Joe Arpaio: Barack Obama birth proof 'may be forged'

[Rich_Olszewski]

Hi Rich,

I’m here from the fringes of sanity to say I don’t trust this president one bit and I can only imagine that something is not right with his eligability to president.

God Belss.

You’re not one of the fringe crazies. You referred to him as the president, you didn’t call him “the usurper,” nor “Barry” nor “Soetoro.”

 

[ProVobis]

I think that the time to challenge Obama’s legality has passed. But Arpaio is right. I am SURE that millions of birth certificates are “signed” by officials with a snarky smiley face. Obama and his b/c are frauds, and everyone who has studied the facts knows it, but few Republicans have the courage to speak up and challenge him. Rob

Just a suggestion: Perhaps someone may want to look into where exactly his mother was when he was born? Did she leave and re-enter Hawaii at some point and when? Most likely the airlines or shiplines would have this information. There aren’t too many other ways one can leave Hawaii. Last time I checked it’s a tiny speck in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[seekerz]

Just a suggestion: Perhaps someone may want to look into where exactly his mother was when he was born? Did she leave and re-enter Hawaii at some point and when? Most likely the airlines or shiplines would have this information. There aren’t too many other ways one can leave Hawaii. Last time I checked it’s a tiny speck in the middle of the Pacific.

One could get teleported into a nearby galaxy from practically anywhere on the planet, if the force field’s strong enough…

 

[BlindManWalking]

Just a suggestion: Perhaps someone may want to look into where exactly his mother was when he was born? Did she leave and re-enter Hawaii at some point and when? Most likely the airlines or shiplines would have this information. There aren’t too many other ways one can leave Hawaii. Last time I checked it’s a tiny speck in the middle of the Pacific.

Well, the problem exists because, lo and behold, ALL the INS records of in/out of the country, from that week of his birth, (alleged by some to have occurred in Kenya, wherein grandmother in hawaii then filed a fake announcement etc)… all those records on who entered the country in that week, including the possible Stanley Ann Dunham and little Barry H. Obama?

Conveniently missing.



One or two of these incidents would be coincidence perhaps. The deeper one digs, the harder to deny it becomes.

I’d love for the man to be legitimate. If I thought he were, I’d be voting in November… against him.

Instead, I’m just not voting. Romney is Obama-lite.

I prefer not-Obama-at-all.

 

[seekerz]

Well, the problem exists because, lo and behold, ALL the INS records of in/out of the country, from that week of his birth, (alleged by some to have occurred in Kenya, wherein grandmother in hawaii then filed a fake announcement etc)… all those records on who entered the country in that week, including the possible Stanley Ann Dunham and little Barry H. Obama?

Conveniently missing.



One or two of these incidents would be coincidence perhaps. The deeper one digs, the harder to deny it becomes.

I’d love for the man to be legitimate. If I thought he were, I’d be voting in November… against him.

Instead, I’m just not voting. Romney is Obama-lite.

I prefer not-Obama-at-all.

And the records for the preceding weeks and the succeeding weeks are all available, I suppose? Wow. Just when I thought we were finally leaving the Bush legacy behind, I find that he allowed this to happen on his watch? Indefensible!

 

[RACJ]

Was that mean to be facts or fax? Because last I heard, differences of opinions and online pseudonyms are not licenses which allow people to lie freely - about anybody: president or prisoner.

Look at the different fonts on the b/c and the contemptuous smiley face. Do YOU think it's legit? As for Obama, do you think that a man who began his career in Bill Ayers' home, listened to "Pastor" Wright for 20 years, and has hidden his entire past, med records and writings from America is honest? I don't, and I'm not afraid to ask questions. Cordially, Rob :)

 

[TMC]

Here is what the arch-conservative National Review has to say about the issue:

Republicans who have chosen to associate with the birthers have done their party and their country a disservice. And as Sheriff Arpaio settles comfortably into that political mental ward, the same must be said of those Republicans who choose to associate themselves with him more broadly. Those who cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam and the critical questions that face our nation in 2012 will not win and do not deserve to.

nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

When you can’t get the National Review to join your anti-Obama rant, you know you have slipped off the edge

 

[Nec5]

The National Review is neo-conservative like the WSJ or the Weekly Standard. Establishment republican types. Bush lovers. They are not conservatives in the principled sense.

 

[7_Sorrows]

That dog won’t hunt. The “issue” was around well before the recent GOP campaign, and its neglect is an indication of how unimportant, if existent at all, it is to the American people.

of course, the issue was around well before the recent GOP campaign. and the issue has not been neglected or we wouldn’t be discussing it right now. there are still many american people who are interested.

 

[TMC]

The National Review is neo-conservative like the WSJ or the Weekly Standard. Establishment republican types. Bush lovers. They are not conservatives in the principled sense.

The fact that some on the right believe that the National Review and the Wall Street Journal are not sufficiently conservative just shows how far off the rails the right wing has gone. What is now considered “conservative” is so different from what was considered conservative for most of our history that I think the far right should come up with another word for it and stop tarnishing the term “conservative.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The fact that some on the right believe that the National Review and the Wall Street Journal are not sufficiently conservative just shows how far off the rails the right wing has gone. What is now considered “conservative” is so different from what was considered conservative for most of our history that I think the far right should come up with another word for it and stop tarnishing the term “conservative.”

Neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism aren’t really the same thing.

 

[TMC]

Neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism aren’t really the same thing.

I didn’t say they were. But I see a consistent trend lately that when anyone points out that some fairly reasonable position is supported by iconic conservatives of any stripe, the response is always that “X is not a true conservative.” Despite everything that we believed for decades, it now turns out that Reagan was not conservative, neither Bush was conservative, the WSJ is not conservative, National Review is not conservative, the Heritage Foundation is not conservative, etc, etc. Exactly how reactionary and out of the mainstream must one be today to be considered a “true” conservative?

I am beginning to understand why Jeb Bush said the other day that he “used to be” a conservative. His politics haven’t changed, but apparently the meaning of the word has.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I didn’t say they were. But I see a consistent trend lately that when anyone points out that some fairly reasonable position is supported by iconic conservatives of any stripe, the response is always that “X is not a true conservative.” Despite everything that we believed for decades, it now turns out that Reagan was not conservative, neither Bush was conservative, the WSJ is not conservative, National Review is not conservative, the Heritage Foundation is not conservative, etc, etc. Exactly how reactionary and out of the mainstream must one be today to be considered a “true” conservative?

I am beginning to understand why Jeb Bush said the other day that he “used to be” a conservative. His politics haven’t changed, but apparently the meaning of the word has.

Barry Goldwater is a paleo conservative. Dubya is a neo-conservative. Needless to say, Goldwater and Dubya don’t have alot in common. In fact, Bush is closer to LB Johnson that he is to Goldwater. The only Republicans today that align with Goldwater conservatism are the two Pauls, DeMint, and maybe a handful of others. The rest are big-government conservatives, in spite of their limited government rhetoric.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

of course, the issue was around well before the recent GOP campaign. and the issue has not been neglected or we wouldn’t be discussing it right now. there are still many american people who are interested.

We aren’t discussing that coo-coo madness. We were discussing why ordinarily sane people would even think of buying into Joseph Farah’s obsession.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Here is what the arch-conservative National Review has to say about the issue:

nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

When you can’t get the National Review to join your anti-Obama rant, you know you have slipped off the edge

When no respectable GOP newspaper or magazine will swallow the Obama-is-a-Kenyan-Moslem horse****, the true believers ought to step back and reconsider why they’re rubber room candidates.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

of course, the issue was around well before the recent GOP campaign. and the issue has not been neglected or we wouldn’t be discussing it right now. there are still many american people who are interested.

Any beyond the readership of World Net Daily?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Any beyond the readership of World Net Daily?

yes, i am positive of that!

 

[seekerz]

Look at the different fonts on the b/c and the contemptuous smiley face. Do YOU think it’s legit? As for Obama, do you think that a man who began his career in Bill Ayers’ home, listened to “Pastor” Wright for 20 years, and has hidden his entire past, med records and writings from America is honest? I don’t, and I’m not afraid to ask questions. Cordially, Rob

Yeah, right - ask away. You’re the best advertisement Obama 2012 never paid for…

 

[Nec5]

The fact that some on the right believe that the National Review and the Wall Street Journal are not sufficiently conservative just shows how far off the rails the right wing has gone. What is now considered “conservative” is so different from what was considered conservative for most of our history that I think the far right should come up with another word for it and stop tarnishing the term “conservative.”

You’re wasting your time arguing about definition. Technically, conservatives are really regressives because they want to return many things to the way they were. Then you get into things like classical liberal (challenge the status quo) vs classical conservative (preserve status quo). Heck, even the word “gay” no longer means happy or playful. It’s really a lost cause.

Just take the war issue. A traditional conservative would have wanted us to declare war, get in there and kick some tail with brutal overwhelming force, and then get out. The “conservatives” didn’t do that, did they? So who changed the definition? And does it even matter once the press begins repeating these narratives and redefinitions? Look at the word “Christian”. You’ve got churches claiming that Christ was not divine or the son of God but was a good guy. Therefore, that somehow counts as “Christian”. It’s all twisted.

I would prefer something like American Christian traditionalist, but that’s not a label likely to stick. It’s too long for one thing. I would center the label, whatever it is, on principled positions that are unchanging. Long ago, I used to think the Party Platforms did that, but that whole process is a sham.

It is not “conservatism” that has gone off the rails. It is the establishment types who prefer expediency over principle that have betrayed the root values that conservatives have traditionally espoused.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You’re wasting your time arguing about definition. Technically, conservatives are really regressives because they want to return many things to the way they were. Then you get into things like classical liberal (challenge the status quo) vs classical conservative (preserve status quo). Heck, even the word “gay” no longer means happy or playful. It’s really a lost cause.

Just take the war issue. A traditional conservative would have wanted us to declare war, get in there and kick some tail with brutal overwhelming force, and then get out. The “conservatives” didn’t do that, did they? So who changed the definition? And does it even matter once the press begins repeating these narratives and redefinitions? Look at the word “Christian”. You’ve got churches claiming that Christ was not divine or the son of God but was a good guy. Therefore, that somehow counts as “Christian”. It’s all twisted.

I would prefer something like American Christian traditionalist, but that’s not a label likely to stick. It’s too long for one thing. I would center the label, whatever it is, on principled positions that are unchanging. Long ago, I used to think the Party Platforms did that, but that whole process is a sham.

It is not “conservatism” that has gone off the rails. It is the establishment types who prefer expediency over principle that have betrayed the root values that conservatives have traditionally espoused.

great post.