The real “birther” issue that Obama is deathly afraid of

A hallmark of certain hardcore “birthers” is the belief that Obama was born in Kenya. According to the drill, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother, henceforth “Ann”) traveled to Kenya in 1961 and gave birth to Obama. And since Obama was born in Kenya, he cannot be a “natural born citizen,” and therefore he is ineligible to be the President.

Those may very well be the facts, but lately I’ve wondered about the “logistics” of Ann’s odyssey to Kenya. Specifically, how did she get there? Indeed, how would a very pregnant Ann travel the 10,729 air miles from Honolulu to Nairobi?

Let’s see. Since jet travel only started to become popular in 1961, she was unlikely to fly the entire trip by jet. More likely, her trip would have combined jet- and propeller-driven airplanes. And most likely, her trip would have required several stops, perhaps upwards of ten, with layovers of hours, even days. It would have been a long, uncomfortable, exhausting trip, especially for a young woman traveling along and in her, presumably, third trimester. Who paid for this expensive trip? How did she pay for her food and lodging? How did she manage all the paperwork involved? How did she even manage her luggage? (BTW, which airline would allow a woman in her third trimester to fly?)

Still, once she arrived at Nairobi, how did she travel the 274 miles to Mombasa, the town where she’s alleged to have given birth to “The Anointed One”? By train? By bus? Perhaps townspeople related to Obama, Sr., Ann’s alleged husband, met her at Nairobi and transported her by car or cart driven by an African beast or two. Whichever, the ride would had been a long, bumpy, jarring, uncomfortable one. (Can you say, “miscarriage”?)

How long do you suppose the entire trip took? Days? Weeks? Months? If we take educated guesses on the total time spent in the air, during layovers, and caused by inevitable delays and cancellations, plus the time for the ground transport to Mombasa, and we add them up, I think we can reasonably say 10 to 14 days. Yes? To be safe, let’s say it’s at least two weeks. The return trip would no doubt had taken just as long, if not longer.

Now that we have an idea of the “logistics” involved for a trip from Honolulu to Kenya in 1961, unless someone who worked as a Travel Agent in 1961 tells me otherwise, I think it’s unlikely, even impossible, for Ann to have traveled to Kenya in 1961 and give birth to Obama, Jr. So I must conclude that the entire “birther” issue about Obama’s Kenyan birth is one, big, fat, red herring. (Question to Birthers who are fans of Obama’s Kenyan birth: Since a round trip from Honolulu to Mombasa in 1961 probably took about one month, is this travel time accounted for in any of Ann’s meticulously researched biographical timelines?) Yet, Obama wants very much to keep this issue alive to distract us from the real “birther” issue that he’s deathly afraid of.

Which one is that?

It’s not the one that correctly declares he’s ineligible to be POTUS because he doesn’t meet the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement. This issue is based on his “stipulated” birthplace as Hawaii. and his father’s, Barack Obama, Sr., birth in Kenya.

While Obama no doubt understands this issue, and may even think it correctly applies to him, it doesn’t concern him. That’s because he knows that since he’s the sitting President, no one could touch him with this issue—even when he seeks reelection. Besides, he knows who his real father is.

Who is Obama’s real father? It’s certainly not Barack Obama, Sr. (If you believe he’s the real father, then I have a bridge I like to sell you.) But it’s likely he was a willing pawn in the cover-up to lend “legitimacy” to the future occupant of the White House. And while it appears he lent his name to baby Obama, it’s unlikely he married Ann, since no marriage license was ever found. Nor has anyone ever claimed to have attended such a wedding, even if it took place at City Hall. There are no photos, no reception guest list, no receipts for celebratory cake and wine—nothing to prove a marriage took place! (Folks, here’s an “unspeakable” truth that’s hiding in plain sight: Barack Hussein Obama is, quite literally, a bastard.)

So, just who is Obama’s real father? Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist, is a likely candidate; some consider him the front runner. Malcolm X, the one and the same, is another likely candidate. Sammy Davis, Jr., not so much. A very credible, “dark horse,” candidate is Stanley Durham, Obama’s grandfather, when he inseminated an “unknown black woman.” (For details about these probable fathers, go to: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_further_inquiry_into_obamas_1.html)

And we must consider the possibility that Ann is not Obama’s mother, after all. (I’d sure like to see her body exhumed for a DNA match, don’t you?)

In any case, I doubt that Obama was born in Kenya. I also doubt that he was born in Hawaii. Indeed, if Obama was ever issued a birth certificate, it probably wasn’t Hawaiian issued, despite his claims to the contrary. For that matter, I think the intransigent reluctance of the Hawaiian authorities to show Obama’s supposed “actual” birth certificate is part of a conspiracy to cover up the identity of Obama’s real father. But wherever Obama’s actual birth certificate was issued, it will show who his real father is. Once his identity is finally reviewed, Obama’s carefully crafted biographical narrative will fall like a house of cards. The populace will then clearly see Obama for the liar that he is.

Who is Obama’s real, biological, father?

That’s the real “birther” issue that Obama is deathly afraid of.

 

Thanks for reading.

Alton Yee

Attention Readers! You were once provided with a “Leave a reply” option. It should have appeared below the last comment. Inexplicably, it has disappeared and “technical support” was not been able to turn it back on. I apologize for this glitch and for your inconvenience. If you like to comment on this article, which I wholeheartedly welcome, I have posted, “The real ‘birther’ issue that Obamais deathly afraid of, PART 2.” It should have a “Leave a reply” option for your comments.  Let’s hope it will not inexplicably disappear and remain on.

11 comments for “The real “birther” issue that Obama is deathly afraid of

  1. Alton Yee
    June 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Hi Lensky Salzman,

    Thank you for your comments.

    Yes, it’s kind of hard to refute Stanley Ann’s travel “plans” or lack of.

    As for your theory that Stanley Ann did not travel to Kenya, but another white woman did and gave birth to Obama, it is a very interesting and tantalizing one. It will certainly explain how Stanley Ann was able to travel to Seattle, get an apartment and start her studies at U of Washington all within two weeks after she was alleged to give birth to Obama.

    If we go by your theory, it would mean Obama’s birth date could be months or even years earlier than his “recorded” birth date of August 4, 1961. But the problem is who is this white woman? And, just as important, who is the father?

    A colleague proposed that the father is a brother of Stanley Dunham, Obama’s putative grandfather. This brother traveled with a black woman to Kenya as tourists. The woman (who is more likely of mixed race which would explain Obama’s purplish tinge on his lips, which is an Arab or Indonesian characteristic) gave birth to a premature baby Obama. Complications ensured when they returned to the US and Stanley Dunham ended up with the “bundle.” Those complications can only be speculated on, but the scenario does appear to have some validity. A question I like answered is whether Kenya in 1961 was a tourist attraction. If it wasn’t, then why did this couple travel to Kenya? Perhaps they were Peace Corps volunteers? Or UN workers? Or perhaps the couple planned to marry and the woman was a Kenyan citizen and brought her future husband home to meet her family?

    In any case, Lensky, you added another piece to this intriguing puzzle of Obama’s birth. I hope one day we solve it, and especially learn who is Obama’s real, biological father.

    As for your “heads up” about Florida’s Obama ballot challenge, I could only hold with bated breathe and hope the judge won’t fumble as did the Alabama judge earlier this year on this same issue. Let’s closely watch on June 18 and see how the judge decides.

    Thanks again for your comments and for your heads up.

    Alton Yee

  2. Lensky Salzman
    June 11, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I am one of those “hardcore birthers” who believes Obama was born in Kenya. I wanted to refute your claims that he could not be born in Kenya because his mother could not have traveled to Kenya, but I can’t.

    Then I figured that if Stanley Ann did not travel to Kenya, that doesn’t mean Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. It can mean that Stanley Ann was NOT his mother, and that a different white woman traveled to Kenya and gave birth to Obama. I haven’t figured who this white woman could be. But I think my idea is very possible. What do you think?

    Anyways, you might like to know about this item:

    FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE FOR JUNE 18, 2012

    And you should also like to know that a “birther” filed the ballot challange.

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/florida-court-sets-hearing-on-obama-ballot-challenge-for-june-18-2012

  3. Alton Yee
    June 6, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Hi Bill,

    Thank you for your reply. I can’t help noticing the mocking and whimsy you expressed in your reply. But I have no problem with that since I’ve heard other people express the same sentiments when they comment on “natural born,” as it relates to Obama. Even Dinesh DeSouza did this when he spoke at FreedomFest 2010, held in Las Vegas, which I attended.

    Anyhow, in your reply, you said, partly:

    I’ve never seen an “official” definition of “natural born.” Does it mean born within our borders, or born to someone who is a citizen? Does it mean you were born via natural childbirth? If you were conceived invitro, are you out of luck?

    The term in question is not “natural born,” but “natural born citizen.”

    “Natural born citizen,” as you may know, comes from Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to be, among other things, a “natural born citizen.” Article 1, on the other hand, requires a Representative and a Senator to be, among other things, a “citizen.”

    What do you think is the difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen”? Is there a difference without a distinction? Do you suppose a creative writing coach told the writers of those two Articles to require the President to be a “natural born citizen” so as to jazz up the writing?

    While I wait for your answer, I should say that it has been correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” But it has also been correctly pointed out that the Constitution does not define “citizen,” either. Suffice it to say, however, in 18th Century America it was understood that a “natural born citizen” is someone who is a citizen, born on native soil, whose two parents were both citizens, both born on native soil. The Framers required the President to be a “natural born citizen,” because they feared that the loyalty of the President, as the Commander-in-Chief, might become divided if he were of a dual citizenship. If you recall they had recently fought a war with England, the superpower then, you can understand their fear.

    As further proof that the Framers understood “natural born citizen,” they knew they can’t be “natural born citizens” of the United States since the United States only came into existence on July 4, 1776. To get around this “gotcha,” they grandfathered themselves in by adding the clause to qualify them to be President: “. . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ..” (Was Obama grandfathered in by this clause?)

    As for an “official definition” of natural born citizen, the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, is often cited. The relevant passage is:

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

    In any case, questions over Obama’s eligibility to be President because he’s not a “natural born citizen,” however much this term is misunderstood, arose because he crafted his biographical narrative to name Kenyan-born Barack Obama, Sr., as his father. Since this man is not his father, had Obama named his real, biological father, who probably was a citizen, born on native soil, then he wouldn’t have had these questions raised over his qualifications to be President. There would have been (or should have been) other questions raised, however. (BTW, who do you think is Obama’s real, biological father?)

    Regardless, whether Obama is a “natural born citizen,” constitutionally eligible to be POTUS is a legal issue that should have been decided in a court of law. Yet, “somehow” this legal issue was never allowed to be addressed in any court of law. (Romney, the de facto Republican presidential candidate, appears ineligible to be President since his father was born in Mexico. Let’s see how the “birthers” meet this “challenge.”)

    You concluded:

    As far as I’m concerned, (and I can’t stand Obama), if his mother was a citizen then he’s “natural born” even if he popped out on Mars.

    OK.

    Thanks again for your reply. I hope I had adequately addressed the concerns you expressed in your reply.

    Alton Yee

  4. Bill Vojtech
    June 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    I’ve never seen an “official” definition of “natural born.” Does it mean born within our borders, or born to someone who is a citizen? Does it mean you were born via natural childbirth? If you were conceived invitro, are you out of luck?

    As far as I’m concerned, (and I can’t stand Obama), if his mother was a citizen then he’s “natural born” even if he popped out on Mars.

  5. Alton Yee
    June 1, 2012 at 1:46 am

    Hi Tom Stevens,

    Thank you for re-posting my article at your blog spot, Liberty Lion. (As politicians say after their political ads, “I approve this message.”) I’m certain my article will be among many other interesting articles and postings at Liberty Lion, probably many you yourself wrote.

    I look forward to visiting it, and I encourage my readers to drop by.

    Alton Yee

  6. Alton Yee
    May 31, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Hi Tom Stevens,

    Thank you for your comments, in which you said, partly:

    You say there is no proof of the marriage. Is that true?

    To prove a negative. Isn’t that the classic philosophical conundrum?

    Anyhow, as I said, a marriage license was never recovered, as was Obama’s actual birth certificate. (BTW, those “ersatz” documents that Team Obama provided that purports to be Obama’s birth certificates were actually created in 2008 and 2010. It was hoped they would satisfy those pesky “birthers.” Unfortunately, as part of a vast white wing, er, right wing conspiracy, the birthers persisted in their demands for Obama to show his real birth certificate. In any case, I think Obama, Sr. only lent his name to those alleged birth announcements published in 1961 in those Honolulu newspapers. He did not lend his name to any birth certificate, much to Team Obama’s chagrin, since he wasn’t the father–so no birth certificate was ever created for Obama, Jr in 1961. But if a Hawaiian birth certificate was actually issued to Obama, I suggest it might be found under a different name. How about “Dunham,” as in Stanley Dunham, Obama’s grandfather? Some think he might be the real father, as I do.)

    Still, Jack Cashill said several times in these two posts that there is no evidence of a marriage:

    In his February 14, 2010 post, “A Further Inquiry into Obama’s Origins,” he made typical statements about the lack of evidence for an Obama, Sr + Dunham wedding. He even cited Obama Jr’s own admission of this absence.

    (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_further_inquiry_into_obamas_1.html)

    In addition, all details about the marriage remain elusive. Obama himself writes in Dreams, “In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I’ve never quite had the courage to explore.”

    A couple marries in a different county like Maui to keep the notification out of the local news. No one attended the wedding — not Abercrombie, not Ann’s parents. In fact, no one in Barack Sr.’s clique seemed to know there was a relationship, let alone a wedding.

    Cashill added further evidence of the absence of evidence for a wedding, again citing Obama’s acknowledgment, in his January 20, 2011 post, “Just who is really Obama’s father?” (http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/253097/):

    There never was a family. Obama and his mother, Ann Dunham, found themselves in Seattle when Obama was weeks old, and Obama Sr. left Hawaii for good in June 1962. This was before Obama’s first birthday and before Obama Sr.’s presumed wife and son returned to Hawaii. This much is beyond dispute.

    Although there is evidence of a Dunham-Obama divorce, there is no hard evidence of a wedding – no witnesses, no photos, no rings, no signed marriage certificate – and, of course, no long-form birth certificate, either.

    The lack of documentation comes to play in a previously overlooked passage from “Dreams from My Father.” As Obama tells the story, Obama Sr. had children with at least four different women, two of them American, two African. Ruth Nidesand, a white American, had two children by Obama Sr., Mark and David, the latter of whom died young in a motorcycle accident.

    When Obama Sr. died in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. “Unlike my mum,” Obama tells his half-sister Auma in “Dreams,” “Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.”

    Ruth obviously could produce a marriage license and a birth certificate for her son Mark. Although Obama alludes to finding his own “birth certificate” in “Dreams,” Ann Dunham apparently could not produce one that tied him to Obama Sr., this despite a potential payoff if she did.

    As for your assertion that Obama’s mom “moved to Indonesia with the [Kenyan] dad and that Obama was enrolled in a Madras,” you’re probably correct about Obama’s enrollment in a Madras, but Obama’s mom moved to Indonesia with Lolo Soetoro, a different man, who was an Indonesian citizen. Obama, Sr. had left the scene since then (1967).

    You also said: I don’t recall your article addressing any evidence that the Kenyan “dad” was fabricated.

    I don’t recall it either. :-) The Kenyan “dad,” Obama, Sr. was real. And as I said, he only lent his name to Obama. Indeed, here is what Cashill said about this:

    As a Kenyan, Barack Sr. would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an “African,” a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than “Negro.” Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after an American father — say “Darnell Johnson” — he may never have been elected president.

    (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/another_look_at_obamas_origins.html)

    I hope I had satisfactorily addressed your concerns.

    And I thank you again for your comments.

    Alton Yee

  7. Tom Stevens
    May 31, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    This article is re-posted with permission at Liberty Lion under my “teaser title”:

    The Real “Birther” Issue: Is Barack Hussein Obama A Bastard?

    http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2012/05/real-birther-issue-is-barack-hussein.html

    Please feel free to post comments there as well.

    Tom Stevens

  8. Tom Stevens
    May 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    You say there is no proof of the marriage. Is that true?

    Also, you speculate that Obama’s dad is someone other than the Kenyan? Don’t most people agree that his mom moved to Indonesia with the dad and that Obama was enrolled in a Madras? I don’t recall your article addressing any evidence that the Kenyan “dad” was fabricated.

    Did I miss it?

  9. Alton Yee
    May 31, 2012 at 2:17 am

    Hi Ellen Hancock,

    Though I detect some irritation in your reply, I do thank you for sending it.

    As for Mitt’s Romney’s father, I haven’t thought much about it. Does he look like Harpo Marx? I can’t say because I don’t have a photo of Harpo on hand and I can’t recall what he looks like. But if you say he looks more like Harpo than his father, George, who am I to argue?

    As for Mitt’s birth certificate, in your second reply you provided a link to a Chicago Tribune article that showed his birth certificate or “Certificate of Live Birth.” I became concerned when I saw his Father was born in Mexico. For this reason alone, Mitt is not constitutionally eligible to be President, despite the article’s claim: “Yes, Republican Mitt Romney appears eligible to be president, according to a copy of Romney’s birth certificate released to Reuters by his campaign.”

    What’s really disturbing is how these sentences from the article show a deep misunderstanding of “natural born citizen”:

    The New York Law Journal published a lengthy argument by a senior partner from Sullivan & Cromwell, one of Manhattan’s elite law firms, arguing that the fact that both of George Romney’s parents were U.S. citizens clearly established him as a “natural born citizen” who was eligible to be president.

    George Romney himself was unequivocal.

    “I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth . . ..”

    “Natural born citizen,” as you may know, comes from Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to be, among other things, a “natural born citizen.” Article 1, on the other hand, requires a Senator or a Representative to be, among other things, a “citizen.” What is the difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”?

    While I wait for your answer, I should tell you that in 18th Century America, it was understood that a “natural born citizen” is someone who is a citizen, born on native soil, whose two parents were both citizens, born on native soil. The Framers required the President to be a “natural born citizen,” because they feared that the President’s loyalty, as the Commander in Chief, might become divided if he were of a dual citizenship. Recall that a war with England, the superpower then, was recently fought and you can understand their fear. As further proof of the Framer’s understanding of “natural born citizen,” they realized that none could be a natural born citizen since the U.S. only came into existence on July 4, 1776. To get around this “gotcha,” they grandfathered themselves in so they may be eligible to be President with the clause, ” . . . or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . .”

    Since Obama or either Romneys were grandfathered in by this clause, do you now see why none of these men met the constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement, and thus none are eligible to be POTUS, especially the current occupant in the White House?

    Speaking of the current occupant of the White House, you said that “the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961″ confirmed the birth certificates that Obama showed “twice,” which would be in 2008 and 2010. Ellen Hancock, hold on to your seat. I’m going to tell you something that’s earthshaking and mind boggling. First, those “birthers” from the vast white wing, er, right wing conspiracy are correct when they said those birth certificates are fake, created in 2008 or 2010.

    You see, Obama Sr. only provided his name for those birth notices. He not did provide his name for a birth certificate, since he was not Obama, Jr’s father. So none was written in 1961 for baby Obama until they were faked in 2008 and 2010. That’s the truth.

    But if Obama was actually born in Hawaii, and if there is a birth certificate, a real one, for him, then it should be under another name. I suggest everyone looking for this document to search under the name “Dunham,” as in “Stanley Dunham,” his grandfather, who some think is Obama’s real father, as I do.

    That’s enough earthshaking and mind boggling for now.

    Thanks again for your reply. I hope I had adequately addressed your concerns.

    Alton Yee

  10. ellenhancock
    May 29, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    Update to the above:

    Today, apparently, Mitt Romney had his campaign release his birth certificate, and guess what, it is a computer-generated short-form birth certificate.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificatebre84s1gf-20120529,0,5483593.story

    It does not have the name of the hospital or the delivery doctor or any signatures from the doctor or the mother. The image of the document provided does not show the color of the security paper or an embossed seal, and there is a clear “void” on the document. What is Romney hiding? Perhaps the long form will show the name of his REAL father, Harpo.

  11. ellenhancock
    May 29, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Who is Mitt Romney’s father. No, it surely was not George Romney. Notice how much Mitt looks like Harpo Marx? He looks far more like Harpo Marx than George Rommney. Sure Mitt claims that George was his father. Maybe George even thought that he was the father. But it was Harpo. Only Harpo.

    Why doesn’t Mitt Romney show his birth certificate and prove that George was his father? Why doesn’t Mitt even show his birth certificate to show that he was born in Michigan?

    Obama has shown his Hawaii birth certificate, twice–short form and long form–and officials of both parties have confirmed the facts on it, and the facts are further confirmed by the “Index Data”–a public file that lists the birth certificates on file, which has been open to the public for years. And they are also confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. Obama’s birth notice listing appears in the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of both papers, and at the time only the DOH of Hawaii sent out the notices for that section, and it only sent out notices for births in Hawaii.

Comments are closed.