Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 620

Thread: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

  1. #581
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Democrats To Boycott Effort To Remove Barack Obama From Georgia Ballot
    January 25, 2012

    Democrats, including the attorney representing President Barack Obama, have made a last-minute decision to boycott the Thursday hearing to consider a “birther” effort to remove Obama from the March 6 presidential primary ballot.

    “They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state Democratic spokesman Eric Gray on Wednesday night.

    Last week, in a surprise ruling, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Read more background here from my AJC colleague Bill Rankin.

    Among tomorrow’s no-shows will be Michael Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney serving as counsel to Obama. He’s written a letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, asking him to intervene and bring the circus to a halt.

    Among those pressing the action is state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross. But many ranking Republicans are doing their best to keep their distance.

    Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:

    “Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

    “This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

    “In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

    “We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

    “In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”

  2. #582
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Results Of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing In Georgia
    January 27, 2012

    Watch the entire proceeding on video here: Video Of Georgia Obama Eligibility Hearing

    Today’s proceedings generally were about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, and more specifically about Obama’s eligibility to be on Georgia’s 2012 Presidential Election state ballot. Three separate challenges were made to said eligibility, including one by “birther” rock star Orly Taitz. It is safe to say that history was made today.

    Big shocker: Obama did not even show up today. Guess he was too busy campaigning in Nevada and Colorado for his re-election bid. Heck, he didn’t even bother to send his attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski to deliver the necessary documents to the courthouse. But apparently, a lot of concerned Americans did show up, as the Atlanta courthouse was crowded.

    To recap what has happened with this case during the past few weeks, Mr. Jablonski has tried very hard to stop this case one way or another. First he attempted to have the case dismissed, then he said it simply was not relevant to the president, then he argued that as the law stands the states do not actually have the power to determine who appears on their individual ballots (yeah, and the Pope is a Muslim), and finally said that his client was simply too preoccupied with his responsibilities as President to give a damn about the case. In short, he found himself continually having to change the story of his client.

    However, the Georgia court rejected every one and all of these excuses. Just yesterday, Mr. Jablonski sent out a letter to the secretary of state in which he declared that the case was simply not to be heard and that he and his client would effectively boycott these proceedings. Hours later, Mr. Brian Kemp, Secretary of the Great State of Georgia, responded by saying that Obama and Jablonski were free to not show up at court but would nevertheless be doing so at their own peril.

    Of course, Mr. Kemp is wrong since Obama is the president, right? Shouldn’t he be above the law? I mean, it is pretty likely that someone like you or I would get away with behaving like them if we were subpoenaed to appear in court, right?

    Court was in session at 9 am sharp; proceedings began with the judge meeting privately with all attorneys associated with the case (you know, at least those who showed up) for more than twenty minutes. According to various sources, he told them that since Obama was not present that he would be issuing a default judgment in their favor; he also initially wanted to end the case right then and there. However, the attorneys insisted on holding speedy hearings in which witnesses could testify and evidence would be entered into the court’s records. The judge honored their request.

    Much of the evidence presented in court today was obtained with the help of several Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Among evidence entered into the court’s records: Obama’s digital “birth certificate” placed on the whitehouse.gov website, his father’s place of birth (Kenya), a few pages from Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father” in which he mentions that his father’s passport had been revoked (and subsequently could not leave Kenya”, and Immigration Services documents about Obama Sr.

    Van Irion, one of the attorneys went into more detail about the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution, citing the decision reached in the 1875 US Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett. Using visual aids and copies of the Court’s decision, Mr. Irion distinguishes the term “citizen” from “natural born citizen.” It is explained that the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen, and that any and all lower court verdicts do not conflict with that specific Supreme Court ruling.

    What one should take away from this specific testimony, if not the proceedings in general, is that a natural born citizen has two parents who also citizens of the United States at the time of said citizen’s birth. As Obama Sr. was clearly NOT an American citizen, the case can clearly be made that our president, constitutionally speaking, is not eligible to serve as our president.

    Among those who testified was a former law enforcement officer, a state-licensed PI, and an IT/PhotoShop expert. They have concluded that Obama has likely engaged in social security fraud, that his father is NOT an American citizen, and that the official birth certificate released by the Obama Administration in April is fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    All evidence and testimony has been officially entered into court records. This leaves the door open for similar cases pending or future cases to be brought in other states as well. Also, any appeal (if one is even possible in this case) would have to be based on evidence presented by the lawyers in each case. Plaintiff Carl Swenson said in an e-mail to supporters that both “Van Irion (another plaintiff) and my lawyer Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in these two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with ‘Birther’ Orly Taitz.”

    What everyone is awaiting now from the judge is an official publishing of today’s ruling, again a default judgment for the plaintiffs. Swenson says “we won” and that it is now “time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.”

    One question every American should be asking themselves now that these eligbility proceedings in Georgia are over is simply: “who the hell is this guy?”

    Although obvious, it is important to note that not even the slightest mention of these proceedings will be heard in the mainstream liberal media. And this is for good reason; they obviously want to protect their guy Obama. When his administration’s lackeys vocally attacked Fox News in 2009, viewership of Fox News did not go down; it skyrocketed. Likewise, if the media tries to attack Orly Taitz, these witnesses, or anyone else associated with these proceedings, the so-called “birther” movement will only get stronger.

    In short, the “birthers,” who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the American public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today.



    A blow by blow of the entire court proceeding was made by Craig Andersen of the The National Patriot. His article is found below. We will be updating this page with a synopsis of what today’s proceedings mean for the entire Obama eligibility movement and what results we might see. In the meantime, read the following blow by blow account:
    Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

    The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

    Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

    The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
    Read more at: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138. By Craig Andresen.

  3. #583
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    What one should take away from this specific testimony, if not the proceedings in general, is that a natural born citizen has two parents who also citizens of the United States at the time of said citizen’s birth. As Obama Sr. was clearly NOT an American citizen, the case can clearly be made that our president, constitutionally speaking, is not eligible to serve as our president.
    Wow.

    Among those who testified was a former law enforcement officer, a state-licensed PI, and an IT/PhotoShop expert. They have concluded that Obama has likely engaged in social security fraud, that his father is NOT an American citizen, and that the official birth certificate released by the Obama Administration in April is fake, beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Double wow!


    In short, the “birthers,” who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the American public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today.
    GOOD!

    One question every American should be asking themselves now that these eligbility proceedings in Georgia are over is simply: “who the hell is this guy?”
    We've been asking since he showed up.....
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #584
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,094
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states

    Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral

    by Bob Unruh



    An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

    But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

    The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

    A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

    He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

    Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

    Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

    There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

    Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

    The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

    Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

    Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

    The state’s primary is in March.

    The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

    State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

    Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

    And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

    That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

    But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend he was not even born in the United States.

    Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

    He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

    That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

    There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

    It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

    “A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

    WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

    The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

    Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

    “This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

    It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

    “Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

    Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on
    several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

    “We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

    Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

    “The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

    He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

    “Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

    Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

    WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

    Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

    Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  5. #585
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Good riddance to bad politicians.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  6. #586
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Media Finally Paying Attention To Eligibility?
    February 29, 2012

    Poll after poll in recent months has indicated that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, with one poll showing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.

    But reporters for the traditional media – networks, major newspapers, major news corporations and conglomerates – mostly have giggled when talk turns to the serious question of just what the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents.

    Nevertheless, media organizations from all political persuasions are seeking admittance to a news conference to be held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.

    The event is tomorrow at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time in Phoenix, 3 p.m. Eastern, and will be live-streamed by WND.

    The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility. It’s the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

    The issues include Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number and the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii.

    In addition to the live-streaming, WND will make available to the public, the same day by email, the official report distributed to media by Arpaio’s investigators. Those interested in receiving the report can sign up for the free service.

    Top national media organizations have indicated their plans to attend, and bookings for radio and television reports are in the works. Expected are reporters from the Associated Press, Reuters, Univision, the Washington Times and NBC, CBS and ABC affiliates, as well statewide radio networks, among many others.

    Because of the circumstances, a decision was made to hold the press conference at the sheriff’s training center on the outskirts of Phoenix, rather than at the downtown office.

    The event is expected to draw protesters who object to the sheriff’s office review of allegations that Obama may attempt to use a fraudulent document to have his name placed on the 2012 presidential election ballot in Arizona.

    Without releasing any details, Arpaio has said the findings “could be a shock.”

    He constituted a special five-member law enforcement posse last year to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the Obama birth certificate released to the public by the White House on April 27 might be a forgery.

    The posse is made up of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. Members have been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires a president to be a natural-born citizen.

    Among other issues, there also have been allegations of Obama’s use of a Social Security number that corresponds to a Connecticut address, even though the president apparently had no links there.

    WND earlier reported a private investigation found that the Social Security number being used by Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not someone is authorized to work legally in the country.

    Arpaio’s investigation is the first official law enforcement look at the allegations surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Many of the private investigators who have examined it contend there are too many questionable circumstances to believe that everything regarding Obama is above-board.

    Arpaio previously told WND that when he launched his Cold Case Posse it was with the possibility that he would clear Obama.

    He said it wasn’t an issue he could ignore, after 250 members of the tea party organization “came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate.”

    The WND TV live-streaming coverage of the news conference Thursday is possible through the support of the Western Center for Journalism.

    The decisions in dozens of court cases over the last few years questioning Obama’s eligibility were typified by a recent decision in Georgia in which several individuals filed challenges to Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot and provided evidence to a hearing officer.

    Even though Obama and his lawyer deliberately snubbed the case – the lawyer wrote the judge a letter in advance telling him Obama would not attend – the judge threw out the evidence presented by several attorneys and ruled in favor of Obama.

    Similar ballot challenges are being filed in a long list of other states already.

    The Arpaio investigators were given the case following a meeting held in the sheriff’s office Aug. 17, 2011, with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.

    The tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”

    The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.

    Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.

    WND has reported that dozens of experts with varying ranges of competency who have looked at the situation believe the birth documentation image released by Obama last year is not genuine.

    A flying-banner and billboard campaign to let people know about the questions regarding eligibility that was started by WND CEO and Editor Joseph Farah also has raised the public’s awareness of the situation.

    Farah wrote recently that the underlying question to be determined is whether the U.S. Constitution remains the law of the land, or whether it has become “an archaic old document that needs to be amended.”

    “At its core, it’s really quite simple: Does Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution dealing with who can serve as president of the United States simply mean that any citizen age 35 or older is eligible? If so, why did the founders use a different term altogether – ‘natural born citizen’? What is a ‘natural born citizen’? Is it anyone born in the United States? If so, why have candidates born outside the United States been deemed eligible? Do we owe it to America’s future to go back in history to determine what that term actually means?

    “Until now, as hard as it may be to believe, no official vetting of Obama’s credentials has been done – not by the 50 secretaries of state who oversee elections, not by the Federal Elections Commission that administers the nation’s elections laws, not by the Electoral College, not by any judge in America, not by Congress, not by anyone,” he continued.

    Even before the results become public, Farah said he’s confident there will be a significant impact.

    “I strongly believe it could be a game-changer,” he said.

  7. #587
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Quote Originally Posted by michael2 View Post
    I just thought of a nightmare scenario. What if Obama were to admit to being inelligable under the US Constitution during this election cycle, but refused to resign, daring the Government to remove him and mobilizing supporters to keep him in office and ignore the Constitution? In effect, trying to start a revolution/civil war?

    What if he got elected in 2008, so that there would be a DELIBERATE contitutional crisis in 2012?
    Perfect scenario. I HOPE he does this because CHANGE will be forthcoming.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #588
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Here is video of the full press conference put on by Joe Arpiao and the MCSO.

    YouTube: MCSO - Obama Eligibility Cold Case Investigation (Full Press Conference)

  9. #589
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Did Threats Silence Media On Obama Probe?
    Stunner! Sources say warnings were to not report on Sheriff Joe's results

    March 7, 2012

    The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s review of the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate today unloaded a bombshell about the case: that he was told by sources members of the media were threatened with federal investigations should they continue to report on the birth certificate issue.

    Lead investigator Mike Zullo told WND that as he was preparing information to be presented to the public “it was clear that the mainstream media was not going to be in attendance” at the sheriff’s scheduled new conference, where he presented facts suggesting both fraud and forgery in the image of a Hawaiian birth certificate that the White House released last yearas “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility for office.

    “During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs,” Zullo said.

    The threats were so intimidating that some individuals quit their positions over safety concerns for their families, he said.

    So the problem became to get the information to the American public in spite of an intentional media blackout, since citizens still must make critical leadership decisions about their government through the election process.

    The solution was an ebook with details from the investigation, the evidence that was accumulated, and the issues that remain for Arpaio and his investigators to pursue.

    Zullo has been blasted in recent days for coordinating the book project with longtime political writer Jerome Corsi. Much of the online criticism stems from a single AP article that links Zullo to “well-known political conspiracy writer” Corsi and includes a statement that Corsi “denied using Sheriff Joe Arpaio … as a promotional tool to sell his books and theories.”

    It cites Zullo “as the co-author” of the ebook. But it fails to mention the evidence presented by the investigation indicating crimes of fraud and forgery.

    Zullo told WND that he had no interest in working on an ebook but was faced with the question of how to get the information to the American people absent national media coverage. There were interests outside of Arizona, he was convinced, making obvious efforts to censor the information and never allow it to move beyond the borders of Arizona.

    Read the results of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation.

    Zullo told WND that as an investigator he sought transparency, and he just wanted the information made available to everyone who wished a closer look. He said it was not an easy decision. He knew he would be ridiculed by the media if the information was released, but the alternative of allowing the information to be squelched and people kept in the dark was just too much of an injustice. He decided to allow the ebook project in order to disseminate the facts of the case: that there is probable cause to believe Obama’s birth certificate document is a forgery.

    Corsi confirmed that Zullo was very reluctant to do the book. The prospect of being reimbursed financially from his investigation never was his intention. But Corsi pointed out that Zullo contributed six months of his time to the investigation. Corsi also said he was acutely aware of the financial sacrifice Zullo made over the last six months, having to devote much of his time to the investigation. The posse investigation was not subsidized by taxpayers.

    The bigger question, Zullo said, is how can an investigator or a law enforcement officer ignore findings that indicate deception at the highest levels of politics. Zullo said it’s a very serious and alarming concern that casts doubt on the integrity of the vetting of presidential candidates.

    “If the evidence took us the other way, and the sheriff proclaimed this thing to be authentic, the news would have traveled from Arizona to New Jersey to Hawaii in milliseconds,” he said. “If I wrote a book about it, I would have been hailed a hero.

    “All we’re trying to do here is get this information out there and keep it out there. Had the mainstream media done their job, we wouldn’t have done [this book].”

    He said now media members have started calling him a “kook” and an “old geezer” for reporting on the facts that resulted from the investigation.

    “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.”

    He said that many people didn’t come forward with their knowledge about Obama “out of fear.”

    “The information that we got, which these people refused to step forward with out of fear, but shared afterward, came independently – they don’t even know each other – from distant parts of the country, that investigations of major media outlets [were planned] if they continued reporting,” he said.

    “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.

    Although the numbers may have been small, there was support for Zullo’s perspective, even in the media.

    In a column at American Thinker, Cindy Simpson quoted Ronald Reagan in support of Zullo’s work.

    “Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, ‘Trust, but verify,’” she wrote. “President Obama told us he released his official long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. Can we trust him, and should we verify?

    “Most of the reporters’ questions at the end of [Arpaio's] press conference were statements in defense of Obama, and the subsequent coverage by major news outlets asserted that rumors about the president’s birth certificate were ‘debunked’ and ‘discredited,’ but gave no details of the debunking or discrediting,” she marveled.

    “As the sheriff also noted at the conference, no specific or official investigation has ever been reported, unless we can count Savannah Guthrie, apparently the only reporter allowed to touch and photograph the original long-form certificate after it was released, or the two representatives of Factcheck (neither noted as having an relevant professional experience in document examination) who photographed the short-form certification posted in 2008,” she wrote.

    “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.

    She noted that after reporters attacked the message at the news conference, they “questioned the motives of the sheriff and even the political affiliation of the posse’s lead detective, Mike Zullo.”

    She said the focal point for a true reporter would be the issue at hand – the validity of Obama’s documents.

    “Was the document posted by the White House a scan of an original certified document? Based on the analysis of the posse’s experts, it was not. In fact, the posse has traced the image to a specific computer where it resided a mere 20 minutes before it was uploaded, and has identified a ‘person of interest.’”

    She suggest three possible answers: purely innocent anomalies to “touch up” an image and someone purposely tinkering to create the appearance of suspicion.

    “Third, 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!’”

    Nick Martin at TPM editorialized that the book sale “gives Zullo a financial motive to continue stoking the flames of a conspiracy theory that has been debunked numerous times by an array of independent investigations.”

    But the details of the investigations were absent in his piece.

    The sheriff himself also noted only one side of the issue was being reported.

    In a commentary in the Arizona Republic, he wrote of reporters, “They were practically salivating at the opportunity to embarrass me, my highly capable group of volunteer investigators and literally anyone else who would dare show in interest in the possibility that this investigation would lead to any real credible evidence into what they claim has already been ‘looked into’ or ‘widely debunked.’”

    Arpaio also has defended the book.

    “We needed a book precisely because we knew in advance the mainstream media would impose a blackout on any serious law enforcement investigation into Obama’s identification documents and his eligibility to be president,” Arpaio told WND.

    He explained that the book is intended to bypass the filter the establishment media tries to impose on news. WND provided a live-stream Internet broadcast of the Arpaio press conference last Thursday for the same reason.

    Martin wrote that the sheriff also failed to mention that much of the evidence concerned questions about the digital scan “that was already investigated and proven to be false” by another investigative agency, National Review Online.

    There were signs, however, that the national media’s silence was creating concerns.

    Wrote Jeff Crouere at the St. Tammany Slidell Sentry: “Despite a mountain of evidence and new allegations of fraud, the national news media refuses to cover the Obama birth certificate scandal.”

    He cited the discoveries from the Arpaio investigation.

    “Such a bombshell should have led the national news coverage throughout the country. Instead, it was completely ignored by a corrupt network of media elites who are decidedly liberal and wholeheartedly support Obama’s re-election,” he wrote. “The vast majority of the American people have been denied the truth by a media who want to shield Obama.”

    He called reporters nationally “liberal sycophants” and said, “If these allegations had been made about a Republican president there would have been a media firestorm greater than Watergate and Iran/Contra combined.

    “Not surprisingly, the media acted like partisan Democrats in the news conference after Arpaio’s team announced their findings. Instead of asking questions about the Obama documents, the reporters were more interested in asking Sheriff Arpaio about his political affiliation, his relationship with the tea party and his motives for the investigation.

    “What the media conveniently overlooked was the expert testimony and the evidence presented by Arpaio’s group of investigators. Potentially, a major crime has been committed at the highest levels of our government, and the media attacked the messengers.”

  10. #590
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,094
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Sheriff Joe: Obama Birth Certificate a Forgery

    March 18, 2012



    By Victor Thorn

    American citizens are losing confidence in the mainstream media, and as a result they increasingly turn their attention to other news providers. A perfect illustration can be found in the way alternative media venues such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS have approached Obama’s birth certificate issue.

    Whereas writers at this publication covered the story since day one, prominent corporate outlets in television, newspaper and talk radio continue to mock and marginalize the notion that our president may not be a natural born citizen.

    On Mar. 1, America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio, held a press conference where he outlined the findings of his Cold Case Posse. Namely, they concluded that the birth certificate presented by Obama’s White House on Apr. 27, 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

    Regrettably, instead of taking this vital constitutional matter seriously, mainstream sources almost completely ignored it. The New York Times and The Washington Post didn’t give a single mention to Arpaio’s conclusions, nor did CBS, ABC or NBC. Even Fox News, who typically champions Arpaio on his stance against illegal aliens, curiously neglected to place the sheriff’s findings in their regular news cycle.

    Arpaio complained that these shills possessed “a predetermined desire to discredit me and my office.”

    Indeed, the mainstream’s reaction was appalling. On Mar. 7, independent media reporters Floyd and Mary Beth Brown wrote, “Having just attended Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse news conference in Phoenix, Ariz., we candidly admit we have never seen a greater example of raw media bias in our 30 years of watching the fourth estate.”

    If Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly or NBC’s Brian Williams had covered this event, viewers would have seen a far different story than what has thus far been spun by corporate propagandists.

    The Browns explained, “In less than an hour, Arpaio’s team laid out a compelling case that individuals working under the President of the United States have engaged in criminal forgery. Most interesting, the case isn’t just about Obama’s birth certificate.”

    They continued, “The case against Obama was made with simple, clear videos describing the techniques forgers used to falsify important documents released by Obama’s team. It was obvious that law enforcement professionals doing the actual investigation were real pros.”

    The Browns concluded, “The investigation by document forensic experts systematically showed how the documents could not be real and are part of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.”

    If true, impeachment proceedings against the President should immediately begin. Yet, operatives in the controlled press deliberately suppressed Arpaio’s findings, revealing that they hold no regard whatsoever for this nation’s utmost law, the Constitution. Rather, they view this document as little more than a worthless piece of paper.

    Even Russia’s news provider Pravda is mocking the U.S. media, calling it “tame.” On Mar. 7, Pravda’s Dianna Cotter wrote on the birth certificate blackout. “The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.”

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  11. #591
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,094
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control



    More articles by Toria »
    Posted by: Toria
    Categories: Breaking News, Featured, The President

    A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

    By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
    Editor: Penbrook Johannson
    Thursday, April 12, 2012

    NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status.

    Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.



    Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

    At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

    As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.

    Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.



    Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.


    “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

    According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

    “He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”

    Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

    Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

    The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

    “Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

    Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

    “However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

    Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

    Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

    “If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

    He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

    “This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

    Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

    The account of the trial can be read at:

    http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

    ###

    Related Links:






    Related Articles:



    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  12. #592
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Good to know Sheriff Joe is vindicated as to the investigation his panel conducted.

  13. #593
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,094
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'




    by Joel B. Pollak 2 hours ago 1328 post a comment

    Note from Senior Management:

    Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

    Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

    It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

    It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.

    It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
    ***
    Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

    The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

    It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

    Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):


    Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
    The booklet, which is thirty-six pages long, is printed in blue ink (and, on the cover, silver/grey ink), using offset lithography. It purports to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, which was founded in 1976.



    Front cover (outside) - note Barack Obama listed in alphabetical order



    Front cover (inside)

    Jay Acton no longer represents Obama. However, Jane Dystel still lists Obama as a client on her agency's website.

    According to the booklet itself, the text was edited by Miriam Goderich, who has since become Dystel's partner at Dystel & Goderich, an agency founded in 1994. Breitbart News attempted to reach Goderich by telephone several times over several days. Her calls are screened by an automated service that requires callers to state their name and company, which we did. She never answered.

    The design of the booklet was undertaken by Richard Bellsey, who has since closed his business. Bellsey, reached by telephone, could not recall the exact details of the booklet, but told Breitbart News that it "sounds like one of our jobs, like I did for [Acton & Dystel] twenty years ago or more."



    The parade of authors alongside Obama in the booklet includes politicians, such as former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill; sports legends, such as Joe Montana and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; and numerous Hollywood celebrities.

    The reverse side of the page that features Barack Obama includes former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and early-1990s "boy band" pop sensation New Kids On the Block.





    Acton, who spoke to Breitbart News by telephone, confirmed precise details of the booklet and said that it cost the agency tens of thousands of dollars to produce.

    He indicated that while "almost nobody" wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom "the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis," were "probably" approached to approve the text as presented.

    Dystel did not respond to numerous requests for comment, via email and telephone. Her assistant told Breitbart News that Dystel "does not answer questions about Obama."

    The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

    The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama--or the people representing and supporting him--manipulate his public persona.

    David Maraniss's forthcoming biography of Obama has reportedly confirmed, for example, that a girlfriend Obama described in Dreams from My Father was, in fact, an amalgam of several separate individuals.

    In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."

    Several weeks later, Obama left Wright's church--and, according to Edward Klein's new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to "do any more public speaking until after the November [2008] election" (51).

    Obama has been known frequently to fictionalize aspects of his own life. During his 2008 campaign, for instance, Obama claimed that his dying mother had fought with insurance companies over coverage for her cancer treatments.

    That turned out to be untrue, but Obama has repeated the story--which even the Washington Post called "misleading"--in a campaign video for the 2012 election.

    The Acton & Dystel biography could also reflect how Obama was seen by his associates, or transitions in his own identity. He is said, for instance, to have cultivated an "international" identity until well into his adulthood, according to Maraniss.

    Regardless of the reason for Obama's odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama--who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.

    Larry O'Connor contributed to this report.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  14. #594
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    "international identity".

    WTF is that?

    Do I have one because I have visited 49 countries and am familiar with many more cultures than my own?

    Or does that make me a scholar?

    WTF?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  15. #595
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Heard about this on Hannity earlier.

    First his grandma, then his wife, and now his biography. Hmmm...












  16. #596
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Oh, and just to head off any claims that this was an error or typo...

    Obama’s Lit Agency Used 'Born in Kenya' Bio Until 2007
    May 17, 2012

    According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the Dystel.com website – the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.

    Archive.org shows that the Dystel website used the following biography for Obama as of April 3, 2007:
    BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
    Obama launched his presidential campaign in February 2007.

    By April 21, 2007, the Obama bio had been changed to state that Obama was born in Hawaii:
    BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
    Obama had already been a national figure for three years, since the Democratic National Convention in 2004, by the time the biography was changed; he had been a sitting Senator for over two years.

  17. #597
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Ryan? Is that you?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #598
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    So he was from Kenya until it was no longer convenient?
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  19. #599
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,450
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    With this new news it sure is!

  20. #600
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

    Was he lying then or now?
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •