Sheriff Joe and the "Birther" Argument

[Warfish]

Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent,' Sheriff Joe Arpaio says


Published July 17, 2012

Associated Press



PHOENIX – Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is definitely fraudulent.

Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.

Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and his field of work or study were completed.

Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but that the codes were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the president's birth certificate.

Zullo said a news reporter who has helped out in the probe let investigators listen in on an interview he concluded of the former state worker.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on Arpaio's allegations.

The Arizona Democratic Party says in a statement that Arpaio's investigation is intended to draw attention away from problems within his own agency, such as hundreds of sex-crimes cases that the sheriff's office failed to adequately investigate over a three-year period.

So-called "birthers" maintain Obama is ineligible to be president because, they contend, he was born in Kenya.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship.

Obama released a copy of his long-form birth certificate in an attempt to quell citizenship questions.

Courts have rebuffed lawsuits over the issue.

I contend that this line of attack by the right will cost more votes amongst the vital moderate/independant/undecided block that will sway this election, than it will win over in November.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I contend that this line of attack by the right will cost more votes amongst the vital moderate/independant/undecided block that will sway this election, than it will win over in November.

Who is Sheriff Joe and why does he have a 'posse'?

2nd portion retracted because of chiefs

[JetPotato]

Birther, don'tcha come around here any more

[Tucker134]

I don't believe it'll cost votes at all. Obama will lose this election, & it won't be that close IMO. All the polls that show them neck/neck are likely voters who have already made up their mind. Undecided's almost never go to the incumbent, & EVERY POLL of independents show them siding w Romney- this piece of trash is going down & we can all take a collective sigh of relief & build the economy AND reduce the deficit

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Any "conservative" who changes their vote to B. Hussein over this matter is not much of a conservative.

Reminds me of libs defending the Rosenbergs

don't hear much about their innocence these days-they've moved on to Mumia

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Any "conservative" who changes their vote to B. Hussein over this matter is not much of a conservative.

Reminds me of libs defending the Rosenbergs

don't hear much about their innocence these days

A Conservative wouldn't.

But other, less partisan or informed voters, might.

And their vote counts too, regardless of why they cast it.

Which is my point, the "Birthter Issue" does not win over any new votes, but could cost you votes.

Just my view, of course. The time for "birtherism" in my view, is after the election is over and Obama has lost, when a congressional investigation can determine the truth of it one way or the other via congressional subpoena.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A Conservative wouldn't.

But other, less partisan or informed voters, might.

And their vote counts too, regardless of why they cast it.

Which is my point, the "Birthter Issue" does not win over any new votes, but could cost you votes.

Just my view, of course. The time for "birtherism" in my view, is after the election is over and Obama has lost, when a congressional investigation can determine the truth of it one way or the other via congressional subpoena.

The era of fighting Chicago-style politics by merely taking the high ground is over. Proxies on both sides will get down and dirty as they please and that's just too bad for the left and their sympathisers who are not used to pushback.

Just imagine for a second if other incontrovertible evidence was discovered to disqualify 0. (Due to his father's citizenship status, he has always been ineligible anyway, but no matter)

Technically it would effect a Constitutional Crisis of sorts (e. g. are the laws / treaties / executive orders B. Hussein signed binding) No one seems to know how this would be handled.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

The era of fighting Chicago-style politics by merely taking the high ground is over. Proxies on both sides will get down and dirty as they please and that's just too bad for the left and their sympathisers who are not used to pushback.

I have no issue with that. The issue is (as I see it), does "pushing back" on the specific "birther" issue create a net gain or a net loss of (R) votes in November.

It is my continued belief that the net effect of birtherism is a net loss for (R) in votes.

Just imagine for a second if other incontrovertible evidence was discovered to disqualify 0. (Due to his father's citizenship status, he has always been ineligible anyway, but no matter)

Technically it would effect a Constitutional Crisis of sorts (i.e. are the laws / treaties / executive orders B. Hussein signed binding) No one seems to know how this would be handled.

They'd figure it out.

But the reality is, at this point, nothing is going to "prove" he was ineligible. So it's a wasted effort to think about how it would be handled. He IS the President now and it isn't changing till Nov. ((R) hopes).

Put in simple terms, if our Federal Govt. cannot even correctly evaluate a few basic identification documents when signing off on a Presidential candidate we have larger issues that just Obama.

Frankly, I think Obama is playing the birthers for political gain, and has been since day 1.

I'm curious, can you explain the portion regarding his fathers citizenship status and how that relates to Obama's inelligibillity. I hadn't yet heard that twist on the tale.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I have no issue with that. The issue is (as I see it) does "pushing back" on the specific "birther" issue create a new gain or a net loss of (R) votes in November.

It is my continued belief that the new effect or birtherism is a net loss for (R) in votes.



They'd figure it out.

But the reality is, at this point, nothing is going to "prove" he was ineligible. So it's a wasted effort to think about how it would be handled. He IS the President now and it isn't changing till Nov. ((R) hopes).

Put in simple terms, if our Federal Govt. cannot even correctly evaluate a few basic identification documents when signing off on a Presidential candidate we have larger issues that just Obama.

Frankly, I think Obama is playing the birthers for political gain, and has been since day 1.

I'm curious, can you explain the portion regarding his fathers citizenship status and how that relates to Obama's inelligibillity. I hadn't yet heard that twist on the tale.

As we know, Section 1 of Article Two of the US Constitution 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.

Never mind the 14 years consecutive or total bit, WTH is a natural born Citizen?

"Natural born citizenship" was defined in "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" (Emmerich de Vatell, 1758), used as a scholarly reference by the authors of the Constitution. Within:

"... natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ... in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country".

Because B. Hussein Sr. was a citizen of Britain via Kenya, this would certainly disqualify 0.

SCOTUS cases that cite Natural Born and do not challenge the de Vattel definition:

The Venus (also cites de Vattel)
Shanks v. Dupont
Minor v. Happersett
Wong Kim Ark v. U. S.

But also via the damaging Wong Kim Ark decision (that completely ignored the 18th Amendment Congressional Record which it contradicted) libs mistakenly believe proof of US birth seems to trump, if not invalidate this foreign born parents qualification - like "Anchor Baby" status, regrettably, the matter has never been decided conclusively. That is why the assertion 0 was born in HI is very critical. Additionally, Natural born has never been used by the SCOTUS ever outside of the context of, those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Long story short, 0 had and has stood uncontested as a Senate and Presidential candidate through and for PC considerations. Although some states have removed some 3rd party candidates from the ballot no major party President or VP candidate has been yanked once on the ballot- this would pretty much be an issue settled in Congress, which won't happen now.

[SafetyBlitz]

Keep talking about it = 4 more years.

[SafetyBlitz]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...ity_litigation

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...ity_litigation

Thats a list and a half.

Interesting reading, that and some of the links.

What I wonder is how does this not cover Obama, even if he was born in Kenya, if his Mother was a U.S. Citizen?

Naturalization Act of 1790

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase "natural born citizen".

If I'm reading this right, it would say that if Obama was born in Kenya, of a U.S. Citizen parent (Mom in this case), he is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Thats a list and a half.

Interesting reading, that and some of the links.

What I wonder is how does this not cover Obama, even if he was born in Kenya, if his Mother was a U.S. Citizen?



If I'm reading this right, it would say that if Obama was born in Kenya, of a U.S. Citizen parent (Mom in this case), he is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.

Nope. It's the British/Kenyan father that disqualifies him.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Nope. It's the British/Kenyan father that disqualifies him.

Speaks volumes that your side lost to him.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

I don't believe it'll cost votes at all. Obama will lose this election, & it won't be that close IMO. All the polls that show them neck/neck are likely voters who have already made up their mind. Undecided's almost never go to the incumbent, & EVERY POLL of independents show them siding w Romney- this piece of trash is going down & we can all take a collective sigh of relief & build the economy AND reduce the deficit

LOL

This will be done by cutting taxes 20% and increasing the Pentagon budget.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Nope. It's the British/Kenyan father that disqualifies him.

Except your case is based on a pre-US foreign definition of a term, and the counter is based on U.S. Law (Naturalization Act of 1790) which does not appear to agree with that definition by my reading.

In any event, I just don't see whats to be gained from this avenue, politically speaking.

[SafetyBlitz]

JungleShift -


The fourteenth amendment

Section 1.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Frequent Flyer]

The guy has already acknowledged his biography is BS. Made up jobs, made up girlfriends, made up incidents.

Why is it such a stretch to think that a habitual liar would also be lying about his birth certificate? The Kenyan drunk knocked Stanley up when she was what, 17? Who knows what his real name is.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Speaks volumes that your side lost to him.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

Well as usual that made a hell of a lot of sense.

Hey Rainblow, if his mother was Kenyan and his dad was Kansan that would disqualify him too.

What does that have to do with "losing"?

[quantum]

Since when does Sheriff Joe determine Republican positions? Anyone who ties this directly to the party can only be a libtard.