Joe Arpaio To Hold News Conference About Obama's Birth Certificate (Again)

So Alex gets over emotional about people involved in satanism... especially when they're in our government. But look, he's not the one that speaks to someone whose been dead for fifty years ...the way Hillary does with Eleanor Roosevelt. Nor is he the one that said how great voodoo makes him feel when he's possessed by a demon... the way Bill Clinton did in his book. Nor is Alex the one that indulges in Abromovic's 'spirit cooking' the way Podesta does. ..or the one that rode in Epstein's pedophile express more than 22 times like Bill Clinton ...and Hillary did as well.

These things are demonic so Alex Jones is right. But look, you don't have to take my word for it, you can get on to :55 and can hear Bill Clinton tell you himself of his wife's relationship, and you can even watch Abrovomovic' spirit cooking.... blood and all:

[video=youtube;jvIQrYe0Iz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIQrYe0Iz4[/video]

[video=youtube;g9ys-Lfu4Sc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ys-Lfu4Sc[/video]

 

As I said... You make a great couple.

 

Do you enjoy being wrong about everything?

 

I'll put you down as a believer in things demonic and satan like Jeannette then.

 

Drunk on radical ideology, Stanley “Ann” Dunham became pregnant in the summer of 1960 in Seattle WA with the baby of a prominent black liberal activist. But in 1960, unmarried parents and children suffered penalties ranging from confinement in isolated maternity homes to parental rejection and community disapproval. To be “illegitimate” was to be shamed and shunned and labeled as immoral. The belief that children born out of wedlock posed significant social and public health problems was widespread. In the case of mixed race children, perceptions of illegitimacy were compounded by legal segregation in education, housing, employment, and voting. Recall that it wasn’t until 1965 that The National Voting Rights Act was passed to outlaw discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans. Laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed in several US states and US territories until a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

With racial unrest at its peak, the Dunham’s wanted to move as far away as possible from their predominantly white conservative community to allow Ann to have her illegitimate child in relative obscurity. So the Dunham’s abruptly moved to the new state of Hawaii (Aug of 1959) where whites were the minority and a mixed race child would be more accepted. In a 1959 interview with the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Obama Sr. described the absence of racial prejudice in Hawaii as “unique.” No one, he marveled, “seems to be conscious of color.” Obama Sr’s perceptions of race relations in Hawaii were that he thought it “rather strange … even rather amusing, to see Caucasians discriminated against here.”

In the early 1960’s there were noticeable very few African Americans on the streets of Honolulu, and Obama Sr. was the only Black man from Africa on the island. Ann Dunham, in an effort to legitimize her mixed race baby, would have sought out one of the only black men on the island to convince him to use his name. And so Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was likely pressed into service as father and husband in name only. Barack Sr. had no moral objections because to gain recognition in the Kenyan community, one needed to be polygamous. Polygamy enhanced your status, and symbolized that you were a wealthy man. Obama Sr’s name on the certificate of birth would legitimize the birth, and conceal the identity of the true father…a win-win for all parties.

Barack Sr. was being paid by a key member of the Laubach Literacy Institute (LLI). The LLI had links to the Nation of Islam and embraced a Pan-African styled philosophy. Pan-Africanism is a sociopolitical world view, and philosophy, as well as a movement, which seeks to unify both native Africans and those of the African descent, as part of a “global African community”. This separatist style philosophy was embraced by Malcolm X and the NOI and is still being preached at Trinity Church in Chicago famously by former leader Rev. Wright (Obama Jr’s pastor for 20 years). LLI’s even more ambitious goal was to make the concept of sovereign nations with borders obsolete. This would be done through “peaceful social change” as stated on their website.

Ann Dunham’s mortified family was determined to give their wayward daughter a second chance to find a normal life by raising Barack Hussein Obama Jr. for her, and allowing her to return to her collegiate life. Immediately upon her child’s birth supposedly in August of 1961, Ann left her supposed new husband and only days old Barack Hussein Obama Jr. behind in Hawaii to be raised by his grandmother. Ann flew back to Washington State to help stir the anti-establishment cauldron of socialists, communists, civil rights and self defense organizations including the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party, which were boiling over in Seattle…and possibly visit the baby’s real father. She started classes at the U of Washington in Aug 1961, the same month she supposedly had Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in Honolulu. This explains why none of Barrack Hussein Obama Sr.’s friends from Hawaii remember Ann or Barrack Obama Jr. When Obama Sr. left Hawaii in 1962, he never mentioned Ann Dunham or Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to even his closest friends. Obama Jr. has never produced records of his supposed parent’s marriage or divorce most likely because they don’t exist.

 

Many Democrat "racists" keep claiming the conspiracy about the Russians to deal with "racist" Hilary Clinton, the most racist politician in the USA, lost. Now racists are ranting some conspiracy theory about Russians.

 

Yes, racist Democrats are coming out all over the place. Racists see the birth certificate topic as racist because they see everyone in a racist perspective because they are racists. People who are not racist have no reason to see the topic as having anything to do with race - because it doesn't.

 

Sorry, but Obama's birth certificate was forged from a similar certificate. There are 9 points of cut & paste.

Democrats can't help but to lie and cheat.

Let's let the Justice Dept under Sessions do a legitimate job working the crime.

When Obama's fraud is taken to Congress, Barak can still be impeached, and best of all, all of his laws and bills become null and void.

 

His real father is Frank Marshall Davis. Obama Sr. just agreed to pose temporarily as the father as part of a deal with Obama's maternal grandfather (CIA) to remain in the US to study. This is the most likely reason he doesn't want the real birth certificate exposed. It probably says Father: Unknown. Again, part of the deal to not legally link Obama Sr., to secure his temporary cooperation.

 

Well, you know how these people who like tin foil hats act, right?

Supposedly there is forensic evidence in regards to his BC being fraudulent, but I think he was born on the Island. Although in regards to his book, he was trying to make himself more of an international character, for that is how he saw himself. So a bit of artistic license, to add to the image he wanted created of himself.

That sheriff is probably an authoritarian right wingnut scumbag and this is personal to him, as he hates Obama the way the modern left hates trump. The hate scours away any possible rationality and objectivity. This is a problem today, as people cultivated weak moral centers.

 

You really need to watch the presentation. They started not believing it and wanting to clear Obama. But then the evidence prevented them from doing that.

 

No the best way to identify that the Birther Movement was fueled by racism is by pointing out that some of the most well known members of the Birther Movement have a history of RACISM. This includes Sheriff Joe Arpaio that was found responsible in a federal court for the racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department under his management as well as Donald Trump that has a history of racism from the 1970's where Trump and his father own and operated segregated apartment complexes in New York City.

As for Sheriff Joe's "nine points of forgery" let's not forget "Nine Points of Fact" that we've learned since racist Birther movement began.

1. Joe Arpaio has never actually seen President Obama's birth certificate. Arpaio has only seen images of it on the internet and you cannot do an accurate evaluation of forgery based upon an internet image.

2. President Obama's "short form" Certificate of Live Birth that was posted on the internet is a certified copy created in 2007 and is not the original birth certificate from 1961.

3. The Hawaii Department of Health, responsible for vital records including birth certificates, verified that it had issued a certified birth certificate to President Obama in 2007 and that is the internet image we've seen of Obama's actual (COLB) birth certificate.

4. FactCheck.org was furnished with the original copy of Obama's birth certificate and the had experts verified that it was an authentic document.

5. People living in Honolulu in 1961, including a former Republican governor of Hawaii, that knew Obama's mother and that have confirmed that Obama was born there in 1961.

6. The Honolulu newspaper published the announcement of his birth at the time in 1961,

7. A nurse that worked at the hospital at the time in 1961 remembered the birth (black babies with white mothers were relatively rare in Hawaii in 1961).

8. The Hawaii Department of Health later released the "long form" birth certificate for President Obama.

9. For Obama's birth certificate to be a forgery it would require a conspiracy by dozens of people including Democrats and Republicans and there's no evidence of any conspiracy by anyone.

PS - One additional reason we know that the Birther Movement is racially motivated is because it never came up with John McCain or Ted Cruz even though they weren't born in the United States which precludes them from being Natural Born Citizens (i.e. "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in compliance with the 14th Amendment as well as Supreme Court precedent) because both are white (one Hispanic white and the other non-Hispanic white). The Birther Movement has only attacked a "black man" when it comes to addressing presidential eligibility.

 

I've seen the presentation, it's BS, and Sheriff Joe the Racist has always wanted to "prove" President Obama wasn't a US citizen, even if he had to fake the evidence, just because President Obama is a black liberal that despises racists especially those that hold positions in law enforcement in the United States. Remember that a federal court has already determined, based upon evidence presented in court, that Joe Arpaio is a racist that used racial profiling (in violation of the Constitution) in law enforcement.

 

A federal court of majority liberal judges who are all totally biased. Their findings are nonsense. It's a political vendetta on their part. Obama is a lying fraud. His life is a lie. The Left in this country routinely defends lying fraud criminals such as Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Left in this country is delusional and has no credibility.

 

Or Obama wasn't born in the US.

Of course he will get away with this because democrats are never held accountable for their actions..

Oh, and at some point an illegal alien will attempt to run for president citing Obama as precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)!!

His birth certificate is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fake - he wasn't born in the United States and racism - real or not - has nothing to do with this.

 

Hahahaha..

Too many Americans are dumb as bricks.

 

It's always refreshing to hear someone from the right refer to "liberal justices" (even disparagingly out of ignorance) because the ideological founders of America like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington were the most progressive liberals in world history and, in fact, the era of the founding of the United States is referred to as the era of "Classical Liberalism" historically. The US Constitution itself is a "liberal" document intended to protect the natural and civil rights of the people of America and it's vitally important to America to have "liberal" justices enforcing it.

As for the rest it just shows the tenacity of the right-wing that sticks to it's guns based upon the strategy of "If you repeat lies often enough then the people will believe the lies" but fortunately for America that only typically works for people with right-wing ideological beliefs that are juxtaposed to the ideology upon which the United States was founded.

 

Would you mind if I revise your statement to: "Too many racist right-wing Americans are dumb as bricks."

 

You'd think that after 8 years they would have learned a few things about US citizenship law and air travel in the early 1960s.

 

Liberalism today means progressive. A far cry from classical liberalism.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

 

Actually too many liberals are dumb as bricks. Listen to Obama's childhood friend on the matter. Now people will of course say that he's been convicted of a crime, so he's not a credible witness. But then that begs the question, why was Obama hanging around with yet another criminal? Anyway, just more evidence to add to the fact that Obama looks nothing like the dude from Kenya and has many resemblances to Frank Marshall Davis, who he mentioned in this book.

[video=youtube;Qc0gm_1bl9c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc0gm_1bl9c&t=3s[/video]

 

The only one who profits by spewing the same lies over and over again is the Left in this country. The United States was not founded, in any sense of the word, on progressivism. The US was founded on classical liberalism, which at that time was what libertarianism is today. The Founders were libertarians, not liberal statists. The statists and socialists stole and corrupted the term liberal.

 

The term "Classical Liberalism" was created to describe the ideological beliefs that the founders established in America and it wasn't something that had been previously established and adopted for America. The ideological foundation for America was based overwhelmingly upon the ideology established by John Locke.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/john-locke.php

Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government was the most radical "liberal" ideology ever produced in history and it was adopted as the ideology upon which America was founded. While his ideology was slowly being adopted in England by "progressive liberals" in American the founders were prodded by Thomas Paine's booklet Common Sense to discard just being "Progressive Liberals" into literally becoming "Revolutionary Liberals" with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

In the creation of the United States, based upon Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, the founders established the First Principles.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

Before continuing I will also state that generally "statists and socialists stole and corrupted the term liberal" as well as the term "progressive liberal" as well predominately because they've never taken the time to understand the ideological foundation for the United State. I don't use the term "liberal" in that context nor do is it applicable in referring to the era of "Classical Liberalism" in American which refers to the ideology that the founders established.

Unfortunately then, as today, the United States never experienced "Classical Liberalism" as a reality. The "conservatives" opposed "liberalism" and the "conservatives" when the nation was founded and they still oppose it today. When the nation was founded the White (WASP) Male Property owners controlled the social, economic, and political institutions and to embrace "Classical Liberalism" they would have lost control of all those institutions so they fought against that.

They did not, for example, change the laws of property that had always been based upon "ownership established by title" because those laws of property allowed them to "possess that which they had no right to possess" best exemplified by the ownership of slaves. The Natural Right of Property only allows possession of that which a person has a "right to possess" and the "title" is nothing more than the recognition of the right to possess. John Locke, in Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government addresses the Natural Right "Of Property" that was an argument against the "ownership of property established by title" that existed at the time. We've never changed our laws of property based upon Classical Liberalism.

We can note that in the First Principles it established "Limited Government" but it also establishes that if the government is not protecting the Natural Rights of the People it's too damn small. Republicans and even Libertarians today oppose this First Principle of the necessary government because both argue for "minimum government" based upon the statement by Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay "Civil Disobedience" that "That government is best which governs least..."

This is different than what Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense when he said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." The founders didn't believe in "minimum" government but instead believed in "necessary" government that was only limited based upon the "necessity" for government. More violations of rights by people in society and the bigger the government becomes to defend those rights from violation.

Based upon the ideals of "Classical Liberalism" we would not, for example, be allowing the coal companies to spew millions of tons of pollution and CO2 into the atmosphere because it violates the Right of Property of ALL People. We wouldn't have the income inequality and poverty today because our laws of property would be based upon the "Right to Possess" as opposed to "ownership that allows possession of that which the person has no right to possess." We wouldn't have prohibitions against non-citizen permanent residents voting because they are a "part of the governed" mentioned in both the First Principles and the Declaration of Independence.

We WOULD HAVE far stricter laws protecting Civil Rights and much stronger enforcement of those laws today to eliminate discrimination and oppression based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, sexual orientation, or any other invidious criteria the denies equality to all of the people. The EPA would increase in size and power while the US military would be trimmed back until both were about equal in annual budgetary authorizations.

For years I've been a card carrying Libertarian and this year I didn't renew that membership. I didn't renew it for one reason. Instead of the Libertarian Party moving more in the direction of the original ideology upon which the nations was founded it's moved more in the direction of Gary Johnson's ideology that is a Republican ideology. It's moving away from that which it is supposed to represent and moving into the enemy's conservative ideology that's always opposed Classical Liberalism and the Ideology of the Founders that was based upon the teaching of John Locke.

As was noted though the "statists and socialists stole and corrupted the term liberal" but there's something worthy of note. The statists and socialist aren't opposed to the Natural Rights of the Person but instead have never taken the time to learn and understand them. In fact much of what they propose are "BandAide" fixes to the symptoms of violations of the Natural Rights of the Person.

On the other hand the "conservative" have always been the enemy of the Natural Rights of the Person that have opposed those rights since they were incorporated into the ideology upon which the United States was founded.

That's one of the reasons why a GOP controlled House and Senate with Donald Trump as the President is so scary. How much can they destroy of the ideology that the United States was founded upon in the next few years because we know for a fact that they're not going to do anything to further that ideology as long as they're in power.

 

Now you're shifting and attempting to muddy the waters, but you've still proven my point. You were trying to claim that the Founders and the liberal justices on the Supreme Court today were of the same ideology, which is totally and completely false. The Founders were by and large libertarians, save for a few corrupt statists like Alexander Hamilton who actually ended up doing great damage to the intentions of the other Founders.

And John Locke, was a libertarian. But he wasn't the only major influence. You're forgetting Algernon Sidney, as many often do. Also a proponent of natural rights and liberty.

But the liberals on the Supreme Court today are collectivists and statists. They would have opposed the Founders and decried them as madmen.

Again, every term "liberal" here is in today's vernacular, "libertarian."

Because the liberals don't care. They just say simply "Oh those men were slave owners! How dare they! Therefore everything else they said was meaningless because of that!" without looking into why the established the form of government that they did. Not to mention the fact that many Founders were opposed to slavery. Not to mention the fact that slavery had existed on the continent long before America was ever conceived as a nation. And not to mention the fact that every culture on the planet had slavery at one time or another since prehistory, and some still have it today.

But the US was very close to libertarianism in that time. There was no income tax. In fact, after Jefferson's repeals in 1802, there were no internal taxes of any kind at the federal level. The federal government was funded solely by tariffs up until 1860. There were no prohibition laws on drugs, prostitution, alcohol or tobacco. The Founders specifically stated that it was folly to try and legislate morality and that you could not restrict the rights of some for the alleged betterment of others. There were virtually no federal regulations of any type. And the Bill of Rights was fully intact and fully enforced according to the original intent of the Constitution. And there was no central bank and the money was fully backed by gold and silver.

Again, these weren't perfect people, and no one should try to hold them to such a standard. And only 6% of whites owned slaves in America (as opposed to 28% of free blacks who owned slaves). But as I said earlier, every culture on the damn planet had slavery at one time or another. And this was a misapplication of the natural rights law, as Founders who were against slavery duly noted, such as Thomas Paine. Those who opposed slavery had to make the tough choice to ally with those who supported it as they needed their money to help fund the revolution. It was a pragmatic decision made in a world where slavery had been a normal situation during their lifetimes. But as far as property, the crown held title over the property. The American Revolution gave that allodial title over property to the people. And that included homesteading rights and the like.

We have income inequality due to our monetary system, more than anything else. Socialists cite the 40's and 50's as a great time for the middle class, falsely attributing it to the high tax rates on the wealthy from the FDR era. But that's totally false. Most of the rich simply avoided the tax through loopholes. The wealth came from the fact that we still had gold and silver backing of our currency then, and thus low inflation and price stability. THAT'S why a man could support a family without his wife needing to work. THAT'S why home and car prices were so much cheaper than today. But people have failed to diagnose that problem correctly.

But income equality is not a right that can be enforced without the violation of other people's rights to trade peacefully, honestly and voluntarily. You want to steal from some to give to others, and that's not what the Constitution supports. In a situation with no debt and monetary stability, a rising tide will indeed lift all boats. The wealthy provide jobs and technological innovation, which enhances the quality of life for everyone else. Liberals always refuse to acknowledge this though, favoring envy and jealousy over viewing the matter rationally and reasonably.

Now let's address pollution, and the coal you mentioned earlier. In order to clean things up PEOPLE NEED TO OWN THEM. The British got their waterways clean once they gave people ownership. Then they could sue for property damage, and that's exactly what happened. Explained in Chapters 8 and 14 of this book. No one likes pollution, but the fact is a lot of people like their cars and they like other things that create pollution. There would be far more incentive to clean up pollution though, if businesses were held financially accountable for it.

I find it hard to believe you would vote Libertarian, as you sound more liberal than anything else, but I agree with you about the candidacy of Johnson, in that he wasn't a real libertarian. But your general use of the word Republican isn't accurate. Johnson was an establishment Republican who sided with the establishment Democrats on many issues, and didn't offer any major changes. He was a tea party member, for example. So he wasn't a genuine conservative, but rather a faux conservative, a RINO.

I would disagree vehemently on that point. They are collectivists and you can't be a collectivist and acknowledge individual rights. For example, the libertarian position on gay marriage is to repeal the income tax, thus remove any financial issues, and then get the government completely out of the marriage issue. Then marriage is nothing but a contract issue, and every individual has the right to contract. So people can associate with whomever they like, however they like - as long as they're acting peacefully, honestly and voluntarily, and as long as they're adults.

Even if true, which I would disagree with, that still doesn't absolve them of doing things to destroy those Natural Rights.

That's totally outlandish, in that conservatism in its purest form comes from the libertarian tradition. The history of the Republican Party doesn't support your assertion. Republicans freed the slaves and had no part in things like segregation and Jim Crow laws.

The last 8 years is what's scary, as basically every action Obama took was antithetical to the original intent of the Constitution. Not to mention basically doubling the amount of national debt, which took over 230 years to accrue, in a mere 8 years. That should terrify any sensible person and leave them wondering if all Democrats are delusional.