There are those who believe the last election was stolen. That massive voter fraud swung it in Obama's favor and that Romney actually won. I think these people are definitely on to something. But, as history has shown us, once a president is elected (or he appears to have been elected), nothing can be done to undo the announced election results.
So Obama, legitimate or not, won't be ejected from office. His "win" won't be overturned because nobody is investigating the voter fraud issue. Republicans continue to work to see that it's reduced in the future, but past voter fraud will stand. Clearly Obama'a presidency could be illegitimate in that his win was due to voter fraud (that will never be investigated and thus never proven), but what about the "natural born citizen" issue? That issue was resolved when Obama (under pressure) FINALLY released his Hawaiian long form birth certificate, right?
Not so fast kemosabe! The Hawaiian birth certificate that Hussein released may have fooled the Liberal media, but others say it's a forgery. CBS News in Arizona reported on an investigation initiated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and they say Joe's investigators "confirmed" the document was created using Photoshop (see video below).
Snopes does a pretty good job "debunking" the "created in Photoshop" charge, but Snopes is the same site that "debunked" the allegation that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They based their conclusion on some bullpucky about "create" and "invent" not having the same meaning - but go to any dictionary website and you'll find that the words are synonyms.
Also, Wikipedia notes that the site's creator David Mikkelson "has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias". Maybe their defense of Al Gore using a nonsense argument about synonyms having different meanings could have something to do with these "Liberal bias" accusations?
On the other hand, the Snopes page links to a Fox New article! I suppose this was done to convince Right-wingers? "Look Right-winger, we're linking to FOX NEWS"!! But check this out - if you Google the name of the Photoshop expert, "Jean-Claude Tremblay", one of the articles that comes up on top is, "Fox News expert denies he claimed birth certificate legit".
Tremblay (the Fox News expert) says, "the network must retract the story, [because] it deliberately misquoted him". Tremblay says his findings don't prove the authenticity of the document one way or the other, but Fox News refuses to allow him to correct their story. As a result Tremblay feels "anger verging on disdain" and no longer trusts Fox News. I guess that blows the Snopes "debunking" out of the water. This expert's analysis went from "absolutely legit" to "can't say one way or the other". Question is, why would Fox News put forward a story that misrepresents what the Photoshop expert said?
The newspaper announcements that some cite as "proof" have also been questioned. Both of the two papers that ran the birth announcements said their information came from the state Department of Health and the "certificates of live birth". But these certificates require no proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii; instead they are issued if the child's parents have "declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child".
Furthermore, a neighbor living next to the address where the birth announcement says the Obamas lived can't recall that a White woman who gave birth to a black baby ever lived there, and an investigator looking into the matter discovered the house was owned by an "Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased".
In conclusion I must say that (for me, at least), the question of where Barack Hussein Obama was actually born is still unknown - but the claim that he was born in Hawaii seems incredibly suspect. If he was actually born in Hawaii you'd think there wouldn't be all these questions. For me, the fact that there are all these questions point to a cover-up. And why cover-up where he was actually born unless he was born outside the United States?
Back to the question regarding Barack Hussein Obama's presidency and it's legitimacy. Is he a legitimate president? Was he legitimately elected? Is he Constitutionally eligible to serve? I say the facts seem to strongly suggest that he is illegitimate for two reasons. First of all, his "win" was accomplished via voter fraud, and secondly - he wasn't even eligible to run in the first place!
I doubt there is much voter fraud anymore, but the electronic voting makes me suspicious. The
ReplyDeletedemographics and their shifting patterns are interesting: Bush received 543,816 fewer votes
than Gore, but 'won'. He improved though, to a plurality of 3,012,171 over Kerry. In those elections, turnout was 50-51%. Obama received
9,549,642 more than McCain and 4,977,642 more
than Romney. Turnout was up to 57%. So, IMO, Obama attracted new and younger voters. As for voter fraud, WI voted GOP in the last two elections, but went for Obama both times...which suggests that folks were splitting tickets, rather than voting a few hundred times. I can see, though, living in
Wisconsin, folks can be suspicious .
There was voter fraud, of course. Acorn, an Obama allied organiziation, had some of its members arrested for election fraud crime. Eric Holder and top Dems at the state level fought to keep fraud a possibility. However, no evidence of large scale fraud has emerged. While Obama did not win by a landslide, he surely won by a strong enough margin that the fraud didn't make any difference.
ReplyDeleteFraud of course can make a huge difference in very close elections.
This is going to alienate everybody but I think that both sides are exaggerating here; the right on the amount of in person voter fraud and the left on the disenfranchisement issue (a study from American University showed that 98 point something percent of registered voters already have a picture ID). The best compromise, I think is to simply ask for a person's last 4 digits of their SS # and see if it matches the name. It's easy and it guarantees integrity.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteArticle II Section 1 of USA Constitution clearly states:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
The Constitution was adopted in September 1787.
The mother of President Obama was a citizen of USA when she gave birth to her son in 1961 in Hawaii. So clearly President Obama was not a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (1787) and such he is not eligible to be president. Poof YOUR problems are solved; no President Obama. Now wasn't that easy???
Ema Nymton
~@;o>
.
First time Ema's intentional attempts at humor have made me laugh.
ReplyDelete