Obama’s Real Birth Date & Real Father

Don Wilkie, on  October 30, 2012 posted a column titled: “Just When Was Obama Born?” in which he stated: “It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Neil Abercrombie, Governor of Hawaii, and Ann Dunham’s girlfriends, Susan Blake and Maxine Box, have been telling falsehoods about the President’s origins.  It is also beyond any reasonable doubt that there are people within the Obama camp who have managed their fabrications.  It now appears that Mary Toutonghi, (Ann Dunham’s sometime babysitter in Seattle), was also ‘managed.’
Mary and her husband were the managers of the Villa Ria apartments located in the Capitol Hill section of Seattle.  The apartments were carved out of a large old house.  We now know that Ann and baby moved into Mary’s apartment house in late August or early September 1961.  This is confirmed by David Maraniss as well as by Marc Leavipp in the registrar’s office of the University of Washington.  Ann is also listed in the 1961-1962 Seattle Polk Directory at the Capitol Hill address.
In late 2008, it was revealed that Ann had enrolled in classes at the University of Washington for the fall quarter of 1961.  It is clear that the Obama camp was caught off-guard by this revelation.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/just_when_was_obama_born.html

The premise of his column is the speculation that Obama may have been the son of someone other than Obama Sr. and been born 7 months earlier than late August or early Sept., that being in January-February instead of August.  But if F.M. Davis was the father that would not have been likely.  About the earliest that he might have impregnated Ann was the night of July 4th 1960 since the family probably only arrived in Hawaii in mid-June at the earliest.  That would result in birth in early April ‘61, making Obama only 5 months old in Sept, not seven months as he speculates.
What needs to be born in mind is the fact that the State Dept. officers who dealt with the Obama Sr. case noted that the couple was considering adoption of their yet unborn baby by means of the Salvation Army.  That course of action would have two possible means, -pregnancy and birth in Hawaii, or pregnancy and birth in Seattle (or birth in Vancouver B.C.)
Ann’s parents would be scandalized by their 17 year old daughter’s pregnancy outside of marriage, and worse, (socially-speaking) with a Negro man’s child.  They probably would have wanted to hide her pregnancy from their circle of social acquaintances.  She could have remained indoors at home for months on end after dropping out of college, or she could have moved back to her home territory in Seattle, staying with some close, sympathetic family friends up until the last several weeks.  Then she could have moved into a Salvation Army home for unwed pregnant girls.  If that home was unable to find an adoptive family for her child, she may have transferred to a Vancouver branch as a Hail Mary attempt at finding an adoptive couple there in Canada.  Either way, after delivery, it would have been time to leave that home after a few more weeks of recovery and adjustment and it would have been then that she moved into the group apartment.

Taking that move and timing as an established fact, we can deduce a few things from it.  First, that she probably wasn’t doing any flying at eight-months pregnant.  So if she remained at home in Hawaii up until then, then she would have given birth in Hawaii and not have flown to Seattle.  That raises the question of when  she arrived in Seattle.  That brings one back to the issue of adoption, and whether or not there was any couple in Hawaii that was willing  to adopt a mixed-race baby and whether or not any adoption agency knew of such a willing couple.   If none was known, -and Ann’s parents had preferred that their pregnant daughter was out of public view, then they could have funded her moving back to Seattle around the time her pregnancy began to show.  If she was impregnated by Obama Sr. on the night of Halloween, during some loose boozy party, then she would have been three months pregnant in early February -the same time when records of her whereabouts end.
At that time, or a few months later, she could have moved to Seattle, and given birth (after nine full months of pregnancy) on August 4th.
If Frank Marshall Davis shot the risque and nude photos of Ann during the summer of 1960, and, (as described in his autobiographical novel) had sex with her, then by late October, she would have been interested in re-experiencing that gigantic, liberating rebellion against all that was considered “decent” and “acceptable”, (forbidden pleasure being the most intensely experienced), and a new and exotic, foreign, younger partner would have filled the bill.
With all inhibitions having already been shed with Davis, it would not have required a preliminary courtship to surrender to seduction and enjoy a forbidden one-night stand.
With there being no record of any marriage between Jr.’s parents, nor of any relationship between them, it is conceivable that Ann’s parents eventually concocted a scheme of obtaining an official divorce because that would be evidence that he was not born as a bastard, -outside of wedlock, because who gets a divorce unless they were married? (-everyone would reason)  Who?  Someone who wants to avoid that social stigma as well as secure parental custody rights that might free her from needing his permission for leaving the country or allowing adoption by a new Indonesian step-father.
If Ann’s parents faced knowing that their grandchild could not be legitimized via marriage to an unwilling father, then they might have considered that he could be retro-actively legitimized via a divorce (for which no proof of marriage is even needed) from a claimed marriage that took place before the birth.  An uncontested divorce would be easy and affordable.
There is some serious significance to the fact that she didn’t just name Obama Sr. as the father, but that she gave her son his name.   If he had been fathered by another man, if would not have occurred  to a new mother to name her child after someone who had no connection to his birth.
But if Obama Sr. was in fact the father, then naming her son after him would have been the first possibility that would have occurred to her.  Of course that would carry the eventual complication that he would be ineligible to be the President.
She could have labeled the father as “unknown” but would not have felt any reason to lie.  She was being honest and truthful in her statement of official record, unlike her son who is being just the opposite, and for darn good reason, whatever it is. If Frank Marshall Davis were the real father, and he, she, and her parents wanted to keep that fact secret because he was a friend and a fellow socialist and publisher of a communist periodical (as well as being black) and also could have been under possible criminal charges since Ann was only 17 when she became pregnant (although the age of consent could be as low as 14 years old) then she didn’t have to name him as the father, nor name her son after someone with whom she had no intimate connection.  The likelihood is that she had been intimate with both of them, just not concurrently. That would have made it quite clear who the father was and who it wasn’t.  By Ockum’s Razor one would conclude that she choose to name her son after his father, -a chip off the old block.  Being a free and adventurous independent spirit, and a broadly-minded thinker, she probably would have gotten a kick out of giving her child such an exotic, unconventional, non-American name.  And so she named him Bair ak Obama, (accent on the first syllable) -just like his father, producing the nickname of Barry.
But Barry, like his fake name (Ba Rock!) is also a fake President, having been fathered by one who made him exotic, half-foreign, international, demographically unique, appealing to uniters, to globalists, and international-socialism embracers, but who also made him constitutionally ineligible to the office of President because he was consequently not born (as required) as a 100% natural born American citizen.

by A.R. Nash  Nov.  2012  obama–nation.com

We Hold These Truths

“We hold these truths to be self evident, -that all men are created equal, -that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,…Liberty,…and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

This opening statement of the Declaration of Independence reveals the views held by our founding fathers.  Those words are not legalese. They do not require a lawyer to explain them.  They do not quote any human authority, -any judicial opinion, nor any philosopher.  They do not quote anyone.

They wrote and believed things that are from outside of the finite boundaries of everyday thought.  They thought on a scale that was above and beyond the authority of the government that had ruled them for many, many generations.  They thought about the source of the rights which they intended the new national union to secure for them and their posterity.  They believed fully that that source was not human.  Rather, it was divine.  It was eternal and unchanging.  Its work was permanent and never ending.  The rights bestowed upon the creation by “the Creator” are immutable until the end of the world.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not write about holding opinions to be self-evident, but holding “Truths” to be so.  That is an unequivocal absolute when it comes to the subject being expounded on.  Truth is not dependent on human opinion, action, or agreement.  It is what it is.  They believed certain Truths were known to all and confirmable by all and those Truths are the principles of Natural Rights.

The justification for the treasonous rebellion of the citizens of the colonies was based on self-evident natural rights, -which were being grievously violated by the henchmen of the King & his Parliament.  The colonists asserted that those rights not only exist but that they are the only legitimate basis for government.

Those rights cannot be legitimately rescinded by government because they are not bestowed by government. They are bestowed by “the Judge of the World” who made all men free, -but subject to moral laws and the responsibility to live an upright and conscientious life.

Without Divine Authority as the source of the unalienable rights and responsibilities with which humans are born, the basis of a free democratic republic would crumble into the amoral rule of ~Rules & Bureaucracy, with no principles whatsoever behind the rules, nor a moral population willing to adhere to them.

There are societies in today’s world where corruption is so ingrained into the psyche of the people that there is no outrage when it occurs because it is what everyone else would do.  Moral Law has no preeminence there and therefore neither do Natural Rights.

First came the principles, then came a people willing to risk all to obtain the chance to employ those principles in a new form of government that would protect and support those unalienable natural rights with which all men are created.

One of those rights is membership in the group into which one is born.  In contrast to unnatural groups whose membership is based on merit, -like Spartan warriors or Navy Seals, or sports teams, everyone possesses the natural right to membership in their parents’ natural, cultural, ethnic, or national group.  If one’s parents belong to a group in which they have a natural right to be a member, then their child is born with that membership and becomes a member by nature.
That membership is their natural right.  It can’t be granted to them by kings or governments because no one has any right to “grant” unalienable rights with which everyone is born.

No one has a right to grant you the natural right to live, to be free, to own property, to marry and have a family, to pursue happiness, nor to be a part of the group or nation into which you were born.   Rights that no man can bestow cannot be canceled by any legitimate government.  The founding fathers felt that since all men are created equal, men have no moral authority to grant natural rights to other men, therefore it follows that governments also have no moral authority to grant such rights.  And so they avoided doing that.

Consequently, there is no law by which you are an American citizen, -unless you were not born to American parents.  Nothing in the Constitution delineates who is and isn’t an American.  The delineations of U.S. citizenship in U.S. Law were written later for those born to foreign fathers or mothers, and those who married foreign men; -or for foreigners who sought to become Americans, -or were “Native Americans”, or natives of American territories.  All who were granted U.S. citizenship by U.S. law are “legal citizens”.  Some of them possess Certificates of U.S. Citizenship.  Do you have such a certificate?  Are you a “legal citizen” or something else?

All those for whom there is no law are natural citizens.  They’re the 97%.  Congress was not granted any authority regarding citizenship except over those who were not natural Americans.  The Constitution granted Congress authority to write a uniform naturalization law and nothing else regarding citizenship.  Natural American citizens are free of the authority of Congress in regard to their citizenship because they are the natives of the nation, -they are “the naturals” or “natural born citizens” and they created the Constitution and the government.  They are exempt as the lone exception to the Constitution’s prohibition against anyone else serving as the President and Commander-in-Chief.

Those who are “legal citizens” are not exempt from its prohibition because they are man-made citizens who gained their citizenship via human law.  Natural-ization is the human attempt to make a person into something they are not by nature, -into a natural member of a group to which they don’t naturally and fully belong.  But they are equal to the natural members in every way…-except one.   They’re forbidden to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief since that’s in violation of the United States Constitution.   (Article II, Section I)

by A.R. Nash   March 2012   http://obama–nation.com

The Source of Obama’s Presidential Ineligibility

America is one of the most magnanimous nations on earth.  It was so from the beginning, and that fact was inscribed in the Constitution itself.  It provided that if a man met the age and residency requirements, he would be eligible for election or appointment to every office in the land, regardless of where he was born or to whom he was born, -as long as he was a citizen of the state in which he lived.
Everyone who previously had been a subject of one of the 13 colonies became a citizen of the union of the States of America via their new state citizenship which began in July of 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was ratified.  So everyone except non-citizens could serve in every office and position in the land, and it didn’t matter how they acquired their citizenship, -whether naturally or by naturalization.  As long as they were a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, they could be a representative, a Senator, a Chief Justice, a cabinet officer, a military officer, and even the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces (who happened to also be the President).

That was how it was because that was how the Constitution made it to be.  But the Constitution had a built-in timer that started ticking from the time it was ratified.  It didn’t pertain to anyone except that lone rare individual who might one day find himself faced with the option of running for the office of the President.
That timer involved an expiration situation for all of the citizens of America who were alive when the Constitution was ratified.  They, and their children would all be eligible to serve as President, but an iron gate was closing on some of those born after the Constitution was ratified.  Some of them were not U.S. citizens at birth because their foreign immigrant father was not a citizen.  They drew their nationality from his and so they were not Americans.
That iron gate was a restriction relating to the qualification to be President.  It disqualifies anyone who was not a citizen when the Constitution was ratified, -or was born to such a one (one who was not an American when they were born.  The timer that started ticking in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified was a biological timer.  It set a limit on who could become President after the lives of all living American citizens in 1788 had ended.
When they were all gone, the iron gate closed and no one could become President unless they were born as a natural American citizen.  The era in which any male citizen could serve was then over.  From that point and forward, only a natural born citizen could be the President & Commander-in-Chief.
So the sons of non-citizen immigrants could not be President, just as the U.S. born sons of foreign representatives, foreign visitors, native Americans, Gypsies, Asians and American women  could not be President either.
To Congress, the courts, and the executive branch of the government, it didn’t matter where one was born, but to whom one was born.  If one was born to a foreigner then one was not an American.  One was a citizen of their father’s nation, a member of his society and tradition, and if that society and tradition was not American then a child born to such a person was not an American any more than his father was an American.
And it didn’t matter that one or more states granted such a “son of the soil” citizenship.  The federal government did not recognize such citizenship for federal purposes.  Such state citizens were protected by state laws and constitutional protections, and subject to them, as well a federal laws, but the office of the President was neither civil nor a constitutional right, and only those persons recognized as being natural citizens were eligible once the gate of time had closed on the generation that lived when the Constitution was ratified.

Following a Supreme Court opinion a hundred and ten years later (Wong Kim Ark) the federal government was forced to ascribe U.S. citizenship to children of un-naturalized immigrants.  That didn’t change what the Constitution required of candidates for the presidency, but it changed the public’s and the government’s perception of what was required to merely be a citizen.
The misconception arose that merely being born within U.S. borders conferred U.S. citizenship, and worse still, that the U.S. citizenship of all persons born in the U.S. was the same, qualitatively, legally, and constitutionally.  The first two assumptions are correct, but the last one is patently false.  One form of citizenship is newer, (-assumed to be constitutional since 1899) while the other is the oldest form of citizenship in human history, i.e., natural membership via a father who was a member.
So presidential eligibility all boils down to one factor, -a factor over which no one has any control, and that is who one’s father was.  George Romney was born to a father who was born in Mexico to parents who were members of a community of American citizens who had emigrated there to escape persecution of Mormons.
He had no control over where his father was born or what nationality he possessed, nor to where he himself was born (the U.S.), just as Paul Ryan and Joe Biden had no control over what citizenship their fathers possessed.  Similarly, Barack Obama Jr. had no control over where his father was born or to which nation he belonged, but he, like his opponent, was nevertheless subject to the supreme authority of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, he and his corrupt party chose to completely ignore the Constitution and illegitimately run for, win, and usurp the office of the President in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution.  It directs that “NO PERSON” shall be eligible except a natural born citizen, which excludes all children of foreigners because they are not natural Americans.

A similar travesty would be the example of allowing the U.S. born son of Osama bin Laden or Ahmedinejad to have command over a squadron of nuclear bombers, or a MIRV equipped nuclear ICBM, or  submarine.  No crew person who is not a natural born American is allowed anywhere near  American nuclear bombs because the absolute loyalty and obedience of children of foreigners cannot be assured.
No sane nuclear nation on earth has any other policy.  There is no room for disloyalty, disobedience, or treason when it comes to such enormously destructive weapons.  The same goes for guarding the President.  Secret Service personnel (who carry loaded weapons) entrusted with that responsibility must also be natural born Americans, -having no direct foreign connection through foreign parents.
That is what the Constitution requires of the President first and foremost, and that is what Barack Obama violates every day that he occupies the presidency.  He is far less qualified to be President than every single one of the important people that work under his command in the field of nuclear weapons control and use.  He is not qualified to give presidential commands to them, nor to even guard himself.
He is an on-going fraud and an American travesty.  A living, breathing violation of the United States Constitution.  But the dependent lemming sheeple of the socialist left will do everything in their power to insure that he serves another unconstitutional four years.

If they succeed, we’re doomed to a future far more bankrupt than we already are facing.  We’re doomed to a future of deficit spending rocketing to the moon.  We’re doomed to ever greater violations of the Constitution, -as bad as or possibly worse than the treasonous ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutional health care monstrosity and its totalitarian “individual mandate”.
It’s bad enough that he is unconstitutionally serving as President.  He could do that and serve the country admirably, -as might the equally unconstitutional Marco Rubio, but instead his actions and inactions are more likely than not to be bad for constitutional fidelity, rule of law, government transparency, individual initiative, individual freedom, national fiscal responsibility, national energy policy and the Tenth Amendment limitation on federal power.
Let’s work to ensure that sane and constitutional policies find preeminence again in Washington.  That’s something we’ve never seen in our lifetimes.  What should be normal would truly be revolutionary, and millions of loyalists who support the statist nanny Big Brother government wouldn’t like it one bit.  They not only prefer the status quo, they want even more of it, -big government without end until we find that the track ahead of us is gone, -the credit-card trestle spanning the gorge where financial solid ground should be is missing.  All of that ground (the wealth of the future as yet non-existent) was removed in order to shore-up the track we are running on today.
Then we’ll fall into the abyss as the whole house of cards crumbles and everything collapses.

by a.r. nash august 2012    obama–nation.com

The Vancouver Birth Scenario

revised: August 2012

Barack Obama has a birth record that he is unwilling to let anyone see except his lawyer, which gives the impression that there is something to hide.  The only thing conceivable is his place of birth.  Yet his mother was only 18 years old and unlikely to have had a passport, nor the desire or finances to be globe trotting.  So how could she not give birth in Hawaii?  There is only one likely possibility.
There is testimony from Barbara Nelson who had a conversation with her friend’s father in a Hawaiian dinner club, a Dr. West, who remarked that “Stanley had a baby”. Her name was most remarkable; -the same name as her father, to whom she wrote about the coincidence.  The words “had a baby” might have been “has a baby” or “had a baby” -as in -sometime recently but without any reference to where or when.  (A nearly half-century old memory is very unreliable when it comes to the details of words spoken and she has proven to be an unreliable witness by altering her story, having first put forth the impression that Dr. West delivered the baby, which had to be dropped when the long-form birth certificate image was posted online showing a Dr. Sinclair being the named physician-obstetrician.  Worse yet for her credibility is the fact that she was one of Barack’s adoring high school teachers, having written prosaically about him, -almost like a fictional character.
There is no other testimony regarding Obama’s birth.  That is the mysteriously limited record & testimony on behalf of the one who became the President of the United States.  Even the women who gave birth in the hospital listed as Obama Jr.’s birth location never saw him or his mother during that first week of August in 1961.  No one has yet claimed to have even seen Ann Dunham pregnant, much less attended her delivery.

So mother and baby Obama were presumably in Hawaii sometime shortly after his birth, so how could she also be out of Hawaii to deliver him outside the United States?
There is only one possibility.  It’s this.
Ann had moved four times before reaching her teens, so she had no long term roots. But she developed some after the family moved to the Seattle area where she spent all of her formative teen years, until the family moved again, to Hawaii, after her High School graduation.
She was uprooted once more from her familiar surroundings & friends and moved to where she had neither. She enrolled in college in Honolulu and attended for the fall/winter semester where she met fellow student, Barack (pronounced Bair´ ack) Obama from Kenya.
Then, during the fall of 1961 she became pregnant.  In 1961, before civil rights, before women’s liberation, before political correctness, before African-American penetration of American main-stream culture, before mixed-race couples, for a young white woman just a half-year out of High School to become pregnant outside of marriage would have been a very frowned on thing, especially if she was only 17 at the time.  Hence a marriage was arranged within a few months of knowing that she was pregnant.  At least that’s the assumption.
But even marriage would not have smoothed-over the cultural shock of having one’s minor white daughter pregnant with a black man’s child, especially if he was old enough to be her father, and was a major American communist figure who wrote and published a communist publication.  The Dunham’s friend, Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American communist from Chicago, was close to their daughter Ann, and even got her to pose nude for his photography avocation (selling the photos to a men’s magazine).  It’s logical to assume that a lively young women who was willing to go that far would have also been willing to go a little farther, and lose her unwanted virginity to him.
Assuming she did, then she would likely have shed her inhibitions about sex and could have easily gotten involved with another radical, -one Barack Obama, -a fellow student and a most exotic one at that, being from East Africa.
If so, and if both encounters were within a close time frame, then she might not have been certain which one had impregnated her.
If the older and possibly wiser Davis had deflowered her with forethought, having the smarts to have and use a condom to avoid impregnating a 17 year old white girl, then Obama would have to have been the father.
Ann’s pregnancy in 1961 would have presented a huge problem for her reputation, as well as the social image of her parents.  At the point of her pregnancy showing, it seems that her life then followed the pattern of nearly all of the young women in America in the same situation; -they vanished from the radar.
She dropped out of college in February, 1961 and no record of her whereabouts has been found until she appeared in Seattle in the latter half of August of ‘61 following the birth of her child.
What’s remarkable and unexplainable is the total absence of what one would expect to exist if the fairy tale told in “Dreams From My Father” were actually true.  She lived with Obama Sr. & son as a family for two years as claimed?
Ok, then where are the photos of that early family life?  But before those photos, where are the courtship period photos?  The wedding photos?  The honeymoon photos?  The love letters between bride and groom?  The marriage record?  The recollections of witnesses?  None exist, just as none would exist if there was no romance, no courtship, no shotgun wedding, no honeymoon, no life together.  All that exists is lots of unanswered questions.  If ever there was a man whose life should be an open book to the American people, it’s someone born to an alien father, and mentored by a card-carrying communist party member.
She never lived with the man she named as father of her child. He lived in an apartment near his college campus. His friends have no memory of a girlfriend.  A union in a vacuum, an invisible relationship, a forbidden mysteriously hidden tryst.  Fact? -or fiction?
The subject of adoption would naturally have come up.  It might have been raised by Ann herself since she was a young and adventurous, free-thinking-&-acting person.  It could be assumed that she had plans and desires for her future, and being a prisoner to the chores of motherhood at such a young age was not likely to have been viewed favorably.
With her own serious reservations, and the resistance of her parents to having and keeping any child at that point, much less a black child, it would be almost inevitable in 1961 to want to seriously consider adoption as the best solution. [INS records confirm they were considering adoption]
The Dunhams lived out the remainder of their years in Hawaii, with no more moves to other cities and states, and it’s reasonable to assume that in 1961 that was what they saw for themselves going forward.  With Hawaii as their permanent home, and a pregnant daughter without a man in her life, adoption was the only option.
But there would have been two problems with an adoption in Hawaii.  First is that there may have been no couple willing to adopt a mixed-race baby, and second is that if there were, they would have to live the rest of their lives with the possibility of encountering the adopted child that they would have wanted to be out-of-sight, -out-of-mind.  A mainland adoption would have been preferable, and possibly the only chance of finding a willing couple.
So they might have agreed to pay for their daughter’s home-sickness assuaging return to Seattle if she agreed to put the baby up for adoption while there.  She would have turned to the Salvation Army or some other organization handling adoptions.  Having told them the truth about the race of the father, no adoptive parents came forward.
She may have been disappointed that there were no takers.  That would have turned her attention to the closest big city as an alternative, and that city was Vancouver, Canada.  She may have learned that there was one or more significant benefits to giving birth there, (such as free medical care) and possibly was able to arrange a quick adoption in Canada.
But the adoption, for whatever reason, didn’t happen. Maybe, after holding and nursing the baby, maternal instincts were awakened and she couldn’t let him go.
She may have delivered her child on August 1, flew directly to Hawaii on August 3rd or 4th, and then registered  him with the Dept. of Health on August 5th by filling out an affidavit and signing it, -claiming that he was born at home.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation found that the records in the government archive for persons on international flights into Hawaii during the first week of August 1961 are missing from the end of the reel of microfilm that once contained them.  Those are the only records known to be inexplicably missing.

Her appearance in Hawaii with the baby that she was expected to be rid of would not have been greeted with acceptance.  Instead, it might have been met with fear and serious reservations.  Such a reaction would have motivated her parents to fund her return to Seattle and the shouldering of the living expenses of going to school there where she felt more at home among her own friends and familiar surroundings, and could attend college with (or associate with) one or more of them.

The Obama-supporters will ask what proof there is that this scenario is true.  But asking that question brings into focus their failure to recognize that the same question can be asked in regard to proving that it isn’t true.  There is in fact no proof that it isn’t true, and that is what makes it a possibly accurate description of what actually happened.  The bigger question is: “Why should such uncertainly exist when it comes to the most powerful position in the world?”
But in the end, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, what matters is to whom he was born.  A natural American is not one born in America but is one born to Americans and only Americans.
But if he was born in Vancouver, he would not have even been a U.S. citizen at all because his mother was too young to convey her citizenship to him.  And that is what he is hiding from the American people, because if they knew it, then even in their misguided understanding of presidential eligibility, they would be aware that a foreigner can’t be President.

a.r. nash  http://obama–nation.com