http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/...eligibility-hearing/

quote “Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

I hope the judge shows them how wrong they are.

An email I received today.

quote Probably the most legitimate, damning evidence yet. So maybe Trump was right? Take a read and click on the links to Wikipedia, this is amazing evidence that is simply ignored and scoffed at by the media, and anyone who attempts to post these facts is ridiculed. Obama makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur HMMMMMM! “Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work” 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time? 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". 3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? Resources: http://www.kapiolani.org/wo...bout-us/default.aspx Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media????? Please send this to everyone you know with the hope that we can force the media as well OUR NATION to address this CORRUPTION.

quote 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time?

Actually, "African" is what's on both the short and long form BC. Not "African-American"

Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

quote 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".

The British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate in 1895, known from 1920 as the Kenya Colony.
The independent Republic of Kenya was founded in December 1963.

Kenya

Why is it "Kenya, East Africa" and not "Kenya Colony, East Africa Protectorate" on the BC? Probably the name is just what his parents provided.

quote 3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?

In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital

In 1976, Kapiʻolani Hospital and Kauikenolani Children's Hospital began a protracted, decade-long merger.

Here's the full historical timeline of the hospital.

Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children

Looks like Obama and his goons have been actively editing the Wikipedia pages...

More Challenges to Obama Eligibility
http://godfatherpolitics.co...o-obama-eligibility/

quote It seems that more and more people and groups are spurring their states to take a closer look at Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for President of the United States. You’ve read about Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County investigation into Obama’s eligibility and whether or not he will appear on the ballot for 2.5 million voters. In response, Obama got the DOJ to attack Arpaio in an effort to discredit him and remove him from office before he could announce the findings of the investigation. Georgia also has challenged his eligibility and one judge has ruled that he is eligible. However, there is a question of the judge’s impartiality and the case has been appealed to a higher court. Mississippi also has a case pending in the courts on Obama’s eligibility in that state. It now appears that the state of Indiana is about to launch hearings on Obama’s eligibility and boy are they strict on eligibility. Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was recently removed from office because of his failure to update his voter registration card. Among the issues with White is the fact that he registered to vote at his former wife’s home which in fact was not his own residence. A jury convicted him of voter fraud in the case. In an effort to determine if in fact White is eligible or not to hold the office to which he was elected to in 2010, a hearing with the elections committee is scheduled for Feb 29. Last year the elections committee actually ruled in White’s favor, but a judge later ruled against him. It has now been reported that the Indiana elections board will be conducting a hearing on Obama’s eligibility. The preliminary meeting is to be held tomorrow the 24th. One of those involved in the hearing is California attorney Orly Taitz, who has been involved in other cases concerning Obama’s eligibility. I don’t know if Taitz or the others intend to pursue the issue of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. If they do, I trust they will use the following US Supreme Court rulings: Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) “If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” We can only hope and pray that enough concerned citizens and groups nationwide go to their local and state governments and file challenges to Obama’s eligibility to run for or hold the office of President of the United States. Perhaps if challenges could be launched in all 50 states, it may be enough to keep him from getting re-elected and continue his plan to destroy America.

Many will ask why are they doing this, the simple answer is because they can.

I do have a rather interesting question regarding Obama. When he loses office, how long before he flees the country due to this birth certificate issue and if he doesn't flee and is taken to court and loses the case, what happens next since he will be considered a civilian? I have never studied the consequenses of a false birth certificate for a President.

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!
http://www.thenationalpatri...-obamas-eligability/

quote you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875. Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen. Bring this up to your liberal friends and they will laugh at you and call you a right wing nut job for saying Obama is ineligible but the quick and accurate response is clear. YOU are not saying this, and neither is the Liberty Legal Foundation. Obama is ineligible so sayeth the United States Supreme Court and if they care to attempt to label the United States Supreme Court of 1875 as right wing nut jobs…so be it and good luck with that. If the Democratic Party should certify Obama, in the face of this ruling, they would be acting in a fraudulent manner and according to the actions being brought by the Liberty Legal Foundation, it is the political parties which are solely responsible for that certification and the Liberty Legal Foundation intends to hold BOTH parties accountable.

Read more at link.

FAIL

Fail?
Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot
'At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law'
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/...t-obama-from-ballot/

quote A state Superior Court in Georgia is being asked to review and overturn Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s decision, based on a recommendation from an administrative law judge, that Barack Obama’s name be on the state’s 2012 primary ballot. The appeal to the higher court says the recommendation from the administrative law judge, Michael Malihi, was faulty and that he allegedly to this date has refused to follow the state’s requirements regarding the case. The appeal has been filed with the Superior Court of Georgia for the County of Fulton by Van Irion, one of several attorneys who presented evidence at a hearing held by Malihi in January. The plaintiffs argued several points before Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth. Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. Malihi’s decision came without any evidence being presented by Obama or his lawyer after they refused to participate in the required hearing under a state law that mandates all candidates qualify for the office they seek. The law also allows any voter to raise a challenge, and several did. A hearing was held on their evidence Jan. 26. Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented. “The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said. The complaints were raised under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections. The state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined. Irion told WND today that he’s asked Malihi why he declined to follow the Georgia Administrative Rules of Procedure 616-1-2-.39, which state, “Upon application by a party, the administrative law judge shall certify the facts to the superior court … for a determination of the appropriate action, including a finding of contempt.” The attorney had sought that determination, but Malihi apparently ignored the request and the requirements. He told WND that Malihi never had the authority to decide the contempt issue, but the court rules require him to certify facts to the Superior Court. “We made our application for him to do that several days before his ruling … Malihi should have certified the facts alleged to the other court immediately. … Yet he sat on our request for days, then continued to sit on it after his ruling. When we inquired, the silence was deafening. We didn’t hear back at all. This is from a court that had previously responded to e-mails within hours, or even minutes, on every other occasion. Four days later we e-mailed again.” He called the Malihi court’s explanation that it no longer had jurisdiction because the case had been advanced to a higher level unbelievable. Irion’s motion for a finding of contempt explains Obama and his attorney “willfully defied” the order of the court to appear and testify during the Jan. 26 hearing. “On the eve of the hearing, defendant’s attorney sent a letter directly to the Secretary of State of Georgia, with copies sent to this court and attorneys for the plaintiff. Defendant’s letter requested that the Secretary of State halt the proceedings of this court. The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending a response from the Secretary of State. Later the same day, during the evening of January 25, the Secretary of State responded to the defendant via a letter with copies to this court and counsel for the plaintiff. The Secretary of State’s letter informed the defendant that the Secretary of State lacked authority under Georgia law to suspend this court’s proceedings. The letter concluded by warning the defendant that any failure to participate in further proceedings of this Court would be at the Defendant’s peril,” the motion explains. Still, Obama and his attorney refused to participate, creating “a direct threat to the rule of law,” the attorney said. “The defendant’s action represents a public denial of the authority of this court, the laws of this state, and the judicial branch of government as a whole. Such open denial of a separate branch of government by a sitting president amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority,” he said. Filed just yesterday with the Superior Court was a motion for emergency stay of Kemp’s rubber-stamp approval of Malihi’s decision. “At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law,” he submitted to the court. “The petitioner’s right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.” He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.” His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic. “[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains. It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana. Irion also argues that his client’s rights to live in a constitutional republic are being compromised when provisions of the Constitution are ignored. He noted the argument from Obama earlier in the case that he won the 2008 election. “Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues. “The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority.” Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.” That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice. “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.” If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said. “Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

"attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth."

Can this standard be applied to all previous US Presidents?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate a Forgery
http://www.washingtontimes....certificate-forgery/

quote Armed with a new 10-page report he commissioned, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Thursday he suspects the birth certificate President Obama released last year is a “computer-generated forgery” — and also raised questions about the authenticity of the president’s selective service registration card. In an extensive — and at times combative — press conference in Phoenix, Sheriff Arpaio repeatedly said he is not questioning the president’s legal status under the Constitution nor alleging fraud on Mr. Obama’s part, but did say there is evidence crimes have been committed by someone and his investigation continues. “Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.” He said he would like Congress to investigate the matter, but short of that, he has an obligation to look into is because of potential violations of Arizona’s laws. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. Questions about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been a political sideshow for the past four years, and have persisted despite repeated denials by the White House and the release of evidence he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. That evidence included both a certificate of live birth released during the 2008 campaign and the long-form certificate last year. Fact-checking organizations have concluded the certificates are authentic, and Mr. Obama has joked about those who questioned his birth. At last year’s White House Correspondents Association Dinner, soon after releasing his long-form certificate, he mocked Donald Trump, who had said his own investigators were looking into the matter. But Sheriff Arpaio, who first built his national profile by creating tent cities for jail inmates and later by taking a tough stance on illegal immigration, could reignite questions among those who continue to believe Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S. and is ineligible to be president under the Constitution’s provision that the officeholder be a natural-born citizen. Last December, the Justice Department accused Sheriff Arpaio of civil rights abuses within his department, but he said he began his investigation before that — in August 2011 — after tea party members from Surprise, a town within Maricopa County, signed a petition challenging the certificate. Activists protested outside of the auditorium where Sheriff Arpaio held his press conference, accusing him of running a corrupt department. A few miles away, outside the Phoenix main library branch, a man was collecting signatures to back Lt. Mike Stauffer, a Scottsdale police officer and a Republican who is challenging Sheriff Arpaio in the upcoming election. “We hate him here,” the man gathering signatures said of Sheriff Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio said he went into the investigation with an open mind, and would have been happy to clear Mr. Obama. Instead, he said the former law enforcement investigators he deployed from his “cold case posse” — at no taxpayer expense, he said — were unable to back up the White House’s story. His investigators said the image of the birth certificate released by the White House appears to have been created originally on a computer, rather than having been originally made on paper and then scanned. The investigators said they have identified “a person of interest” in the birth certificate matter. Sheriff Arpaio’s chief investigator on the project said there are so many questions that he couldn’t have cleared Mr. Obama to be an employee of Maricopa County. Pursuing questions about the birth certificate has been a thorny issue for the GOP. State lawmakers in several places, including Arizona, have pursued laws that would have imposed checks on any presidential candidate’s qualifications to get on their state ballots. One such proposal in Arizona, which became known as the “birther” bill, was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Videos like this one don't help Obama.

I think videos like that DO help Obama retain support from people who see these attacks on Obama's birthplace (Hawaii) and religion (Christianity) as a kind of baseless libel.

In other words, a pro-Obama backlash.

Ask Karl Rove..

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2012).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Videos like this one don't help Obama.

No posting videos like this makes you an idiot. The video is totally dishonest, it's edited, and quite obvious.

Truth on the Cutting Room Floor

quote Originally posted by Tigger: No posting videos like this makes you an idiot. The video is totally dishonest, it's edited, and quite obvious. Truth on the Cutting Room Floor

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Tigger No posting videos like this makes you an idiot. The video is totally dishonest, it's edited, and quite obvious.

Posting that video doesn't make me an idiot, quite the contrary, it just proves that you are butthurt over it.
Yes, it is obviously edited, but even though it is, and even though things may be a bit out of context, they aren't that far from the truth. If you don't believe me look up the original videos, that is if you aren't too lazy to do so.
It's easier to just call someone names and say that things aren't true, without producing anything to back up one's statements, that doesn't make your statement true or right either. It takes a real man to do some legwork and post proof that others are wrong, and it doesn't even require insults. Put up, to shut me up, or shut up.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-02-2012).]

This is too good to drop off the bottom of the first forum page.

Time for another "copy and paste" job!


Truth on the Cutting Room Floor
A YouTube video edits Obama's words to create a false impression.
Posted on December 4, 2009

Summary
A widely viewed video seems to show President Obama stating that he is a Muslim. It is false, and the product of dishonest editing.

Although it is titled "Obama Admits He Is A Muslim," the president in fact has admitted no such thing. The video edits and twists his actual words, sometimes turning what were denials into false confessions. For example, it edits out the words "I’m a Christian" from one quote and "my Christian faith" from another. It shows him quoting from the Quran, but snips out his quotes from the Bible and the Talmud.

Although the video gives no citations and no dates, we have tracked down the full quotes from the various appearances. In the Analysis section that follows, we take the video section by section, comparing the edited quotes and graphics with the full reality of what Obama actually said.

We doubt many will take this nasty bit of misrepresentation seriously. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting case study of malicious editing.

Analysis
We’ve received many queries about this video, which has amassed more than 1 million views since it was posted Aug. 7. It is titled "Obama Admits He Is A Muslim" and is just over nine-and-a-half minutes long. It blends edited snippets of Obama’s own words from various appearances as a candidate and as president, with on-screen graphics giving the editorial opinions of the video’s creator.

"Obama’s Muslim Roots"

The first section opens with a portion of the address the president gave April 6, 2009, to the Turkish Parliament in Ankara.

Edited quote: Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.

Full quote: The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.

When Obama says "I am one of them," he was speaking not of Muslims but of "other" Americans. He was making a distinction between Muslim Americans and non-Muslims who either have Muslim relatives or have lived in a country (such as Turkey) where the population is predominately Muslim.

The video next shows a snippet of a speech Obama gave June 4 at Cairo University in Egypt.

Edited quote: My father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan [call to prayer] at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

Full quote: I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

Far from admitting he’s a Muslim, Obama says "I’m a Christian." But the video’s creator leaves that on the cutting room floor.

The video continues with a later selection from the Cairo speech:

Edited quote: So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction

Full quote: So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.

The edited version invites the viewer to think that Obama was saying that his own religious "conviction" is based on personal experiences in Islamic countries. But the full quote shows Obama was talking about a different sort of conviction: his belief that Americans shouldn’t be guided by false notions about the Muslim faith.

The video then gives a truncated version of an exchange between Obama and ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos from Sept. 7, 2008:

Edited Quote — Obama: You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith

Full Quote — Obama: You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you’re absolutely right that that has not …
Stephanopoulos (interrupting): Your Christian faith.
Obama: My Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying …
Stephanopoulos (interrupting): Connections, right.
Obama (continuing) is that he hasn’t suggested that I’m a Muslim, and I think that his campaign upper echelons have not either. What I think is fair to say is that coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I’m not what who I say I am when it comes to my faith, something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.

The reference to "my Muslim faith" was widely described at the time as a gaffe. The Washington Times reported it as a "slip of the tongue." By leaving out the words "my Christian faith," the video dishonestly attempts to reverse the meaning of what Obama was saying.

This section of the video closes with an on-screen graphic that slightly mangles a New York Times article from March 6, 2007, by columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Video: In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer in a perfect Arabic accent, and then went on to say that the Muslim call to prayer was "the prettiest sound on earth."

Actual NYT passage: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The video exaggerates. Kristof actually described Obama’s accent as "first rate" but not "perfect." And Obama said the call to prayer is "one of" the prettiest sounds, not the prettiest of all. These distortions are minor, but still part of a systematic misrepresentation of the record.

"Obama Quotes from the Koran"

The second section, called "Obama quotes from the Koran," shows Obama quoting from Islam’s holy book during his Cairo speech. What is not apparent from the edited version is that the president was telling his mostly Muslim audience that terrorists violate moral principles taught by the Quran. The video also edits out Obama’s references to the Bible and the Talmud as it strains to make the case that he’s a Muslim.

Edited quote: As the holy Quran tells us … The holy Quran teaches that … the holy Quran tells us … and the holy Quran also says . .

Actual Passages:

Obama: As the holy Quran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Obama: Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

Obama: We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The holy Quran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

"Obama Praises and Glorifies Islam"

This section begins with a passage that is accurate enough, but does not make clear that Obama was addressing leaders of a predominately Muslim ally, Turkey. It is from his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament.

Obama: We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.

That is followed by excerpts from a March 19 video address the White House released on the Internet, in which Obama praised the "culture" of Iran and called it a "great civilization." What’s edited out is that Obama was speaking on Nowruz, the traditional first day of the year on the Persian calendar. Nowruz originated in the Zoroastrian religion and had been celebrated for more than a century before Islam arrived in what is now Iran. Although Obama referred to the "Islamic Republic of Iran" — the present-day official name of the country — he was offering no praise or glorification of the Islamic religion, but rather praising the more ancient Persian culture of Iran.

Edited quote: I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran … your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place. … We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

Full quote: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world. This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place. Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

"Obama Defends Islam"

This whole section relies on excerpts of the Cairo speech. In none of them does Obama say he himself is a Muslim. This quote leaves out some context:

Edited quote: For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. … It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit.

Obama was defending freedom of religion — not Islam as such. At one point he said Western countries shouldn’t dictate what clothes a Muslim woman should wear, for example. The video continues:

Edited quote: And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

That’s fair enough. But Obama went on to attack Muslim stereotypes of the U.S. The video left that on the cutting room floor:

Omitted quote: But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known.

"Obama Declares America to be a Muslim Nation"

Obama is never shown saying the U.S. is "a Muslim nation." Instead, we see a clip from a June 28, 2007, keynote address at a "Call to Renewal" conference sponsored by the liberal Christian group Sojourners.

Edited quote: We are no longer a Christian nation.

Full Quote: Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Obama was saying the U.S. is a nation of many faiths, but by dropping the word "just," the edited version changes the quote’s meaning. That is followed by more misleading editing of a clip from an April 6, 2009, press conference in Turkey:

Edited quote: We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.

Full quote: And I’ve said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.

The video then shows three excerpts from the Cairo address and one from the Turkish Parliament speech in which he described the impact Muslims and Islam have made on the U.S.

Obama (in Turkey): The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.

Obama (In Cairo): Since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … Islam has always been a part of America’s story. … There is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders.

All that is accurate enough, but all it amounts to is paying respect to the religion of others. Obama wasn’t embracing Islam as his own faith.

The video then shows a clip from an interview Obama gave June 1, 2009, with a French TV station:

Obama: One of the points I want to make is, if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

Here, it is the president who is wrong — as we reported a couple of days after the interview. The U.S. does have perhaps 2 million Muslims who attend mosques, and the total Muslim population of the U.S. has been estimated at 6 million or 7 million. But that’s tiny compared with countries such as Indonesia or Pakistan. We concluded that the U.S. probably doesn’t even rank among the top 50 in terms of its Muslim population.

The section then ends by repeating the quote from Cairo where Obama said, "Let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America."

The next section has no Obama quotes. It features Fox News pundits criticizing the president for a brief "bow" to Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud during a visit in London April 1, 2009. The following section shows an old photo of Obama wearing African garb, which the video describes as "Traditional Muslim Dress," during a visit to family members in Kenya as a young man. (The photo is being held up by his half-brother Malik Obama.)

"Obama Visits A Mosque"

In a section called "Obama Visits A Mosque" he is pictured touring the famed Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey. The structure actually isn’t a mosque any more: It was converted to a museum in 1935. This favorite tourist destination was originally built as a Christian church by a Byzantine emperor, then converted to a mosque after Istanbul fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Another section is called "Obama Sides With Islam," but it’s just TV reports from 2008 of Obama’s brief refusal to wear an American flag pin in his lapel. How that equates to siding with Islam is not explained, but in any case Obama reversed that decision early in his presidential campaign and routinely wore a flag pin through the remainder of his campaign.

That section concludes with another edited quote, this one from Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo:

Edited Quote: [L]et me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can. … America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.

Full Quote: [L]et me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

What the video’s creator cuts out is Obama’s denouncing "violent extremists" before his mostly Muslim audience.

"One of them?"

The video concludes with footage of a hijacked jetliner striking the World Trade Center’s South Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, followed by a graphic with the words "I am one of them" attributed to "Barack Hussein Obama." But as we noted at the outset, when the president said "I am one of them" to the Turkish Parliament in April, he was referring to Americans with Muslim relatives, not to terrorists.

At the very end, Obama is shown saying "Thank You, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak." Although that may have sounded to the video’s creator like some sinister utterance in Arabic, Obama was actually speaking Farsi. And he was saying "Happy New Year to you" at the end of his taped TV remarks to the Iranian people on Nowruz.

– by Justin Bank and Brooks Jackson

Sources
White House. "Remarks By President Obama To The Turkish Parliament." 6 Apr 2009.

White House. "Remarks By the President at Cairo University." 4 Jun 2009.

Bellatoni, Christina. "Obama’s verbal slip fuels his critics." Washington Times. 7 Set 2008.

Kristof, Nicholas, "Obama: Man of the World." New York Times. 6 Mar 2007.

Djang, Jason, "A New Year, A New Beginning," The White House Blog. 19 Mar 2009.

Jafarey, Ali A, "NowRuz – The Zarathustrian New Year," www.zoroastrian.org. Accessed 4 Dec 2009.

Obama, Barack, "Keynote Address – A Call to Renewal." 28 Jun 2007.

White House, "Press Conference," 6 Apr 2009.

White House, "Interview of the President by Laura Haim, Canal Plus." Jun 1 2009.

"Obama visits mosque, Hagia Sophia," World Bulletin. 7 Apr 2009.

POSTED BY BROOKS JACKSON ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2009 AT 3:51 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, CHAIN E-MAIL, ISLAM, MUSLIM.

Now could you tell Tigger how hard that was to do and how much time it took to find?

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Now could you tell Tigger how hard that was to do and how much time it took to find?

Tigger was the one who found the link.

I just copied-and-pasted it.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: "attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth." Can this standard be applied to all previous US Presidents?

There were exceptions to the policy for US presidents at the creation of the US as a nation, but once the Constitution was in force, the law was set in stone.

It says "of American parents that are citizens."

That means Obama was not eligible.

It also means many "Anchor Babies" are not eligible either. (Mexican parents of US citizens who sneaked into the US to have kids...which would allow them to stay is US despite being illegal aliens)

However, we know how many on the left (as well as some on the right) who like to skirt the law, so we know the anointed one will continue to be prez despite whatever Sheriff Joe does, or anyone else for that matter.

Dont like Comrade Obama? Vote him out on the 6th of November.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: There were exceptions to the policy for US presidents at the creation of the US as a nation, but once the Constitution was in force, the law was set in stone. It says "of American parents that are citizens." That means Obama was not eligible. . . .

You sure about that? That's not what I get from Wiikipedia.

Can you reproduce the exact text from the Constitution where it says that?

Here is something I posted earlier in this thread.
'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear
http://www.americanthinker....tions_disappear.html

quote Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency? On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in Happersett: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

A little further up on this page.

quote Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.” That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice. “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.” If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said. “Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-03-2012).]

Investigators now in hunt for forger
Cold Case Posse briefs county law enforcement on birth certificate case
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/...-in-hunt-for-forger/

quote Members of the Cold Case Posse in Maricopa County, Ariz., whose report to Sheriff Joe Arpaio yesterday confirmed there is probable cause to believe Barack Obama’s much-ballyhooed birth certificate document is a forgery, have begun briefing members of the county law enforcement team who may be involved in hunting for those responsible. At a news conference yesterday, Arpaio and the chief investigator for the specially appointed Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo, confirmed that they had found evidence of forgery in the creation of the birth certificate image and fraud in the presentation of that piece of work as a real government document. They also said they found Obama’s Selective Service registration likely forged, and they said it appeared as though officials in Hawaii were covering up information about Obama. They also said it was not outside the realm of possibility that Obama might have been born overseas. All of this relates to the Constitution’s demand that a president be only a “natural born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution. But many analysts believe at the time the document was written that would have meant the offspring of two citizens of the country. Arpaio began the review at the request of hundreds of his constituents. They were concerned a fraudulent document was being used by Obama to be on the 2012 election ballot in Arizona. Arpaio said at the news conference that the investigation would continue, and he might ask for a congressional investigation to address the issue. He also suggested that other outside agencies may end up participating. While he said that decision remained in the future, sources told WND today that the Cold Case Posse, a team of volunteers not being paid by taxpayers, were briefing sheriff’s office investigators on the status of evidence, so that they might be able to participate in the future as those responsible for the fraud and forgery uncovered already might be pursued. Interestingly, the Cold Case Posse report said, “To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961 [Obama's birth month]. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.” The posse said it already has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery. The Cold Case Posse had advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes and sources say they now are sharing that information with Arpaio’s investigative team. They say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. And they said White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

Videos can be seen at link.

Georgia Supremes asked to halt primary certification
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/...imary-certification/

quote The members of the Georgia Supreme Court have been asked to order the state to wait to certify the results of the Democrat primary until they can hear a challenge to the presence of Barack Obama’s name on the ballot. The request was submitted by Liberty Legal Foundation, one of the groups challenging Obama’s candidacy in the state, based on a lack of information about his eligibility for the position. “We … filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction with the Georgia Supreme Court. Since it’s too late to have Obama’s name removed from the primary ballots, we’re asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the Democratic presidential primary election,” said Van Irion, founder of the foundation. “Typically it takes about a week … to certify an election. The results of an election are not official until he certifies. So, if the Supreme Court grants our motion the results of Obama’s Georgia primary election will be on hold pending the outcome of our lawsuit,” he reported. The move comes just after a Superior Court in Atlanta unsurprisingly dismissed a legal challenge to Obama’s name being on the state’s 2012 presidential ballot. It was the actions the court took in reaching that conclusion that has left the legal foundation working with one of the plaintiffs wondering in astonishment. “Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.” The statement comes from Liberty Legal Foundation’s analysis of the case that was dismissed by the Georgia Superior Court. A commentary at The Western Center for Journalism explained, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk’s office did everything in its power to thwart the very filing of a legal appeal in Weldon v. Obama, the case in which Judge Michael Malihi ruled that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore eligible for the Georgia ballot.” Then the court itself dismissed Weldon’s appeal. The challenges to Obama had been raised by several individuals represented by different attorneys. They brought the arguments under a state law that allows any citizen to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The plaintiffs argued several points before Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth. Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” The Western Center noted that Irion claimed Malihi’s court refused to forward his motion for contempt against Obama to the Georgia Superior Court despite state law providing the court no such discretion, and then the Superior Court refused to respond to the foundation. On the foundation’s website, under the headline “What We Reap When Honor Fails,” was a listing of the conflicts that developed with the court. For instance, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.” Then, “The Georgia Superior Court clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.” The foundation also noted, “The chief judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.” When Obama’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, the court also waited three days to notify Irion’s foundation and then it was with the message that the time to file an opposition had been shortened. “Late that same day the chief judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a court-set deadline, after the court sat on our motion for more than two weeks,” Irion said. “Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the chief judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition,” the foundation said. “The incidents cited here demonstrate the harassment, bias, and lack of honor in the administrative operation of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts. In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court” Following a hearing on Jan. 26, Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented. “The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said. The ruling was made even though state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” Obama and his attorney snubbed the hearing, refusing to show up.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-09-2012).]

O'Reilly: I'm too busy to report on Obama eligibility
Bill says Sheriff Joe found no 'hard evidence' to support suspicions
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/...n-obama-eligibility/

quote Responding to a viewer question about why he’s been silent on a just-completed six-month law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility, top Fox News anchorman Bill O’Reilly replied on video, saying: 1) there’s no hard evidence Obama isn’t eligible; 2) Hawaii newspaper ads proved Obama was born there; and 3) he’s just too busy to look into it anyway. The statements from O’Reilly came in a “Backstage Conversation” piece for premium members of his website posted on YouTube, producing a flood of venom directed at both O’Reilly and Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz. Arpaio’s volunteer “Cold Case Posse” of attorneys and retired police worked on the investigation, concluding that Obama’s birth certificate image released by the White House very likely is a forgery. O’Reilly had responded to a question from Erin, who asked, “Why did you ignore Sheriff Arpaio’s assertion that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery?” Said O’Reilly, “Well, because Sheriff Arpaio has not presented any hard evidence to back up his assertion. Secondly, I am very busy. I looked into the birth certificate myself and found out there were two separate birth announcements made in Honolulu newspapers on the day Barack Obama was born. It would be impossible for that to happen unless somebody was conspiratorializing the birth of a little mixed race baby. If that were happening, then, I guess you could have birth announcements planted. But the odds of that , Erin, are about, 29 gazillion to one.” It’s not the first time O’Reilly has address the birth certificate issue. It was about a year ago when he responded to a question about why Obama has a Social Security number that was assigned to someone with a Connecticut address when he never lived there. O’Reilly said that likely was the result of his father having “lived in Connecticut.” But when that statement proved to be filled with holes, the network scrubbed the audio from the website. “His father lived in Connecticut for several years,” O’Reilly had answered, adding that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.” But no evidence has been found to indicate Obama’s father ever lived in the state. In reference to the points raised by O’Reilly, the investigation in Arizona by professional law enforcement officers and attorneys found that the newspaper listings for Obama’s birth, which actually came days later, were not reliable. The listing in which the Obama birth announcements were published included babies who were born overseas. Also, children as old as 3 were listed as newborns, the investigators documented. Consequently, the newspaper listings are “not credible” evidence of a birth in Hawaii, according to Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Arpaio’s team. He told WND today that related evidence still is being compiled and is yet to be released. But he confirmed that “evidence” of an Obama birth in Hawaii because of a newspaper announcement is not reliable. At ObamaReleaseYourRecords, a blogger pointed out that “at the time of Obama’s birth and even still today, under Hawaii law, out of state children and even foreign-born children could/can easily obtain a Hawaiian [Certification of Live Birth.] That also would have triggered the newspaper announcements as they are produced from a list sent by the Hawaii [Department of Health], not the hospital or the parents/grandparents.” The blogger continued, “As for O’Reilly’s claim Sheriff Joe provided no evidence. That is an outright lie and anyone that watches the complete press conference can see that. Notice how O’Reilly fails to mention the forged Selective Service registration?” At the FreeRepublic.com site, readers seem to be stunned by O’Reilly’s response. “He’s very busy???” was all one poster had to say. “Maybe someone should ask him a different question … are you one of the media figures who have been threatened by the government? Arpaio’s chief investigator said that major media figures have told him they’ve been threatened with their FCC licenses being pulled, investigations by gov’t agencies, etc. if they utter one little peep about the bc issue,” added another. The information from Arpaio’s press conference, which remains available online, already is being turned into an ebook, Zullo told WND earlier, to ensure people have access. He said that sources during the investigation told him members of the media were threatened with federal investigations should they continue to report on the birth certificate issue. “During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs,” Zullo said. The threats were so intimidating that some individuals quit their positions over safety concerns for their families, he said. The problem became getting the information to the American people, he said, in the face of an intentional media blackout. The ebook provides details from the investigation, the evidence accumulated and the issues that remain for Arpaio and his investigators to pursue. Readers were not pleased with O’Reilly, with “usar91B” stating, “Bill O’Reilly didn’t even watch the presser so he doesn’t know even the most basic facts, including the evidence that the posse presented and the response to questions about the birth announcements. … Anybody who claims they don’t have time to address the biggest scam in this nation’s history is either a liar or too stupid to know up from down. Or has been threatened.” Arpaio has confirmed the investigation will continue, but he could not say exactly where it will lead. He suggested a congressional investigation would be appropriate. The investigative team has asked Arpaio to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. The posse says it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate. In fact, Zullo reported, “We have identified the computer manufacture, [and] where that document resided 20 minutes before it was uploaded onto the White House website.” The issue of Obama’s birth certificate centers on his eligibility to be president, since the Constitution requires that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” The term is not defined in the Constitution, but at the time the document was written, many experts believe it referred to the offspring of two citizens of the country. Some critics say the place of birth is irrelevant, since Obama has written that Barack Obama Sr., his father, never was a U.S. citizen.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: You sure about that? That's not what I get from Wiikipedia. Can you reproduce the exact text from the Constitution where it says that?

First, never ever use wikipedia as fact.

Second, I said "Laws" I said nothing about the US Constitution.

I am sure your man will get his day in court.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Yes, it is obviously edited, but even though it is, and even though things may be a bit out of context, they aren't that far from the truth.

Are you trying to lose the argument here? Because that statement doesn't bolster your case.

quote If you don't believe me look up the original videos, that is if you aren't too lazy to do so.

If you weren't lazy, you would look it up yourself instead of posting an edited version. You would also articulate your side with your own words instead of someone else's.

quote It takes a real man to do some legwork and post proof that others are wrong..

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who makes an outrageous claim. One cannot prove that something is not..that is a default. One must prove that something is. You have not done so.

I often wonder why so many people besides Muslims think Obama's a Muslim.........and so many people besides Africans think he's an African.

Maybe some time and effort could be saved if the people he's being ascribed to were asked about it.

I sincerely believe that overall you'd be surprised by the responses you'd get.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-13-2012).]

quote Originally posted by htexans1: There were exceptions to the policy for US presidents at the creation of the US as a nation, but once the Constitution was in force, the law was set in stone. It says "of American parents that are citizens." That means Obama was not eligible. It also means many "Anchor Babies" are not eligible either. (Mexican parents of US citizens who sneaked into the US to have kids...which would allow them to stay is US despite being illegal aliens) However, we know how many on the left (as well as some on the right) who like to skirt the law, so we know the anointed one will continue to be prez despite whatever Sheriff Joe does, or anyone else for that matter. Dont like Comrade Obama? Vote him out on the 6th of November.

Thanks, I had never actually looked up the birth place of Presidential parents before. Certianly every President in the modern era had parents born in the US. But prior to McKinley my "common knowledge" recollections fail me.

so, as i'm reading this argument, in order to be a citizen, both of one's parents must be either naturalized, or born on US soil to parents (grandparents)all of whom must have been US citizens. but then, in order for them to be citizens,those parents (great grandparents) must all have been either naturalized or born on US soil to US citizens(great-great grandparents), and so on, all the way back to the revolution.

if, therefore, you have 1 (or more) direct ancestor who was not in the former colonies at the end of the revolution (or the signing of the declaration, or is it the ratification of the constitution?) and has not been naturalized, you are not a citizen.

i suspect this makes a real mess (or an irrelevancy) of the 14th amendment. or maybe this interpretation is simply wrong, and parents' citizenship is irrelevant, birth on US soil being sufficient.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 03-14-2012).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: so, as i'm reading this argument, in order to be a citizen, both of one's parents must be either naturalized, or born on US soil to parents (grandparents)all of whom must have been US citizens. but then, in order for them to be citizens,those parents (great grandparents) must all have been either naturalized or born on US soil to US citizens(great-great grandparents), and so on, all the way back to the revolution. if, therefore, you have 1 (or more) direct ancestor who was not in the former colonies at the end of the revolution (or the signing of the declaration, or is it the ratification of the constitution?) and has not been naturalized, you are not a citizen. i suspect this makes a real mess (or an irrelevancy) of the 14th amendment. or maybe this interpretation is simply wrong, and parents' citizenship is irrelevant, birth on US soil being sufficient.

I think you know exactly what it says. It does not matter where the Prez parents are from as long as they have legal American citizenship. IF his father had a dual citizenship (one of them American) none of this topic would matter. IF you go by the letter of the law, obama can not run again and ALL of his signatures are null and void as if he were a DR without credentials. NONE of his "work" counts.........That is IF there is any truth to the parents citizenship argument?

*yawn*

his mom was a citizen
he was born in the USA
that is enough under current law to be a natural born citizen
in fact ether mom as a citizen or born here is enough

the nut-con's are way off base on the birther thing
are using old out dated laws or just lieing

could you help clear this up by posting the "new/updated" rulings of this law?

quote Originally posted by ray b: his mom was a citizen he was born in the USA that is enough under current law to be a natural born citizen in fact ether mom as a citizen or born here is enough

stuff like this makes me just skip over everything you post. I am going to give you a chance this time to prove you are anything other than a hatefull bigot.

quote Originally posted by ray b: the nut-con's are way off base on the birther thing are using old out dated laws or just lieing

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I think you know exactly what it says. It does not matter where the Prez parents are from as long as they have legal American citizenship. IF his father had a dual citizenship (one of them American) none of this topic would matter. IF you go by the letter of the law, obama can not run again and ALL of his signatures are null and void as if he were a DR without credentials. NONE of his "work" counts.........That is IF there is any truth to the parents citizenship argument?

we agree thus far: if the argument is correct, then obama's presidency is null and void, and he is ineligible to run again as well.
an invalid election result does not override the constitution.

but, is the argument correct? none of us here is qualified to make the final determination. discussion here is moot, but i do have strong reservations.

i believe that the argument as proposed runs counter to just about everyone's understanding of what makes anyone a natural born citizen(prior to this last election) . i believe it runs counter to the intent of the 14th amendment. the supreme court cases cited are significant, but supreme court cases generally deal with very specific, exceptional situations.
to say that this argument unequivocally echoes all of the founders' intents is preposterous. if it coincidentally makes some or most of us non-citizens because we have ONE ancestor who never naturalized, that's ok for those who favor this argument.

if we conclude that the argument is bogus, then the question shifts back to the "birth certificate". since neither i nor joe arpaio has seen, handled, or is an expert on official documents from hawaii, i have to assume it's real until someone qualified has a long, hard look at it.

the underlying theme here is to invalidate, by any means necessary, obama's election. almost as an afterthought, we have a solution to the anchor baby issue, and coincidentally resolve the question of john mccain's eligibility. how convenient.

should the supreme court continue to explore this area? by all means. have they ruled on obama's citizenship, hence eligibility? no.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 03-14-2012).]

''Statute, by birth within U.S.

As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship at birth:

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"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"
"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"


Statute, by parentage

Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[5]

If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[6] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.


o man is a citizen because he was born here

and even if he was born somewhere else he is still a citizen because his mom was a citizen

DOUBLE FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not into the birth certificate issue. IF it is proved to be bogus, obama and anyone else involved in the consperacey should be in a Federal Prison for for the next few elections.

quote Originally posted by lurker: if we conclude that the argument is bogus, then the question shifts back to the "birth certificate". since neither i nor joe arpaio has seen, handled, or is an expert on official documents from hawaii, i have to assume it's real until someone qualified has a long, hard look at it.

IF there is any truth to the question of obams eligability, then HELL YAH the Supeme Court should take up the case, that is their job. NOT to just say it is too late to do anything about it, but to rule on what to do with this case and any further such cases.

quote [B]Originally posted by lurker:[/B should the supreme court continue to explore this area? by all means. have they ruled on obama's citizenship, hence eligibility? no.

A CITIZEN IS A CITIZEN
ONLY NATURALIZED CITIZENS ARE BARRED FROM BEING PRESIDENT
A BORN CITIZEN IS NATURAL BORN NO DIFFERENCE

as usual the neo-con's are making stuff up
BIG LIES are about all the neo-conned have

quote Originally posted by ray b: as usual the neo-con's are making stuff up BIG LIES are about all the neo-conned have

I dont know what a "neo-conned" is but comming from a biggot it is probably nothing to be woried about.

As usual you have provided nothing to the accual content of the topic but your usual hate and bias.

You are just as guilty of lies and making stuff up as the "otherside". I have tried to be nutral and ask for real answeres from youbut, you have a bisa that discounts you from context and productive conversation. Even when you have something valid to contribute, you religate your comments to worthlesnes, with KKK type of speach.