ARTICLE FROM 2006 QUOTES OBAMA AS REFERRING TO CHILDHOOD IN KENYA
by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 12, 2011) — On March 1, 2011, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made a reference during a radio interview about Barack Hussein Obama’s having spent his childhood years in Kenya. The backlash of the mainstream media was immediate.
George Stephanopoulos wondered if Huckabee’s statement was “one more sign that his head really isn’t in this presidential race,” and the Associated Press was quick to say that “Obama did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s.”
But how did Stephanopoulos and the Associated Press, which did not identify its journalist, know that Huckabee was wrong?
On March 5, blogger Nobarack08 reported on an article from September 3, 2006 by Lynn Sweet which had been published in the Chicag0 Sun-Times wherein Obama himself is quoted as referring to having spent his childhood in both Kenya and Indonesia.
Obama reportedly mentioned Indonesia as a destination for a trip he was planning for 2007 while still a U.S. senator. The writer said, “he’s looking at China, India and Indonesia, where ironicall [sic] I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.”
Why would Obama have used the word “ironically”? Was it because his father was born and raised there? Was it because Obama allegedly has relatives there? Was it because the Kenyan ambassador to the United States, Mr. Peter Ogego, stated emphatically on a radio show following the 2008 presidential election that Obama Jr.’s birthplace in Kenya was “well-known?”
A spokesman for Huckabee “said the former governor misspoke,” as did Huckabee himself. One blogger called Huckabee “delirious” and “nuts,” making an immediate connection between the “birth certificate” issue and Obama’s childhood. But are the two issues connected? What are these bloggers saying now?
Is Huckabee really “delirious,” or does he know something that the American people do not but would like to?
Why would Obama’s wife have referred to Kenya as her husband’s “home country” if he did not “visit” there until he was 20? WorldNetDaily has reported that Wikipedia had at one time stated that Obama was “born August 4, 1961 in either Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii[1], or Mombasa, Kenya,…”
Now that it has been revealed that Obama himself has referred to having spent at least some of his childhood in Kenya, where is the mainstream media? Why was there a need for Huckabee to apologize?
And where was Big Media during the 2008 presidential campaign? Chris Mathews of MSNBC had announced that Obama was born in Indonesia. Another story had originally stated that Obama had been born in Indonesia, only to be “corrected” to state that he was born in Hawaii once Obama announced himself as a candidate for the presidency. Regarding the information which led him to believe that Obama had been born in Indonesia, the reporter stated, “Hey, it looked factual…”
Early in 2007, CNN reported that Obama had attended school in Indonesia, spending four years of his childhood there, but it did not report that he was registered as an Indonesian citizen. How did that affect his claim to being a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President of the United States?
Currently, CBS News is reporting that there was an internet rumor that Obama was “raised in his father’s homeland,” but no such “rumor” has ever been identified. Rather, members of the Kenyan Parliament have asserted on the record that Kenya is Obama’s birthplace.
Obama recently told attendees at a Democrat fundraiser, “I was born in Hawaii…I can’t change those facts.” To how many “facts” is he referring? Wouldn’t it be just one? Why would he have wanted to “change those facts?”
If Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, where is the proof? Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie has stated that the Hawaii Department of Health does not possess a standard, long-form original birth certificate for Obama, whereas the previous governor said it did. Why do two different governors say two different things?
Another article citing Huckabee’s “gaffe” states that “from the age of 10 or so onward…,” Obama grew up “around areas where there were rotary clubs and boy scout meetings.”
Huckabee said he was “quoting a British newspaper.” Obama’s father was a British citizen, which made him a British citizen at birth.
The American War of Independence was fought to throw off British rule. Have we come full circle since 1776?
This simply shows how integrially connected the Democrats are with the Republicans in protecting Obama, based on McCain’s own problems being ignored as a naturalized citizen. I’m a natural born citizen but I sure didn’t need a U.S. Senate Resolution 511 to declare it. As far as Huckabee is concerned, like most well meaning politicians of today we are actually used to seeing the spinelessness of the Conservative Party break down and shatter. I like Huckabee as a guy, but you have to start questioning the ability of leadership when he apologizes for daring to call Obama’s fraud, a mis taken slip of his tongue.
New Conservative Patriot Party Embarrasses GOP Obama Eligibility gue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfZwEXaoP28
Cody Robert Judy
First, let me say that I’m well established on certain political forums as one who knows Obama is not a natural born citizen; and, that he is therefore ineligible to be president. However, it’s important to distinguish between fact and misinformation.
In light of that, I regret that I have to point out that the following paragraph contains what I believe to be a common misconception relative to the status of attaining and being a natural born citizen.
“Early in 2007, CNN reported that Obama had attended school in Indonesia, spending four years of his childhood there, but it did not report that he was registered as an Indonesian citizen. How did that affect his claim to being a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President of the United States?”
I’m not a lawyer; but, the following is the way I see it. And, if any lawyer sees my comment, I invite his/her input.
The wording in that paragraph implies that IF Obama was at one time a citizen of Indonesia, that might affect his status as a natural born citizen. IMO, this is not the case.
I know Obama was not a natural born citizen at birth. I am also aware that his actual legal citizenship has never been established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, ASSUMING that he was a U.S. citizen at some point before he went to Indonesia OR that he is now a U.S. citizen; and, ASSUMING he was born with the status of being a natural born citizen, as your wording suggests there is a possibility of, a change in his legal U.S. citizenship by being a citizen of Indonesia (or for any other reason) at some point would not affect his status as a natural born citizen.
Here is why I believe that to be true…
Attaining the status of being a natural born citizen can only happen at the moment of birth. That status cannot be granted via statute of law. If it cannot be granted by statue of law, how can it be taken away by such means? In my opinion, it cannot be.
If it does not occur at birth, it can never occur; therefore, the only thing that affects the status of being a natural born citizen is the circumstances of one’s birth. Therefore, once it has occurred, that status can never be taken away, regardless of any change in one’s legal citizenship status.
The status of being a natural born citizen has nothing in common with being a legal citizen of any type. Although it is of utmost importance relative to being eligible for the presidency, or not, it is in reality nothing more than a criteria for the position of president; and, having that status gives the holder no benefits whatsoever that any legal citizen has.
In other words, it is not a form of legal citizenship at all in the same manner as is a native citizen or a naturalized citizen.
None of the above negates the other two presidential requirements mandated by the Constitution; those being related to age and residency. However, since a natural born citizen is not a legal form of citizenship, a close reading of the Constitutional requirements for the presidency reveals that being a legal U.S. citizen is not actually one of those requirements.
That seems absurd, but, that’s the way I see it…
The 1939 Perkins v. Elg Supreme Court case proves that a US citizen child cannot lose his citizenship as a child due to the actions of the parents. Hence, Obama’s Indonesian citizenship as a child had no effect upon his US citizenship status.
However, it can be argued that a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents) who who gets a foreign citizenship as a child becomes ineligible to be President. Congressmen and Senators have to have been US citizens 7 and 9 years respectively in order to be eligible. The is no stated requirement on how long the President has had to be a citizen, as is the case with Congressmen and Senators, but I contend that there is — that the President had to have been a US citizen since birth. I contend that the Founding Fathers assumed that the President, as a natural born citizen, would have been a citizen all his life, including as a child. The Founding Fathers wanted presidents who were free of foreign influence, and I contend that kind of influence could infect a President even during a temporary childhood foreign citizenship.
Possible solution to the eligibility issue:
Find a philanthropist willing to put up $10 million reward to the person or organization most instrumental in bringing about the conviction of Obama and his cronies for fraud.
Think about the media attention that would bring!
Yes indeed, like I joked about before,
Huck has seen the same papers O’Really
has seen.
Explaining what he has seen certainly appears
challenging.
Mrs. Rondeau,
Please make an Official Posting:
ATTENTION!!!
Everyone needs call Georgia Speaker David Ralston and tell him to stop trying to kill House Bill 401 Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/house/speaker/bio.html
Obama said “more than,” not “instead of.” Even his own words imply that he had SOME childhood in Kenya, which he certainly did if he was born there, as plenty of evidence shows he was.
My first thoughts when I saw that interview were 1 of 2 things:
Either Huckabee is more stupid than I first thought
OR
He ‘misspoke’ on purpose.
My guess is the latter; although I still don’t think the man is very bright….he isn’t quite THAT stupid.
Get used to any and all potential presidential candidates for the Republican nomination to say such things (hints, veiled comments, pretend gaffes) until one wins the primary. He or she will then drop the subject down the memory hole for fear of being branded *kooky.* The leaders of the Republican Party are slimy, lugubrious cowards.
We all know at times the mind forgets to maintain an ongoing lie sufficiently and the speaker slips up and blurts out the truth. This could explain Obama’s revelations on Kenya and it may also explain Huckabee’s. We know the MSM, including Fox, knows the secret and they are providing cover to Obama on the biggest fraud in the history of the world. However, Huckabee’s mindset may not be quite as corrupt as all the others and in a moment of inattention he actually slipped up during the interview. Now we see all the backpeddling.
Obama would rather make everyone out to be a liar than prove it! But then again i think they all do know the truth but have had orders to keep quiet!
I wouldn’t read too much into what Huckabee said in that interview. I honestly don’t believe he knows or cares about Barky’s birthplace or his ineligibility other than whatever the GOP has told him to believe and to care about. I don’t think he knows anything that we don’t know. In fact, I’m sure he knows less, so much less that he confused Obama Sr’s upbringing with Barky’s nativity narrative and inadvertently said something factual.
————————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Isn’t it ironic, though, after everyone excoriated Huckabee for his “gaffe,” that it appears he was accurate, and then the media says nothing? And also that everyone equates Huckabee’s statement with Obama’s eligibility. One presumably could have spent a few years in a foreign country and still be a “natural born Citizen” if he had the qualifications. Shows they’re a bit touchy about the subject, in my opinion.
Most people are a bit touchy about a lie they get caught up in, just my humble opinion. :-)
Yes, it is ironic. But still, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Other than Huckabee being willfully ignorant of the facts, the only reason I find believable for him to have said what he did about Barky’s childhood years in Kenya was to spread what he believes to be disinformation. Some lesser informed viewers will, without doubt, run with what Huckabee said in that interview even though “birthers” don’t claim that Barky spent any significant time in Kenya during his childhood years. We may speculate about it, as we’re doing here, but because it’s not relevant to his Constitutional ineligibility to serve as POTUS, its proof or disproof isn’t relevant to us, either. But, just as “birthers” are accused of refusing to believe Barky was born in Hawaii when the problem we have with his secrecy is that we just don’t know where he was born, adding this bit of disinformation to the mix, should some accept it as fact, it may just take on a life of its own and become the next big lie about what “birthers” believe.
CORRECTION. That should have read:
But, just as “birthers” are accused of refusing to believe Barky was born in Hawaii when the problems we have with his secrecy is that we just don’t know where he was born and, assuming Obama Sr is the man whose name appears on his birth certificate as his father, something we can’t be sure of because we’ve never seen his birth certificate, he was born to a British subject …