Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio prove Obama's birth certificate, social security number, and selective se

reply to post by Asktheanimals

What evidence did that audio clip show?
I heard no evidence at all.
I believe that there is something stinking like rotten fish with regards to where BO was born , but this interview was as bad as an evangelical sham preachers sermon.
He starts out saying the audience was mainly retired LEOs and one congress man or senator (* I cant recall which one) & a constitutional lawyer , then he says constitutional lawyers , sheriffs, LEOs and *congress men or senators . How can singular become plural ?
Also making reference to GOD having something to do with having all these people at the same place & time listening to the presentation just reeks of sensationalism to me.
If you listen to the interviewers speech pattern and intonations you will hear the familliar tones of TV evangelist preachers.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It states that Obama is eligible under Georgia law because he is a candidate as certified by the DNC, not because he is natural born.

Oh dear, why are you telling lies about what the judge actually said? Remember when he stated

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President BarackObama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen

The judge stated Obama was a natural born citizen, why do you deny that?

This all goes back to the Wong Kim Ark thing. The Wong Kim Ark case was to certify that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth, not that he is eligible to be POTUS.
Remember the change in the manual Obama made?

So I concede on that case, but where are all the other cases you mentioned. You said there were bunches of them. And while I concede on this one, World Net Daily says it was the first case to actually be heard by the court

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status.

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This all goes back to the Wong Kim Ark thing. The Wong Kim Ark case was to certify that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth, not that he is eligible to be POTUS.

Wrong, if he had wanted to he was eligible to be President....

So I concede on that case, but where are all the other cases you mentioned

It is obvious you have not done any research at all, making statements like

No court has taken any birther case on the issue of Obama's eligibility.

So it is about time you did some research and found them.

Originally posted by Magister
Your other link states that the person who wrote the pamphlet is working for a firm that has Obama as a client.

Yes, she is now. She wasn't when she wrote the bio.

Why do you consider these sources reliable?

Because I have no reason to consider them unreliable Can you prove they are unreliable? Why don't you have any evidence to support your claims?

reply to post by hellobruce


Oh really? You are making a supposition. Wonk Kim Ark has never been certified as a candidate for the Presidency so perhaps we will never know.

Again, if there was no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen who is eligible to be POTUS, then why did Congress try to change the law?

Here is a discussion of native born and natural born as discussed by INS regarding reacquisition of persons

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

Interpretation 324.2:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.” [...] www.uscis.gov...

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

native born and natural born not the same re the INS

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Again, if there was no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen who is eligible to be POTUS, then why did Congress try to change the law?

As already explained, there are 2 types of US citizens, naturalised or naturally born. They tried to change the law to allow people like Arnie to run.

As shown, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Again, if there was no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen who is eligible to be POTUS, then why did Congress try to change the law?

As already explained, there are 2 types of US citizens, naturalised or naturally born. They tried to change the law to allow people like Arnie to run.

As shown, Obama is a natural born citizen.

Apparently there are 3 types

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.” [...] www.uscis.gov...

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com...

naturalized, native, or natural born.

I guess the court decided that barack sr not a citizen ever of the US still constituted as having conferred citizenship status to Barack or as not overruling Stanley Ann's citizenship status conferring citizenship to Barack.

I'm sure it wasn't just Arnie, it was McCain as well. Different attempts probably had several people in mind. But McCain is more Progressive anyway, and George Soros financed his campaign along with Hillary and Barack.

And again as I said and as WND said, that case you cited was the first one to be heard. All the others have been dismissed on grounds of not having merit.

Here's commentary from Citizen Wells

As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court?

citizenwells.wordpress.com... -based-on-flawed-ruling-natural-born-citizen-lies/

reply to post by Sankari

twice democratically elected

Jury: Fraud put Obama on '08 ballot
Democrat officials convicted of making up names for qualifying petition
Published: 04/26/2013 at
...Two Democrats in Indiana have been found guilty of submitting unauthorized names on the petition that placed then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential election primary ballot, meaning he likely did not qualify

www.wnd.com...

for someone with such a demeaning tone
you sure suck at fackts

wonder what else you got wrong

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I guess the court decided that barack sr not a citizen ever of the US

Who claimed he was? Just what are you on about, who said Obama's father was ever a US citizen?

still constituted as having conferred citizenship status to Barack or as not overruling Stanley Ann's citizenship status conferring citizenship to Barack.

Obama was a dual citizen when he was younger - but there is nothing to say you cannot be....

And again as I said and as WND said, that case you cited was the first one to be heard

oh dear, you stated

And of course, no court will take the cases of Obama's BC.......
What court has heard any Obama case? .......
No court has taken any birther case on the issue of Obama's eligibility.......
What this means is that the case was not tried and therefore no ruling has been made that Obama is or is not natural born...........
Just because Obama and his lawyers didn't show up doesn't mean Obama won the case, nor does it still mean he is eligible, nor does it mean that any case has been tried and a ruling passed down that Obama is eligible......

You have repeatedly stated that no court has heard any Obama case, were caught out telling porkies now you claim that it was the first case.

You really should give up now, you have no clue at all what you are posting about, as I have shown...

All the others have been dismissed on grounds of not having merit.

Please show the rulings doing that!

What about BARNETT v OBAMA?
Kerchner v. Obama?
Cook v. Good??
Taitz v. Astrue
etc etc.

Here's commentary from Citizen Wells

So your source is a anti Obama blog.... that is all you have?

reply to post by GR1ill3d

I am not saying that there will ever be a birther win...

But the Willie Wonka clip, has anyone watched that movie, you know... through the end?

Charlie won.

The Cold Case posse taking it to the imposter potus - con man - puppet marionette - let him dance in the graybar motel.
natural born

reply to post by doryinaz


If Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and just being one of the least successful Presidents ever isn't enough to oust him, does anyone really think these same tired (though likely true) allegations are going to do the job? Whether you are for or against him (or just don't care), all of the confusion regarding his origin and identity alone should be enough to make one apprehensive of this guy with his finger on the button (even born in Hawaii, he was at least for a couple of years, a dual-citizen (through his father), which alone should disqualify him, in my book). At this point though, we're really all just biding our time until Hillary is in the Oval Office, aren't we?

Originally posted by jibajaba
The Cold Case posse taking it to the imposter potus - con man - puppet marionette - let him dance in the graybar motel.
natural born

A blog post by Mario Apuzzo? Just a birther lawyer who has also lost every birther court case he has been involved in.

He really does not know much
www.obamabirthbook.com...:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/mario-apuzzo-natural-born-citizenship/

reply to post by doryinaz


First off, I believe the sheriff and his crew are absolutely correct; Obama's birth certificate stuff is obviously fake. Why our legal system does not deal with that I do not know. Our Constitution requires only a "natural born" citizen may serve as President. This parallels Roosevelt getting a third term in office. No legal term limits stopped him because no one ever attempted to upstage Washington's request before. After Roosevelt they made an actual statute. I predict the very same pattern here, after the Obamanation, they will make an actual law to submit birth certificate proof BEFORE you may run for President. But it looks like nothing will come of this while Obama holds office. Somehow I feel cheated by this but powerless to fix it.

And now... Introducing for the first time here on abovetopsecret.com... without further fanfare: The Brotherhood of Light Muse! [insert applause here]

Hi,

I am Larry Woods, The Brotherhood of Light Muse. I just realized I replied to an unusual post by "Initiate" without introducing myself to this group first. That oversight came partly as a function of the requirement to post 20 times before one may initiate a thread. What if you provide a space for intros not restricted by the 20-posts-first requirement? So I'll use this reply for my exciting intro. I call myself the Brotherhood of Light Muse. I claim no external authority for that. I will say, however, no resurrected being ever bothered to confront me about using that shtick yet. So I'll keep it.

I'm 63. I got a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction Technology from BYU in 1977. I built 55 custom homes, countless remodels, served six years as a journeyman commercial carpenter, and spent four years as a "mechanic" responsible for 21 buildings in and around Tacoma WA. I retired from construction after my business began to fade starting in late 2006. I moved from Washington state to Guthrie OK to live with my brother because I lost everything, thank you elected federal reps. Now I pursue a music career preparing my first album and my début live show, both coming in about six months (now June of 2013). I'm a singer/song writer/guitar player.

I converted to Christianity and to Mormonism in 1968 at 18. I served two years as a Mormon missionary, got married in the Temple, and produced five top caliber children and eight grandkids so far.

After 39.5 years of faithful service, tithe paying, home teaching, many "callings", and true believer study, I ran into a snag with the Mormons. I came to believe in reincarnation and Chakras and some other "esoteric" stuff. I also understood Mormon history very well by that time and realized they have not gotten a new revelation in 100 years. That made my beliefs incompatible with official Church doctrine, so I walked away — with a Temple recommend in my pocket.

Church authorities cautioned me many times as I sought to understand principles taught by Joseph Smith and other Prophets, "Stay away from the mysteries." Finally, I looked up that word, mystery, on the scripture computer program. About half the time it denotes things people do not understand, the other half God holds it out as a reward for the faithful seeker. Jesus specifically asks us to "ponder" the mysteries in our hearts. Next time anyone cautions me to avoid mysteries I will ask why they seek to deny me God's promised reward and why they want me to avoid following the admonition of Jesus. I think "Stay away from the mysteries" is a favorite of those who want to keep you in their control box! So many would-be external authorities want to control what you think and what you do.

At any rate I walked away, no crimes nor Church discipline, my mind simply opened a little too wide, I do not fit anymore. I still greatly admire the Mormons. Though I do not share every detail of belief lockstep, I share many friends and a lifetime of common experience. They still send me emails even though I now moved to Guthrie OK. I see that in one week my local Stake donated 1800 man hours (200 volunteers average 9 hours each) assisting Tornado victims in Shawnee, about an hour away from here and South East of OKC. I'll probably shock them and show up next Saturday with a flat nose shovel and a chain saw for Tornado service. One thing Mormons can teach us all — they are great at service.

My strange mix believing in God and Christ while also believing in reincarnation and other esoteric stuff alienates me from most traditional Christians. A good friend here, who works with my brother's dogs and who borrows our high speed Internet connection often, calls me antichrist because I fail to lockstep with any external authority and doctrine set. Let me inform you all up front, if Jesus shows up and teaches me something, I will question it until I understand it for myself within my own mind. I accept no teaching from ANYONE until they convince me of it legit and it makes sense inside my own mind. I believe if I accepted anything merely because "Jesus said", it would not do me a damn bit of good anyhow. So when I skeptic what you say, know I ask in love and respect, not doubting your sincerity in any way. But may I point out, my skepticism makes me an even deeper true believer, in some ways, than when I first got a testimony of Christ (a vision and some other stuff). So my modus operandi utilizes skepticism as a means to ferret out truth and to end up feeling certain within myself on the things I do accept.

One other principle of learning that appeals to me. I can accept principle as proof. Let me explain using a principle that helps convince me of God's existence. Organization results from intelligent action. Every organized thing stands as a witness of an organizer. I see organization in nature witnessing of the organizer, whom I call God. See how that works? If you describe a lever to me used within a certain context to solve a certain problem, I can believe it within my own mind because I see the principle, in my mind's eye, solving that problem. I can do this without ever seeing a lever used that way in real life. So I accept not only "see to believe"; but I also accept "understand to believe". This opens me to a far richer view of our universe. I do not restrict myself to facts as the only credible proof, in many cases, principles also make excellent "proof".

In fact, if you restrict yourself to only accept as true that which you perceive by the five senses, then do not wonder that you see nothing else. No wonder you cannot see it, you chose your own scotoma. Scotoma: a physical blind spot term used in medicine. Psychologists borrowed the term to denote a psychological blind spot. So, if you cannot accept principles as "proof" of anything, then you chose to restrict yourself very severe and you also will often not understand what I say here. Good luck with that.

So here I am looking to understand esoteric principles and otherwise devour life.
You may quote me, If you ain't having fun, you ain't doing it right!

Your brother,
Larry Woods

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by doryinaz

 

At this point though, we're really all just biding our time until Hillary is in the Oval Office, aren't we?

Some of us are. But others tired of the circus that is American politics are trying to defend the Constitution (remember that piece of paper?), which - whether you like it or not - says that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen, that is, born of TWO American parents. Being born of a British father and an American mother, together with giving up ordinary American citizenship in order to obey the law operating then in Indonesia prohibiting dual citizenship just does not cut it, I am afraid. Deny it all you like. But it won't change the facts.

The thread is only 8 pages, come on people. I got my popcorn, keep this going.

Seriously though, it IS mildly entertaining to see this kind of thread pop up every 3-4 months. "Oh no, Arpaio has this now! This is surely the end of Obama!" has been the cry of the haters ever since Arpaio started his witch hunt. They still cant get over it, that Obama was actually born in Hawaii, that he is a citizen of the United States, and that he is perfectly eligible to be President.

If the haters had actually educated themselves on these facts and concentrated their efforts on the job that Obama did or did not do while in his first term, they might have been able to help someone else win. But instead of something constructive, they chose to beat a dead horse for the thousandth time.

Originally posted by micpsi
Some of us are. But others tired of the circus that is American politics are trying to defend the Constitution (remember that piece of paper?), which - whether you like it or not - says that a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen, that is, born of TWO American parents.

Proof please. Where does the Constitution say that?

Time for a reality check:

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide 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."

Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.

The first several presidents prior to Martin Van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.

(Source).

Please notice that the Constitution does not define 'natural born citizen.'

Being born of a British father and an American mother, together with giving up ordinary American citizenship in order to obey the law operating then in Indonesia prohibiting dual citizenship just does not cut it, I am afraid. Deny it all you like. But it won't change the facts.

Obama did not lose or give up his American citizenship at any time.

reply to post by godembryo


You state that the birth certificate is obviously fake, in the very first paragraph of your post. You can prove this right?

When you are so obviously wrong in the very first paragraph of your post, how is someone supposed to find the motivation to read the rest of what you have to say?

reply to post by micpsi


I personally agree with you, and think that the Constitution spells it out pretty clearly, but since this argument has been made for the past few years, and gone nowhere, I fail to see any indication that fate will change. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Obama. The law is the law, and by most logical interpretations, he simply isn't eligible. Hawaiian birth or not.

Too much to lose at this point. For example, let's say his legitimacy as President was overturned. Does that now invalidate everything he ever signed or enacted? That is a pretty slippery slope to go down. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare. It's probably the only reason these attempts get blocked at every turn. Nobody wants to deal with the fallout when they can just wait a few years.

reply to post by flyswatter

You state that the birth certificate is obviously fake, in the very first paragraph of your post. You can prove this right?

Released versions all have photoshop elements, but then, they are digital images, so just resizing could give such elements. I think the birth certificate is a poor angle though. Birth announcements were in the microfiche archives of the papers, so kind of reinforces the point he was born in Hawaii, no? The better path is the non-natural born citizen one, but even though this is fairly clear in the Constitution, there are other interpretations for the definition, and these interpretations are what allow Obama to fit the criteria.