Video: National Public Radio's Betsy Liley Openly Admitted Obama Birther Cover Up

BirtherReport.com ^ | April 28, 2013 | Tim Brown

[Seizethecarp]

Senior Director of Institutional Giving for NPR Betsy Liley said it is still a question of whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. She clearly is heard talking about a coverup, keeping the birther issue out of the news because it was “political” and even indicating that there was monkey business going on in Hawaii concerning Obama’s birth certificate. Listen to the brief audio below and see for yourself. Birthers are not just on the right. There are clearly birthers on the left, they just want to cover up the truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

The media rarely reports on conspiracy theories from the right or left......nor should they

Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is just an attempt to make it go away. It's like saying Benghazi was caused by a movie.

It is not a "conspiracy" that the only evidence submitted to State Election boards was a piece of paper signed by Nancy Pelosi. It is just plain ole incompetence for election officials to not ask for some actual proof.

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

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

Like Nancy Pelosi has a F***ing clue about anything.

[Seizethecarp]

Here is my transcript after listening closely one more time which is more accurate than your transcript (because your transcript includes an editorial correction of who Liley said the NBC clause applies to):

“...to run for president you have to be born in the U.S. For many other offices you don’t have to, but that office you do have to be born in the U.S. And there’s still a question about whether he IS, and that IS a FACT!”

Per Jeff Winston:

“And it’s clear she’s not putting forth her personal belief. It’s clear that her personal belief is that Obama was born in the US. In fact, she compares discussing whether Obama was born in the US to discussing whether the earth is flat.”

Jeff Winston:

What Liley is comparing is NPR’s editorial distinction between covering factual disputes on two topics, climate change and where Barry was born, about which there is a disagreement over FACTS. Her comment about flat-earthers was a toss-off argumentum absurdum line about arguing about facts.

Liley was NOT equating the factual basis of climate change denial and ‘birtherism.’ Liley made a declarative affirmation that there IS A QUESTION about whether Barry was born in the U.S. While climate change denial is covered by the political desk, ‘birther’ claim are NOT COVERED (i.e. censored).

Liley DID say that climate change is covered by the NPR Science Desk, but she declaratively stated that . “...there’s still a question about whether he IS “(born in the U.S.), followed by the emphatic double-down: “and that IS a FACT!”

[Jeff Winston]

Why do I talk to you? You quote me above with the explicit words "on the meaning of Article II" and are so stupid to ask why we talk about Bingham? Bingham is NOT an authority on article II. Do you know on what he is an Authority? THE FOURTEENTH F***ING AMENDMENT!!!!" When we are discussing *THAT*, he is a legitimate authority.

Now, now. Temper, temper. Remember what Mommy told you. :-)

And, you might also take note that posters here are requested to "Please remember to use courtesy when posting, refrain from personal attacks and do not use profane or obscene language," you know.

So first of all, your claim that all of the genuine legal authorities in history, who dedicated their lives to understanding our legal system, aren't worth cold spit, and that YOU are so much more of a legal authority than these esteemed and learned gentlemen (and occasionally, gentlewomen) throughout our American history is complete and total hogwash.

But I'm going to let that pass for the moment. I have a question to ask you.

So in your opinion, Mr. Genius...

Did the 14th [expletive deleted] Amendment (which I shall henceforth refer to simply as the "14th Amendment"), which never mentioned the words "natural born," or "natural born citizen," change or modify or alter the meaning of that term in Article II of our Constitution?

Yes, or no.

[Nero Germanicus]

There’s no proof that would convince you; of that I’m certain.
But Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that he’s eligible. Under the provisions of the 12th Amendment, he twice received a majority of the votes of the Electors and whoever does that “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”

The courts have ruled him to be eligible and multiple courts have ruled him to be a natural born citizen.
In five years, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to this issue, however the House of Representatives did pass House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress in 2009 which named Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. The resolution passed 378-0.

For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
and:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Additionally, every state’s Chief Elections Official cleared him for their state’s ballot, twice; Congress unanimously certified his Electoral votes, twice; and Congress has sent him literally hundreds of bills to sign into law as President and the Senate has confirmed scores of his nominees. Those congressional acts, at the very least, qualify him under the “de facto officer” doctrine. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to review his eligibility on twenty-five occasions thus allowing lower court rulings to stand as rendered.

[Red Steel]

We’re still waiting for you to tell us your TheFogBow.com, aka Fogblower’s, name.

[Nero Germanicus]

I’m really sorry to disappoint but I don’t have one.

[Red Steel]

Sure.

[FreeAtlanta]

I have always called those trying to shut down the eligibility investigation the true “birthers” because they know there is a problem and do their best to ridicule and shut down honest investigations and debate.

I forgot why I stopped listening to Glen Beck, until his sidekicks today went on a disgusting rant about there only being a handful of people who believed Obama was not born in the USA.

[Red Steel]

Maybe you’re related to Michael Michael or EnderWiggins?

Something about FogBlowing January FR signups.

[Nero Germanicus]

To my knowledge am I not related to either of those persons.

[Jeff Winston]

In five years, not one second of congressional hearing time has been devoted to this issue, however the House of Representatives did pass House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress in 2009 which named Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. The resolution passed 378-0.

Man. Stay around here, get an education. I wasn't aware of that Resolution.

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;

378 to 0.

Well, I guess that shows you how much credence birthers have in Congress.

What are we up to on the court cases now? Is it 0 for 200, or 0 for 300? I find it hard to keep count.

"Any day now."

[Nero Germanicus]

The count is 202 original jurisdiction lawsuits, 90 state and federal appellate rulings and 25 SCOTUS denials of certiorari or denials of applications for stays, injunctions or extraordinary writs. That’s 317 civil actions that have been adjudicated thus far.

[TauntedTiger]

FYI - you can put 317 fake birth certificates on the head of a pin... if you know how to shrink them down in Photoshop.

[edge919]

Unfortunately had any of those decisions been based on good law, there wouldn’t have been 202 lawsuits. Winning on technicalities and 200 different rationalizations still doesn’t make Obama Constitutionally eligible. Plus, he could only argue to a draw in Kansas.

[Red Steel]

Yeah, not pinhead size here, but just like Obama's perpetuate lies and Obama's press and trolls who want to believe it's soooooo true!

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Appreciate your dropping in, RS. I've always admired your willingness to swim through all the crap in duking it out with the trolls/Fogblowers at ORYR. Never expected so many of those bad actors to come be allowed to remain on FR.

[Nero Germanicus]

Do these decisions sound like rulings on “technicalities” to you?
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

---

Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

---

Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

---

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

---

Those are definitive rulings.

There is no such thing as a “tie” in an eligibility challenge. Either a candidate is ruled eligible and appears on the ballot or they don’t appear due to having been ruled ineligible. Obama was approved for the Kansas ballot and received 440,726 popular votes in Kansas.

[edge919]

Do these decisions sound like rulings on “technicalities” to you?

Did you NOT read these before posting them?? Don't make this so easy for me. I'll highlight the parts that you posted to prove my point.

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

ABOVE: Baseless denial of Minor. No legal foundation is given to support the denial or to provide any authority to support the "precedent" it claims to follow.

Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

All of these bolded claims hinge on ignoring Supreme Court precedent. Notice, there's no direct citation to any specific case, just a circular logic argument followed by an unsupported denial that ignores the law.

Voeltz v Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012 http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

Wow!! How about that for a specific citation: "other courts" ... but again, ignoring the Supreme Court.

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

More mystery law. The court "considered" that Obama was born in the United States. Evidently this is what a court does in the absence of legal proof. Then it cites and misrepresents Ankney, which did NOT say Obama became a citizen at birth or that he is a natural-born citizen.

Now, where are the cases that are based on specific and demonstrable legal precedent and not on unspecified other courts, considertations absent of legal evidence and that have legal foundations to support any denials or rejections??

[GregNH]

"Please remember to use courtesy when posting, refrain from personal attacks"

You're an idiot.

you're nothing but a lying troll.

Hey, nutjob

Like I say, nutjob,....Jerk

And you wonder why sane conservatives think birthers are:

Ha, you're funny!

[Smokin' Joe]

America has too many foreigners who know nothing, absolutely nothing about our original founders and the importance of the Constitution or how it establishes individual liberty that is not found anywhere else in the world.

Educate those you can, note those you cannot.