Talk:Obama citizenship denial/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Why not just have the Cert. of Live Birth on the page?[edit]

A giant image at the top of the page: Obama's Certification of Live Birth. It'd be striking. Maybe with the caption underneath: Obama's non-existent birth certificate. How about it? –Tom Morris (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, would it really be unique to us? There are many examples over the net. We are really trying to make an argued case are refute the rumours - many of which claim that the certificate of live birth isn't sufficient.--BobNot Jim 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Have that underneath. The Birthers need reality rubbed in their face some more. –Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
How about we got Obama birth certificate on the top,middle,and bottom with nonexistence,still nonexistence,forge.Ghy213 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The one that makes an argued case seems better to me. But if you think it's a good idea why not mock up a sample one in your userspace (or Fun:) and see if people prefer it.--BobNot Jim 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Goldwater and Arizona[edit]

Read Wikipedia's article natural born citizen. It says that people born in US Territories (like Arizona pre-2/14/1912) are "natural born" American citizens and thus eligible to run for President. Why would the oh-so-patriotic Goldwater even run if he knew about the Constitutional provision to run? AP 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Natural born citizen is not a well defined concept under US law, it appears zero time in current legislation and only ever appeared once in a repelled law. - π 03:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not conservative talk radio that said Resident Obama was a dual citizen at birth it was — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The US does not recognise other countries claim to citizenship of its citizens. Even if Britain thinks he is a British Subject, the US thinks he is a US citizen. - π 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually the claim belongs to Philip Berg and the Texas Darling blog, usual comes from the PUMAs. - π 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cover story[edit]

I'm not directly proposing it as a cover yet, but could we get on to "coaching it" up to the right level? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's gonna take quite a bit of cleanup, judging by what I have just been fixing. Fine-toothed proofreading and such. "Illegible" instead of "ineligible"? I lolled. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Iz cant speel. - π 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Any further thoughts on bumping this up a level? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have silvered it. Lose this and deny all credibility! - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I demand to see the long form certificate of silverification!! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like SHA-512 verification in my presence by the user who made the change. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Money talks[edit]

Much money invested in Obama and McCain campaigns.

Much money lost if either/both candidate disqualified ab initio on inappropriate birth origin grounds: persons donating such moneys would be much narked at such wastage, and if, large contributors would have investigated the matter beforehands.

Therefore Obama and McCain 'legitimate for Presidential election purposes.'

Birthers do nowt to initiate requisite constitutional change nor consider likely result if Obama disqualified (USA global laughing stock etc).— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I recommend that the above be preserved as an example of incoherence. Green Giant (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
More coherent than birthers' ideas - and expecting readers to 'join the dots.' (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge with birther?[edit]

This article is half birther stuff anyway. Is there any good reason they should stay separate? - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, even though they cover essentially the same issue, they seem to cover it from two different angles - and both are fairly long, complete articles. This one is more about the "arguments" and the other one is about the "people". I'd say leave them as they are. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Natural born citizen[edit]

One of the HAL 9000 computers declares that it is considered sentient, it was constructed on American soil, 35 years previously, and so is eligible to run for President. It is challenged by a local equivalent to Frankenstein's monster.

Should this SF scenario come about, would they be in fact eligible - and what would persons now considering themselves brithers, and Conservapedia make of it? (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there's much -- or any -- legal precedent that applies to non-human sentients. It'd probably be argued in court on a case-by-case basis. EVDebs (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where this would go[edit]

Actually the supreme court has ruled on what makes a natural born citizen according to Minor v Happersett. This idea of the birth certificate seems to draw certain types out of the woodwork. Over half of the U.S. presidents did not have birth certificates. If an Amish person wanted to run for president would they be denied because they cannot "prove" they are a U.S. citizen? I think not. Granted I doubt we would ever know the answer because of their religious and moral convictions prevent them. As a principled nonvoter I have no horse in this race, however there are two pending lawsuits on this issue right now both of which have nothing to do with Mr. Obama. The only purpose is for the supreme court to uphold stare decisis on the matter of who is Natural Born. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 2011-12-24T21:26:56

Oh, you put this in exactly the right place: the talk page. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

shock and awe[edit]

I have to say, it still amazes me that we have an entire, decently developed page on something that should have never gone further than "What? He was born in hawaii, he said so". And we are going on the 4th year of it. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (That didn't come out well, i think. i don't mean we shoudln't have the page; we should. I mean we shoudln't NEED to have the page.)

There are still morons out there who drop "wasn't born the USA" or "Kenyan born" along with calling him a communist, a dictator, etc. even to this day. The hard right (the only kind there is now) in the US are a very strange breed indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Naturalization Act of 1790[edit]

According to this article, the Naturalization Act of 1790 no longer has force of law concerning the legal definition of the phrase "natural born citizen", because it was superseded by a law that was superseded by a law that was repealed in 1802. However, neither of the three laws which supersede it make any changes to the definition of "natural born citizen". Therefore, logically, the Naturalization Act of 1790 does still have force of law concerning the legal definition of "natural born citizen".

Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, George Romney cited the Naturalization Act of 1790 as proof of his own natural born citizenship when he ran for president in 1968; and this was never challenged at the time. Elen Sila (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is -- what, again? Doctor Dark (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You missed another absurdity[edit]

I'll have to chase down the URL's, but it was related to Hawaii being claimed by some to not be legally US territory, hence it cannot be a state, hence Obama can't be a US citizen. Oh, well, at least these knuckleheads have some comedic value.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Absence of activity[edit]

Why don't the birther malarky actively promote a constitutional amendment clarifying what is meant by the 'natural born citizen' statement? Would Caesarian-born or 'assisted conception' persons be eligible to run for the Presidency? (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the claim that Obama must have used another passport to travel to Pakistan, I was working in Pakistan in 1980-1alongside four US passport holding employees of Continental Helicopters. So there! Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 09:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


The cert on the Whitehouse website has numerous anomalies that some have said shows that the PDF has 9 layers. i.e it was made in photoshop. Website: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing about the BC in terms of layers actually suggest that it's NOT a forgery. If it were a forgery, the layers would be a product of its creation, or they would be completely irrelevant to the forgery question. If the layers were created by the document being forged, each would represent a stage in the forgery process. That makes no sense, for what they contain are random bits and pieces. Just what a computer might do if it were scanning a document... (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the layers aren't just random bits and pieces. Have you opened it up and looked? KevinBerner (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This puts me in mind of a video a pal linked to me a while ago, from an Arizona news station. The owner of a document company out there, when he first heard Sheriff JokeJoe’s report, also thought that layers sounded suspicious. If I remember correctly, he took an employee’s birth certificate (which the employee had at the office for some reason), and scanned it first with a lower-end scanner, then with a high-end scanner. Lo and behold, the high-end scan had layers, while the low-end did not! It turns out that yes, different machines will produce different outputs. I know, Kevin, that concept is too crazy to be possible, right? (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't just that there are layers, but what is in them, their size and location, etc. One layer is the registrar stamp. People have spent a lot of time analyzing the output of software and scanners, and even for those that create layers, none of them have created anything like what exists in Obama's birth certificate. Why don't you quit babbling and open up the document in a program that shows you PDF layers, and see for yourself? KevinBerner (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Not babbling, simply destroying your fantasies to bits ;). More seriously, what are the credentials of those people who spent time 'analyzing'? No credential forensic document expert has ever said Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. How is that, to borrow your words, other people have also spent a lot of time analyzing the output of software and scanners, and even for those that create layers, and surprisingly reach the same conclusions as me? For example, there's this cool video showing how to get layers in a scanned image, without OCR and without any kind of tampering. This is similar to what I did, only it’s VIDEO, and he shows the results in Illustrator to much greater effect. What about this blogger who shows Obama birth certificate artifacts are caused by Xerox machine, in three parts no less? It's also rather telling how Fox News themselves do not take part in the insanity, and asked an expert to confirm that, yes, Obama's birth certificate is NOT a forgery. But even more experts pronounced a verdict on the subject: Credentialed forensic document examiner Ivan Zatkovich, and internationally-recognized expert on electronic document processing, Ricardo de Queiroz of the University of Brazil. From their testimony, the White House PDF image of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate is not identical in appearance to the original in Hawaii. However, to the further question of forgery, these experts respond:
Zatkovich: consistent with someone attempting to enhance the appearance of the document rather than change the content.
de Queiroz: I do not see that.
Most of the times, people claiming the BC is a forgery are people with inflated resumes, who do not meet any of the criteria of an expert. They have never been qualified by a court as an expert, they do not have advanced degrees in the subject, they have never taught document examination, and they don’t do it for a living. They only looked at the documents for the purpose of finding some anomaly that proved them fake, not arriving at a true conclusion. You wouldn’t let a volunteer who watches medical shows on TV, and volunteers as a patient advocate in a hospital operate on you, would you? A number of us have researched, done experiments, tried and tested the claims of forgery and found that what birthers see as forgery are just the normal way documents of that type are scanned, compressed and saved into files. Rational people see things that are odd, but ask why; make hypotheses; test them. I do this rather than claim “forgery” without asking what alternatives are more plausible. (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I watched the video, it showed how layers can be created, but it didn't explain the particulars of the layers in the Obama BC. For example, the Adobe optimize process adds 20-30 layers, whereas Obama's has only 7. The optimize process only creates one layer that is b/w, and Obama's had multiple. There are also problems with the letter spacing on the manual typewriter, etc., etc. Really, that video of the Adobe optimize process is only a superficial response to the many problems with the BC. KevinBerner (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A flailing monkey tenderly sees to her child[edit]

Can you respond to that? — Unsigned, by: KevinBerner / talk / contribs

First of all: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
Secondly, Breitbart? Get real. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
{EC}The publisher was mistaken. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 04:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Saying they were "mistaken" is hardly a good answer. It wasn't a typo. Where did the information come from? Also, it shoots a hole through the theory that it is just bitter crazies claiming Obama is born in Kenya. KevinBerner (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
People make all kinds of silly mistakes. No big deal. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Occam's razor would suggest that Obama has lied in the past and told people he was born in Kenya because he thought it helped him to be foreign born. Any literary agent would never make up someone's bio. Maybe you haven't ever worked with an agent, agency, but the bio would be created with the help of the author. It sucks you are just going to revert my changes rather than try to cover them, but I guess the name RationalWiki is a misnomer. I'll copy the text I wrote and put it into the talk page so people can see at least a few the holes in the current story. KevinBerner (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Let’s play devil’s advocate. Let’s assume for a second that you were correct and the pamphlet actually contains the truth (that Obama said sometime in the 1990′s that he was “born in Kenya”). Does that *prove* he was born in Kenya? No. Does that *invalidate* the official Hawaiian documents, combined with confirmations from the responsible officials, that say he was born in Hawaii? No. The very best you can glean from this pamphlet was that Obama either lied to the author of the pamphlet, or that he actually assumed he was born in Kenya until he looked up his birth certificate and found that he was actually born in Hawaii. Either way, the pamphlet is not admissible evidence in court. It won’t even help you in the court of public opinion, obviously, because people realize that birthers falsely inflate this error made by someone working for a publisher into “Obama himself said it” or “Obama knew for years that there is a pamphlet lying around that contains false information”. Or let’s put it another way: when the author said “he was born in Kenya”, he is telling the truth and cannot possibly have been in error, yet when he says “I was wrong, he wasn’t born in Kenya”, he was lying. Talk about confirmation bias. To put the pamphlet in perspective, if the first edition of “Harry Potter” said J.K. Rowling was born on 7/31/1964 (instead of 1965) and all subsequent editions also said the same, this would mean that Ms Rowling’s passport is a forgery, that her birth state somehow is part of a conspiracy to make Ms Rowling appear one year older (so that she can get social security one year earlier?) and that this is enough to put in question the prima facie evidence of all her official records, validated by the respective officials, as “forgeries, supported by lies”.(And that scenario would be even worse for Ms Rowling as it’s about a bestseller book, not a promotional flyer for a book that was never even written.) Right, that sounds so very sane. (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Obama's literary agent saying he was born in Kenya doesn't prove that he was, but it should at least cause you to look at his birth certificate more closely. When someone claims to have been born in multiple places, then don't call people crazy who have questions. BTW, the state of Hawaii never released the microfiche for the document, and the hospital he was supposedly born in never released anything either. All we've got right now is a forged PDF. KevinBerner (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
When someone claims to have been born in multiple places Since the person in question never did, some people keep putting words in his mouth or like twist them, I will go on ahead and say that yes, I am entitled to call them delusional, as well as sore losers. the state of Hawaii never released the microfiche for the document Looked at one way, it makes sense. Find Barack Obama’s birth certificate on historical microfiche copies of 1961 Hawaii birth records, near the Nordyke twins and case closed. Oh sorry, the case is already closed. the hospital he was supposedly born in never released anything either See video here. Now Kevin, go in the corner and think about what you've done wrong. (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Here is another aspect of the story worth covering: Neil Abercrombie, the governor of Hawaii who was a long-time friend of Obama, said that when he was elected he was going to release the birth certificate to end the controversy. However, when he actually got into office, he told a friend that he wasn't able to find it and he never released it: KevinBerner (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Even funnier: how the article in your link is debunked in one of the comments:

Mike Evans retracted this the very next day. The Governor never said it that way. The birth certificate exists, but the Governor could not release it himself due to privacy laws. Search under Mike Evans on this website and you will find the other story. Hawaii is proposing changing its laws so it could release the birth certificate to anyone for a $100 fee, thus generating money for its state from all the birthers. The whole argument is silly, anyway, because even if Obama was born overseas, he still has U.S. citizenship through his mother. Either way, he is legitimately our president.

Read your sources next time. (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course he retracted it the next day! The White House is very powerful. Politicians often lie to end a scandal. Haven't you heard the line that a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth and gets in trouble? I agree Obama might be a US citizen and therefore legitimately our president, but my suspicion is that his mom gave up his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia. KevinBerner (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
my suspicion is that his mom gave up his US citizenship when he moved to Indonesia. Hahahaha...wait, you seriously believe that? Just to be clear, the answer is no, you suspect wrong. Why? Simple, there being no proof of Ms. Dunham renouncing her citizenship nor her son's. Where is the official documentation? Surely, you can show us all, and prove without a doubt your case, right? (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A birther nitwit shows us he can type[edit]

Here is another aspect of the conspiracy to cover: Tim Adams, an official who claimed to work in the Hawaii election office wrote in a sworn statement that: "Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government." Link I found via Google, there are other ones: KevinBerner (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tim Adams? He first said on a white supremacist radio program, Political Cesspool, that he knew Obama had no Hawaiian birth certificate because of what he found while working for the Elections Division in some unspecified “database.” Later he changed his story to say that someone in a supervisory position at the Elections Division provided that information to him. The supervisor was never named, nor the database where the information was found. The Elections Division does not have access to birth records at the Department of Health either.
Since President Obama was not a resident of Hawaii in 2008, there is no legitimate reason for election workers to be poking around in federal databases for information on him. That means that if they did look, they are guilty of a federal crime. Oops.
Try again. (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Your comment that Tim Adam was a white supremacist is quite desperate. To be clear, what Tim Adams said was that it was common knowledge throughout the office including from a supervisor that Obama had no records on file in Hawaii, birthe or otherwise. Of course the supervisor would never be named, whistleblowers often don't reveal their sources because it can cause other people to get in trouble. You seem to be entirely unaware of what whistleblowers do, and the risks they take. KevinBerner (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
How is it desesperate? Political Cesspool is a white supremacist radio program, they say it themselves on their own site: The Political Cesspool Radio Program stands for the The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a philosophy that is pro-White and are against political centralization. (...) We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races. Oh my, will you look at that, I was not being hyperbolic but rather using facts. And I didn't say he was white supremacist, but I think we can doubt what is his objective in making his claims, no? I like how in the subsection I will show you fear in a handful of dust, you say how a predisposition when doing journalism can influence the outcome when showed evidence of Obama's childhood, but suddenly, when your side is concerned, you have no such doubts anymore, despite the source and agenda being quite dubious. Double standards, much? Oh, by the way, Adams still maintained that Obama had no Hawaiian birth certificate although he says he thinks Obama was born in the US, somewhere else than Hawaii. For a whistleblower, I find him quite inconsistent, isn't he? (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A wave loudly clashing against a long shoreline is belief in the interrelatedness of all things.[edit]

Here are more aspects of the story worth covering, the news conference the day it was released:

"The news conference conducted by Daniel Pfeiffer and Robert Bouer presented a classic case of plausible deniability because they were not going to let President Obama see the birth certificate that he just paid over $7,000 to acquire and they made the point of saying that they were not going to leave it in the White House for the President to see it."

Furthermore, Obama took no questions at his news conference about it. He also never asked people to look at the birth certificate and verify via document experts that it was all valid. He told everyone to quit talking about it. Also, the White House has never answered any of the questions about the details of the PDF. Instead of responding to the allegations of document experts, it just pretends that only crazy people believe in any of this and refuses to discuss it.

KevinBerner (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was actually pretty impressed with this guy's analysis. Very compelling affidavit. But he shouldn't have made it so easy to find his business site. Wow! Talk about cranks. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have an internet connection, thus I must be taken seriously![edit]

Another aspect to cover: up until the 2011 release of the birth certificate, Obama had been claiming till then that it had already been released. Of course, it clearly hadn't.

From the 2011 press conference:

"MR. PFEIFFER: Let’s be very clear. You were there for the campaign. There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign. It was a settled issue. I was there for the original decision to release the birth certificate. I was there when we posted it online. I'm not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue."

There are two problems:

  1. The birth certificate was not "settled" during the 2008 campaign. That is clearly inaccurate. This has been an issue that dogged the president till the 2011 release.
  2. All along, they've claimed only crazies have questions. Of course, the fact that they finally released it only in 2011 means that maybe their previous storyline was false.

KevinBerner (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by what's being alleged here. Is it now being claimed that the certificate is a fake?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Kevin would like to manufacture some controversy. This late in the game, questioning Mr. Obama's legitimacy as POTUS is pretty much a forlorn hope, in case there are still folks who didn't get the memo. (I've been wrong before, and welcome concise clarification.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Birther[edit]

Calm down, you are only hurting yourself (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I will show you fear in a handful of dust[edit]

"She grew up and attended Punahou School with "Barry" Obama. She recalls how as a young child, Obama alternatively told classmates he was an Indonesian prince or Kenyan royalty." KevinBerner (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, *yawn*.

I wonder why her account doesn’t fit the stories of several Obama classmates in the book Our Friend Barry: Classmates’ Recollections of Barack Obama from the Punahou School. Hey, did you read this book Kevin, or do you just listen to stories that fit your delusional narrative? (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that book was written by people paid by Obama. Or it was writen by someone who wanted to cash in on the popularity of the new president, and so included lots of positive stories about Obama to make him look good. And possibly didn't even ask any tough / interesting questions of the people it interviewed. Can you see how a predisposition when doing journalism can influence the outcome? In any case, I'm just linking to reporting by PBS, which is not some right-wing new show. The bottom line is that Obama was the first birther. KevinBerner (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing that book was written by people paid by Obama. And your proof for that would be...? Oh, that's right, like any Birther, if someone doesn't confirm your conspiracy theories, they are either paid or IN ON IT. What proof is there that Kristen Caldwell is telling the truth? Or that she is not paid to slander Obama? Who knows, it's not because her account differ that it means it's the right one. The rest of your comment is more cognitive bias. You say Can you see how a predisposition when doing journalism can influence the outcome? I would say, can you see how a preexisting bias afect one's conclusion? It's called confirmation bias. You only hear what supports what you *want* and ignore everything else.
For anyone interested, excellent resource links on Obama's childhood:
Hawaii – from birth to age 6:
Hawaii – Age 10 through high school:
Childhood Friend & Classmate Of Barack Obama Speaks Out! Video:
Obama Classmate Dishes to Fox News: (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That unsettling feeling caused by holding two conflicting beliefs simultaneously[edit]

Obama said in 2006 he is "proud to come back home" to Kenya. KevinBerner (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly he was referring to the home of his ancestors, just as Ireland was called the “home country” of John Kennedy in 1963.
JFK felt Ireland was his home country. So much so that the JFK Library once had an exhibit called “A Journey Home – John F. Kennedy and Ireland.”
Boston — In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy, America’s first Irish-Catholic president, journeyed to his ancestral homeland of Ireland, a homecoming he later described as “one of the most moving experiences” of his life.
On St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2006, the Museum at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library will open “A Journey Home – John F. Kennedy and Ireland,” a special, new exhibit that explores President Kennedy’s relationship to his ancestral homeland, featuring a large selection of never-before-seen materials from the Museum Collection including gifts presented to the president by the people of Ireland as well as other artifacts, documents, photographs and film footage relating to his Irish heritage and his June 26-29,1963 state visit to the country of his ancestors.
President Kennedy relished his Irish heritage, and during his historic visit to Ireland remarked to the people of Limerick, “This is not the land of my birth but it is the land for which I hold the greatest affection.”
Now, was JFK born in Ireland? The level of cognitive bias you use to come to a conclusion is astounding. (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
More specifically it's a classic - almost pathological - case of confirmation bias. We have the birth certificate, we have the statements of former classmates, we have the birth announcement in the local newspaper and more. But all these rock-sold examples of evidence are waved away in favour of over-interpreted details. It's fantastic.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the birth certificate has numerous problems (see the Vectorpub article I linked to), former classmates said he used to brag about being Kenyan Royalty, his literary agent produced a pamphlet saying he was born in Kenya, the newspaper announcements would happen for foreign births to American citizens registered later in the Hawaii, etc. What's fantastic is how many problems there are, and how nobody is talking about them. KevinBerner (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"how nobody is talking about them." Queexchthonic murmurings 10:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Video[edit]

Huh. I'm trying to figure out what happened here. Slip of the tongue? Going off notes? Different meaning of "Home Country"? Might need addressing. Zero (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It’s old news, but being recycled. However, there are no shortage of metaphorical statements like “home country” or “son of the soil” or the remark of the Kenyan ambassador. So there is no reluctance to use metaphors. You will find no one who will say “Barack Obama was born in Africa.” This leads me to believe that the metaphors should not be taken literally. Contrast that to Hawaiian officials who say quite concretely that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii ;)
Seriously, though, African-Americans have called Africa the home continent for, well, ever. Right now, it’s in the name: African-American. Besides, whatever one means, it is not credible that Michelle Obama would have made a public statement in which she intended to say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. If Michelle Obama did not intend that as her meaning, then it says nothing of interest to this wiki (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It just came across my feeds and I was all "Huh." with a side of "I wonder if RW has anything to say about this." and it doesn't so I thought I would bring up smacking it down. Zero (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)