CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Hat Tip, WND (World Net Daily) News, 22 June, 2013


In an article published online Friday, Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo! News lamented that President Obama’s upcoming trip to Africa would not include a stop in Kenya, “the country of his birth.”

Whoa. What?

The mainstream media for years has been lockstep behind the president in affirming his birth in Hawaii, even derisively labeling those who question the official story as “birthers.”

And in fact, Talking Points Memo reports that within 90 minutes of the story’s publication, Yahoo! News added the following: “Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the president’s birthplace.”

The wording of the story was then changed from referencing Kenya as “the country of his birth” to “his ancestral homeland.”

A screenshot of the original article (emphasis added) can be seen below:



A screenshot of the amended article can also be seen below:



Hartman’s article spoke of the Obama family’s upcoming visit to Africa, which is expected to take place from June 26-July 3, and planned stops in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania.

Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, however, told reporters Kenya wasn’t on the itinerary.

So was Hartman’s reporting that Obama was born in Kenya a slip-up or a sign of something more?

The answer may be impossible to discover. A spokesperson for Yahoo! News told the Washington Post there would be no comments available beyond the correction.

Social media monitor Twitchy, however, noted that many users of Twitter were quick to assume Hartman a “birther” and blasted her as r****t while demanding she be fired.

Curiously, before Obama was elected, it was fairly common to find references in the media that referred to the former Illinois senator as born in Kenya.

The Kenyan government, as well, in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in Kenya to “honour the birthplace of President Obama.”

Even Obama’s own literary agency billed him as “born in Kenya” as late as 2007 to promote the sale of his book, “Dreams from My Father.”

And while the White House released a purported copy of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate April 27, 2011, the president’s refusal to release his childhood and college records, coupled with charges that the birth certificate is a forgery, as well as Barack Obama Sr.’s status as a foreign national, have led many so-called “birthers” to continue to question Obama’s birthplace and/or eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to serve as president.

Discover the most extensive archive of news reports on Obama’s eligibility anywhere!

As WND has reported, a special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was even assembled to look into the question at the request of Arpaio’s constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 e******n b****t.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Cold Case Posse Chief Mike Zullo outlined their findings.

In an affidavit, since filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, Zullo explained, “At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine.”

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.

“Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States,” he said. (Emphasis added)


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/uh-oh-yahoo-reports-obama-born-someplace-else/#WzeCWWmtdrHbJt46.99
:hunf: :hunf:

Query: Is the pot boiling or just getting hotter?

Yaquina Blue

Yankee Clipper

Not-a-RINO Loc: Michigan

The original "birthers" were Democrats who question John McCain's eligibility to serve as President because his TWO American parents had him in Panama on a U.S. military base. Funny thing is when you bring up VALID questions, the Left quickly forgets their own actions. Another thing is if Obama wanted to shut up those who question his eligibility and make them all look like fools, he would have supplied the long form birth certificate showing TWO American parents living on U.S. soil giving birth to him. According to de Vattel***, a "natural born citizen" is born to two American parents on American soil. Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, admitted his father was a Kenyan subject which makes him a DUAL citizen and clearly ineligible for the office of the Presidency. My question is, "Who are the REAL r****ts here? The people looking to uphold the Constitution or those who won't go after a fraud because he's black?"

***from page 6: "The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. Theborn-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. The Founder learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows the condition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Vattel, Sec. 212-15. Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For theFounders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32679911/Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law-as-Fed-Common-Law-Defines-natural-born-Citizen

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Not-a-RINO: Well stated. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Not-a-RINO Loc: Michigan

Thank you for your kind reply.

I believe Jefferson didn't go far enough. The greatest danger isn't a government that ignores the Constitution since we know the nature of the beast and expect it to thumb its nose to being limited. The greatest danger is an e*****rate which won't keep the government playing by the established rules due to ignorance, apathy and/or indoctrination.

Ask a high school grad or someone going into college, "Do you know what the Bill of Rights is?"

Don't be too shocked to hear, "I dunno. It's about 100 bucks, isn't it?"

I heard 2/3 of adults in a past survey didn't know we have three branches of government. By the same ratio, young people entering college couldn't tell you when the Civil War was within 50 years. We can't expect to remain free and hold government accountable if this kind of fact-free education is accepted.

If parents want to make a good start on reversing this trend, may I suggest reading "The 5000 Year Leap" with your teenage student and discuss what you have learned from each new concept. Both of you will get a much greater appreciation for our founding and the principles our Framers employed when crafting our nation. To do otherwise is to accept tyranny for your children.

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

Agreed!

Just one minor point of correction:

"He can be arrested for being an usurper to the office tried and then hung along with all those who made this fraud on the nation possible."

People are "hanged" and pictures are "hung", for future reference :)

Not-a-RINO Loc: Michigan

Great post!

I don't think it will be a "constitutional crisis" at all. In fact, it will show two things:
1. The Constitution actually works like it was intended;
2. How those who chose to ignore this situation or stood in the gap knowing full well Obama is ineligible are t*****rs to the Republic and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The real constitutional crisis occurred when there weren't enough people in Washington with the character and integrity to stand for the rule of law and shuddered in fear of being painted a r****t by those who would support Obama even if it was proven he is Satan in the flesh.

rumitoid

Lol, this site is like the Madhatter Museum: artifacts of insanity taken as reality. The "birther" issue is rabid Tea Party bullhockey. The Tea Party is destroying America with its spurious claims and stupid politics.

bruce1954

Go back to sleep.

Ghost Loc: The 1st state to ever secede

That's a new one on me.

Thanks for the information. Copy-pasta for the archives for later use.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Not-a-RINO: Hey pard, your thoughts are reasoned. Welcome to IPP. It's good to have another quality contributor. The RINOs are part of the ruling class in Washington and as such are just as much of the problem as the brain dead liberal socialist dims. Keep up your good work. :thumbup:

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Yankee Clipper: I agree he won't be thrown out of office. But I didn't post the article for that reason. Rather, as more evidence he is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office he holds, and for the fact that maybe there is developing a crack in the locked tight SOCIALISTREAM media and press. But I disagree re impeachment. He can be impeached because he holds the office. The House can v**e to impeach him, but the Senate would have to try the case and v**e to remove him from office. With the democrats controlling the Senate, they will protect him for his term. The dims never eat their own no matter how corrupt. Nor do I believe he could be arrested, without a Supreme Court determination that he is constitutionally not qualified to hold the office, and perhaps an order from the Supreme Court for his physical removal from the office. Legally, the legislation he has signed, some even with an automatic pen, would be void ab initio, and would have to be resigned by a properly installed president, would be my view and opinion. I suspect that by the time anything of substance occurs, Obama will be through his second term, or have abdicated to Africa.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, rumitoady: Crawl back into your hole, brain dead sycophant. :mrgreen: :thumbdown:

Not-a-RINO Loc: Michigan

Thanks again, CrazyHorse for your words of support.

I have often said that if our elected officials in Washington had to take an intelligence test and a polygraph test before assuming office, you wouldn't have enough elected officials to form a baseball team.

Unlike those on the Left, I try my best to be reasonable, polite and back up my statements with facts. In private discussions on politics, especially if my listener just doesn't fully appreciate my position, I will "agree to disagree" and let it go. Most importantly, I want people to do their OWN thinking and research - something that is common as chicken lips on the Left.

I see so much of what made America great and her people worthy of this greatness slipping away by those re-defining right and wrong, gutting education and destroying the traditional family. If my words will compel someone to soberly consider something I have said, then I have achieved my intended purpose. In the end, the person(s) may disagree, but I have satisfaction of knowing they took the time to think and research the issue. Do you believe our country as we know it now could stand if most people started to think for themselves? :)

Some graphics you may like I picked up along the way--->