DescentBB

Arpaio evidently is having a press conference tomorrow to state his findings on Obama's birth certificate. Now before you all start pissing and moan how this has been gone over before, this will be the first time a police dept will have looked into it. This will be a serious enough conference that even the mainstream newsies will attend. Jus a few copy & paste to excite your doubtless inquiring minds:

"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."

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

"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."
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finall ... igibility/

Well hopefully this will well and truly put the issue to bed. We will undoubtedly discuss this further tomorrow.

The sheriff said it was fake.

Racist birther dumbass (Arpaio).

tc, do you have anything of value to add?

[Keep it professional, folks.]

Man that "news" site is a riot.

I guess just like all the "very interesting" stuff that Trump's team of investigators found out, there is nothing new. Grasping at straws here people, if you don't like the man's policies that's fine, but it's time to move past this whole idea.

"The investigative team has asked Arpaio, who is at a news conference in Phoenix live-streamed by WND TV that began at 3 p.m. Eastern time, to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office."

If Arpaio elevates it to a criminal probe then I think Obama will have real problems on his hands. Don't forget, if it is found his BC is a forgery, all bills signed by him will be null and void.

Man, if Obama's ineligible that's gonna make us look like a bunch of rubes deceived by the untrustworthy, No one in the world would have any confidence in us anymore. I'd confirm it, then let it drop, until and unless the odd chance he gets re-elected. It's a different battle then.

WND, people! That organization has ZERO, and I mean ZERO credibility. The facts are simple, Obama's mother was an American citizen. Thus, he could have been born on the moon and been a natural-born US citizen. Case closed. Oh, and the good sheriff has been under Federal Investigation on Civil Rights abuses for a few years, so he MAY have an axe to grind, plus a long standing love of publicity for himself...........

Apparently his department allegedly didn't adequately investigate hundreds of possible sex crimes, too. The guy is a grade-A blowhard slimeball, and we're supposed to take anything he says seriously?

Sorry peeps, I just don't buy it. Apparently his "posse" of retired police officers (which I'm guessing are ones that already had doubts about Obama) were able to determine something that no other news source was able to do. They looked at the same thing that every other right-wing source tried to dissect and couldn't. It's so ★■◆●ing boring...

However you want to attack the messenger (which the leftinistos do when all esle fails) if Arpaio deems the conclusions have enough merit and carries thru with a criminal probe, life for Obama will become very interesting.

Oh and Slick tries to slick us again:

"The facts are simple, Obama's mother was an American citizen. Thus, he could have been born on the moon and been a natural-born US citizen. Case closed."

Perhaps Slick's new normal math failed him by 1. The requirements to be POTUS concerning birth is:

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... equire.htm

So like the good Demoscammer Slick is, he only offers half truths to make the bad man go away.

Well…liberals have rendered the father meaningless anyway.

Spidey wrote:Well…liberals have rendered the father meaningless anyway.

both of them..

Sorry Religious jab

"Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information. Dissimulation differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information. Dissimulation commonly takes the form of concealing one's ability in order to gain the element of surprise over an opponent."

woodchip wrote:However you want to attack the messenger (which the leftinistos do when all esle fails)

...or perhaps when the messenger is a drooling idiot?

Oh, and since when is having both parents be US citizens a requirement for birthright citizenship?

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:However you want to attack the messenger (which the leftinistos do when all esle fails)

...or perhaps when the messenger is a drooling idiot?

Ah...another can't make a intelligent reply so lets demean the messenger. Typical leftist rhetoric.

Top Gun wrote:Oh, and since when is having both parents be US citizens a requirement for birthright citizenship?

Perhaps if you read a little closer you would read this is a requirement to be president. Heck you can have some pregnant sow illegal immigrant cross the border, drop her load and the spawn is a us citizen. Does not mean the kid could become president.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...or perhaps when the messenger is a drooling idiot?

Ah...another can't make a intelligent reply...

Guys, chill.

--------

So, which is it? Does a U.S. President only have to be a natural citizen (as TG's link says), or is there an additional requirement for those born abroad that both parents be citizens (as woodchip's quote says)?

woodchip wrote:Heck you can have some pregnant sow illegal immigrant cross the border, drop her load and the spawn is a us citizen. Does not mean the kid could become president.

Why not? This is what i don't get. If that child of a the "pregnant sow immigrant" happens to grow up and be a brilliant humanitarian, why wouldn't you allow that person to hold the office of president? Makes no sense. I don't care if a person is from Mars. During the election process we get more than enough chances to judge a person's character, which is way more important that where that person is from.

And all you clown's complaining about racism should look to your own nationalism, which to me is no better than discrimination on race.

Foil wrote:tc, do you have anything of value to add?

[Keep it professional, folks.]

Sorry foil. I'm just getting tired of birtherism, and I could think of nothing better to say about this guy when I posted. He's just using birtherism to rationalize his hatred of our first a black president. He is nothing but a xenophobic racist using the power of his office and the law to attack people he doesn't like. Here's a 10 minute long video of Arpaio and Jorge Ramos of Univision going at it, and Ramos clearly doesn't like Arpaio by the end of it.



He's also thinking of using his detectives, who are being payed by the taxpayers by the way, to further investigate Obama's birth status. No wonder Arizona is trying to get rid of him.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... nvestigate

What this guy should be doing is using those taxpayer dollars for actually investigating actual crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/sh ... ephmarpaio

woodchip wrote:Ah...another can't make a intelligent reply so lets demean the messenger. Typical leftist rhetoric.

Hey, suddenly I'm leftist! Who knew?

That aside, what else can one say about the guy? He's under federal investigation, his office is being alleged with dropping the ball on hundreds of sex abuse cases, and he generally comes across as a complete xenophobe. His own words and actions speak for themselves, and nothing in them would make one lend any credence to what he has to say.

Perhaps if you read a little closer you would read this is a requirement to be president. Heck you can have some pregnant sow illegal immigrant cross the border, drop her load and the spawn is a us citizen. Does not mean the kid could become president.

And perhaps if you'd read closer, you'd see that the "natural-born citizen" clause of the Constitution has never been specifically defined beyond that, but is generally held to refer to anyone who gains US citizenship by birth, including someone born abroad of US parentage. So again, your argument is meaningless.

Top Gun wrote:And perhaps if you'd read closer, you'd see that the "natural-born citizen" clause of the Constitution was never been specifically defined beyond that, but is generally held to refer to anyone who gains US citizenship by birth, including someone born abroad of US parentage. So again, your argument is meaningless.

but, then he wouldn't have had an excuse for another ad hominem attack upon me, and others. Thanks for the update, you spared me the typing.

I got to thinking last night how truly ludicrous the whole 'birther' thing truly is......To accept the premise as valid, one has to accept.

1. First and foremost, that a conspiracy among unknown persons was formed 50 years ago to falsify the birth location of an
unknown African American boy, in order that the kid could be eligible to be president. I put the 50 year plus point on it, as
the birth WAS published in the Honolulu newspaper.
2. That such child could aspire to become President, at a time in which a black person couldn't even use the same drinking
fountain or bathroom as me in Virginia.
3. That the child would be bright enough to be successful at Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard Law School
4. That the man would rise through the party ranks, when as late as 2000, he couldn't even get credentials for the National Party
Convention(not all that difficult for one with any sort of connections, hell, I could get credentials and have in the past).
5. That the conspiracy continued to recent years, despite the man taking on the party establishment candidate(Hillary) to run
for President.


that, folks is beyond plausible, and to my mind, anyone who pushes the idea is disrespectful to the man and the office approaching the level of Treason. Further, anyone who gives it credibility is a stone-cold moron.

not that I even remotely believe in the birther stance. but your wrong Slick. it would only take a small group of people willing to manipulate the situation.
IF it was found that Obama's citizenship was questionable do you not believe that elements of the Government have the ability to cover it up? it wouldn't be that tough.

but, CUDA, why on Earth would have ANYONE undertaken such a project in 1961? I return to the fact that the birth announcement appeared in the Hawaiian press at the time of the birth, so the conspiracy had to have started then.

there were 2 birth announcements in 2 different Hawaii newspapers Neither give a location of birth, all they do is make the announcement of the birth. that does not uncloud the conspiracy, so all it leaves is the Original Birth certificate, which could have been easily manipulated, it has never been produced, only "scanned" photo copies of it. again doing nothing to uncloud the conspiracy.

again I am just reporting the facts. not making a judgement.

callmeslick wrote:but, CUDA, why on Earth would have ANYONE undertaken such a project in 1961? I return to the fact that the birth announcement appeared in the Hawaiian press at the time of the birth, so the conspiracy had to have started then.

Fact is conspiracies take time and planning. It also easy to dismiss things as conspiracy theory. When in fact the world is ran on conspiracies. Right now in Washington DC people are conspiring on ways to relieve people of their hard earned money. Even the great all powerful Obama has plans that will take decades to come into reality.

Real Life Plan
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/i ... h_pla.html

puhlease, Heretic. No one should confuse long-term planning(which is sound practice) with some utterly preposterous idea that in 1961, a plan was hatched for a little black boy to one day become President. Also, CUDA, does your hometown newspaper report births out-of-town without stating that to be the case? Mine doesn't, and in fact, I recall only a few such announcements, ever.
And those were to announce births to VERY prominent local citizens who were working elsewhere, with the exact locales described. Sorry, my friend, you are reaching, and I stand firmly behind my original statement about anyone giving this story any credence.

Hawaiian
law specifically allows “an adult or the legal parents of a minor
child” to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof,
be given the birth document.

The only requirement for proof
cited in the law doesn’t address the birth of the child either, just
“that the legal parents of such individual while living without
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

again there is no requirement that Obama was Born in Hawaii, ONLY that a Birth certificate was applied for by someone. it could have been his Mother at the time of birth by mail, it could have been his Grandparents once they heard of the birth by proxy, or it could have been the state when we was born in the Honolulu hospital. there is no requirement of proof. that is why they are questioning it.

again just stating facts. not taking a stance

More from the sheriff:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 7-21-07-36

This oaf sure loves getting his name in the news. How are those sexual assault investigations coming, Joe?

tunnelcat wrote:Sorry foil. I'm just getting tired of birtherism, and I could think of nothing better to say about this guy when I posted. He's just using birtherism to rationalize his hatred of our first a black president. He is nothing but a xenophobic racist using the power of his office and the law to attack people he doesn't like. Here's a 10 minute long video of Arpaio and Jorge Ramos of Univision going at it, and Ramos clearly doesn't like Arpaio by the end of it.

Watched the video. It's a gotcha interview. My take is that Arpaio may not be the best or most articulate speaker in the world, but what he's saying is pretty good and that ★■◆● interviewing him is ignorant and just trying to score a win in any way possible for his true compatriots. You know, if he's only going to recognize the laws that he likes in the U.S., and twist or be ignorant of everything else, maybe it would be in our best interest to deport HIM. Did you hear the part where he tried to tell the sheriff that the Federal government was his boss?

Interviewer wrote:I've seen many peoples... I've spoken to many undocumented (ILLEGAL) immigrants and they are simply telling me this: that, for them, you are... the worst of America--the face of racism and discrimination

You sure can pick 'em, TC. This guy... he's not racist but what do you call it when a person cares nothing for the law, only for the interests of their group. Who the hell cares what illegals think of someone enforcing the laws of the state?! That's some real presumption. I thought for sure that with that argument he would site cite Latinos who are actually U.S. citizens, being discriminated against. With regard to racial profiling, unless you're just bullying all Latinos it's kind of unavoidable... I hear the folks illegally crossing our southern border are largely Latino. Who knows why that's so, but apparently it is a fact.

Top Gun wrote:And perhaps if you'd read closer, you'd see that the "natural-born citizen" clause of the Constitution has never been specifically defined beyond that, but is generally held to refer to anyone who gains US citizenship by birth, including someone born abroad of US parentage. So again, your argument is meaningless.

Last time I looked into the matter, the general consensus that I saw was "SCOTUS will have to make a ruling when we cross that bridge."

It clearly means that the person can't be a naturalized citizen.... I don't think there's a legal precedent for holding to one or another view on what it means for a citizen born abroad.

I'm one of the people with this case... born to one US citizen, abroad. So, if you guys get enough people to write me in in about 8 years, we can find out....

Heh, I didn't even remember what the context of my post was until I went and looked it up. Gotta love four-month bumps.

You're right that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue either way, since there hasn't been a presidential candidate who was born abroad to US parents up to this point. I have to think it would be a pretty cut-and-dry ruling, though. Even the original "natural-born" clause doesn't have nearly as much importance as it did when it was written. The Framers included it because they feared the (seemingly) legitimate possibility of a figure from Britain, or some other European power, running for president and essentially turning the new country back into a colony. That's not exactly much of a threat anymore, and it's hard to make an argument as to why someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, shouldn't be allowed to run for president.

And hell, I'll write you in when the time comes. I'm sure you'll be better than whatever other options we have then.

Top Gun wrote:Heh, I didn't even remember what the context of my post was until I went and looked it up. Gotta love four-month bumps.

You're right that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue either way, since there hasn't been a presidential candidate who was born abroad to US parents up to this point. I have to think it would be a pretty cut-and-dry ruling, though. Even the original "natural-born" clause doesn't have nearly as much importance as it did when it was written. The Framers included it because they feared the (seemingly) legitimate possibility of a figure from Britain, or some other European power, running for president and essentially turning the new country back into a colony. That's not exactly much of a threat anymore, and it's hard to make an argument as to why someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, shouldn't be allowed to run for president.

And hell, I'll write you in when the time comes. I'm sure you'll be better than whatever other options we have then.

"Once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place. Muahahaha!"

Arrrroooooooo!

Jeff250 wrote:Arrrroooooooo!

Tricky Dick's head speaking from Futurama?

tunnelcat wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Arrrroooooooo!

Tricky Dick's head speaking from Futurama?

Oh, come on!

"That's my style, I like to kick'em when they're down."