Obama eligibility: $2 million

The Obama birth certificate. Why is this still accepted as valid? The Birther movement still matters, for the precedent.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Last month, an Arizona sheriff broke new ground on the Obama eligibility issue. He said that he had probable cause to suspect that the Obama birth certificate Internet image is a forgery, and that the White House always knew it was. Now he promises to release more evidence in another press conference in the next few weeks. Also, one of the oldest alternative news organs in the country announced a $2 million fund-raising campaign to raise the consciousness of the American public on this issue.

Obama eligibility: the latest

Lawyers have filed Obama eligibility challenges with Secretaries of State across the country. The most explosive result so far came in a New Jersey administrative law court. In that proceeding, a lawyer for the Obama campaign admitted that the Obama birth certificate document was not relevant to any Obama eligibility case. A week later, her top boss (Angelo Genova, of Genova, Burns, Giantomasi and Webster) took her off the case, and then called the opposing counsel to threaten and harangue him over two videos of the proceedings. That threat caused more alternative-media organs to pay attention.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, also bore mention at the hearing. On March 1, he first said that his Cold Case Posse had probable cause to suspect that:

  1. The Obama birth certificate long form document and draft card are both forgeries, and
  2. The White House, or at least someone working in the White House, served the birth certificate file to the Internet knowing that it is a forgery.

Last night, WND reported that Sheriff Arpaio has not stopped investigating the Obama eligibility question. He will release more evidence in a press conference to take place “in the next few weeks.”

Sheriff Arpaio has always been a controversial figure. He was first to enforce immigration law in his county, and its seat, the city of Phoenix. People remember him for housing inmates in tents, issuing pink underwear to them, making them pay for coffee, restricting their entertainment, etc. He generally replies,

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

The man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, has always hated Arpaio for his ideology alone. Now he hates him worse after he started pursuing an Obama eligibility investigation. (Ironically, he did so reluctantly, and expected to clear Obama. The evidence, Arpaio says, suggested guilt, not innocence.) The Department of Justice has waged a personal vendetta against Arpaio since March 1. Arpaio is undaunted, but also frustrated: Congress, he says, should now investigate. After all, the Obama eligibility issue goes to whether Obama qualifies to be President, and who should succeed him if he does not.

Obama eligibility: a new campaign

The Obama birth certificate: probable casualty in the Obama eligibility battle

Obama's long-form birth certificate, as released by the White House. A photocopy of an image in a book, with green safety-paper texture added after-the-fact. Suppose a teacher had assigned this as homework? Would that teacher still be teaching?

Joseph Farah, editor- and publisher-in-chief of WND, said earlier that the Obama eligibility question is one symptom of a broader problem.

Obama, given another four years in office, will effectively destroy the very fabric of everything good that set America apart from the rest of the world. That problem is we have no more anchor for self-government, the rule of law and governance through the will of the people.

So he announced a campaign to raise $2 million from grass-roots supporters. He proposes to spend $1 million on billboards nationwide asking, “Where is the real birth certificate?” He will spend another $1 million on TV spots in all major markets and especially in battleground State markets.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio [is] leading the first law-enforcement investigation into this question[. He has] confirm[ed] the birth certificate is fraudulent[.] There’s no time like the present to launch this campaign. The Republicans won’t do it. Mitt Romney won’t do it. Karl Rove’s $30 million superpac won’t do it. But, I still believe in the American people – even in tough financial times like this. We can’t lose our country forever – and that’s what’s on the line this November.

Related:

Jerome Corsi’s latest TV ad:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

CNAV footage in which Hill concedes that Obama has shown nothing to the New Jersey Secretary of State:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

Footage from the Baer-Haggerty Offensive:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

ARVE Error: need id and provider

ARVE Error: need id and provider

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

23 Responses to Obama eligibility: $2 million

  1. jefftavolieri says:

    I can’t wait for Obama to nail Arpaio to the wall. You will call it a cross, but whatever.

    People like you are being marginalized, Terry, because we’re turning everyone against you. Your friends and family are starting to think you’re going insane. Continue to isolate yourself with smaller and smaller groups of older and whiter males until you all die from old age (or death panels if we can get them soon enough).

    The truth is that this is a conspiracy against a conspiracy, and the Obama administration is playing you like a fiddle. I’m sure Obama has all the documentation you say you desire, but why give it out? Younger generations don’t care to see it. Older generations continue to look more insane and racist for making these seemingly bizarre demands. Obama was born in the US, not that I care. If I thought a gay muslim Afghani was the best person to lead the country, I would vote for them too.

    You’re a dying bread, Terry. Die faster.

  2. DinsdaleP says:

    Because it’s easier to put up $2 million worth of billboards that spread FUD than to act like a real detective or investigative reporter. Farah needs to prove the State of Hawaii doesn’t have the authority to declare President Obama’s birth information to be identical to what’s been released in short and long-form electronic documents. It has done so, and Farah, Arpaio, Trump and the other birthers knowingly dodge this fact, so all of this is nonsense from people claiming to be concerned about the law.

    Sadly, I have more than a few relatives who’ll appreciate these billboards, and vote for Romney because of nonsense like this and not for any actual policy reasons.

  3. rpeh says:

    Arpaio is an elected sheriff. Why is he holding press conferences instead of filing charges? Answer? He knows that he’s making everything up.

    The court record of the Birther movement is an astonishing Played 123, Lost 123, Won 0 – with 11 still in play.
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/birther-scorecard-0-123-with-11-pending/ .

    Now I know you’re paranoid enough to believe in a huge conspiracy to intimidate the courts, but surely even you can’t believe that all these courts have been got at?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      That is exactly what I am saying. They are all wrong.

      • rpeh says:

        You remind me of a joke. Two mothers are watching a parade. One turns to the other and says “Look! My little boy is the only one marching in step!”

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          And you remind me of the crowd in a certain Hans Christian Andersen story.

          • Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

            “That is exactly what I am saying. They are all wrong.”

            Terry, I showed you here and here that you’ve gotten your reporting on Masin’s decision appallingly wrong. Not only are you uncritically reporting Apuzzo’s frivolous assertion, appropriately rejected as legally insufficient by Judge Masin, but (a) haven’t corrected the “ALJ Ducks Issues” story or (b) added that Judge Masin’s analysis of Stothers is supported by the plain language of the case and statute in question, where Apuzzo’s is based on an apparently extratextual analysis that encourages bizarre results like you’re reporting as true without blinking an eye. *BTW, of course he would assert his position is correct: knowingly advancing a false analysis is the kind of stuff judges sanction lawyers for) In the interest of reporting truth over fantasy or at least appropriately reporting balance where the issue is solely the interpretation of the plain language of Stothers, you need to make clear that Apuzzo’s take on the case isn’t the only one.

            You might also report the operative language of the case itself in order for the read to make up his own mind since you’re not a lawyer and I’m telling you there’s reason to at least question whether Apuzzo is making things up. Are you going to do that or make up excuses about whether interpreting a decision is subject to “worldviews,” “consipiracy,” etc., or arguing by assertion that Judge Masin is wrong because Apuzzo and now you say so?

            I also showed you that there is nothing “explosive,” “damaging,” or “shocking” about Obama’s attorneys’ theory of the case that the birth certificate is irrelevant where the plain language of the statute itself doesn’t require him to even consent to nomination, let alone produce any document. It’s now clearer than ever that you’re not reporting the news here. You’re an advocate for the birther position in your failure and refusal to accurately and neutrally report the facts and legal theories of the parties in the administrative proceedings before Masin. This is the most crude and scurrilous yellow journalism I’ve seen on this issue, even worse than WND’s advocacy, which, while also inaccurately reporting the parties’ respective legal and factual positions, at least gives enough of a superficial gloss of it being reportage that you stand out as a fringe outlier.

            Are you going to fix there errors of fact and tone and fulfill your ethical duty as a reporter to avoid advocacy? Or are you going to, once again, rely on the tu quoque that the “liberal” media is doing it so you can too? What other excuses will you make in your near constant refusal to update your stories and analysis to conform with the facts and analysis all these generous peoples present?

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You forget that I was present in that hearing room. I know what Apuzzo said. And I have researched all the history on the phrase “natural born citizen” for years. You just don’t want to acknowledge that “natural born citizen” means one having zero alienage, from either parentage or location.

            And don’t talk to me about where my duty lies. Not when mainstream reporters repeatedly jump in the tank for Obama and Democratic Socialists everywhere.

          • Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

            Please pardon my embarrassing typos – my brain is fried from getting a consumer class action on file in extremely short order.

            Is there way for me to go back and correct them?

          • Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

            “You forget that I was present in that hearing room. I know what Apuzzo said.” I don’t care where you were. Apuzzo is wrong. You are woefully wrong in your reporting of the administrative proceeding before Judge Masin. That you have no substantive response to anything I’ve written about the Stother case and your inaccurate statements that there is anything interesting at all about Obama’s attorneys taking the position a birth certificate is relevant is telling. That you continue uncritically repeating these statements is troubling.

            “And I have researched all the history on the phrase “natural born citizen” for years. You just don’t want to acknowledge that “natural born citizen” means one having zero alienage, from either parentage or location.” You don’t know a thing about me or my integrity. I’ll tell you that I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong because it means I’ve learned something. I’d be pleased to discuss your laughable misconceptions about this Emerick de Vattel’s so-called influence on United States law and your just plain silly dismissal of the Wong Kim Ark case as providing suuuuuch better guidance. Would you like to have that discussion? Let’s do it. I’ll savage your sloppy analysis and weak arguments. I look forward to hearing that you’re interested in defending your position by argument, not assertion.

            “And don’t talk to me about where my duty lies. Not when mainstream reporters repeatedly jump in the tank for Obama and Democratic Socialists everywhere.” Yep. I predicted you’d fall back on that hoary old tu quoque that you’re getting so much mileage out of. Let’s unpack it a little. You don’t make any substantive objection to what your duty actually is, and seemed to agree elsewhere that advocacy is a no-no. All you’ve got is the non-sequitor that you can do something because you claim someone else is. Putting aside whether “Obama and Democratic Socialists everywhere” are doing anything like you suggest, your claim that you can do whatever you want in response smacks of embarrassing moral relativism.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Don’t talk to me about moral relativism. That is the crime of which Obama is manifestly guilty, and you know it.

  4. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    Arpaio is a clown doing nothing but feeding the frenzy of confusion created by the kind of uncritical reporting you’re doing here. You’d be on surer footing to continue advocating for Arpaio if you at least bothered to seek the least balance per your obligation to avoid advocacy found someone on the other side of the dispute to a statement.

    Put aside whether Arpaio is grossly overstepping his bounds by purporting to “investigate” a matter with regard to which he claims there is “probable cause” to believe Obama committed fraud, with regard to which he also has neither the intention nor ability to actually do what he says.

    The real issue is that you know full well that the birther position here too is objectively frivolous. As in NJ, Arizona law simply doesn’t require a candidate to prove a darn thing about his citizenship. Don’t believe me? Look at the statute:

    16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
    A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
    1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
    2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
    3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate’s state committee.
    4. The exact manner for printing the candidate’s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
    B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
    C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
    D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.

    Are you, as a non-lawyer, going to continue artlessly repeating others’ falsehood to the point that one must wonder if you’ve adopted them yourself? You really should do something to repair your image by fixing this openly yellow journalism.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      There’s nothing false in what I say. That’s still an absurd proposition.

  5. […] Two million dollar campaign […]

  6. Cartwright says:

    Hopefully Obama the imposter will be denied another four years via the election. However, I hope Sheriff Arpaio keeps fighting on this. After all, ineligible means ineligible. And this could be a useful way for the courts to overturn all of Obama’s disastrous policies, by rightly declaring them all null and void by reason of his ineligibility to hold the office.

    • Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

      Cartwright, care to offer the least justification for your claims or will you too uncritically repeat what you’ve been told. Arpaio is a joke who’s inappropriately politicized law enforcement by shamefully misrepresenting what “probable cause” even means. Do you have any response to that?

      Let me just point out that like many birthers you’re conflating two different arguments birthers could and have made. There’s a huge difference between questioning whether Obama is eligible and stating that he is not. Which position do you think has more integrity?

  7. rpeh says:

    You still haven’t answered the question “Why is he holding press conferences instead of filing charges?”, and your refusal to answer is becoming more and more interesting.

    I put it to you that you know these claims (I almost wrote “charges”, but there are no charges) are false and that you are only repeating them to cause mischief.

    Do you deny that?

  8. […] $2 million […]

  9. […] $2 million […]

  10. […] $2 million […]

  11. […] $2 million […]

  12. […] $2 million […]

  13. […] $2 million […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.