I wanted for my girls and for all of our children. And I had no choice but to work hard to make sure that a man like Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States. [applause][cheers]

    So, so that’s why I’m here. [laughter] That’s it. Because I’m gonna do my part to make sure that we get this man in office. And we’re gonna need your help every step of the way.

    So, I’m gonna stop now [laughter] and we’re gonna open this conversation up to the wonderful women on this panel who have so eagerly agreed to share their stories.

    I see breathing a little hard it’s. [laughter] Ignore the cameras [laughter] if you can. [garbled] is like, “Oh, just keep talkin’.” [laughter] You’re doin’ just fine [laughter][garbled] by me. [laughter] I feel that way, too, when there’s a good speaker, I’m just sort of like, “Oh good!” [laughter][garbled] But we’re gonna have a conversation that we’ve had, I’ve, I’ve helped to organize these conversations all over the country for the last year and a half. And this is the best thing I’ve done in my life because we need to start sharing our challenges and our struggles, first of all, so that we know that we’re not alone.

    I don’t care what city I’m in, what state I’m in, whether it’s rural or urban – the stories that you will share are the same stories we hear everywhere. Folks are hurting in ways that sometimes we don’t want to admit. But in order to fix it we have to admit it. But this is only the beginning. These are the kind of conversations that I know we have to continue to have, not just for the rest of this campaign season, but for, for the next four or eight years. So this is just the beginning.

    So I want you guys to relax [laughter], breathe deeply, drink water. And also we’re gonna ask everyone else to join in, share stories, ask questions. And thank you again for giving us the time. let’s begin. [applause]…    


  • pnumi2

    Wouldn’t you have wanted to know that your president had some or all of the following conditions before you deployed to Beirut?

    Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
    Vascular Dementia
    Mixed Dementia
    Dementia with Lewy Bodies
    Frontotemporal Dementia
    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
    Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
    Huntington’s Disease
    Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome

    Unless you heard him giggling “Bombs Away” into an open mike in the Oval Office. But he was so cute in “Bedtime for Bozo.”

    Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Crazy

    Ronald Reagan was crazy. This country with its debt, deficit and unfunded programs is practically destroyed. It’s just a matter of time. The ancient proverb falls like a blade on the heart of America. Morning in America has become Mourning in America. And with the palpable end of everything we have known and loved for scores of years, all the clueless rightwing dimwits, in which I sadly include you, can do is criticize Obama, for no other reason than to take their minds off the fact that their guy — their beloved guy — brought mighty America down, like a house of cards.

    “you still are avoiding the answer to my question regarding why the deference and secrecy you expect for Obama should be equivalent to that shown to Kennedy 50 years ago and why you would not name a single president or presidental candidate of that last 50 years that you also think should have been given that deference standard.”

    Obama’s birth and background is entitled to the same secrecy and deference as was afforded Ronald Reagan’s derangement. He qualifies as president even though he was as nutty as a fruitcake. And his insanity was kept secret from the American People. Nancy knew. His doctors knew. His advisors knew, but they did not want to lose their pay checks, health benefits and pension accumulations.

    Forget secrecy. Forget deference. Reagan was a lunatic. The left knew it. The right loved him. Because his insanity reminded them of themselves.

    You most of all.

  • nhthinker

    AFAIK, the American public was not interested in demanding Reagan release his health records qnd not a single significant political nor journalist made a big deal out of it.
    BTW, did America deserve to know the drug cocktails Kennedy was taking?

    You still did not answer the question but managed to fill the page.

    “…why you would not name a single president or presidental candidate of that last 50 years that you also think should have been given that deference standard.”