Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warning: You Are About to Read a "Forbidden" Column
The Death of the Grown-Up ^ | 4/4/2013 | Diana West

Posted on 04/05/2013 11:44:55 AM PDT by kreitzer

Get ready for the last straw.

First, though, I’d like to suggest that anyone reading this column in a local newspaper or news site pat the editor on the back for publishing what in our neo-medieval world of fear amounts to a “forbidden” column.

Yup, I am about to say something about the Great Barack Obama Identity/Eligibility Scandal again. I know that this is one rich and urgent topic that doesn’t see the light of day in certain so-called news outlets – and I say that from the experience of watching my own syndicated columns fail to appear when covering news of the White House press conference where the president’s long-form birth certificate was unveiled, news of courtroom proceedings in various states on Obama’s ballot eligibility and news of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators presenting evidence that the online Obama birth certificate is a forgery (and much more).

So be it. This was, as noted, the last straw.

(Excerpt) Read more at dianawest.net ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: awjeez; birftards; birthers; dianawest; naturalborncitizen; obamabio

1 posted on 04/05/2013 11:44:55 AM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Blog pimping.

There is absolutely nothing that is new here, nor is it forbidden ... this shameless blog pimping.

2 posted on 04/05/2013 11:55:37 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I refer to something radio host Sean Hannity said on his show this week. He was speaking in rebuttal to a Democrat arguing that racism was a problem among conservatives. As evidence, the Democrat brought up the “birther issue” – the label used to encapsulate any topic related to Obama’s identity documents and constitutional eligibility. Erroneously, it is a label that narrowly connotes, and derisively so, only the belief that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

In fact, the whereabouts of Obama’s nativity is in no way the main bone of “birther” contention, despite the blinkered focus on it by the enforcers of silence. Of far greater concern to me, for starters, is the purportedly original documentation President Obama belatedly provided the American people to attest to his identity.

I refer to the electronic image of a long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate posted at the White House website. After studying various evidence and demonstrations (which I’ve written about in previous “forbidden” columns), I’ve concluded that this online image is in all probability a forgery.

So has Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse out in Maricopa County, Ariz. So, too, has the Israel Science and Technology website, a national database and directory of science- and technology-related sites in Israel established by Benjamin Netanyahu’s former science adviser, molecular biologist Israel Hanukoglu, Ph.D.

If these investigations are correct, we are looking at the greatest fraud in modern history as put over by the flimflam administration and enabled by armies of accessories practically everywhere else.

There is a second issue to consider that also has nothing to do with what is commonly meant by the “birther” issue. Having weighed the arguments, it seems to me that by virtue of having a British subject for a father, Barack Obama Jr. is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States, no matter where he was born.

With a British father, Obama cannot meet the constitutional requirement of having been “natural born,” which is a different and more restrictive category than “native born.” Similarly ineligible, I would add, are Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and, alas, Ted Cruz of Texas, both of whom have parents who were not citizens when they were born.

So, getting back to the Obama case, tell me where the “racism” is in these concerns. Where is it? Identity theft per se is hardly a pathology of black America. Meanwhile, British paternity, even if it does, in Obama’s case, come via Africa, is the very disqualifier the founders had in mind on crafting the “natural born” criterion more than two centuries ago to guard against a president with divided loyalties. Where is the racism in trying to address these weighty matters of the Constitution, law and state?

Nowhere. “Racism” is simply a buzzword to further stymie the already strangled “birther” issue.

So how did Hannity reply to the argument that conservatives were “racist” due to broaching the “birther” argument?

He challenged his interlocutor: “Name three prominent conservatives who were advancing the birther issue.”

With this reply, Hannity accepted the charge that the whole subject is “racist,” and the argument that this “racist” subject is also baseless. It was the last straw.

Which means what exactly? Nothing. Hannity is right. Aside from Alan Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and a Republican candidate for the Senate and the presidency, no prominent Republican – from John McCain to Mitt Romney to John Boehner to Ron Paul – and no prominent conservative, from William Bennett to Sarah Palin to Rudy Giuliani, ever faced or raised the issue.

Similarly, no think tank, no committee in Congress, no judicial body, no civic group and no mainstream media organization has advanced any responsible inquiry into these troubling questions. And forget about the Electoral College.

We’re supposed to pretend the questions don’t exist, that the dodgy doc floating on the White House website is the real deal – and I haven’t even mentioned other discrepancies in the Obama narrative. Silence, the conventional wisdom tells us, combats racism.

What chance does any free society in such deep denial have to continue? Not much. How tragic and frightening to realize that this same denial is evidence that our attachment to freedom and the Constitution vanished long ago.


3 posted on 04/05/2013 12:01:09 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

#3

So nobody has to click on it :D


4 posted on 04/05/2013 12:02:00 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Diana West is a writer of some repute...why the concern?


5 posted on 04/05/2013 12:02:03 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I agree.
He's STILL the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF !

One other thing.
Obama is NOT black !
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is ARAB-KENYAN. The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States. Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II, because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death, and then have his body deported back to Kenya.
6 posted on 04/05/2013 12:04:34 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I disagree. What was new to me was the information that the Israeli science establishment had looked at the fraud in the documents.

I respect the honesty and integrity of Israeli scientists and will be reading more about their findings.

All else was an excellent and concise summary of all the information swirling around this issue.


7 posted on 04/05/2013 12:06:06 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

0bama’s use of Harrison J. Bounel’s and Lucille Ballantyne’s Social Security numbers on his tax forms are enough to prosecute him. Orly Taitz knows the score but there is something much bigger going on here, and probably beyond our borders.


8 posted on 04/05/2013 12:06:12 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
What chance does any free society in such deep denial have to continue?

It doesn't.

9 posted on 04/05/2013 12:06:32 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
There's not one point that has not been sliced and diced, shredded and digested already.

Point to the "forbidden" ....

10 posted on 04/05/2013 12:07:29 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

In Hawaii, access to post-adoption records are controlled by HI Rev. Stat. §§ 578-14; 578-15; 338-20, a new birth certificate is issued, the original birth certificate shall be sealed. The sealed document may be opened by the department only by an order of a court or when requested in accordance with § 578-15.

http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/01/obamas-sealed-vital-statistics-in-hawaii.html


11 posted on 04/05/2013 12:15:21 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

12 posted on 04/05/2013 12:15:58 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Don't disagree. But that is a complaint about the article itself...not about it's source being the writer's blog.

I, for one, enjoy Diana West's articles (however much this one didn't have a lot to add).

13 posted on 04/05/2013 12:17:17 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

America has not had a legal president since January 20, 2009.


14 posted on 04/05/2013 12:17:19 PM PDT by Rapscallion (The people sense what Obama, Holder, and Napolitano have in store for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Check this out...Israel Science and Technology: Long-Form Birth Certificate of Obama is a Forged Document
15 posted on 04/05/2013 12:20:46 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
What chance does any free society in such deep denial have to continue? Not much.

Says it all.

16 posted on 04/05/2013 12:22:47 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
HI §578-15 Secrecy of proceedings and records.

(a) The records in adoption proceedings, after the petition is filed and prior to the entry of the decree, shall be open to inspection only by the parties or their attorneys, the director of human services or the director's agent, or by any proper person on a showing of good cause therefor, upon order of the court. Except in the case of an individual being adopted by a person married to the legal father or mother of the individual or unless authorized by the court, no petition for adoption shall set forth the name of the individual sought to be adopted or the name of either of the parents of the individual; provided that the legal name of the individual and the name of each of the individual's legal parents may be added to the petition by amendment during the course of the hearing thereof and shall be included in the decree. The hearing of the petition shall be in chambers and shall not be open to the public.

(b) Upon the entry of the decree, or upon the later effective date of the decree, or upon the dismissal or discontinuance or other final disposition of the petition, the clerk of the court shall seal all records in the proceedings; provided that upon the written request of the petitioner or petitioners, the court may waive the requirement that the records be sealed. The seal shall not be broken and the records shall not be inspected by any person, including the parties to the proceedings, except:

(1) Upon order of the family court upon a showing of good cause;

(2) For adoptions which occurred prior to January 1, 1991, after the adopted individual attains the age of eighteen and upon submission to the family court of a written request for inspection by the adopted individual or the adoptive parents in accordance with the following:

(A) Within sixty calendar days after receipt of a request for inspection, the family court, by certified mail with return receipt requested, shall mail to the last known address of each natural parent a notice of the request for inspection of adoption records, a copy of the request for inspection and copies of any accompanying letters, photographs, or other documents submitted in support of the request. The notice shall inform the natural parent that unless an affidavit signed by the natural parent requesting confidentiality is received by the family court within sixty calendar days of the date of receipt of the notice, the natural parent will be deemed to have waived any rights of confidentiality and the records shall be subject to inspection by the adopted individual or the adoptive parent who submitted the request. The notice shall also inform the natural parent that an affidavit requesting confidentiality for a period of ten years may be filed. A blank affidavit to be completed and signed by the natural parent shall be mailed with the notice;

(B) If the family court has received a return receipt for the notice but an affidavit requesting confidentiality is not received by the family court within sixty calendar days of the date of receipt of the notice, the family court shall allow inspection under this section;

(C) If the notice is returned as undeliverable to a natural parent, the family court shall designate an agent or agency to conduct a good faith and diligent search to locate the natural parent and to provide the notice and all other documents required under subparagraph (A). The search shall extend over a period not to exceed one hundred eighty calendar days. Contacts with natural parents by a designated agent or agency under this section shall be personal, whenever possible, and confidential. The family court shall provide the designated agent or agency with a copy of the request for inspection and copies of any accompanying letters, photographs, or other documents submitted in support of the request, and the designated agent or agency shall present the copies to the natural parent when contacted. The family court and the designated agent or agency shall ensure that no person other than a natural parent or the agent or agency through which a natural parent obtained assistance for the adoption is informed of the adoptive individual's existence and the relationship to the natural parent;

(D) If a natural parent cannot be located after the search conducted under subparagraph (C), the family court shall allow inspection under this section;

(E) If an affidavit requesting confidentiality is received by the family court within sixty calendar days of the date of receipt of the notice provided under subparagraph (A) or (C), the family court shall not allow inspection during the effective period of the affidavit;

(F) If a ten-year affidavit is filed under subparagraph (E), the natural parent may refile affidavits every ten years thereafter to maintain confidentiality, or the natural parent may file an affidavit effective for the remainder of the natural parent's lifetime. All affidavits subsequent to the initial affidavit may be filed within ninety calendar days before the last effective day of the initial affidavit. If there is no effective affidavit on file with the family court at the time a request for inspection is received by the court, the court shall allow inspection under this paragraph;

(G) An affidavit requesting confidentiality shall be effective until the last day of the period for which the affidavit was filed, until the natural parent revokes the affidavit, or until the natural parent is deceased, whichever occurs sooner; and

(H) Where two natural parents are involved and confidentiality is waived under this paragraph by only one natural parent, the inspection of the records shall not include any identifying information concerning the other natural parent;

(3) For adoptions occurring after December 31, 1990, in accordance with the following:

(A) Each natural parent shall be informed of the procedures required under this paragraph if the natural parent desires to maintain confidentiality after the adopted individual attains the age of eighteen;

(B) Within ninety calendar days before the adopted individual attains the age of eighteen a natural parent may file an affidavit with the family court to request confidentiality and the natural parent may refile affidavits every ten years thereafter to maintain confidentiality or the natural parent may file an affidavit effective for the remainder of the natural parent's lifetime. All affidavits after the initial affidavit may be filed within ninety calendar days before the last effective day of the initial affidavit;

(C) If a natural parent declines or fails to file an affidavit under subparagraph (B), the family court shall allow inspection of the record by the adopted individual or the adoptive parents at any time after the adopted individual has attained the age of eighteen; and

(D) Where two natural parents are involved and confidentiality is waived under this paragraph by only one natural parent, the inspection of the records shall not include any identifying information concerning the other natural parent;

(4) For all adoptions, regardless of date of occurrence, after the adopted individual attains the age of eighteen and upon submission to the family court of a written request for inspection by a natural parent; provided that the adopted individual shall have the same rights and obligations applicable to natural parents under paragraphs (2) and (3), including rights of notice and opportunity to file affidavits requesting confidentiality.

(5) For all adoptions, regardless of date of occurrence, after the adopted individual attains the age of eighteen and upon submission of an affidavit by a natural parent consenting to the inspection of records by the adoptee or an affidavit submitted by an adoptee consenting to the inspection of records by the natural parents; provided that where only one natural parent files an affidavit for consent, the inspection of records shall not include any identifying information concerning the other natural parent;

(6) Upon request by the adopted individual or the adoptive parents for information contained in the records concerning ethnic background and necessary medical information, notwithstanding any affidavit requesting confidentiality; or

(7) Upon request by a natural parent for a copy of the original birth certificate.

As used in this subsection, "natural parent" means a biological mother or father, or a legal parent who is not also the biological parent.

(c) The clerk of the court shall keep a docket of all adoption proceedings, which may be inspected only by order of the family court. [L 1945, c 40, pt of §2; am L 1953, c 115, pt of §1; RL 1955, §331-15; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §20; HRS §578-15; am L 1973, c 211, §3(m); am L 1976, c 194, §1(9); gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 339, §4; am L 1990, c 338, §5; am L 1991, c 45, §1]

Rules of Court

Confidentiality, see HFCR rule 79.


17 posted on 04/05/2013 12:28:20 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

I agree!


18 posted on 04/05/2013 12:31:32 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Was the bounel SSN on his 2009 return?

If so, there’s fraud during his administration...

Book em, Dano!


19 posted on 04/05/2013 12:45:52 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
The human nature is a curious creature indeed.

For what is " Forbidden " ? tends to tempt the human nature and perk their interest in the human nature.

Go ahead and put it on the " Forbidden " list, but all that will do is cause more and more people to gravitate towards it, and become and perk their interest in it.
The more they persecute those who are trying to uncover the lid on Obama's birth origins, the more it will be exposed.
20 posted on 04/06/2013 10:22:50 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer
Meanwhile, British paternity, even if it does, in Obama’s case, come via Africa, is the very disqualifier the founders had in mind on crafting the “natural born” criterion more than two centuries ago to guard against a president with divided loyalties.

Yet all of the founders had "British paternity." Clearly they wanted to ensure against foreigners coming here to take the country over electorally.

It's less certain that they'd exclude anyone who was born here to one American parent from holding office because the other parent may have been foreign-born.

We have already had presidents who fit that description (Arthur, Wilson, Hoover). While Wilson's and Hoover's mothers received US citizenship at the time of their marriage according to the law of the times, it's not clear to me whether they lost their British citizenship under British law.

The early constitutional commentator William Rawle has become controversial because of his views on secession, but he was clear about his reading of the natural born clause, writing:

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

I'm not saying Rawle is right about this. I certainly would disagree with some of the views I've heard attributed to him on other subjects, and I'm pretty sure he didn't say the last word on citizenship law, but Rawle was writing at a time (1825-1829) when a few of the founders were still alive and able to argue with him if they disagreed.

21 posted on 04/06/2013 11:05:19 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

I think people with dual citizenship today should be disqualified from the Presidency. They are more likely to give preference to another country than where someone happened to be born because it was their decision.


22 posted on 04/06/2013 11:24:01 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
, ex-snook wrote: I think people with dual citizenship today should be disqualified from the Presidency. They are more likely to give preference to another country than where someone happened to be born because it was their decision.

If you're talking about anyone who has potential dual citizenship that they've not exercised, I can't agree with you. That would exclude every American Jew, after all, since they all have the right to apply for an Israeli passport.

If you're talking about people who, as adults, choose to exercise or obtain dual citizenship, then I agree with you. That's a good idea, although we'll need a Constitutional amendment for it.
23 posted on 04/06/2013 2:46:03 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

NBC


24 posted on 04/06/2013 5:18:50 PM PDT by TNoldman (AN AMERICAN FOR A MUSLIM/BHO FREE AMERICA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson