Posted on 03/27/2018 2:41:18 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
Former Arizona sheriff and current GOP candidate Joe Arpaio says that he will resume his controversial campaign challenging the legality of former President Obama's birth certificate, deemed a racist campaign by many, if he is elected to the Senate.
In remarks first reported by Right Wing Watch, Arpaio told a roomful of supporters in Arizona that he has remained silent about his accusations pertaining to Obama's birthplace while campaigning, but plans to resume his attacks if elected.
"I don't talk about it anymore, until I become a U.S. senator. ... So I'm kind of dropping that right now," Arpaio told the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, Arizona.
"But I'm going to tell you something," Arpaio continued, "100 percent we proved that's a fake document. One hundred."
Arpaio is running as a supporter of President Trump in the Arizona Senate race to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R). He faces two other GOP candidates in an August primary election, where he currently trails GOP Rep. Martha McSally (Ariz.).
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
You didn’t answer my question. I know what the constitution says. He was eligible. You haven’t shown any actual authority for your assertion. There’s no requirement that one affirmatively prove one’s citizenship. Trump didn’t do it. Neither did either Bush. I will grant you that the media couldn’t have cared less whether he was eligible, but there was never a sufficient challenge to any eligibility question.
He wasn’t qualified; he was beyond dangerous; everything else I could possibly say about him, well, isn’t very nice, to say the least. However, he WAS eligible as he was a US citizen.
You need to get over this since, even if you were correct, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference now. Arguing about it is silly.
A President-Elect is not officially in existence until Congress has ended the election by accepting the results of the Electoral College votes on January 15th. By doing so, they have named a person to be the next President, the President-Elect, and the election process is OVER.
Since the election is over, this means that the qualification required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three can only mean one thing, the Constitutional eligibility requirements in Article Two, Section Two. The term if the President-Elect shall have failed to qualify clearly describes an action by the President-Elect. He or she must qualify for the eligibility requirements of being a natural born citizen AND at least thirty-five years old. If he/She FAILS to prove eligibility, Congress is instructed to name an interim President.
How do you prove you are thirty-five years old without a valid birth certificate? How do you prove that you are a natural born citizen without presenting a valid birth certificate? Since there was still a question of eligibility concerning Obama in April of 2009 when he released his fraudulent electronic copy, it is apparent that he does not have a valid birth certificate and that Congress did not do their duty as required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three.
The first two words of the eligibility requirements in Article Two, Section Two preclude ANYONE who is NOT eligible from EVER holding the office of President. NO PERSON. It does not allow for anyone who Congress has allowed to take the oath by not enforcing the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. Obama was NEVER legally President. He was an eight-year usurpation of the office of President.
Ping to Sheriff Arpaio renewing his vow to go after Barry’s BC issue if elected to the Senate in a prominent Hill article.
I answered it quite well. The constitution requires a "natural born citizen" and the enforcement mechanism is implicit in the law.
I know what the constitution says. He was eligible.
Huh? What? You are misinformed. Barack Obama was absolutely *NOT* eligible under the standards of 1789, but even if you accept the incorrect claim that 14th amendment citizenship makes someone into a "natural citizen", you have no actual proof that he is even a 14th amendment citizen. (born in the country.)
At the very least, his eligibility is an open question under even the most lenient standards, because no valid proof has been put forth.
There’s no requirement that one affirmatively prove one’s citizenship.
Is there a requirement to affirmatively prove that you are over the age of 35 to be eligible?
Do you see your conundrum here? If you say there is no requirement to prove you are old enough, then you have effectively rendered Presidential requirements null. If you say there is a requirement to prove age, you have to do some fancy tap dancing to claim it doesn't force you to prove the other requirements.
So is a candidate required to prove age?
Trump didn’t do it. Neither did either Bush.
Neither man went around for years telling the whole f***ing world that they were born in Kenya.
You need to get over this since, even if you were correct, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference now. Arguing about it is silly.
It is a question of being objective and factual on what has now become an academic point. I've done a lot of research on this subject, and I have information of which most people are unaware regarding the topic.
he Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802. The law does not mention anything about Natural born citizenship.
The current law, The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1953 places specific limitations on basic citizenship if the child is born overseas to an underage natural born citizen mother. Stanley Anne Dunham did not meet the statutory requirements of that law if he was born overseas on the date claimed, to even be considered a citizen of ANY sort.
While it is true that the SCOTUS has never decided what the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution means with regard to POTUS eligibility, in every SCOTUS definition wherein they have defined what an NBC is, (Venus Merchantman case of 1814, in which they cited in toto the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich de Vatel’s Law of Nations, Minor vs Haperstatt, Wong Kim Ark vs US) it has been stated has a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner.
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
He failed to shut that down early on, that is HIS fault. We know we up against a corrupt media and we know the GOPee will be against us. He was just a bad candidate. If he couldn’t get the loyal republican/conservative voters out in Alabama to support him, he was the problem, nothing else.
Stanley Ann Dunham was not 0bama’s mother.
.
By allowing the requirements of presidential eligibility to be ignored the door is opened for any foreigner with a conflicting interest to assume power over the USA.
It is the ultimate culmination of the globalist plan to rule the USA for their foreign and personal monetary interests.
Ignore the constitution at your peril, and open the door to everyone and anyone.
1. bin laden’s son of his fourth wife (an American 15yo girl) raped in Yemen, born in the USA. /s
2. Prince Hussein of Jordan -born to Queen Rania (American born Lisa Halby) and King Abdullah bin Hussein of Jordan.
Never forget that the thousands of Ameri-Asian offspring of American men fighting in Korea and Vietnam were NOT given American citizenship or even residency status. Then explain how Ted Cruz was ever truly eligible for potus.
Born on foreign soil and raise there for several years.
Born to a foreign father- Cuban-Canadian.
Born to an expat American- Canadian mother.
And pray tell, how does one "shut down" accusations made by kook women with the media megaphone spending virtually every day broadcasting these accusations, while the media deliberately manipulates the numbers to make it appear as if there are eight of them, when in fact there were only two?
How do you stop the media smear machine? Inquiring minds want to know.
He was just a bad candidate.
My point, which still stands, is that if the media spends Millions of dollars worth of air time ramping up accusations against you, anyone would become a "bad candidate."
Macaca? "Witch"? "Wide Stance"? "Dog on Roof"? Were they all "bad candidates"?
Have you heard the insane sh*t that Maxine Watters, Nancy Pelosi or "Island tip over" Hank Johnson says?
For some reason they don't become "bad candidates", and win their elections, even though they are bone headed stupid and/or insane/nuts!
Sean Hannity
That was his moment to shut it down
And he practically admitted to it
Not strong
Plus saying our country was at its best during the civil war?
The guy needed to stop saying stupid shiat and shut those accusations down early. He was playing defense, when he should have been playing offense
Learned nothing from Trump
Worst campaign ever
He might have done so had Sean Hannity not embraced the enemies narrative that dating teenagers was the equivalent of Child Molesting. When you start out the interview establishing that as your standard, the guy who dated teenagers is put in a really bad position.
Sean messed up that interview by focusing on the wrong thing.
Plus saying our country was at its best during the civil war?
Which was deliberately distorted from what he meant. But yes, most politically adept people would know better than to say anything good about that era. That indeed was an unforced error.
He was playing defense, when he should have been playing offense
How do you play offense when your enemies own all the cameras and broadcasting systems? Modern politics relies too heavily on systems of communication that are completely in the hands of the opposition party.
The public will hear what Liberals decide it will hear.
How did you think Trump played it?
Trump plays offense
He is always on offense
Moore was playing defense and he lost
Moore was the reason for that lost
He could have set Hannity straight right off the bat
He did not
Running for senate is not for the softies, Moore was soft and an easy target. Lousy campaign, lousy candidate.
Stop making excuses for bad losses, learn from it and don’t repeat those same mistakes. Its called moving on.
This is exactly the advice I want *YOU* to take. Stop blaming Moore when it was a coalition of Democrat and Republican Uni-party Swamp protection soldiers that did him in.
Ronald Reagan couldn't have survived the assault they made against Moore. People like you are always demanding candidates be absolutely perfect, but the real world doesn't work like that. People like Reagan or Trump are 1 in a Million.
Again, those are just excuses
Moore could have overcome that loss, he failed. Even when he was “popular” in Alabama he barely won with a 2-3 point lead. So this guy is a lousy campaigner, a lousy candidate who ran the worse campaign I ever saw. Most of his undoing was the stuff he did or said.
He’s an idiot.
The democrats, the media and the GOPee will always be their to knock our candidates no matter what. We can’t blame the wolf for eating the lamb, we just need to stop electing lambs in the primary, that is all.
I’ve seen some info about that. Chicago slime is the key... Don’t know what the lock is. B.O. sure looks like commie Frank....and his ties to valjar, Ayers still sound interesting. Could you give me a thread to investigate? TU.
I’ll get back to you. There were numerous, very long research threads done years ago. WIthout having followed them at the time, it would be hard to go back and find the stuff. But I’ll take a stab at it later.
0b0la doesn’t look at all like FMD, btw. FMD may have helped with fake paperwork when 0bola was brought to HI at some point.
Good synopsis below, and there are a few other good comments on the thread, plus useless ones of course, such as thinking there are many stand-ins for 0bola, which I disagree with, but are or aren’t, is not germane to the topic at hand.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3487016/posts?page=55#55
And any other comments by the above poster on the topic. You can search for FN’s comments several years back on threads on the topic of 0b0la’s identity.
The below thread has good info but it is extremely long with a lot of nonsense as well. The above poster has the most accurate info on the thread below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts
Many comments on the below search on the topic will be useful, if you stick to the precise topic of 0bola’s history and identity.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:david/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
Or he’s being funded by Democrats so that he can win the primary and get creamed in the general. That’s what I’d be doing if I were them.
“Beyond Reproach” it the ONLY standard for this or any other Senatorial election. At least if one is running with an ‘R’ behind their name.
“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Ephesians 5:30
Not even a *HINT*
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.
