Sheriff Joe Sends Detectives to Honolulu

No problem Hawaii. The Arizona sec of state just won't place the indonesian citizen on the ballot. Now go fuck off.

Sorry but you are the idiot. The constitution says that anyone born in the US, is a citizen of this country. Doesnt matter about their parents. Dont make me resort to quoting the constitution.

NO you go fuck yourself you retarded jackass.

It's amazing how some people will follow a person and believe everything they say with absolute, blind faith.

Kool-aid drinkers tend to have low IQ's, a lack of self-confidence, emotional instability, and ignorance of how others can manipulate them, so that pretty much explains why they can't even open themselves up to the actual facts.

There has been piles of evidence that something is not right about Obama's birth, including his grandmother stating it, his wife saying it, and the fact that he approved a booklet stating it.

Up until about a year and a half ago I really didn't believe it either, but I do know about Photoshop and that convinced me that the BC on the WH website is a fake.

You people are like a wife, who has walked in and found her husband having sex with another woman in her own bed but still refuses to believe he's having an affair.

Sad.

Yes it does. A "citizen" like I stated. Being born here makes him a "citizen". (sort of) if his parents were subject to the jurisdiction there of. A "citizen" isn't enough to qualify for president. One has to be a "natural born citizen" meaning born from TWO U.S. CITIZENS to be president, Zero doesn't qualify as his father wasn't American. Read the above quotes. I already stated this & you, Fucking idiot, changed your story from natural born citizen to plain citizen. You obama twats are really fucked in the head. Liars also.

Wow Ireland, you are so off base its almost embarrassing.

Very little of what you have stated in this entire thread is correct (not just this post, but every post that you've made in this thread!)

If I weren't a gentleman, I'd call you a liar!

You have twisted and perverted so many items that one has to wonder whether you're that ignorant or a paid shill for the Obama campaign.

You, like many Obama supporters take half-truths and partial information in an attempt to deceive those who are ignorant of the facts.

I have posted in hundreds of 'birther' and 'Constitutional eligibility' threads and presented factual evidence that your side cannot answer.

You don't answer, because you can't!

Here are a couple of recent threads where I posted specifics:

Thread: OBAMA LITERARY AGENT SHOCKER: BORN IN KENYA RAISED IN HAWAII

Thread: Obama being removed from Arizona ballot


I am not going to regurgitate everything I've ever posted, but I do want to correct you on a few things and I'll provide a few other 'questions'.


1. You need to re-educate yourself on Vattel, the history of our Founding Fathers and how the Constitution was written.

Before the Constitution, the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. The Law of Nations was one of our Founding Fathers greatest influences when writing the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the loyalty of the most powerful position resided only with America. Therefore they added a special condition or prerequisite for the eligibility of President.

Vattel defined the term 'Natural-born' by including the conditions of parents and place, this removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the individual ought to lie, (his definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with John Jay’s letter to Washington in ~1780).

Vattel's definition included both Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis (not one or the other as you implied, but both). This is why Obama was NEVER eligible. Even if he was born in Hawaii, his father was born in Kenya (British Subject which transfers to child).

----------------------------------------------------------
2. As many have mentioned, the term 'Natural Born Citizen' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution and it is only used to define the requirement for President (See Art. II).

If the term is interchangeable (with just the word citizen, as some suggest); why is the verbiage not used in the next section of the Constitution for the requirements for Senator?

The wording for that requirement is just 'Citizen'. Only the position of President has the added requirement 'Natural-Born'.

If this were not important, why did the Founders make that distinction? If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," there is no reason for adding the exception.

----------------------------------------------------------

3. McCain's natural-born status was questioned in the 2008 elections, (he was born in Panama on a base to two US Citizens). A congressional hearing was held and it was confirmed that he was eligible. In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen. The definition of a Natural Born Citizen entailed being born on US soil (or US base) by two Citizens. Even Barack himself voted for this definition in this resolution.

Under title 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.

* Note: this text was originally extracted from several sites including [link to www.law.cornell.edu] and [link to www.gpo.gov] However, some of these sources have changed and/or omitted the descriptions as originally posted. To me this suggests that there has been an attempt to obfuscate the truth. If you want to challenge this one item, I will concede this one. But the remainder stands.

----------------------------------------------------------

4. Just before becoming President an article appeared in an African newspaper noting / identifying Obama as a Kenyan (re: News from Uganda, the Pearl of Africa_files)

see - [link to www.scribd.com] /

see - [link to www.scribd.com]

----------------------------------------------------------

5. When the Democrats submitted the certificate of nomination they (Pelosi) signed / submitted two versions. DNC language on one version does NOT include language stating Obama was qualified per the US constitution, while the RNC document does.

see [link to www.canadafreepress.com]

----------------------------------------------------------

I could go on and mention the Relatives in Hawaii & Africa (Grandmothers etc.) who have stated that Obama was born in Africa, some of which claimed to have witnessed the birth in Kenya.

Or the question of how he paid for college. Did he receive funding as a foreigner or did he lie to receive funding? Either he lied then or now.

Why are most of his records off limits? (I can provide the long list).

There is a possibility that he failed to register for the draft and many questions about his (numerous) Social Security Number(s). ID theft? The SSN used by Obama does not pass E-Verify

The birth Certificate registration number out of sequence of Nordyke twins. Obama's birth certificate received a HIGHER number (10641) than the Nordyke twins (10637, 10638).

Did he ever re-established or (ever) apply for US Citizenship after living on Indonesia?

The Passport question, when traveling to Pakistan.

Why was he (and Michelle) disbarred from Illinois as a Lawyer?

The recently released Birth Certificate, examined by experts and deemed questionable if not fraudulent.

How much HAS he spent on attorneys? Why spend so much money if you have nothing to hide?

And the list goes on (I have about 12 more items if you want them).

Truman & Eisenhower had their problems. Jack Kennedy had affairs and was addicted to pills. Nixon had Watergate. Both Bush Presidencies had their controversies, Clinton had his indiscretions, but never in my lifetime have there been so many unanswered questions about a President.

And before you call us 'racist', that dog don't hunt anymore. Remember Obama is half-white and the majority of Americans voted him into office.

Can we have an HONEST debate?

If you (or Obama) can adequately explain just what I've listed above, then we'll talk.

Last Edited by First Professor on 05/23/2012 01:25 AM

I'll respond to the entirity of this nonsense when I'm at my computer, but from my phone I'll respond to point one, which is ridiculously inaccurate.

The term NBC was not in any English translation of Vattel until about a hundred years AFTER the constitution was written. It is also not close to be a literal translation.

Your argument is that the founding fathers spontaneously generated a new translation of a French author, and stuck it into the Constituion, then a hundred wars later, Vattel was re-translated, and it randomly matched the Constituion, and that's proof Obama can't be President.

And guess what, you got that off a birther blog, like the rest of your "evidence". I know that because birthers are the only ones, not courts or legal scholars, that believe this Vattel crap. Because its unbelievable.

Go find the translation available at the time of the Constituions writing, then admit the Vattel aguement is BS.

Written below is a very thorough explanation which I found at this site...

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]

It lays out exactly what this thread has been talking about. I hope it helps to clarify the questions around the birth and citizenship status of Obama. It helped me.


"Between Dec. 24, 1953 and Nov. 13, 1986, an individual born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent married to an alien could be a “natural born citizen” only if the U.S. citizen parent had lived in the U.S. continuously for 10 years, five of which were after their 14th birthday.

Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born on November 29, 1942. Obama was allegedly born on August 4, 1961. Thus, by prevailing U.S. law, Barack Obama could not have been a “natural born U.S. citizen.”

If he was born in Kenya, Mr. Obama's mother was only 18 and could not have lived in the U.S. five years after her 14th birthday at the time of his birth.

Thus, it became a political necessity for Barack Obama to have a U.S. birth certificate. A forged birth certificate may have been produced in this case on April 27, 2011 because a genuine one does not exist despite the fact that the President was born in Hawaii or does not exist because he was born overseas.

For Barack Obama to have become a U.S. citizen under prevailing U.S. law at the time of his birth in 1961, his mother would have had to petition a U.S. immigration court for a naturalized U.S. citizenship status, which would have been readily granted to him because he was born of an American mother.

However, by the tragic timing of his birth taking place a few months short of his mother’s having lived in the U.S. for five years continuously after her 14th birthday, Barack Obama never achieved “natural born citizen” status and was as a matter of law constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency.

It is an established fact that Mr. Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian national Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Mr. Obama and moved his family to Indonesia in 1967. Indonesia requires that its citizens renounce all other citizenships.

There is no record, however, that after she sent Mr. Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971 or divorced Mr. Soetero Mr. Obama’s mother ever petitioned for U.S. nationalization of Mr. Obama.

Thus, it is most plausible that Mr. Obama was an Indonesian citizen,
when he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971
when he matriculated to Occidental College in Hawaii in 1979
when he ran for the U.S. Senate in January 2003
when he declared for U.S. President on February 10, 2007

Thus, as a matter of law, even a valid birth certificate showing that Mr. Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii would not suffice to grant Barack Obama the “natural born” status he requires to be U.S. President, absent a special statue of the U.S. Congress as was granted his 2008 Presidential rival John McCain.

Ironically, in 1986, this U.S. immigration and naturalization law was changed to grant John McCain “natural born” status despite his having been born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone.

The law change permits an individual born overseas to a U.S. parent married to an alien to acquire “natural born” status when born overseas in specific U.S. related facilities and territories."

Last Edited by A Friend on 05/23/2012 06:56 AM

Hard to talk with a hole in ones head.

This ^^ makes more sense than ANYTHING I've seen to date.

Shill...use some common sense....if Sheriff Joe had stole that kind of money...or done ANYTHING really illegal...he would ALREADY have been arrested by Obama's Federal agents. Just how stupid are you?

Thank you! I thought it did too. It brings information into play that we haven't seen talked about.

This provision doesn't apply on Obama - unless you'll prove on the court that Obama was born abroad. Hint: it has been tried and failed many times before.

Next.

"Thus, as a matter of law, even a valid birth certificate showing that Mr. Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii would not suffice to grant Barack Obama the “natural born” status he requires to be U.S. President, absent a special statue of the U.S. Congress as was granted his 2008 Presidential rival John McCain."

I took this quote from further down on the post, you will notice that it talks about conditions even if he was born in Hawaii.

Read on from above

"It is an established fact that Mr. Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian national Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Mr. Obama and moved his family to Indonesia in 1967. Indonesia requires that its citizens renounce all other citizenships.

There is no record, however, that after she sent Mr. Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971 or divorced Mr. Soetero Mr. Obama’s mother ever petitioned for U.S. nationalization of Mr. Obama."

So it doesn't even matter WHERE he was born, he's Indonesian.

There are so many "ifs" with this guy that we call the POTUS. These "ifs" follow on to his presidency and his systematic destruction of the US Constitution, anyone who is not questioning his motivation, morality, ethics is a moran.

Your spelling is atrocious, but your ignorance of history amazes me!

However, I no longer worry about the veracity or honesty of liberals & democrats; you're incapable of it!

You make things up (or lie) as you go and hope that something sticks or hope that someone doesn't call you out on your comments.

Well here is the truth, which can be verified by thousands of books and historical documents. (I suggest you read a few of them).


1. Our U.S. Constitution was being penned in the 1780s and was adopted in 1787.

2. If my memory serves me correctly, Emmerich de Vattel was born in the early 1700s.

3. He wrote the book (Law of Nations) in the 1740s-50s and finally published it around 1760. (1758 to be exact).

4. In the mid 1770s, about three copies of the Law of Nations (in the original French translation) were provided to Ben Franklin by a Swiss editor named Charles W.F. Dumas.

5. Yes, the original work was in French, but Ben Franklin (like many of our Founding Fathers) was fluent in several languages. In addition to English and French he could read and write in several other languages including Italian, Spanish, German and Latin. So you see, many of our Founding Fathers did not need or use the English translation; they understood the native French version.

However for those who couldn't read the French version there were indeed several English translations that were produced prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The first of which was in 1760, (which would be a full 27 years BEFORE our Constitution was signed).

Therefore your last statement (about a needing a translation during the writing of the Constitution) is ludicrous and irrelevant. 1- they had it (and) 2-they didn’t need it!

6. If you research the biographies of our Founding Fathers (especially Franklin, Washington and Hamilton), you will see many references to Vattel and the Law of Nations. They not only acknowledge reading his work but Franklin actually stated that (and I'm paraphrasing here) when they were writing the Constitution, the book (Law of nations) "came to them at the perfect time" and that it had been "continually in the hands of the members of Congress".

To suggest that our Constitution was not influenced by the text of the Law of Nations would be like saying our Constitution was not influenced by the text of the Magna Carta, which in both cases - it was!


7. Although I disagree with your claim that Vattel's original translation did not use the term 'natural born' citizen, one only needs to consider our own Constitution (which remember was adopted in 1787). As you know, the term 'natural born' citizen is used as a prerequisite for Presidential eligibility.

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

Our Founders were very concerned about foreign influences that could destroy the foundation and freedoms that we fought so hard for. They knew that they needed to ensure that the loyalties remained with America and were not swayed by foreign allegiances.

Their solution was to guarantee that any future President’s loyalties to the country was ‘pure’ or 'natural’. Someone that would not by tempted by any foreign entity, which is also why one must ‘be a resident for 14 years’. (Travel to other countries was very common. Franklin himself lived in various European countries for several years).

Since many of our Founding Fathers (who could eventually run for President) were not Natural-Born Citizens, (they were 'citizens', but many of their parents were born abroad), our founders added a grandfather clause to exempt themselves: hence the condition "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

This exempted the early Presidential candidates from the condition of being a 'Natural-Born citizen'.

If their parent’s origin were not important or if ‘just’ being a citizen was acceptable, why make the distinction?

To suggest that the term was 'spontaneously generated a new translation of a French author' is preposterous, they put it there for a reason.

Furthermore, if the definition for 'Natural-Born citizen' is irrelevant for Presidential eligibility, why have there been so many attempts to change the Constitution? And why do these challenges mostly center on the ‘natural-born’ requirement?

By the way, was it not you that suggested that these challenges all came from Republicans?

Once again, not true. A Democrat named Jonathan B. Bingham made the first modern attempt in 1975. Since then there have been several other (almost equal) attempts by both parties. (BTW -I never said I was a Republican)

To me this suggests that both parties are complicit in the attempt to circumvent the Constitution, which is another reason no one in Congress will address Obama’s eligibility; they’re all crooked.)

Finally, your comment about copying me details verbatim from ‘birther’ sites is humorous in two ways. One because I was probably one of the original authors of some of the text you claim I copied (I’ve been researching this for several years) and (2) many of your comments are the repeated rhetoric spin from the left as well. So to call me out on this is very hypocritical.

Still waiting for a reply Anonymous Coward (User ID: 9994281) from Ireland who promised to answer my questions.

Last Edited by First Professor on 05/25/2012 12:25 AM

Still waiting for your reply Anonymous Coward (User ID: 9994281) from Ireland to the 'remainder' of my comments.

You said that you'd respond in it's 'entirity' (I think you meant entirety) and explain the 'Constituion' (Constitution) to me, (this will be interesting).

By the way; once you answer the first set of questions, you can then respond to my comments (re: 05/23/2012 03:27 PM) on the drivel that you mentioned above.

Last Edited by First Professor on 05/25/2012 12:52 AM

you guys are doing just exactaly what they want you to do ... get all mired up in the "birther" issue ... when that isn't the issue at all


OBAMA RELINQUISHED HIS AMERICAN (SND KENYAN) CITIZENSHIP WHEN HE BECAME A CITIZEN OF INDONESIA

you may see it a just a "technicality" but he, even as a Lawyer and as a Senator NEVER REINSTATED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP


OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN and hasn't been one since he was a baby

It doesn't matter where he was born, it doesn't matter who his parents were at the time ... he gave up all other citizenship to become Indonesian - and never officially change THAT status

You are correct and make a very valid argument.

My position has been that he was never eligible (regardless of which reason is used)

1. Was he born in Kenya? - if so he's ineligible.

2. Is Barack Obama Sr. is his father? - if so he's ineligible, father was not a Citizen.

3. Did he relinquish his American citizenship (re: Indonesian citizenship) - if so he's ineligible



There are also several reasons to suggest that even if he met the requirements for Constitutional eligibility, (at a minimum) he should be investigated for illegal activities.

1. Has he used Social Security Numbers that were not his own? - if so he should be in jail.

2. Did he lie about his citizenship / origin to fraudulently obtain college grants or tuition assistance? - if so he should be in jail or at least face fines & punishment.

etc., etc.



Your point just adds to the number of reasons why he should have never been elected. He was never vetted and it appears that most of the government is complicit in hiding this fact.

-

I'm bumping this thread because these Obama defenders think they can ridicule their opposition and make erroneous statements about Obama without having to defend their position.

I'm still waiting for answers to the numerous questions posed, but they are incapable of having an honest debate. Typically, their only source to support their position is a left-wing blog or a less-than partial site that is known to have connections with people like George Soros.

obviously you are not aware he's been under investigation since the Bush admin

he's as dirty as they come and is running this "investigation" as a deterrent.

Not supporting or defending Sheriff Arpiao (as I don't know much about him), but if he's been under investigation for almost 4 years and we haven't seen any indictment, I'd say he's either innocent or his accusers don't have much on him.

Could it be that the majority of his so-called legal issues are more politically motivated (by an administration that is trying to smear him). This is a very common tactic used by various agencies.

Again, if there were more to this (if it were the truth) we would see more evidence of his legal battles. Perhaps locally, there are stories but I don't see much on a national scale.

Uh, clearly I was being facetious AC.

As many have mentioned, the term 'Natural Born Citizen' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution and it is only used to define the requirement for President (See Art. II).

If the term is interchangeable (with just the word citizen, as some suggest); why is the verbiage not used in the next section of the Constitution for the requirements for Senator?

The wording for that requirement is just 'Citizen'. Only the position of President has the added requirement 'Natural-Born'.

If this were not important, why did the Founders make that distinction? If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," there is no reason for adding the exception.

You are an idiot. Its not defined as such, because one does not have to be born in the US to be a Senator. Their are other requirements. The term Natural Born Citizen refers to anyone born in the US. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
All things being equal the simplest answer is usually the correct one. So tell me which is more plausible. That the exact wording is different because one doesn't have to be born in the US to be a Senator? While the opposite is true of the presidency. Or that the wording insinuates that one must have two parents of US descent to hold the office? Again I have to ask, do you have a J.D.? Or are you a laymen trying to understand things that are out of your depth?

All u Sheriff Joe nutbags should all cheeck in to a mental health hospital and get shock treatments or lobotomy's. It may help maybe not or just vote and not worry about lunatic's like Sheriff Joe. Oh I forgot I talking to lunatic's.