Excerpt:
News – first reported by WND – that for the first time a law enforcement official is investigating the document Obama presented as proof of his birthplace has caught fire in the wider press, prompting questions as to whether this effort will get to the bottom of the story.
As WND reported, Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio responded to concerns from tea-party activists in his county by forming a volunteer posse to investigate whether the purported Hawaiian birth certificate Obama released to the public on April 27 is a forgery.
Arpaio says that since WND ran its story, he has been inundated with media inquiries, including invitations to appear on national TV news programs.
Read more: Sheriff's eligibility 'posse' sparks media whirlwind
It was also very interesting to find out that legendary singer of the 1950's and Christian activist Pat Boone has now come out as a birther. I only heard a brief clip about it on T.V. last night, but apparently, it was a trip to Kenya that led Boone to reconsider the claims of those here in the United States of America who believe that Obama was not born here. It was revealed that several people he had encountered in Kenya (maybe Boone was there on a missions trip?) said to him, "You know that Barack Obama was born here, right?"
Why would so many people tell him that if it wasn't true? What would they have to gain to do so?
If you are still a "birther hater," please educate yourself via WorldNetDaily's extensive work concerning this issue:
| THE STORY SPREADS ... WND Exclusive Sheriff's eligibility 'posse' sparks media whirlwind Could this be the momentum changer that settles questions on Obama's birth? --WND |
| WND Exclusive Another source claims Obama forgery planted in Hawaii DOH Report comes as Sheriff Joe's posse probes birth record released by White House --WND |
 | WND Pat Boone calls Obama's birth certificate 'a fraud' 'He's spending millions of dollars so that we do not have his records' --WND |
| WND.COMMENTARY Obama's fictionalized family history Exclusive: Jack Cashill spotlights inconsistencies regarding half-brother Ndesandjo --WND |
| WorldNetDaily Exclusive THE BIG LIST of eligibility 'proofers' See those who have raised questions about legitimacy of Obama presidency --WND |
| WND Exclusive From A to Z: What's wrong with Obama's birth certificate? Examine for yourself mounting evidence that president's document isn't genuine --WND |
| THE FULL STORY WND Exclusive Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue --WND |
| WND Exclusive Obama's day of reckoning could end his presidency Free, landmark summary explains eligibility issue clearly, suggests what you should do --WND |
I would like to include two comments from the first WND link above:
Bryan Taylor · Top Commenter · Fuels Forester (GIS Specialist) at Yakama Nation
Daniel Van Koughnett That's right, you have to go to a government sponsored indoctrination camp....oops I mean university....in order to be an expert in anything.....hell, you can't even make ice cubes in this country anymore without a government permit....
The constitution was written so that anyone could understand it and hold their government accountable. It was written for the people, of the people, and by the people....you have no excuse for being so ignorant Danny. You lefties are on this site constantly holding up the constitution and saying, "It doesn't say anything about being a dual citizen, it only says natural born, what don't you birthers understand?" Well, my friend, the first amendment guarantees the people the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances...so, it's perfectly constitutional and legal to demand that Barry Soetoro pony-up and show us his eligibility papers when asked....if he doesn't, he's in violation of the constitution you so proudly wave around it suits you. By the way, I don't see in the constitution where universal health care is allowable, where abortion is a right, etc.....but I'm also sure that you believe the document is a living, breathing document that has to change meaning when necessary and that it is not a limiting document, but an unlimited document granting unlimited powers.
Reply · 86 · Like· Tuesday at 10:43pm
Leonard Daneman · Top Commenter
I had to study the Aliens and Nationality Act (U.S. naturalization statute) back in 2008 to check Phil Berg's complaint Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen. The function of naturalization law is not so much place of birth but any alienage at birth from a foreign parent. Dual nationality and its conflicts was not a problem prior to the 1920s, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 et seq 1855 had to be revised to 'de-alienage' one nationality at birth, and finally when the child reached majority.
If one reads Article II's 'natural born citizen' clause, it was written to block foreign influence time of birth, i.e., no alienage at birth. Therefore, unless born prior to the 1776 Declaration making you a U.S. citizen 'at the time of adoption of this constitution,' you had to be born of a U.S. citizen father. Just being born on U.S. soil, prior to 1898, did not a U.S. citizen make.
Reply · 77 · Like· Yesterday at 2:08am
In my sidebar, I have the following facts posted:
*Apparently, the original page has been removed but I found this page:
FactCheck.org: Obamas Kenyan Citizenship
Hat tips to all links.
Update:
Just checked the "Fight the Smears" website and near the bottom of the page, the original FactCheck.org paragraphs are listed there.
Fight the Smears.
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Also see:
American Spectator.org: A Frivolously Destructive pResidency
*******
Update 9/23/11
An explosive article to read! Bob McCarty Writes: Bogus Presidency Equals Monstrous Crime
Copy of entire article:
Bogus Presidency Equals Monstrous Crime
September 20th, 2011 · 3 Comments
By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger
In the weeks and months following Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election as governor of California in October 2003, there was considerable speculation… much of it fueled by Schwarzenegger himself… that he might one day wish to run for president of the United States. When asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Morley Safer whether or not he had presidential ambitions, he said, “Yes. Absolutely. I think, you know, because why not? Like with my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top.”
However, the fact that Schwarzenegger was born in Austria, to parents who were both Austrian citizens, placed him at odds with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural born” U.S. citizens who are at least 35 years of age and who have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
In support of Schwarzenegger’s presidential “ambitions,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced House Joint Resolution 104 on September 15, 2004. The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:
“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”
H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress. Then, early in the 109th Congress, on Feb. 1, 2005, Congressman Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress.
However, while it is understandable that Congressman Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood. For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 to amend Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution by substituting the following language:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”
On Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Congressman Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress. And on April 14, 2005, Congressman Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.
All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.
Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, what distinguishes Congressman Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear… he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency. The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a mystery; they only serve to raise important questions.
For example, if the “natural born citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, was emerging as a rising star in their party?
Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States. He served eight totally undistinguished years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004. It was in that year, the year in which he was elected to the U.S. Senate, that he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. He was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on Jan. 4, 2005. Almost immediately upon being seated, he launched his campaign for the presidency. In the ensuing three years, he devoted most of his time to his presidential campaign and, on Aug. 28, 2008, he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives? More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born citizen” standard, and when did they know it?
Although the Snyder and Conyers proposals might have raised some eyebrows if their attempts to amend the constitution had been widely reported and debated, it was not until the officers of the 2008 Democratic National Convention officially certified Obama and Biden as the party’s candidates that it became evident that something was seriously amiss.
In certifying the party’s 2008 candidates to the state election boards so that ballots could be printed, only one state, the State of Hawaii, received the following certification from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, convention chairman and secretary, respectively:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”
In each instance, the certifications were followed by the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. However, only the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Other than that, the two documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.
So what does that tell us? Given what is now widely known about the circumstances of Obama’s birth and parentage, one might conclude that high-ranking Democratic officials… most notably convention chairman Nancy Pelosi… were fully aware when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve as President of the United States, by reason of the fact that he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution.
The bogus presidency of Barack Obama is clearly one of the most monstrous crimes ever committed against the people of the United States. But what are the chances that the full extent of the crime will ever be fully disclosed? So long as liberals and Democrats are willing to protect him at all costs, and so long as conservatives and Republicans are afraid to challenge him because of the color of his skin, Obama will likely go unpunished. However, if we could ever get the former speaker secured to a straight-backed chair, leaning backward over a large basin with a towel or wash cloth over her face and a pail of water at hand, we would almost certainly learn the truth.
Just as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad told the CIA everything they wanted to know about the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, Ms. Pelosi would be just as certain to spill the beans on exactly when the leadership of the Democratic Party first became aware that George Soros and Barack Obama were intent upon committing the greatest political crime of all time… the brazen theft of the American presidency.
Paul R. Hollrah
Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications. He resides in northeast Oklahoma.
Posts
9 comments:
“WAAAH! That scary black man is still President! Something's gotta be done to stop him!!”
This, condensed, is the heart and soul (?) of birtherism.
When I was a kid, I was told that any boy might grow up to be President, and in my lifetime there have been a New England nouveau riche, a successful general, a peanut baron and a grade-B actor, among others...but their saving grace was that they were all white. Since Obama took office, a certain segment of the populace has been screaming loudly, frequently, and futilely, that he is illegitimate legally if not biologically as well.*
It just so happens that Obama isn't white. Coincidence? I think not.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the latest birther Great White Hope, with his “special law enforcement posse to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the birth certificate Barack Obama released to the public April 27 might be a forgery,” as WND reported. Oh, oh, a posse composed of Tea Partiers and Birthers. Boy, that sneaky Mooslim in Washington better watch out now!
Will this posse have any authority whatever outside Arizona? Or even outside the county?
Arpaio should remember what happened to the last birther standard-bearer.
Pat Boone repeats the claim of 'millions' having been spent by Obama to 'hide' his past. It's very, very hard to hide a money trail, as many a Mafiosi has learned to his sorrow; where did these 'millions' come from? How and where were they spent? You, Christine, once quoted the figure $2 million at me. If someone knows how much, then it should be possible to trace it, right?
The birther phenomenon has produced a bunch of pseudo-celebrities, a vast selection of bad history, racist literature, and flawed legalism, and a hundred years from now, historians will shake their heads in wonder.
But after more than three years, birtherism remains “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.” I don't see any kind of a “media whirlwind” beyond the right-wing blogosphere.
*If Malcom X was really Obama's father, as some believe, then the bogus 'eligibility question' becomes invalid, since Malcolm Little was absolutely a US citizen. Not that it matters, because Obama was born on US soil, which makes him automatically one, whether or not his parents were.
Earth to GMpilot? Obama is half white. The racist screed is officially considered a false claim because it isn't working anymore!
If Malcolm X was Obama's father, then his entire life story (as told in two best selling books) was a complete sham. But that wouldn't matter to you as long as your favorite president is considered black.
No matter what color he is, his policies and politics are disastrous and ruining this country. But just because he's black you will support him.
How pathetic...
Also see:
American Spectator.org: A Frivolously Destructive pResidency
Reality to christinewjc: Since you helped spread the Malcom X story through this blog, one must assume you supported it.
You say Obama is 'half-white'. So? Half of him isn't. Which one does he appear to be? Which one does he identify as? You birfers don't scream that he's a half-white president, because even a birfer knows how screwy that sounds. Instead, you wail and moan about his legal/political legitimacy, yet after more than three years and many attempted lawsuits, what have you got? What has been proven?
My favorite president is one who lived and died before I was born. Sorry.
Obama has been quite a disappointment: he's presided over an economic near-disaster, and he hasn't grown sufficient nads to end the wars his predecessor started (and he's gotten us into a third one!), but given the current crop of wannabes from the Christian Nationalist Party, there is no viable alternative. All, or nearly all, of them have to kowtow to the TEAsers, thereby repeating the same mistake the Dems made 40 years ago—that is, folding to their extreme faction. But calling Obama an illegitimate leader won't make them look any better, nor will it save them at the polls.
While chatting online with a blogging friend of mine (who happens to be Christian and black - but one of the only 2% of black voters who evidently did not vote for Obama in 2008 because of his pro-abortion and black liberation theology stance), I asked her why so many blacks are still supportive of him despite the terrible job he is doing. She told me that it was a matter of pride that prevents them from admitting that he is a disaster. In other words, it looks like race trumps bad leadership - no matter how awful that leadership turns out to be.
About Malcolm X. When I do posts where I cannot possibly know all of the facts, I usually put it under the banner of "Talk Wisdom Reports - You Decide." If you find that post, you will hopefully find a link to a black Muslim leader who was spreading the idea that Obama could have been Malcolm X's secret son.
Now I am going to walk my dogs so I can get back in time to watch the Republican Presidential debate tonight. Any one of the individuals on that stage (except for Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, or the marijuana-legalizing nut who joins the debate for the first time tonight) would be light years better as POTUS than ObaMarxist.
CJW: When I do posts where I cannot possibly know all of the facts, I usually put it under the banner of "Talk Wisdom Reports - You Decide."
So you know conclusively that Obama has spent "millions" trying to conceal his past, right?
Bring it!
An explosive article to share:
Bob McCarty writes: Bogus Presidency Equals Monstrous Crime
Copy:
Bogus Presidency Equals Monstrous Crime
September 20th, 2011 · 3 Comments
By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger
In the weeks and months following Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election as governor of California in October 2003, there was considerable speculation… much of it fueled by Schwarzenegger himself… that he might one day wish to run for president of the United States. When asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Morley Safer whether or not he had presidential ambitions, he said, “Yes. Absolutely. I think, you know, because why not? Like with my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger
However, the fact that Schwarzenegger was born in Austria, to parents who were both Austrian citizens, placed him at odds with Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that all candidates for president and vice president must be “natural born” U.S. citizens who are at least 35 years of age and who have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
In support of Schwarzenegger’s presidential “ambitions,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced House Joint Resolution 104 on September 15, 2004. The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:
“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”
H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress. Then, early in the 109th Congress, on Feb. 1, 2005, Congressman Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress.
However, while it is understandable that Congressman Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood. For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 to amend Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution by substituting the following language:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on Sept. 3, 2003, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”
con't
On Jan. 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Congressman Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress. And on April 14, 2005, Congressman Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.
All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.
Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, what distinguishes Congressman Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear… he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency. The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a mystery; they only serve to raise important questions.
For example, if the “natural born citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, was emerging as a rising star in their party?
Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States. He served eight totally undistinguished years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004. It was in that year, the year in which he was elected to the U.S. Senate, that he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. He was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on Jan. 4, 2005. Almost immediately upon being seated, he launched his campaign for the presidency. In the ensuing three years, he devoted most of his time to his presidential campaign and, on Aug. 28, 2008, he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives? More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born citizen” standard, and when did they know it?
Although the Snyder and Conyers proposals might have raised some eyebrows if their attempts to amend the constitution had been widely reported and debated, it was not until the officers of the 2008 Democratic National Convention officially certified Obama and Biden as the party’s candidates that it became evident that something was seriously amiss.
con't
In certifying the party’s 2008 candidates to the state election boards so that ballots could be printed, only one state, the State of Hawaii, received the following certification from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, convention chairman and secretary, respectively:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”
In each instance, the certifications were followed by the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. However, only the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Other than that, the two documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.
So what does that tell us?Given what is now widely known about the circumstances of Obama’s birth and parentage, one might conclude that high-ranking Democratic officials… most notably convention chairman Nancy Pelosi… were fully aware when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve as President of the United States, by reason of the fact that he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution.
The bogus presidency of Barack Obama is clearly one of the most monstrous crimes ever committed against the people of the United States. But what are the chances that the full extent of the crime will ever be fully disclosed? So long as liberals and Democrats are willing to protect him at all costs, and so long as conservatives and Republicans are afraid to challenge him because of the color of his skin, Obama will likely go unpunished. However, if we could ever get the former speaker secured to a straight-backed chair, leaning backward over a large basin with a towel or wash cloth over her face and a pail of water at hand, we would almost certainly learn the truth.
Just as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad told the CIA everything they wanted to know about the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, Ms. Pelosi would be just as certain to spill the beans on exactly when the leadership of the Democratic Party first became aware that George Soros and Barack Obama were intent upon committing the greatest political crime of all time… the brazen theft of the American presidency.
Paul R. Hollrah
Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications. He resides in northeast Oklahoma.
Post a Comment