Nearly six years into Barack Obama’s presidency, birthers are still grasping for evidence that the president is lying somehow about who he is or where he was born.
In an interview with Denver radio host Peter Boyles this week, Mike Zullo, the “lead investigator” in Sheriff Joe Arpiao’s “Cold Case Posse” suggested a new lead for birthers: Maybe Obama’s mother wasn’t actually his mother!
Zullo told Boyles that he doesn’t know who Obama is, but “all that I can tell you is I don’t believe he is who he purports to be.”
He said that he disagreed with fellow conspiracy theorist Joel Gilbert’s assertion that the president’s real father was American labor organizer Frank Marshall Davis. Instead, he said, “I would be focusing real hard on who’s the mommy.”
The birther website WorldNetDaily is not exactly celebrating President Obama’s birthday this week, insisting that since his birth certificate is fake, he probably is lying about how old he is, too.
In his column yesterday, “Obama Turned 53 — Or Did He?,” Jack Cashill writes that Obama is not telling the truth about not only his birth place, but also about the year he was born.
The WorldNetDaily reporter cites a 2007 speech Obama delivered in Selma, Alabama, about how his “existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today.” Obama was born in 1961, while the Selma to Montgomery march occurred in 1965. Of course, Obama’s remarks clearly referred to the progress of the Civil Rights Movement in general, but Cashill interprets his words literally to suggest that Obama inadvertently admitted that his birth certificate is phony.
In between the two convention speeches, the story of Obama’s birth was told more often than that of anyone’s since Jesus. No one, of course, told it as convincingly as Obama himself, especially in his game-saving Philadelphia speech, immodestly titled, “A More Perfect Union.”
“My very existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today,” Obama told the civil rights veterans gathered to mark the events of “Bloody Sunday” in 1965.
“Something happened back here in Selma, Alabama,” Obama continued. This something “sent a shout across the ocean,” which inspired the Barack Sr., “herding goats” back in Kenya, to “set his sights a little higher.”
This same something also “worried folks in the White House” to the point that the “the Kennedys decided we’re going to do an airlift.”
As the saga continued, Barack Sr. got a ticket on the airlift and met Obama’s mother, a descendant of slave owners. “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge,” preached Obama.
“So they got together, and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”
He didn’t, and he wasn’t. The correct answer is b) comically unanchored to reality.
Although born in Kansas, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was not exactly Dorothy. She spent her formative years in the state of Washington, hanging with her homies in her school’s “anarchist alley.”
If there ever were a romance between Dunham and Barack Sr., it likely started at closing time and ended when Senior sobered up. In any case, Selma had nothing to do with Obama’s birth.
According to his birth certificate, Obama was born in 1961, four years before anyone outside of Alabama ever heard of the town.
By the time of the march, Barack Sr. had long since abandoned Ann and baby Barry for Harvard where he hooked up with another white American woman.
So preposterous was Obama’s Selma math – by his calculations, he could have been born no sooner than 1966 – that it made the birth certificate seem at least relatively believable. Maybe that was the intention all along.
WorldNetDaily columnist Lord Christopher Monckton knows that Americans would rise up and demand President Obama’s imprisonment if only they knew the truth about “the genuineness of the ‘birth certificate.’” They would know this, he argues, if only the “Marxstream news media” (that’s a new one) would stop suppressing the findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s conspiracy-theory-driven “cold case posse.”
Monckton writes today in WND that the findings of Arpaio’s “investigation” into Obama’s birth certificate received “virtually no major news coverage,” thus letting Obama off the hook and suppressing the great work of “tea party citizens.”
He goes on to link media coverage of the birther conspiracy theory to reports about climate change: “[T]he voters are not given a fair selection of the facts on the climate, on the ‘birth certificate’ or on many other subjects where the ‘liberal’ majority in the news media simply refuses to keep them briefed. Herein lies a grave danger to democracy.”
It seems voters will miss out on Arpaio’s damning investigation, “unless they had been fortunate enough to read WND.”
Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, is portrayed by the Marxstream news media as being nothing more than a redneck Republican with a thirst for self-publicity. This catastrophic misrepresentation may yet come back to bite them.
When 250 tea party citizens approached him with their concerns about the genuineness of the “birth certificate,” he told them he did not want to get involved in a political squabble. When they persisted, he said he would refer the “birth certificate” to his cold-case posse. The posse, after some weeks, reported that they were themselves unhappy with the document and wanted to investigate further.
Six months later, he went public and said there was probable cause to suggest the White House document was a forgery. Yet his press conference, apart from a very brief item on CNN, got virtually no major news coverage.
However, neither he nor his posse have given in. They have had insufficient support from the state’s attorney general, who seems to prefer a quiet life. Any AG worth his salt would by now have gone straight to the federal district court and asked for orders requiring the state of Hawaii to hand over the original “birth certificate” and related documents for forensic examination. There is more than enough evidence to justify such an application, but the AG sits comfortably in his air-conditioned office and looks the other way.
In this respect, the debate about the “birth certificate” is similar to the debate about the climate. As with the “birth certificate,” so with the climate, the left have sullenly adopted a preconceived notion, and since they overwhelmingly control the news media, they are unwilling to allow any fact to be published if that fact runs counter to the Party Line.
So the voters are not given a fair selection of the facts on the climate, on the “birth certificate” or on many other subjects where the “liberal” majority in the news media simply refuses to keep them briefed. Herein lies a grave danger to democracy. For if the news media, whatever their opinion, will not report the facts on both sides of a question, how can the voters obtain enough information to reach a fair decision on the basis of the evidence?
That is one of many reasons why I hope that Sheriff Joe will persist in his investigation until he leaves the attorney general of Arizona no option but to do the right thing. If Sheriff Joe eventually succeeds in proving before a jury that the “birth certificate” is a forgery, the voters will rightly be furious that – unless they had been fortunate enough to read WND – they had not previously been given any of the key facts behind the investigation. Then, perhaps, they will realize that news media controlled by the left can no longer be trusted. They will cease to subscribe to those media that have become most clearly prejudiced. And, by withdrawing their custom, they will drive those media out of business.
Having utterly failed in years of attempts to prove that President Obama was born overseas, WorldNetDaily is now turning to a backup plan, claiming that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen.
Media Matters noted in 2011 that while years of legal precedence rejects the argument that Obama’s noncitizen father disqualifies him from being a “natural born citizen,” birthers are “ clinging… like grim death” to the theory.”
WND reporter Aaron Klein writes today in an article titled, “ Impeach Obama? Presidency Likely Illegal,” that “[t]he nation’s failure to explore the constitutional problems inherent in Obama’s candidacy coupled with the failure of the legislative and judicial branches to conduct an investigation into the matter may have set the stage for the president’s future disregard for the supreme law of the United States.”
One central point seems to be missing from the national conversation about impeaching President Obama for alleged violations of the Constitution.
When Obama was first proposed as a presidential candidate in 2007, the nation failed to have a meaningful debate concerning the serious constitutional issue of electing someone whose father was not a U.S. citizen.
According to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution and even a Senate resolution affirmed by Obama himself, Obama likely does not qualify for the constitutional requirement that stipulates only a “natural born” citizen can serve as U.S. president.
In other words, Obama’s very presidency could itself be unconstitutional. And the matter has nothing to do with where the president was born.
The nation’s failure to explore the constitutional problems inherent in Obama’s candidacy coupled with the failure of the legislative and judicial branches to conduct an investigation into the matter may have set the stage for the president’s future disregard for the supreme law of the United States.
Just this morning, we shared a new Rolling Stone profile of Gun Owners of America leader Larry Pratt, who despite his long record of anti-government extremism and association with any number of racist and anti-Semitic radicals continues to be an influential gun lobbyist who gets airtime from the mainstream media and attention from members of Congress.
As if to underscore the point, this weekend Pratt gave an interview to a pair of Patriot movement activists who recently launched a radio show after meeting at the Bundy ranch, where he shared the bizarre fringe birther theory that President Obama is secretly the son of labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, who groomed the president from birth to destroy America from within.
The Frank Marshall Davis birther theory was invented and popularized by right-wing filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who thinks that Obama got plastic surgery in an attempt to hide his resemblance to Davis and who also believes that the president wears a secret Muslim wedding ring and could have been behind the Aurora movie theater shooting .
The “evidence” for Gilbert’s claim — laid out in detail in his 2012 film “Dreams From My Real Father” — is a series of racy photos of a woman who bears a passing resemblance to Obama’s mother (but is not) and his totally scientific opinion that Obama looks more like Davis than like Barack Obama, Sr.
Gilbert’s theory has been panned by traditional birthers, because it undermines their claim that Obama isn’t a natural-born U.S. citizen, but has taken off among those who are seeking other ways to question the president’s origins. It was most notably endorsed by Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, who said in 2012 that he had seen Gilbert’s movie and “verified that it is factual, all of it.”
In his interview with “The Liberty Brothers Radio Show,” Pratt presented the Frank Marshall Davis theory as a plausible explanation for why Obama “hates” America.
“His father was either a Kenyan socialist or the Communist Party member who lived across the street, Frank Marshall Davis, and there’s a lot more physical resemblance between the latter and Obama than Obama Sr. and Obama,” he said.
Bringing up the conspiracy theory that Obama enrolled in school as a foreign student, Pratt said that while he doesn’t think the president is foreign-born — “I really think that more likely was that the communist that lived across the street in Hawaii could have been the father” — he does think Obama lied about being a foreign student to get financial aid.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is pretty sure that Hillary Clinton will never win the presidency, and one reason is that President Obama has already found a “clone” of himself who he is grooming to succeed him as president
Farah doesn’t know who this Obama clone is, but he reminds us that “the unknown, undocumented, underachieving Barack Obama arose from nowhere” too.
Point No. 4: I don’t think she can get the nomination. I know what you’re thinking: Who’s going to beat her? The Democratic leadership back bench is not exactly deep. But, let’s face it: It wasn’t in 2008. And that’s when the unknown, undocumented, underachieving Barack Obama arose from nowhere.
Today, Obama remains the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and he will remain so until the party nominates a new leader. He may not have much in the way of accomplishments as president to speak of, but he has done one thing in the last eight years: He has built a formidable political machine. Don’t you think he’s going to use it? Don’t you think Obama is going to have a say about who succeeds him? And do you think, with the animosity that is so palpable between the Obamas and the Clintons, he’s going to go with someone other than Hillary?
I don’t know who the Democratic nominee will be. But I doubt it is anyone commonly mentioned by the pundits today. That person is known to someone though. It’s known to Barack Obama.
That’s what I think. He’s going to find a clone. And they’re going to run the same drill they ran so successfully in 2008 and 2012.
Will the Obama clone win? I hope not. Depends who the Republicans nominate. If it’s Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, the unnamed Democrat wins – hands down. Even Hillary can beat either one.
Wayne Allyn Root, who campaigned with Mississippi Senate candidate Chris McDaniel in the final days of his losing campaign, told Steve Deace yesterday that he sympathizes with McDaniel because he has also been “smeared” by liberals who think that he’s racist.
"They claim that because I called Obama a Manchurian candidate that I must be some kind of racist nutcase and extreme," he said.
“I merely state the truth and say, do we have a Manchurian candidate?” Root said.
Here’s Root’s speech to a McDaniel rally last weekend, for which he was apparently unfairly smeared by liberals.
Jeff Allen, the senior editor of Matt Barber’s BarbWire website, seized on Bill Maher’s comment this week that President Obama is a “drop-dead atheist” to launch into his own speculations about the president’s religion.
Allen writes today that while “many emphatically contend” that the president is “secretly a Muslim,” he believes the president is a “spiritual phony” who “worships, and expects others to worship, at the altar of himself.”
But who knows? Allen writes that since Obama’s “godless, anti-Christian, pro-perversity actions speak at a drastically higher decibel level than his vacuous words, we can’t help but wonder what the president really believes.”
“After all,” he writes, “we don’t even know his real name, his actual place of birth or his grades on his college transcripts for crying out loud. So, we probably never really will know much about the truth behind this least-vetted president in American history.”
What exactly is the religion of President Barack Obama? We are abundantly aware of his perplexing claims to Christianity — his friends in the lamestream media have seen to that. In fact, during a much-hyped, rare backyard discussion about his religious beliefs in New Mexico on September 28, 2010, the president described himself as a “Christian by choice” who arrived at his faith later in life during adulthood. “So, I came to my Christian faith later in life,” he explained, “and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I want to lead.”
However, since his godless, anti-Christian, pro-perversity actions speak at a drastically higher decibel level than his vacuous words, we can’t help but wonder what the president really believes. Is he a Christian (nominally at best)? Is he secretly a Muslim as many emphatically contend? Or what exactly is his religion? Does anyone really know for sure? After all, we don’t even know his real name, his actual place of birth or his grades on his college transcripts for crying out loud. So, we probably never really will know much about the truth behind this least-vetted president in American history. The Leftist political pundits in the press continue to expend a great amount of energy shielding and providing cover for our Deceiver-in-Chief — they have to protect baby dismemberment and sodomy-based marriage at all costs.
And if anyone should ever dare to attempt to dig into the past or the private life of Obama, then his sycophant acolytes will immediately come unhinged and go on the wild-eyed offensive — they simply can’t bear the thought of having the façade removed. Therefore, the concerned citizens of this country just can’t help but wonder: What in the world are they trying so hard to hide?
“He’s a drop-dead atheist. Absolutely,” Maher flatly insisted.
Hey, Maher may be on to something here. As they say, it takes one to know one. Perhaps an avowed atheist is the best equipped to spot a spiritual phony.
So, for the spiritually inquisitive, here’s the actual answer regarding the faith of our feckless leader:
The object of our President’s veneration is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. He worships, and expects others to worship, at the altar of himself. It’s the vapid religion of Obamaism that has swiftly rushed in to fill the spiritual vacuum of liberalism.
Obama is a narcissist by several orders of magnitude who delusionally thinks the world should instantly recognize his greatness and grovel at his feet. The president fancies himself the silver-tongued orator whose “messianic-like” words should cause all to fall upon their faces in adoration and awe.
In a “Crosstalk” interview with VCY America’s Vic Eliason this week, Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver suggested that Congress launch an investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate.
“I think Congress certainly has the ability to do some investigation,” Staver said to a “Crosstalk” listener. “The problem that we have with the birth certificates is that the courts have really not given a full healing to some of those things because they have not granted most people’s standing, or the right to sue as individuals. I think Congress would certainly have that capability, at least at nothing else to conduct hearings.”
Staver also said that Congress should be “proceeding with impeachment” of the president over the purported scandals surrounding Benghazi, the IRS and the return of Sgt. Bowie Bergdahl.
He charged Republican lawmakers with falling asleep on the job: “There are things that the House should be doing that they’re not doing; they should be proceeding with impeachment. They should stare down Obama on these budget debates and not constantly give in, and I think that’s partly due to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner.”
If charges of tyranny and birther allegations weren’t enough for listeners, Staver then delved into Obama’s supposed lack of patriotism and support for communism and Islamism. “[Obama’s] actions promote communist, socialist kinds of ideas,” he says. “His actions are very sympathetic to Islam and very hostile to Christianity…He supported the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the mother of all terrorist organizations.”
“Judged by his actions, Obama is the most anti-American president we have ever had,” he concluded.
In an interview yesterday with the Washington Times’ Rusty Humphries — in which he also shared a number of conspiracy theories about the influx of Central American families and young people at the border — Sheriff Joe Arpaio claimed that he decided not to run for governor of Arizona because he is making progress on his never-ending “investigation” into President Obama’s birth certificate.
Arpaio claimed that he was close to finding the person who he believes forged the president’s birth certificate. “Anybody else would go to jail” for such a forgery, he said.
WorldNetDaily super reporter Jerome Corsi is positively giddy about a court case in the UK in which a “self-proclaimed intelligence expert,” Michael Shrimpton, insists he will reveal proof that President Obama was born in Kenya and DNA evidence showing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not the president’s real mother.
According to Shrimpton, “the DNA samples were collected at a fundraising dinner from water glasses that were bagged after the dinner,” and “NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.”
WND commentator Lord Christopher Monckton, a vocal birther who wants Obama imprisoned, has jumped on the Shrimpton case in hopes that it will vindicate the birther movement and is denouncing the “monumentally stupid and fatally misconceived hate campaign” against Shrimpton.
As Ben Dimiero of Media Matters writes, “Apparently WND is desperate enough to keep birther conspiracies alive that they are willing to highlight allegations that even they seemingly find implausible.”
WND has also reported on Shrimpton’s related conspiracy theory that a terrorist group planned to launch an attack on the London Olympics with a nuclear weapon stolen from a sunken Russian submarine.
But that’s not all, as Shrimpton even claims to have evidence showing that “a secret German intelligence agency” known as DVD is behind a major pedophile ring linked to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and is responsible for Madeleine McCann’s abduction. On top of that, Shrimpton claims that the purported German secret intelligence unit/pedophile ring worked with China to blow up the missing Malaysia Airlines plane with a submarine.
Corsi naturally interviewed WND “investigative reporter” Jack Cashill to corroborate Shrimpton’s Malaysia Airlines claim:
Shrimpton believes Madeleine McCann was murdered in or about December 2008, after she had been transported by German submarine to pedophile rings operating in Argentina and Chile.
Since 2008, Shrimpton in various published reports has tied EU President Jose Manuel Barroso and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to the international pedophile rings that abducted the McCann child.
Monckton observed that by forcing Shrimpton to defend himself in a jury trial in November, the Crown Prosecution Service could force disclosure of documents and testimony in a sex scandal that could conceivably involve government officials in the U.K. and the EU, assuming Judge McCreath allows Shrimpton to pursue the topic to establish a factual basis for his suspicions.
Shrimpton faces his own sex-related charges. He is appealing his conviction in a summary court judgment of a criminal misdemeanor charge for having on his computer pornographic images. The images were discovered by British police after government officials in conjunction with filing criminal indictments regarding the 2012 Olympics case seized from his home his computers and electronic equipment.
Shrimpton insists he did not place the images on his computer. He contends the government has no evidence that would link him to the source of the images.
On March 15, Shrimpton published in his blog at VeteransToday.com an article claiming a 636 Kilo class Chinese submarine brought down the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 using a Chinese-made copy of a Hughes Aircraft AIM-54A Phoenix missile, originally supplied to Iran in the 1970s.
The search for the missing Boeing 777 most recently focused on a wide expanse of the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia, but now befuddled searchers say they may have to start the investigation from scratch.
An investigation of past airline disasters suggests Shrimpton’s claim is plausible.
Cashill explained that while he might not agree with Shrimpton that the Chinese intentionally shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, he remained suspicious the Chinese might have shot down the airliner accidentally and were seeking to cover-up the incident.
WorldNetDaily reporter Jerome Corsi, a leader of the birther movement, is enthralled by Michael Shrimpton, a British “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” who claims that Edward Snowden possesses evidence proving that Stanley Ann Dunham is not President Obama’s real mother and that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
In his article, “Obama’s Origins Resurface At Intel Expert’s Trial,” Corsi claims that Shrimpton has the latest birther bombshell: “Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA,” revealing that Obama was “born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960” and “establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.”
In a nearly empty courtroom at the Southwerk Crown Court by the historic London Bridge, a hearing took place in a criminal case that not only has national security implications for the United Kingdom, but, curiously, is woven into the increasingly bizarre fabric of the controversy over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility.
When it came his time to speak, defendant Michael Shrimpton, a middle-aged London barrister by profession and self-proclaimed intelligence expert, politely issued to the judge a series of interrogatories that made clear he plans to launch a vigorous defense, representing himself before the court.
The criminal charges brought by the British government against Shrimpton under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 accuse him of falsely notifying the British government to prepare for a terrorist nuclear attack on the 2012 Olympics in London that the British government claims had no basis in reality.
It’s the same Michael Shrimpton who appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.
Shrimpton says he was informed that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960, which means, he said, the information sits in British intelligence files, because that territory was under the British Empire at the time.
Shrimpton said it was his understanding that the DNA samples were collected at a fundraising dinner from water glasses that were bagged after the dinner.
In conversations with WND, nevertheless, Shrimpton doubled down on the claims he made in 2008 by asserting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.
Shrimpton made clear he intends to subpoena from the CIA and from British intelligence any records either agency may have on Obama’s DNA.
“I intend to stand by my allegations regarding the Obama birth certificate, knowing that U.S. intelligence agencies will prefer to characterize me as crazy and delusional rather than admit the CIA has the files I believe they have on Obama DNA,” Shrimpton insisted.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was at the forefront of the birther movement for several years until he suddenly denied ever playing a role in it when he realized that his central claim — that President Obama was born abroad rather than Hawaii and therefore is ineligible to be president — could haunt the presidential ambitions of the Canadian-born Ted Cruz.
But Obama’s joke about the “crazy” birther movement in a speech at the National Action Network last week has set Farah off again.
Today, Farah writes in a WorldNetDaily editorial that Obama’s remarks prove he “hoodwinked” voters and is still hiding his real birth certificate!
I didn’t bring it up. Donald Trump didn’t bring it up. Jerome Corsi didn’t bring it up. Obama did.
“Just to be clear, I know where my birth certificate is,” Obama said, a little bit self-consciously, perhaps aware that anyone watching the recording outside of the friendly venue of the National Action Network conference might be thinking about it.
“You remember that? That was crazy,” said Obama. “I hadn’t thought about that in a while.”
Haven’t thought about it in a while?
Do you believe that?
I don’t think he has stopped thinking about how he conned the American public into giving him the presidency without genuine, fraud-free documentation. He only produced something a few days after Corsi and WND Books released the No. 1 best-selling book in the nation, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” – with the intent of halting the sales of a book that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Obama is as phony as his birth certificate.
Watch the video for yourself. Obama’s laughs went on self-consciously long.
“Ha, ha. I think it’s still up on a website somewhere,” he said. “Ha, ha, ha, ha.”
Then he took a long pause.
“You remember that? That was crazy,” he said. “That was some crazy stuff. Ha, ha, ha. “I hadn’t thought about that in a while,” he said, shaking his head. “Ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha.”
Har har hardy ha har.
Are you laughing about this?
Were you part of the media establishment chorus that laughed off the eligibility question? This is where that laughter leads.
Are you still laughing?
Now that he has hoodwinked the American people into allowing him to be president for five years without proper identification, the story is that he wants anyone to VOTE without it, too!
I’m glad he brought up his birth certificate again. Maybe it’s time for Americans to give that phony document the examination it should have received when he released it.
After a caller on Saturday’s edition of Eagle Forum Live complained that “the Hispanics — I don’t know how they’re doing it — but they’re going to school for free,” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) lamented that schools offer scholarships to Latino students.
Host Phyllis Schlafly, the founder of Eagle Forum, also tied discredited birther conspiracies to the conversation: “I wonder if that’s the way Obama got through Columbia and Harvard? He’s never released his records so we don’t know. Maybe as a foreigner he got through free, we don’t know. Why doesn’t he tell us the truth?”
“I do know that there are programs within some of these universities there are diversity programs where they provide scholarships for, among others and in a high degree, Hispanic scholarships that is giving a free ride for—and I don’t know about the legality of these students, you can’t get that found out,” King said.
“But that’s pretty tough when you pay your student loans, you’re competing for a job, you haven’t spent a lot of money paying tuition to learn another language because you want to live and work in America where we have always focused on English as our national language if not our official language yet; there’s just a huge inequality there.”
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is best known over his fight to put a Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse rotunda, sided last week with birther activists who, according to The Huntsville Times, “wanted Alabama's Secretary of State to certify the birth certificate of each presidential candidate before allowing their names to appear on the general election ballot.”
Former congressman and Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode filed the lawsuit along with an Alabama resident Hugh McInnish, a conservative blogger and Republican party official. As we noted last year, the pair tapped birther leader Larry Klayman as their lawyer and predicted that Moore would aid their cause.
In his dissenting opinion, Moore wrote:
The Secretary of State has a duty under state law to examine the qualifications of national-convention nominees who ran in the presidential primary before placing their names on the general-election ballot. The jurisdiction-stripping statute forbids inquiry into the eligibility of presidential candidates once an election has occurred, but it does not preclude such an inquiry before the election.
The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court ordering the Secretary of State to require from each presidential candidate a verified birth certificate. Presentation of a birth certificate is indeed a common means of determining age and citizenship. Although I would not prescribe the manner in which the Secretary of State is to verify eligibility of presidential candidates, I believe she has a duty as the chief presidential candidates, I believe she has a duty as the chief elections official of Alabama official of Alabama to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of Article II, § 4, of the United States Constitution.
This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.
Justice Tom Parker, whose biography touts his work with James Dobson and Pat Robertson, issued his own dissent in which he insisted that the secretary of state should have specifically investigated President Obama’s eligibility:
I write separately, however, to clarify that I do not believe that the Secretary of State has an affirmative duty to investigate, on his or her own volition, all the qualifications of every proposed candidate, but that the Secretary of State's duty to investigate a potential candidate's qualifications arises once the Secretary of State has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot. For the following reasons, I believe that, in the present case, the Secretary of State received notice sufficient to raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Barack Hussein Obama before including him as a candidate on Alabama's election ballot.
As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court's order striking McInnish's petition for a writ of mandamus: "McInnish attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the 'short form' and the 'long form' birth certificates of President Obama that have been made public."
On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish's petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions about President Obama's qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.
In his WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Klayman praised Moore and said that he won’t end his campaign to “remove this anti-American, pro-Muslim and anti-Judeo Christian president” until “the imposter in the White House” is “told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.”
To challenge a black president’s qualifications is to be branded a racist. Obama and his minions know this well and have milked his race at every turn to guilt white America, including its judges, into acquiescing to his continued destructive leadership bent on turning the country into not only a socialist pro-Muslim state, but one which is second rate in the world. And, to this end, Obama has succeeded. Today, our economy remains in shambles and Putin’s Russia is now the real superpower, having just seized a chunk of Ukraine – with more Hitleresque conquests on the horizon. As America’s power shrinks under Obama, Putin is bent on reconstituting the former communist empire of the Soviet Union. Thus, the stakes to remove this anti-American, pro-Muslim and anti-Judeo Christian president continue to rise.
Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected
We cannot quit. The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, one of the most outspoken champions of the birther conspiracy theory, is desperately trying to cover up his birther history as he encourages the Canadian-born Ted Cruz to run for president. In a WND column today, Farah insists that he never even came close to suggesting that President Obama was born outside of the U.S.:
Now I have seen dozens of blog postings and “news stories” about my commentary, and they all pretty much say the same thing – suggesting or outright stating that I peddled a theory that Obama was born abroad. This is patently untrue.
In the hundreds of thousands of words I have written and spoken on this subject, I have never theorized Obama was born abroad.
Actually, Farah in several WND editorials suggested that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, based on a discredited claim that the president’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya. WND has also published many “news” articles and columns indicating that Obama was born outside of the US.
The WND editor adds that the Canadian-born Cruz is eligible to be president simply because he loves America and is much more patriotic than President Obama or even Hillary Clinton. He goes on to accuse everyone but himself of hypocrisy on the issue of presidential eligibility:
I’m actually being called a “hypocrite” today for saying I don’t have any concerns about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here’s why I don’t: The man has been forthcoming and released his birth certificate – even before his candidacy. It’s a Canadian birth certificate, as we all expected. It lists his parents – one a Cuban citizen who later became a U.S. citizen and the other an American citizen who conferred U.S. citizenship on her son. Cruz is in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution as much as his Cuban-born father does. This is different than, say, Sen. Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born – neither of them able to confer on their son what the founders deemed “natural born citizen” status. The fact that he was born in the U.S. is of lesser, if any, significance.
Cruz has released all his papers without being asked – even before seeking the presidency. If someone else wants to make the case that he is not eligible, I’ll listen skeptically and respectfully.
Some of the attacks on my column have even suggested I “endorsed” Cruz for president. Listen, I like the guy, but he’s not even running yet. I like many potential candidates. It will be some time before I endorse anyone. To my mind, I’m satisfied. I do not see any potential for divided loyalties for Ted Cruz, which was the founders’ principle reason for including the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, I’d enthusiastically support him. He’s much more of an American than Hillary could ever be.
But I’m not here to defend Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I’m here to say that America needs one standard of eligibility – not one for Republicans and another for Democrats, not one for conservatives and another for liberals, not one for people we like and another for people we don’t like.
In another round of birthers embracing Ted Cruz, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah — one of the leading voices of the birther movement — writes today that he has no problem with the Texas senator running for president even though he was born in Canada.
Farah explains that because the “media elite” quashed his conspiracy theory that President Obama is ineligible to be president because he was born in Kenya to an American mother and a Kenyan father, it doesn’t matter that Cruz was born abroad.
Of course, the main difference is that Cruz was actually born in Canada — to an American mother and Cuban father — while Obama was born in the United States.
While Farah has made a career out of insisting that the Constitution requires the president to be born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents, apparently this rule doesn’t apply to Tea Party heroes like Ted Cruz…and it’s all the media’s fault.
With all this heavy-duty investigative journalism and newfound faux enthusiasm for the Constitution suddenly on display, it’s obvious the No. 1 fear among the elite media is that Ted Cruz might actually run for president.
They fear him not because he was born in Canada. They fear him not because of any concern for the U.S. Constitution. I will even be more generous to the Cruz smear machine than it was to me when I questioned Obama’s eligibility by rejecting the notion it is because the senator from Texas is Hispanic. They fear him because he is a bold, eloquent, charismatic, principled, committed defender of American liberty.
I have been labeled by the Big Media as “the birther king.”
So if anyone has the right and the duty to weigh in on Ted Cruz’s eligibility, it’s me – even though no one is asking.
My answer is, “I don’t care.”
I don’t care because the Constitution was not written and ratified to be applied to some and not others. If no one cared about Obama’s questionable eligibility, despite his shocking lack of transparency and thin paper trail, then they have no business questioning Ted Cruz – who has released his birth certificate, renounced his Canadian citizenship and upheld every provision of the Constitution to the best of his ability throughout his life.
For the record, I would have preferred if the issue of natural born citizenship were openly debated and discussed before Obama assumed office and began his all-out jihad on the Constitution. I would have preferred if my colleagues in the news media had taken seriously their responsibility to be watchdogs on government and hold all politicians accountable to the rule of law. I would have preferred if the motivations of those of us seeking the truth about Obama’s eligibility status and life story had never been impugned.
Even though Lord Christopher Monckton hopes Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz will be the next president, the WorldNetDaily columnist also claims that President Obama was actually born outside of the U.S. and therefore should not only be removed from office but also imprisoned.
In a New Year’s column, “7 Steps That’ll Land Obama In Jail,” Monckton advises the House GOP to embrace the birther investigation led by Mike Zullo and Joe Arpaio.
“Prepare a bill to remove from the statute-book every act of Congress or executive order signed by Mr. Obama. They are all invalid,” Monckton writes. “Let the heads roll, right across federal and state governments. Fill the jails.”
Step 3: Get briefed. For two reasons, the GOP caucus should get its wobbly bottom down to Phoenix and get itself up to speed on the investigation.
First, the chief investigator, Mike Zullo, is no longer making public the results of his inquiries. The initial findings were publicized to attract people with evidence to come forward. That tactic worked. It is now clear to the investigators that criminal charges will be brought. So they cannot compromise the coming prosecution by saying what they know.
Secondly, the sheriff has now called in professional, full-time detectives to supplement the unpaid volunteers who have, until now, doggedly worked unrewarded and unthanked. Joe Arpaio would never have taken that step unless he were very sure of his ground.
Step 4: Prepare a bill to remove from the statute-book every act of Congress or executive order signed by Mr. Obama. They are all invalid.
Step 5: Don’t expect anyone to arrest Mr. Obama while he is still the people’s tenant. The sheriff is all too conscious of the extraordinary extent to which every relevant federal investigating authority is willfully providing cover for Mr. Obama on the flimsy ground that the international community would think less well of America if the scandal became public.
However, in 2016 Mr Obama will no longer be protected by the office to which he is not on any view entitled. At that point, various agencies will belatedly scramble to start doing the job they should be doing now, in the vain hope of evading prosecution for acting as accessories after the fact of forgery.
Step 6: Press home your advantage. Obamagate is the paradigm of why Big Government does not work. Give private citizens the right to bring prosecutions without the consent of the states’ attorneys general. All of them were shown an outline of the evidence. None – without exception – has lifted a finger to put right what is so obviously wrong.
Let the heads roll, right across federal and state governments. Fill the jails. Only when the crooks have gone can America march forward again as her Founding Fathers had intended.