BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

I'll make a deal with birthers. If Obama loses the presidential elections this year, then he will no longer be your president from February 2013 onwards. How does that sound for ya'll? Sounds like a fair deal to me.

I'm a believer that it is fake, but this is a matter that should have been brought up when he was running in 2008, not in 2012.

Not that the Constitution matters anymore hahaha

reply to post by kyviecaldges


And you're lying because Hawaii officials states that it is authentic.

HONOLULU (The Blaze/AP) — The state of Hawaii has verified President Barack Obama‘s birth records to Arizona’s elections chief after a nearly three-month back and forth that Arizona officials said could have ended without the incumbent’s name on its November ballot. Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, told The Associated Press in an email late Tuesday that the matter is resolved after Hawaii gave Arizona the verification it was looking for.

www.theblaze.com...


Which also proves Arpaio a liar as well. Doesn't he say that Hawaii never Authenticated the bc for him and never cooperated with him?

reply to post by TrueAmerican

The bottom line is the WH had to forge the certificate because they can't show the real one, because it would tell the truth. I mean what else is there? That is the bottom line. Obama DOES have something to hide. And it would probably disqualify him as POTUS.

And the GOP is ignoring this because they don't think it can help them win an election?

They actually want Obama in 2012 for President?

Is the GOP a secret front for the Democratic party? Think this through. THink about it. What is wrong with the GOP? Why aren't they all over this?

Think about it. Let it marinate a while before you respond.

You may not like the answer you come up with, but the answer it is, and it lays right before you.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Natural born?

He was born in Hawaii. That's the end of the story.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'll make a deal with birthers. If Obama loses the presidential elections this year, then he will no longer be your president from February 2013 onwards. How does that sound for ya'll? Sounds like a fair deal to me.

No deal ...........Prosecution is in order whether he is in or out of office...........a great number of crimes have been committed in the name of this cover-up, and for the illegal purpose of protecting the president. These crimes are the responsibility of all of those involved in lying to Congress and much more.

For my own part - I am hoping not for a trial headed by corrupt Zionist judges and lawyers in a totally corrupted justice system, but a TRIBUNAL such as what took place following the French Revolution and as we saw in more modern times at Nuremberg and all that that entails.........

reply to post by kyviecaldges




The white house release of the pdf was to show the American people that he has one.
It wasn't intended for scrutiny of validation. It can't be because it's digital. His lawyer would agree.

He didn't publicly release it as a matter of legality. He did it to dampen the issue.

Now other than a pdf, how is he supposed to show it? Bring it around the nation door to door?

Enough said from me on the birther issue.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'll make a deal with birthers. If Obama loses the presidential elections this year, then he will no longer be your president from February 2013 onwards. How does that sound for ya'll? Sounds like a fair deal to me.

No deal

...........Prosecution is in order whether he is in or out of office...........a number of crimes have been committed in the name of a cover-up and for the illegal purpose of protecting the president. These crimes are the responsibility of all of those involved in lying to Congress etc

For my own part - I am hoping not for a trial headed by corrupt Zionist judges and lawyers in a totally corrupted justice system, but a TRIBUNAL such as we saw at Nuremberg and all that that entails..........

Ok sir, would you like to give us a rundown of these crimes that have been committed in the name of a cover-up and the illegal purpose of protecting the president? I'm all ears! Or eyes in this case, I guess. Whatever.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I do apologize kyviecaldge, you indeed did not say that his lawyer stated the birth certificate was fraudulent. I don't like the lies and misinformation out there being posted by birthers such as yourself. I'm going to be the bigger man and admit to my mistake.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes it has. You the long form birth certificate and then you have numerous verifications from Hawaiian health officials:

"President Obama was born in Honolulu and his birth certificate is valid," Joshua A. Wisch, a special assistant to Hawaii's attorney general, said in a statement. "Regarding the latest allegations from a sheriff in Arizona, they are untrue, misinformed, and misconstrue Hawaii law."

I am going to repeat this one more time.

The way a court works is like this.

If someone has a complaint that they take to court and this claim is patently absurd, then obvious evidence is entered into record that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the claim is absurd.

This evidence, obvious evidence that contradicts a claim, is called prima fascia evidence.

Prima fascia evidence is used to dispel a claim that is... patently absurd... in order to render a summary judgement.

A summary judgement is given in a case where the claim is either proven or disproven beyond the shadow of a doubt before trial proceedings begin.
This type of judgement is often rendered because it solves frivolous lawsuits and avoids unnecessary trials.

When the judge in New Jersey allowed the case in question to proceed to trial, Barry's lawyers had the perfect opportunity to enter into evidence all that supposed undeniable crap that you posted, as well as allow any number of Hawaiian officials to testify, testimony that according to you would be prima fascia evidence, in order to render a summary judgement in favor of Barry.

Well,, guess what junior?

This didn't happen.

What did happen was Barry's lawyer, a young nubile Ms. Hill, put forth the argument that the long form birth certificate that you seem to think actually proves something is actually nothing but an internet copy that is totally invalid in a court of law.
And her winning argument was this-

Despite the US Constitution stating that only natural born citizens are eligible for the presidency, New Jersey law says nothing to that effect.
So Barry has no need to prove that he is a natural born citizen.

This has never been proven.

Once again I prove you wrong in spades.

I can only imagine exactly why no state official testified on behalf of Barry's birth in Hawaii....

I am sure that it had nothing to do with the fact that it would be perjury?!?!?!?!?
Whatever.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

And you're lying because Hawaii officials states that it is authentic.

However for some strange reason they won't say this under oath.

It's not like a politician would lie or anything like that.

reply to post by axslinger

You have lost your ability to think independently.

You have described you and the rest of the birthers perfectly, star for you.

Originally posted by Trappenin
I'm a believer that it is fake, but this is a matter that should have been brought up when he was running in 2008, not in 2012.

Not that the Constitution matters anymore hahaha

It was.

The media was burying it and people were already lining up to get something through the court system and they all got held off until after election day. There were plenty of filings in the courts prior to election day.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
If someone has a complaint that they take to court and this claim is patently absurd, then obvious evidence is entered into record that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the claim is absurd.

In other words, what you're saying is that if somebody makes an accusation or allegation in court, it is up to the defendant to prove that those allegations are unfounded? That is not how the courts work sir. The courts have never the less addressed the accusations made by birthers, Farrar v. Obama of Georgia is one such good example where the judge had addressed the accusations concerning fraud. Maybe you should actually take the time to read these court cases, I've already given you the courtesy of linking a number of them to you, and they are not from biased websites, many of them are actual court transcripts.

When the judge in New Jersey allowed the case in question to proceed to trial, Barry's lawyers had the perfect opportunity to enter into evidence

This is the key problem with birthers, their accusations have been addressed in the courts time and time again, and yet birthers repeat their accusations in another court afterwards. The courts have already addressed the question of Obama's eligibility after more than 100 lawsuits. They do not need to be addressed time and time again. If you refuse to believe or accept the decision of the courts on the matter then that is nobody elses problem.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I understand what you're saying.

I must ask though.
Why do you feel Obama or anyone from Hawaii must openly declare in court that the official story and all accompanying documents are legit?
This has never been done before. Why the incessant need now?

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Well then riddle me this batman, if it is not even valid evidence in a court of law then why would any tool with half a lick of sense try to use the same birth certificate to convince the people of a legitimate claim to natural born citizenship?

Because he isn't submitting it as evidence to a court of law.

He is displaying it so millions of people in America can see it...easiest way to do that is to scan it in and put it on the internet. Then we have morons saying "oh look...layers...it's fake"...even though it has been shown that layers are created when a pdf is enhanced.

Then we have not so brilliant illogical people like you attempting at making a logical statement saying "It's not valid evidence in a court of law THUS it is fake".

You are making a tool out of yourself...nothing you say makes one bit of logical sense and you are just re-hashing old debunked Birther LIES.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


WTF does saying it under oath have to do with anything? And what oath? What office? What court?

They don't need to. The onus is on YOU to prove that it is a fake. YOU ARE THE ONES MAKING THE CLAIMS! Stop trying to turn this on them, it is not on them, it is on YOU AND ONLY YOU!

And if they did you birthers wouldn't accept it ANYWAY!

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Despite the US Constitution stating that only natural born citizens are eligible for the presidency,

This is probably my last post to you on this topic, because you have a real habit of ignoring the evidence and repeating debunked claims. First of all, the constitution does not define what exactly a natural born citizen is, that is left up to the courts to intepret, and they've done so on numerous occasions:

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office

www.scribd.com...

Voeltz v. Obama

I have reviewed and considered the legal authority submitted by the plaintiff and the Defendants on this issue and conclude as a matter of law that this allegation, if true, would not make the candidate ineligible for office. Cited Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana.

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“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,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization

www.law.cornell.edu...

Now, regarding whether or not Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii, he has done so through presenting both his long form and short form birth certificates, both verified by Hawaiian officials. He is to date the only president in history to do so.

At this point the only thing that will satisfy you and the others on the matter is if Obama leaves office, because deep down you've already made up your mind. Now this may happen in January of 2013 (the start of next year), but then again it may not. Either way, Obama is not going away because of the fact that a portion of the population such as yourself here don't personally like him.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

WTF does saying it under oath have to do with anything? And what oath? What office? What court?

They don't need to. The onus is on YOU to prove that it is a fake. YOU ARE THE ONES MAKING THE CLAIMS! Stop trying to turn this on them, it is not on them, it is on YOU AND ONLY YOU!

And if they did you birthers wouldn't accept it ANYWAY!

But they can't...because they have absolutely no evidence.

So after they join a thread and their "evidence" is smacked down by many people...they fall back on the "Well why won't Obama just prove it?" argument.

They are so illogical...it is unbelievable.

Birther: That is a fake document and Obama is not eligible
Sane Person: Prove it.
Birther: Isn't it obvious?
Sane Person: No...prove it.
Bither: Well, if it isn't fake Obama would just prove that it is authentic.
Sane Person: WTF????
Birther: That is a fake document and Obama is not elgible.
....