Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the original 'birther' ^ | June 12, 2012 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 06/12/2012 10:45:52 PM PDT by Perseverando

Exclusive: Joseph Farah offers just a few examples of 'duplicity and deceit by Obama'

Few groups have taken a beating in the media over the last four years like the so-called “birthers.”

Americans motivated by a pursuit of the truth and a passion for the Constitution have been vilified, mischaracterized, ridiculed and labeled as racists for their trouble.

Most often “birthers” are described in the media as those who believe Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya rather than Hawaii – even though those questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility seldom make such claims or representations.

But I do know someone who has made such a claim. And he did it long before the term “birther” was coined as an epithet by media completely without curiosity about Obama’s background.

Meet the very first “birther” – Barack Obama himself.

I’ve been called “the king of the birthers” because of my commitment to pursuing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Obama’s life story. Yet I have never claimed he was born in Kenya. In fact, when pushed in countless interviews my answer has always been the same: I don’t know where Obama was born.

But Obama himself maintained for 16 years – right up until 2007 when he got serious about running for the presidency – that he was indeed born in Kenya. He used this claim to his personal advantage to sell books. For all we know, he may have used it to his personal advantage as a student and as a community organizer.

Even this revelation, however, has not made the media the slightest bit curiouser about Obama’s life story. We’re just supposed to accept what he says today as an article of faith.

I have a problem with this.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; hawaii; kenya; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; usurper

1 posted on 06/12/2012 10:46:09 PM PDT by Perseverando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

There is a reason he has hidden everything from college. Did he get aid as a foreign student?

2 posted on 06/12/2012 11:07:06 PM PDT by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando
The Diversion Continues.

Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

3 posted on 06/12/2012 11:24:55 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet


4 posted on 06/12/2012 11:33:37 PM PDT by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet


5 posted on 06/12/2012 11:33:49 PM PDT by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

Arpaio seems to be helping with making just that point as well on a case in Florida, as well as demanding original documents. The article is on WND.

6 posted on 06/13/2012 12:43:04 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

“There is a reason he has hidden everything from college. Did he get aid as a foreign student?”

Where is a ‘Deep Throat’ when you need one?

7 posted on 06/13/2012 1:08:56 AM PDT by hummingbird (Breitbart and Spartacus: here, there, everywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Perseverando

The SCOTUS has refused to hear the case against 0bambi because the plaintiffs “do not have standing”. Can anyone tell me who the blazes has standing and what it means?

If we the people don’t have standing, then it is a meaningless legal term.

9 posted on 06/13/2012 2:02:39 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando
"I have a problem with this."

Me Too. . . . . .

10 posted on 06/13/2012 2:53:43 AM PDT by DeaconRed (My vote in Nov will be dictated by my extreme hatred for ZERO and what he is doing to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

Sorry...anyone who writes or speaks the word “curiouser” is an idiot. A stopped clock is only correct twice a day!

11 posted on 06/13/2012 3:09:50 AM PDT by gr8eman (Ron Swanson for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

What amazes me is that there must be many people who know the truth & yet remain silent.

12 posted on 06/13/2012 3:15:27 AM PDT by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando; All
Do you fear Barack Obama?

Canada Free Press


Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.


But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.


Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.


Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.


Who will save freedom?

A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.


Dr. Orly Taitz, Phil Berg and Gary kreep, all of whom have made defending the constitution and the American way of life a personal ambition in the absence of any constitutional leadership.

If the American people fail to get behind these brave few who are seeking peaceful redress, all the peaceful options will evaporate as if they never existed. We will return to a pre-1776 America overnight.

13 posted on 06/13/2012 3:34:27 AM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman

“Sorry...anyone who writes or speaks the word “curiouser” is an idiot.”

Seriously? I always thought Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll was quite a smart cookie.

The Christ Church Mathematical Lectureship, which he held for 26 years, presumably isn’t awarded to idiots.

14 posted on 06/13/2012 3:44:46 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: patriot08
We will return to a pre-1776 America overnight.

My dear, I think we're already there.

Read these excerpts from the Declaration, and think about how they apply:

* He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

* He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

* He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

* He {intends to keep} among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

* He {intends to render} the military independent of and superior to civil power.

* He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws...

* For depriving us in many {future} cases, of the benefits of trial by jury...

* He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless ... savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

* In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

16 posted on 06/13/2012 5:49:41 AM PDT by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

What about ELECTORS?

How many of the court cases’ plaintoffs have been electors?

And out of those cases, how many have NOT been stymied?

Who else have NOT brought challenges in court?

The answer might be obtained by process of elimination.

17 posted on 06/13/2012 6:30:38 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

The recently discovered official Obama bio maintained by his literary agency for 16 years completely validates the eligibility issue and Obama has not yet been held to account for it. He and his press office need to be hounded for an explanation on where the information could possibly have come from except from Obama. I’d also love to see someone ask Obama or Jay Carnie why he (Obama) doesn’t owe the so-called “birthers” a HUGE APOLOGY!

18 posted on 06/13/2012 7:00:42 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Standing is a legal doctrine that determines whether or not an individual is entitled to have the court decide the merits of a case. There are essentially three elements the court must consider when determining an individual’s standing to sue in federal court.

1. Injury

The plaintiff must have suffered a direct injury or be likely to suffer a direct injury. The injury must be unique or particularized to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must have a personal stake in the controversy. It is not enough to be interested in the outcome of the controversy as a member of the general public.

(i.e. Obama’s ineligibility affects the general public as a whole. No one person suffered a direct injury, except John McCain - who chose not to sue - and possibly the electors or various secretaries of state who are responsible for elections/ballots.)

2. Causation

The defendant must be directly responsible for the injury to the plaintiff. The actions of a third party, who is not before the court, do not constitute causation.

(i.e. Obama must have acted directly to deceive the plaintiff or commit fraud against him or instructed his agent to do so. A plaintiff must show that Obama knew he was born outside of the U.S. and lied about it or that he intentionally created/published/submitted a fraudulent document. His handlers and staff may have, but that is not sufficient to establish causation under the law.)

3. Redressability

The Court must have the power and jurisdiction to provide a remedy for the plaintiff’s injury.

(i.e. The Court can declare Obama ineligible, but the only way to remove a member of the Executive branch without impeachment by Congress - or imprisonment through criminal courts - is through a writ of quo warranto in the District of Columbia. No such writ has been granted.)

IMO, the courts have defined standing too narrowly in order to lighten their caseload and have consequently denied the public access to judicial remedies. Just because a “wrong” affects everyone in the same manner doesn’t mean they aren’t injured. It seems to me that we need to challenge the courts on the constitutionality of their self-imposed legal doctrine.

That said, IANAL.

19 posted on 06/13/2012 2:07:48 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hummingbird
Deep Throat

This is clearly a time in which potential whistleblowers feel far more exposed to intimidation and retaliation than protected by laws or people "covering their six".   This is a feature of a Banana Republic, where corruption is allowed to run rampant and is not a trait of a healthy, "FreeRepublic."


20 posted on 06/14/2012 7:20:24 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
It has also been discussed before, if someone is charged with new crimes put into law by Obama, they have grounds to ask for any document that establishes his authority to make such laws.

He is required to be NBC to sign such laws, and he says it means born here. So five years from now this could come back to bite him.

21 posted on 06/14/2012 11:55:05 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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