[From article]
“The media just wants to come destroy people’s credibility,” he said. “They’re trying to vet [investigators] when they should be vetting the next presidential candidate of the United States.”
[. . .]
“Our system is broken because the vetting process used to rely on the free press. We don’t have a free press any more,” he said.
[. . .]
“To paraphrase another favorite Reagan quotation, ‘It isn’t so much that the mainstream media are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so,’” she added.
[. . .]
if the certificate is indeed an intentional forgery, we have witnessed the greatest fraud of the century,” she said.
“In my local paper, there was not even a single line devoted to the posse’s stunning assertions. What happened to ‘Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The posted birth certificate of a sitting president a possible forgery!’”
[. . .]
Potentially, a major crime has been committed at the highest levels of our government, and the media attacked the messengers.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/did-threats-silence-media-on-obama-probe/
DID THREATS SILENCE MEDIA ON OBAMA PROBE?
Stunner! Sources say warnings were to not report on Sheriff Joe's results
March 7, 2012
Bob Unruh
* * *
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/arpaio-investigation-obama-might-be-kenyan/
ARPAIO INVESTIGATION: OBAMA MIGHT BE KENYAN
Records that could document status mysteriously missing
WND
March 9, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Obama has show his birth certificate twice, short form and long form. He has shown both the images of both of those and the physical copies of both of those. THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii have stated that the facts on them are accurate. The facts are further confirmed by the birth notices in the newspapers (always sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii and never placed by relatives) and by a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth and writing home about (to her father, named Stanley about the birth that day to a woman named Stanley). Obama’s Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii and in another interview that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
There is no evidence that Obama or his mother traveled in 1961. There are no documents in Kenya or anywhere else showing that Obama was born there or that Obama’s mother was there in 1961. It costs THOUSANDS of dollars to get from Hawaii to any foreign country and back, and it was a long, difficult and risky trip during pregnancy.
Despite the absurdity of his being born outside of the USA, Obama has shown his birth certificate that shows that he WAS born in the USA, and it has been further confirmed by the birth notices, Etc. The Republican candidates for president were all allegedly born in places that are a lot closer to foreign countries than Hawaii, and they have not shown their birth certificates AT ALL.
Other research done on this issue:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-review-a-question-of-eligibility/#more-16786
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-conspiracy-theories-blog-launches-investigation-into-sheriff-joes-cold-case-posse/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-1/
http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/on-the-release-of-report-from-sheriff-joe-arpaio-stating-barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
The DOH of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it.
All of your comments are addressed in Jerome Corsi's new book. "Where's The Birth Certificate." An issue seldom addressed by MSM is the words of Article 2, Section 1, "natural born Citizen," which differs from native born citizen.
Re: ""natural born Citizen," which differs from native born citizen. "
YES it does, in this way. There are two kinds of a citizen, and only two kind, a naturalized citizen and a Natural Born Citizen.
The only kind of a US citizen who is not eligible to become president is a naturalized citizen. All others, over the age of 35 etc, are Natural Born Citizens and hence are eligible.
Here is how the term Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA in 1803, which is very shortly after the Constitution went into effect:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
Notice that it refers only to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within a state."
And here is how it was used in 1829:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And here is how Ronald Reagan's attorney general used it a few years ago:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
At this point you may be thinking of quoting the standard birther myth that that there have been four Supreme Court cases that ruled that a NBC requires two citizen parents. However, this is simply not true. Not one of those cases ruled any such thing. Sadly, the birthers have deliberately cut the quotations. For example in their citation of Minor vs Happersett, they simply cut the part about the court not having to decide the matter--and hence it did not decide.
The KEY ruling was the Wong Kim Ark case, which ruled (six to two, one not voting):
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Notice how similar that is to what Meese and Rawle wrote.
Oh, and since Obama was born in Hawaii, as has been proven overwhelmingly, he (like all the other US citizens who were born in the USA) is a Natural Born US Citizen.
You say, "since Obama was born in Hawaii, as has been proven overwhelmingly, he (like all the other US citizens who were born in the USA) is a Natural Born US Citizen." Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Being born in the US does not make a person natural born. Corsi claims the state of Hawaii has NOT proved where his birth took place. All births in Hawaii in 1961 had long form certificates. But there is none for Obama. There is an innocent explanation if he was born at home and his grandparents registered the birth. But that is just their words, which is what Corsi says. But if you want to discuss this, Jerome Corsi did all the detailed research. You may want to read his book and see what he focuses on, then discuss it with him. Here's a previous entry on this blog to Corsi and his book.
http://enoughroom.blogspot.com/2012/01/wheres-birth-certificate-jerome-corsi.html
Re: "orsi claims the state of Hawaii has NOT proved where his birth took place. All births in Hawaii in 1961 had long form certificates. But there is none for Obama. "
But there is.
Obama has shown his long form birth certificate, both the physical copy of it (passed around in the White House press room) and he posted it. The DOH of Hawaii stated that she had seen it being copied and that the copy was accurate and that was what she gave to Obama's lawyer. And the physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it and feel the seal (on the back, where it is supposed to be).
THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate, and they are further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which in those days were ALWAYS sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii. The papers never took birth ads or notices of birth in 1961, only the notices sent by the DOH) and this is still further confirmed by a witness who recalled being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii and writing home about it.
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate that was passed around in the White House Press room, and the statement of the reporter who photographed it that she had felt the raised seal:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of Obama's short form birth certificate, front and back.
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Here is confirmation that it is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
This was all posted above, starting with "Obama has shown his birth certificate twice..."
Re: "But there is none for Obama. There is an innocent explanation if he was born at home and his grandparents registered the birth."
No need for that. Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, as his birth certificate says, as former governor of Hawaii said, as the current governor of Hawaii said, as he said in his book, as his sister always said (she was misquoted once by UPI, but she always said it) and as Obama wrote in his letter to Kapiolani on its Centenial--which Kapiolani published.
What Corsi and Arpaio say are not exactly objective.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Obama has shown both his short form and long form birth certificates The facts on them were repeatedly confirmed by officials in Hawaii--THREE Republican officials and several Democrats.
The birth certificate is still further confirmed by the birth notices in the newspapers (which only were sent to the papers by the Department of Health of Hawaii; the papers did not accept notices from relatives or birth notice advertising in 1961)
In addition to the birth certificate (Obama showed both images and physical copies of the short form and long form, and the latter was passed around in the White House press room), there is the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were always sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii; Hawaii papers never accepted notices by relatives in 1961.) And there is a witness who wrote home after being told of the birth, and Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Hawaii repeatedly in the taped interview and said that the first that her family had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii in another interview. The facts on Obama's birth certificate were repeatedly confirmed by THREE Republican and several Democrat officials in Hawaii.
Obama was not born at home. He was born in Kapiolani Hospital, as his long form birth certificate shows. He said Kapiolani in his book. His sister also always said Kapiolani. Both the former Republican and the current Democrat governor of Hawaii have said that he was born in Kapiolani. The witness said Kapiolani, and the letter that Obama sent to Kapiolani for its centennial, and that was published by the hospital, said Kapiolani.
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate that was passed around in the White House Press room, and the statement of the reporter who photographed it that she had felt the raised seal:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of Obama's short form birth certificate, front and back.
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Here is confirmation that it is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
Jerome Corsi is the expert. Your standards differ from his. A news article is not evidence. Many people live in the world of news articles, planted by public relations firms and professionals like David Axelrod. They are seldom based on rules of evidence that are used for admitting facts in courts. Corsi says the statements by Hawaii officials are not based on evidence. This is a legal issue. Statements in news articles by biased reporters linked to Obama or his acolytes in the media are unreliable. Arpaio applied investigative techniques for fighting crime to this issue, that was brought to his attention by residents in the county where he has jurisdiction. The reaction of media is to attack him personally rather than to address the issue. Personal attacks, threats and censoring his claims only add to the questions about the birth certificate. Corsi raised a large number of rational questions in his book. Personal attacks and propaganda hurt your case. There is no limit to how deceptive government can be. Politicians are not known for truth and facts. They are known for lies and deception. Obama is a deceiver, and not a very good one. No one in or out of government ever submitted evidence of Obama's eligibility to run for President. The Democratic Party submitted one form for Hawaii and one for the other 49 states due to state laws which govern putting names on ballots. You are a believer or a propagandist.
Re: "Corsi says the statements by Hawaii officials are not based on evidence. "
But what is the evidence that Corsi is an impartial expert?
The THREE Republican officials in Hawaii are impartial because they spoke before the election. The clerk, who prepared the short form birth certificate from the document in the files was impartial. The fact that there were birth notices in the newspapers was recorded in two different newspapers and in 1961--when they had no reason to lie.
AND there is not a shred of evidence that Obama's mother traveled outside the USA in 1961 or that a travel document (passport, being entered on his mother's passport or visa) was issued for Obama.
Re: "No one in or out of government ever submitted evidence of Obama's eligibility to run for President."
That was because there is no law that says that evidence should be submitted, or if so, to which body. No evidence was submitted for Bush, or Clinton, or Bush41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford or any president.
Re: "You are a believer or a propagandist."
Calling names convinces no one.
Why not try to explain HOW Obama could have been born outside of the USA without a US travel document in 1961 but with a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961.
You may want to read Corsi's book. He is better equipped to discuss the subject with you.
Re: "You may want to read Corsi's book."
I have, and he is not impartial. He hates Obama.
And is claims of the birth certificate being forged are based on the speculation of other birther "experts."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Re reading Corsi's book.
I did, and he is not objective. He is trying to "swiftboat' Obama, the way that he did with Kerry.
Post a Comment