Posted on 12/16/2016 4:19:30 PM PST by Elderberry
The conversation about Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been off the table for a while now – but the true heart of the matter has never been resolved.
Has anything in his administration been valid or legal? Oddly enough, it seems that a clever legal strategy may make the question of a forged document somehow irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility to hold office.
Coincidentally or not, it was none other than President-elect Donald Trump who, arguably, called off the hounds, got the Obama Admin to produce a document, and then called the whole thing square in the lead up to 2012.
More recently, Trump dismissed his previous ties to the “birther movement” during the last few weeks of his presidential campaign, brushing off the topic very hurriedly by stating: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
However, the question isn’t settled for investigators who have been conducting a five-year probe of the birth certificate they claim is a forgery – complete with photoshop layers!
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, headed by the outgoing Sheriff Joe Arpaio, found, via WND:
A years-long forensics investigation into the computer image of the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate image that Barack Obama released during a White House news conference during his first term and presented to the American people as an official government document concluded it is “fake.”
[…]
The sheriff’s video said there were nine images on the Obama birth certificate that appear to be identical to, and copied from, another birth certificate issued in Hawaii just days after his birth. That certificate belongs to Johanna Ah’nee.
[…]
“The inescapable conclusion is that the Hawaii Department of Health has not shown the American public the original 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, if they actually exist,” he said.
Clearly, the mainstream media will continue to cast doubt and ridicule on these claims.
But it isn’t for lack of substance, but for fear that these dangerous issues could be raised. A Republican controlled Congress, however, could revive the issue again. That much remains to be seen.
So what does it all mean? According to Jerome Corsi, WND writer and author of Where’s the Birth Certificate?:
“That President Obama’s birth certificate is fake, as proven now by a legitimate law enforcement examination raises serious questions that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed at the highest level of government. The clear conclusion is that the Obama presidency may have been illegitimate, having violated Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Impeachment procedures may be required, even if those procedures are conducted after Obama leaves office.”
Sheriff Arpaio indicated his intent to raise Congressional hearings and put forward a law requiring presidential vetting (obviously a good idea):
“I plan on turning over this investigation this month to the federal government. And Congress. And hope Congress No. 1 will pass a law, the president should be vetted. Common sense.
Meanwhile, the powers that be are claiming that the Arpaio posse investigation doesn’t matter.
What makes these matters even more interesting is that Obama lawyers have apparently admitted that the document is a fake – and went so far as to argue that the fake document, therefore, was not sufficient to disprove Obama’s eligibility for the highest office.
After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination … 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.
[…]
“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.
These bizarre statements are actually on video… skip ahead to 34-40 minutes in this second part for many of the relevant statements about how the alleged forgery never was relevant to whether or not Obama appeared on the ballot in 2012 – though, in theory and in merit, it should have been.
In hindsight, there may have been a masterful strategy of evasion at work.
a) Barack Obama satisfied the public scrutiny over his birth certificate by outwardly bending to pressure from Donald Trump’s “show me” routine
b) The Obama team (individuals not clearly identified) produced the document in question by leaking it to the press, and putting it online.
c) However, no birth certificate document was ever legally produced or turned in to anyone (including the State Dept.) in order to appear on the ballot, etc.
d) Therefore, legal questions concerning “forgery” of the document produced do not legally link up to anything about Obama’s candidacy or presidency
e) Any questions or criminal allegations are posed towards “as yet unknown” conspirators – meaning that, while the document may indeed be a proven forgery, no one is currently identified as having created the document. Unless Obama is personally implicated in creating and producing this document, it would have no bearing on his eligibility – in retrospect or otherwise. At this point, it isn’t even clear if a legitimate birth certificate exists for Obama, and if so, where it is located or being held.
f) Public perception is an entirely different beast. If it ever came to a head, the entire reign of Obama could be put into question. But luckily for the outgoing president, those making accusations and raising questions have been labeled and marginalized. Until the campaign of Donald Trump, the question had been largely dropped – even in many right wing circles.
Who can pin the tail on this donkey?
True Dat !
Add forgery of a government document to that intent charge.
Thanks for the PING
Once is happenstance. (perhaps)
Twice is coincidence. (perhaps)
Three times in enemy action.
You’re welcome, easternsky.
Congress and Jeff Sessions.
Pass the presidential candidate vetting law and authorize an investigation as to why vetting is necessary...then write a report on the Long Form fake B.C. of Barrack Hussein Obama. This will flesh out and define the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen."
That certainly appears to be the real deal.
Lyin’ Ted has continued to fail to produce a legally required CRBA to prove he’s even a US citizen and it should deny him any future government office.
Instead he has sealed his birth records...just like Obamatollah.
***U.S. LAW***
“A Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) is official evidence of United States citizenship, issued to a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents, who meet the requirements for transmitting citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156216.pdf
There is a prominent family in South Australia, who are shown on an extensive ancestry website. One of the items that was part of that data was a birth certificate for a member of that family.
That document was for the birth of David Jeffrey Bomford.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bomford.jpg
Some clown downloaded it and tampered with an image of that document. Naturally, Mr Bomford has since removed it from the website.
http://www.bomford.net/birth%20certificate%20david%20jeffrey%20bomford.htm
A birth certificate of David Jeffrey Bomford of Adelaide, South Australia, had been removed permanently from the Bomford family website.
“One cannot be anything else AND be a natural born citizen.”
You are dead right but unfortunately there are members of FR who still think that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and many have argued in the past that Obama is a natural born citizen. A lot of people just THINK they know that almost anyone is a natural born citizen of the USA. At 72 I clearly remember when the term natural born was applied to many things other than qualifying for the presidency. I had classmates who were natural born artists, natural born baseball players etc. Now that the term is almost never heard except in reference to the presidency very few people know the actual meaning but that does not stop them from claiming to know. Some actually seem to think that citizen and natural born citizen are the same thing. There are few subjects which seem to bring out more confusion and ignorance.
Technically your statement could be called incorrect even though we both know your meaning. A person can be many other things and still be a natural born citizen of the USA but none of those other things can have anything to do with being a citizen of any other country.
I meant one could not be a citizen or even have the option of being a citizen of another country of any other country and still be a natural born citizen.
Rubio, Haley, Jindal and George P Bush could have chosen to be citizens of their foreign national parent(s) country(s).
Even though they did not act on that option, as far as we know, they are still not eligible, born with divided loyalties.
Yes, the statutes are clear, even the Nationality Act of 1940 and the amended version of it (1952) clearly make Cruz a citizen.
Cruz was born a U.S. Citizen. By law.
There is Positive Law (man-made or statutory) and Natural Law (the laws of nature and nature's God).
Yes, Cruz is a "Citizen" by law, but not a natural born Citizen according to Natural Law.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
All law based on the Constitution support Cruz being 100% American born.
Have YOU seen his form N550 ???
Cruz is a US citizen by law, ie. naturalized.
He is situated identically to Aldo Bellei
Born on Canadian soil to TWO Canadian parents = Natural born Canadian
Both parents became Canadian citizens and registered to vote on the Alberta Provincial Voting Rolls.
He had no claim to US citizenship from birth. He is a naturalized US citizen, at best.
Born on Canadian soil to A U.S. CITIZEN and a Canadian citizen = American citizen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
