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

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is amazing how many times “bread crumbs” lead to the truth. I am only interested in the truth.

Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya and she was there.

The Kenyan ambassador says he was born in Kenya.
And they are standards for virtue, truth and authenticity. :rolleyes: If at all it can be proven they truly said those things, what do you know of their backgrounds, motives, history…? Funny how no one seems interested in investigating them…?
 
Selective editing - some people become ‘media’ celebrities perfecting that art. 😃
 
So the witness in invalid? She either was present or she was not, no matter her relationship.
 
I’m okay with the Skrull theory, though I’d become a true believer if I could only get some DNA evidence from a reputable lab…
 
So, if true, you do not care? A Constitutional violation and fraud is OK with you? Would you feel the same if it was Bush?
Well, was the U.S. Constitution followed in the 2000 Election? Now to be fair, since the House had a Republican majority they probably would have elected Bush. But no where is the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned. Just saying.
3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8
 
FWIW,
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
  • There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Now one would think that had this really been a problem for Obama, he could have had Congress (when he had the super majority) amend the law so he could be qualified retroactively. I didn’t vote for him and I never will, but I’m just making that observation.
 
Prejudiced and bigoted? Because they won’t report on a non-story by people who have made a judgment that the president wasn’t qualified to become president and *then *obsessed themselves with finding ‘proof’ of that? Your comment was meant to be satire right?
Show us some video of the actual piece of paper, not the digital representation with 9 layers that was finally released in April 2011.
 
Show us some video of the actual piece of paper, not the digital representation with 9 layers that was finally released in April 2011.
Don’t you know? Anyone can create a video purporting to show anything…Sorry, no cure for your dilemma I’m afraid - as suggested by a previous poster, possibly even angelic intervention would not suffice to quiet the inquiring minds.
 
meanwhile, it is being reported that an obama “fanatic” has made death threats against arpaio and his family. arpaio has shown courage in investigating this issue when others just ignored it. it has been the elephant in the living room. i pray for the safety of arpaio and his family. he has a lot of critics - not just over this issue.
 
meanwhile, it is being reported that an obama “fanatic” has made death threats against arpaio and his family.
Fanatics are everywhere, aren’t they? Fools are out there too.

John
 
  1. You don’t represent the whole of the conspiracists. More of them accuse him of being a foreigner than find fault with his records.
  2. You are right about that last. I’m a horse’s a** for bothering with that fairy tale, so will say no more about it until that time that hard, concrete evidence is produced of Obama’s ineligibility.
as for point 2 - those are your words. 🙂 i might disagree with someone else’s opinion, but i definitely wouldn’t call them “the hind end of a horse”.
 
Don’t you know? Anyone can create a video purporting to show anything…Sorry, no cure for your dilemma I’m afraid - as suggested by a previous poster, possibly even angelic intervention would not suffice to quiet the inquiring minds.
How about we see the piece of paper for the very first time, then we’ll decide. Is that too much to ask in an alleged democracy?
 
How about we see the piece of paper for the very first time, then we’ll decide. Is that too much to ask in an alleged democracy?
Yes, it is too much to ask. The president is entitled to the same rights as you: let the proper authorities verify his documents just like they do for everyone or let every single citizen submit their long form BC for authentication. That’s how a democracy would work…I think you’re confusing this with an autocracy or a I-demand-you-please-me-o-cracy! :D:D
 
How about we see the piece of paper for the very first time, then we’ll decide. Is that too much to ask in an alleged democracy?
👍👍 that is all we are asking. to see the REAL document. not a document that has been tampered with.
 
Oh, Arpaio says…I forgot. Hey, have you asked him to check the authenticity of your birth papers?
Maybe in Arizona he just got so used to saying, “Papers please” to people he forgot to stop with his jurisdiction.
 
Maybe in Arizona he just got so used to saying, “Papers please” to people he forgot to stop with his jurisdiction.
That must be it. Sounds like he needs a position that widens the scope of his jurisdiction…Arpaio for VP, anyone? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top