More Americans Than Ever Want Truth About Obama


Obama cannot hide his past from the American people. Despite the MSM’s complicit efforts at deriding us as “birthers,” more and more Americans want to know the truth about this man.

Bob Unruh reports for WorldNetDaily, March 31, 2010, “Poll Shocker! Majority Wants Obama Records,” that a new poll shows more Americans than ever suspect Obama is hiding information about his own background and want him to come clean.

Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies in an analysis of his results, wrote:

“Simply put, this question about Obama’s legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americas. Our latest polling shows a majority of Americans – 55% – want Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation.

Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59% said he should be removed from office, and 35% said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed.”

Some other findings of the poll:

  • When asked about whether Obama’s background documentation – the school records, birth records and others – should be released, the 55% who said yes included more than 82% of the GOP, 55% of independents and nearly 28% of Democrats.
  • Another 17.1% of Americans said Obama should release some of his documentation, making it nearly 3 in 4 Americans who want the president to unlock the steel door on some or all of his background information.
  • Asked specifically if Americans believe Obama was born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens – one accepted definition of a “natural born citizen,” as required by the U.S. Constitution for a president – only 38% said yes.
  • 52% agreed Obama is hiding something by refusing to release his documentation.
  • Asked specifically about their beliefs about the place of Obama’s birth, 39% said they suspect he was not born in the United States.

This belies the efforts of the Obama administration to paint so-called ‘birthers’ as a right-wing fringe group. Even among Democrats, nearly one in four – 22% – said they either suspect he was not born in the U.S. or that they are not sure on the question.

The survey indicates Obama’s orchestrated efforts to marginalize “birthers” who are raising questions about him and his background have failed totally. The fact that only 65% of the members of his own party will agree that he’s been transparent is a “red flag,” the analysis said. Wenzel said:

“When Barack Obama was campaigning for the U.S. presidency, he promised one of the most open and transparent administrations in the history of the country. Sixteen months into his term, a majority of Americans believe he has failed. That a majority of adults nationwide – 56% – said he has not run an open administration is a stern rebuke because there is so much power invested in the office of the presidency. When required, every American citizen produces their birth certificate for a variety of reasons, and it is no big deal. This is why Obama’s refusal to produce his is so baffling – and so troubling – to so many people.”

H/t beloved Fellows Steve & Tina!

~Eowyn

40 responses to “More Americans Than Ever Want Truth About Obama

  1. What is Wenzel Strategies, and who says that they are a reliable polling firm?

    • Hey, Gran,

      Did you not see that the words Wenzel Strategies have the link to WS embedded? To answer your own question, all you’d have to do was to click those two words, and it’ll bring you to WS’s webpage http://wenzelstrategies.com/?page_id=930. You’ll then find the following, assuming your reading skills are better than your web skills:

      Wenzel Strategies is a public opinion research and media/communications consulting company based in Columbus, Ohio. The company is headed by President Fritz Wenzel, who has wide experience in the fields of public opinion research, journalism, media, and political and media consultation, and is an accomplished public speaker. He has presented at more than 130 conferences and meetings, including the United States Senate, the national Committee for Economic Development, the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet (at George Washington University), the Election 2008 Lecture Series at the Washington Center in Washington D.C., political briefings for the Japanese and Argentinean embassies, the Ohio Association of Elections Officials, the Ohio Republican Party, the National Association of Community Schools Authorizers, the Ohio Council of Community Schools, and the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association, among many others.

      For several years, he worked for Zogby International, a public opinion research firm based in Upstate New York, as a leader in developing its political and cultural polling and in revamping and managing its worldwide communications department.

      Mr. Wenzel is a skilled journalist, having worked for 25 years as a news and political reporter for the Portland Oregonian, the Toledo Blade, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspapers. He has also worked as a television and radio reporter, news anchor, and a local and national talk show host, and has appeared on national television and international radio networks, including ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, C–SPAN, the Mutual Broadcasting System, XM Satellite Radio, Air America, the Premiere Radio Network, the USA Radio Network, the Salem Radio Network, the ABC Radio Network of Australia, Sky Radio News and BBC Radio in the UK, among others. He has worked as a political and media consultant for candidates for federal, state, and local offices.

      Having said that, your question is a fair one. I tried to send an e-mail to WS, asking for the poll’s sample method, sample size, and most importantly, sampling error. I’ll update if I get a response.

      Cheers!

  2. NONE of these newspapers: Portland Oregonian, the Toledo Blade, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspapers, published the results of that poll.

    Also, I see that it the poll is conducted exclusively for WND.

    According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, 68 percent of respondents said that Obama was born in the USA, as far as they knew; 19% had no opinion, and so only 14% had the belief that Obama was born in another country as far as they knew, and of them only 9% said that they believed that there was “solid evidence” that Obama was born outside of the USA. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/05/obama_birthplace.html)

  3. When you ask a question like this:

    “Recent polls suggest a significant percentage of Americans question Obama’s own constitutional eligibility for office as a natural born citizen. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements on the matter: He is unquestionably a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.”

    …you can be sure that you will get the kind of answer you are fishing for.

    Obama’s father was not a US citizen, and Obama has proclaimed it. He was elected by a clear majority and confirmed by a UNANIMOUS vote of the Congress, so clearly there are many people (and ALL Congressmen) who believe that you do not have to have two US parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    But the question says that to be a Natural Born Citizen you must have two US parents.

    If it had asked: “Do you think that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?” It would have been a fair question. If it had asked “Does someone have to have two US parents to be a Natural Born Citizen?” it would have been a fair question.

    But to ask whether Obama is unquestionably Natural Born because he was born in the USA to two US parents is not a fair question because it is skewed by the slanted (and for that matter untrue) statement that a Natural Born Citizen has to have two US parents. (Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents.)

    In any case, this is one reason why this poll cannot be trusted. Another is the selection of respondents, with almost as many Republicans as Democrats (although the percentage of registered Democrats is far higher than Republicans) in the poll. We have nothing describing the geographic or age breakdown on these respondents either. It is worth asking whether they were selected from a list provided by any organization. It could be from readers of WND.

    • Gran, Gran1, Gran2, Gran3, and all future versions of Gran:

      Thank you for giving us a lecture on sampling. We are not idiots; we do know about survey sampling. In fact, I used to teach college students a course on the philosophy of science, which includes a section on the social science survey method. So I fully know that:

      1. For the results to be REPRESENTATIVE, i.e., generalizable, to the entire population, the sample must be randomly selected.

      2. For the poll’s findings to be VALID, the questions must really plumb what the polltakers mean to ascertain, which means questions must be phrased correctly and should not be “leading”.

      I wish the original WND article by Bob Unruh included all this information, and I am still waiting for a reply to my e-mail to Wenzel Strategies. Flawed polls and/or outright lies do not serve anyone’s cause, including Conservatives’.

      Having said all that you said — which amounts to a defense of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be POTUS — you have not addressed the central question:

      All these polls would be moot if if were not for the fact that your man, Obama, continues to refuse to make public many many documents and information — including his ORIGINAL birth certificate (not a photographic image on a website); his schools records from Punahou kindergarten school, Occidental College, Columbia U., Harvard Law School; his passport(s); etc. etc.

      I had to produce all those documents when I applied for college admission and for university employment after my Ph.D. — but not the President of the United States who promised the American people his administration would be the “most transparent” ever.

      Explain that.

      In parting (because I have no time to further argue with you, I have a blog to do), I sure hope you are as insistent on the integrity of polls that conform to your political predilections.

  4. Well, Eo. I wasn’t going to comment on this but in order to understand where a liberal is coming from you have to understand how they think.

    Facts only make a difference to a liberal when they are challenging another’s credibility. None of them understand what it means to be an American because they only consider what the Government can give them.

    The intelligent ones, and I use the term loosely , are the ones fleecing the American people to further their agenda. Those who voted for Osama Obama voted because he promised them something for nothing.

    Conservatives are those individuals who work for a living and require next to nothing from the government. Liberals are those who vote for whatever they think the government will give them for that vote.

    This gentleman or lady that you are having the discourse with would never look up the credibility of the poll taker because the poll taker is challenging his or her paradigm.

    The news papers he or she alluded to are the most liberal papers in the country and have no credibility of their own.

    I know you like to defend your position and I don’t blame you but this individual isn’t challenging you or the poll taker on the facts–He or she is challenging you because your facts do not agree with his or her emotional state.

    I don’t know if Osama Obama is natural born or just another alien, but I do know his own wife said he was from Kenya.

    There appears to be considerable doubt about his origin and enough evidence to challenge his standing as our President.

    We all agree it should be investigated, but we also understand that democrats will never do anything to upset their savior.

    • Well said, Ron! You are right, of course. Gran/Gran1’s dispute about the poll’s validity is simply a material fallacy, otherwise called a ruse. The REAL issue, as you pointed out, is that Gran does not LIKE the poll’s results!

      • Yes, libs don’t like those poll results and will argue them to death instead of explaining why (as you pointed out) The Traitor has yet to produce any of these documents (typical Alinsky tactic). They demanded Bush produce all his docs, why not this prez? crickets….

  5. I hate polls that are not in my favor.

  6. By the Eo, I know you do not need any help defeating these bozos that talk out of the wrong part of their bodies, but I couldn’t help myself. I apologize for butting into your discussion.

    Love you

    Ron

    • Ron,

      I hope you know the regard, respect, and affection I have for you. You are always welcome to “butt in” — particularly since you’re on my side. LOL

      Besides, this is a public forum and anyone can jump into the fray — which I do, whether invited or not. LOL

  7. You said that Obama: “Continues to refuse to make public many many documents and information — including his ORIGINAL birth certificate (not a photographic image on a website); his schools records from Punahou kindergarten school, Occidental College, Columbia U., Harvard Law School; his passport(s); etc. etc.”

    Taking this in reverse order, has any president published his passports or shown them to any court or to the Congress? Is there any law that he should? Answer” No president has published, and there is no law.

    The same holds for the college records. No president has ever shown his college transcript voluntarily (Bush’s was leaked by Yale, but not published by him). Even presidents who were members of Phi Beta Kapa (like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) did not publish their grades. No president has ever published his high school grades.

    The idea that Obama should publish or show his Kindergarten records is loony. You did not mention kindergarten, but other birthers have. No president has shown such records, and in this case they probably do not exist anymore.

  8. Eowyn,this person gg1, HELP! please do some research. I’m to the point, I have absolutely no patience anymore with commie supporters. Educate yourselves for cryin out loud. I realize you may have been victim of indoctrination. Talk to your grandparents, do some research, look at what is happening, and worst of all what will happen!

    • tina,

      I’ve found that NOTHING on this blog gets more incensed comments from Obamabots than this matter of his birth eligibility and his concealed documents. NOTHING. And like programmed robots, they all write from the same script: the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) shown on FactCheck’s website is really just as good as the long-form Birth Certificate (not!); that when Michelle said Kenya is her husband’s “home country,” she really meant his cultural roots; blah, blah, blah.

      All of which tells me that it is Obama’s birth eligibility that is his Achilles’ heel. That’s why whenever Fellowship does ANYTHING on this subject — even in a comment, not post, of mine on this thread — the disinformation army is deployed, whether they call themselves “Justthefacts” 1 or 2 or 3; or “Granite” 1 or 2 or 3 or “gg,” it’s the same Legion.

  9. Eowyn,thankyou for your knowledge and patience,and words of wisdom.

  10. Eowyn, brilliant response to the Granite Mobsters. And, as we have discussed on so many occasions and as you pointed out, the Granite Mobsters are experts at creating Material Fallacies. I am so happy that the National Judicial College taught me about Material Fallacies! The issue is that the Mobsters don’t like the results of the polls-liberals get vicious when it comes to truth! And Ron, you are right on good Ron!!! Legion or aka the Granite Mobsters, you can’t hold a candle on this subject of political polling-you are speaking to one of the finest professors here, Eowyn, who has eaten you up and spit you out!

  11. Thanks for stopping by, WMS! aka Justthefacts1, 2, 3…, aka ellenbarron; aka granite1, 2, 3…

    Truly thy name is LEGION.

    Your two very long comments are deleted because they are identical to the tripe posted by your previous personas — all from a script prepared by the White House.

    Gosh, you Obamabots must really be afraid of this birth eligibility issue because it INVARIABLY brings you out in force.

    ~Administrator/editor

  12. Eo, I have a question–Yes another question. The United States code for being the President includes the following exerp–I’ve read it a few times and it appears to conclude that Obama can be President. Tell me what I’m reading does not say that.

    This is one of the requirements for being President of the United States of America.

    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

  13. Now, if the above is true then wasn’t his mother a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for five or more years?

  14. I’ll go back and find it and you tell me if it’s accurate or just a bunch of crap.

    • Ron,

      I’ve followed the birth eligibility issue with near obsession for 2 years now. I’ve read everything I could find, including constituitonal lawyers’ websites, e.g., Leo D’Onofrio’s. I’ve NEVER seen this. It it’s true, Demonrats wouldn’t have raised such a stink about John McCain’s birth eligibility (born in US military base in Panama, of 2 native-born US citizens). It’s a bunch of crap.

  15. This comes from a web site called ‘The U.S. Constitution on line’

    he Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

    If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

    • You did not give us the URL of the Constitution on line website. I have no idea how legit it is.
      The following is from Cornell University’s website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
      The parts that may apply to Obama are in BOLD.

      United State Code: TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
      § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
      The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
      (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
      (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
      (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
      (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States; [According to 8 U.S.C. §1408 it is possible to be a U.S. national without being a U.S. citizen. A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship.]
      (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
      (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
      (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
      (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
      (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
      (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

      *******

      Assuming Obama was born OUTSIDE of US territories, say, in Kenya:
      — (d) doesn’t apply because his father was NOT a U.S. national;
      — The applicability of (g) depends on whether Obama’s mother had been living in the US continuously for at least 5 years before she gave birth to O.

      Also, Sec. 1401 says it’s about U.S. citizens, but doesn’t specify that means “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” — which is the Constitution’s stipulation for the presidency. There are constitutional law scholars who maintain that at the time of the Founding Fathers, due to the importance they placed on loyalty solely to the new U.S., they feared any dual/split loyalty of someone whose parents are NOT both U.S. citizens. Thus, thee legal understanding then was that a NATURAL BORN citizen is one who (a) was born on U.S. soil; (b) both parents are U.S. citizens.

      And so, I’m a U.S. citizen via naturalization, but I’m neither a native-born US citizen (because I wasn’t born in the US), nor am I a natural-born US citizen (because both of my parents were non-US citizens at the time of my birth), and, rightly, am disqualified from being president.

      Then, there’s the question was when US Code Title 8 Sec. 1401 became law. This website on Sec. 1401 has a date of 01/03/05: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html

      Obama was born in 1961. Does Sec. 1401 apply retroactively to him?

      Lastly, I find all this most curious because if matters are as US Code Title 8 Sec 1401 says they are, then:

      1. There wouldn’t be so many lawsuits about O’s birth eligibility and the judges could simply have thrown the suits out of court, citing Sec 1401, instead of employing the dubious excuse that all the plaintiffs lacked “standing.”

      2. Lt. Col. Terry Lakin wouldn’t have to risk imprisonment by being court-martialed for challenging the legitimacy of his supposed Commander-in-Chief.

  16. Let me Know what you think of this

    Thanks,

    Ron

  17. Hi Eo,
    The section (g) is the one that caught my eye. I do not know the background on his mother so I don’t know if this fits his situation or not. It looks like he would have a decent argument if it did. What do you think?

  18. That was the reason I was asking the question–I wasn’t sure when all the laws and different changes went into place—that’s why you’re here so I can be edacated..

    Luv ya much

    • Gosh, Ron, it’s I who’s being edacated by you! I had not known about Title 8 Sec 1401. Tried to find info on when that law was passed/amended and whether it can be retroactively applied, but answers to both remain unclear.

      Luv ya much too! ;)

  19. Eo,

    Wouldn’t you know it—it was adopted this year in February and I could not find out if it is retro or not–but I’ll bet it is—What other reason would they have for creating the law if it wasn’t retro.

  20. I started out with the web site (Constitutional Topic) The U.S, Constitution on line. Then I went to Cornell University Law School—
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
    This is where I found the changes.

    • That’s where I found Sec 1401 as well, Cornell U. Law School’s website. But where on that page did you see that Congress adopted Sec 1401 just this February?? I don’t see it.

  21. Eo,

    At the top of the page I clicked on the words (how current is this) That took me to another page where I read the the part about 2010

    • Thanks, Ron. I clicked “how current is this” and got this:

      Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.

      But I’m still not 100% certain from the sentence above that Congress indeed passed Sec 1401 Feb. 1 of this year. I’ll try to nail this down ’cause this is IMPORTANT. If true, it means the Democrat-controlled Congress did this to retroactively ensure Obama’s birth eligibility, even if solid evidence pops up that he was born in Kenya. Sec 1401(g) would make him a US citizen despite being born in Kenya.

      That being said, being a US citizen is not the equivalent of being the Constitution’s “natural born citizen.” No where in Sec 1401 do I see “natural born citizen.”

      This web gets more and more tangled and deceitful….

  22. Unfortunately, I read so many things on those pages I no longer can find the part that tells about Congress passing the new part about citizenship. Now I’m wondering if I just imagined it. Woww!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s