OBAMA’S SECRET HOMOSEXUAL PAST WELL KNOWN AMONG GAY COMMUNITY

FROM THE CLOSET TO THE WHITE HOUSE:  Dr. Jerry Corsi exposes more evidence that Barack Obama’s homosexuality was so mainstream and publicly known in Chicago that many in the gay community were shocked when Obama was able to keep this part of his identity a secret.

(Editors note:  Barack Obama’s homosexual past is well documented among those honest enough to simply report the facts about it.  On May 9, 2012, The Daily Pen’s Dan Crosby published a story presenting evidence that Obama’s sudden abrupt change in support of gay marriage last spring was due to his secret homosexual past.  Dr. Corsi’s account of testimony by witnesses to Obama’s homosexuality cast further derision on his social competency and radical liberal ideology.  Four years ago, Larry Sinclair, a gay socialite, told the world that he had engaged in a homosexual relationship with Obama on two occasions.  The story went widely unreported among America’s pro-Obama media complex.  The fact that Obama is gay is not news to many of us who know the details and relationships about this man’s dark past.  However, the fact that he would use covert tactics to hide this from the American people speaks volumes of what he truly thinks about, not only the gay community, but the American people, overall.  Once again, yet another lie by Barack Obama about his biography is exposed.)

by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

of WND.com   

NEW YORK, NY - A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.

DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”

Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club says it has some 10,000 members, but it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym.”

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.

“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.

“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.

‘Obama’s secrets’

DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”

He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.

DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”

“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.

He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.

DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.

Man’s Country

Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.

“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.

He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”

Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.

DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

Writing in HillBuzz.com Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”

DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”

“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

SHAMED OVER HIS FRAUDULENT PRESIDENCY, OBAMA EXPLOITS A SIX YEAR OLD

CHILD EXPLOITATION? - The difference between the "birth certificate jokes" by Mitt Romney and, recently, by Barack Obama is that Mitt joked about his own birth certificate and is actually eligible to run for president while Obama exploited the controversy surrounding his illegitimacy using a six-year-old child.

Commentary by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

ORLANDO, FL  - The Obots went teeth-gnashing, bat-guano crazy when Mitt Romney made a birth certificate joke two weeks ago.  They called it “offensive” and “racist”.  

CBS "news" correspondent, Scott Pelley, called it “a swipe at the" so-called "president”.

I have bad news for the Obotic horde.  Obama is swiping at himself, now.

More importantly, Mitt was joking about his own birth certificate.  He didn't exploit a six-year-old child.

Still laughing?

Evident that Barack Obama continues to regard the Constitution as if it were a joke, despite millions of Americans who have died and shed blood to secure its sovereignty, he’s now projecting his failure to meet the minimum legal qualifications to be a legitimate president by mocking the laws governing presidential eligibility while taking advantage of the birth circumstances of innocent children.

On Saturday, during a campaign stop at Gator Dockside restaurant, Obama was told by a female patron that one of the kids there, six year old Andre Wupperman, was born in Hawaii.

Then, continuing to denigrate the honor and sacrifice of heroes who, over the past 300 years, made possible his liberally entitled existence, Obama mocked the child asking for his birth certificate as proof he was actually born in Hawaii.

A real knee slapper.

 

Pouncing like some shameful predator, feigning humor, Obama cornered the boy, “You were born in Hawaii? You have a birth certificate?”

Now, if the boy had replied, "Yes, but you don't, liar!" I would have no reason to write this commentary.  Little Andre would have done just fine.  But, since Wupperman is only six and has no understanding of why Obama even asked that question, I am writing a response on the child's behalf.

If Obama were truly joking in sincerity, after being informed that little Wupperman was a native Hawaiian, he would have known that the child is currently not eligible to run for president for other reasons, despite being born in the U.S.

Obama would have included that Wupperman hasn’t even been alive for 14 years, let alone lived that long as a resident in the U.S., which is one of three Article II requirements to be president.

Obama would have also commented that little Wupperman is also ineligible for another 29 years, until his 35^th birthday, the minimum age required to be president.

The child was still in diapers when Obama began pursuing his fraudulent usurpation of power in 2007.

Then, there is the question of Wupperman’s parents’ citizenship status at the time of his birth.  Were they citizens of the U.S. at the time?  The comedian Obama had no idea that Wupperman’s birth certificate would not even show whether the child was born to citizen parents, a requirement to be a natural-born citizen, the third requirement to be a president.

Most Obots actually believe a birth certificate confirms natural-born citizenship.  It does not.  It only provides evidence of one metric of natural born citizenship…the birthplace.

Wupperman may have been born in Hawaii, and his parents may even be citizens, but Obama failed to inquire if Wupperman ever resided in a foreign country and registered as a foreign citizen, thereby, legally removing his natural-born citizenship status?  Obama didn’t even think about the remote possibility that this little hamburger eating traitor may actually have been a foreign citizen at one time…like Obama. 

Obama didn’t ask about those things because he doesn’t qualify under them either.  He was just interested in the child’s dumb birth certificate.  That’s as shallow as it goes in the mind of Obama.

Such a joke at the expense of an innocent victim reveals the damage Obama’s lies about his entire identity, not just the birth certificate, have caused to his character and reputation.  He is the most prolific fraud and slanderer in the history of American politics.  Mocking a six year old isn’t going change that.  But, he did it anyway.

The place suddenly filled with uneasy chortles and darting eyes of those searching for comfort with the subject matter.  If you have a hard time understanding the feelings in the room at that moment, imagine a member of the Third Reich showing up at a synagogue joking to see everyone’s Nazi ID card.

A joke is not funny when innocent people died and suffered for the punch line.

As the punch line discerning enemyship between America’s vintage heritage and the obotic liberal horde grows ever more definitive, and the spirit of violent revolution grows ever more restless in America, many on the left portray Obama's remark as a dig at the so-called “birthers” and, perhaps, at his opponent, Romney, even after accusing the same joke from Romney as being a dig on Obama. 

Why the dissonant hypocrisy on the part of the left?  Because, under the conviction of being puppeted fools controlled by such vast and immeasurable deception, they all fail to recognize that it just looks like a pathetic attempt to project his guilt onto a helpless subject who can’t defend himself.

Moreover, worst of all, they fail to realize the remark is just one more of a thousand justifications to cast judgment upon this utter wasteland of liberal inhumanity.    

Perhaps we should actually help Obama get re-elected.  It might be more beneficial to keep this charlatan locked at the helm as the ship sinks with the greatest collapse in human history.

 

At that point, when real people begin dying and losing the fight against the truth, everyone will understand…the tired joke is no longer funny.

        

Later, Obama worked a room of fifty or so people, leading a round of “Happy Birthday” for a little girl.

“How old are you?” He asked her.

She held up three fingers.

Apparently, her gender was enough evidence to conclude she would never be president.   Obama didn’t even bother to ask for her birth certificate.

ARPAIO WILL CONTINUE INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA’S IDENTITY

STAYING ON POINT: Despite Barack Obama’s antagonism of a racially divisive political environment, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his Cold Case investigation of evidence that shows the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” and Selective Service registration card are fraudulent records.
   

By Dan Crosby

Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – Unless the recent announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue charges against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office is also accompanied with a confession by the unknown criminals who counterfeited and posted to the official White House website a faked computer image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, Arizona lawman, Joe Arpaio, says he will continue his cold case investigation of the fraudulent identity records.

Arpaio spoke with WND’s Aaron Klein during a WABC broadcast of Klein’s “Investigative Radio” about Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to close what appears to have been a politically motivated probe into so-called misconduct by personnel of the MCSO. 

Although the unfounded allegations against Arpaio’s office began after the introduction of Arizona’s SB1070 immigration enforcement law, Obama's DOJ vigorously pursued the probe of Arpaio in the past year in what appeared to be a politically motivated retaliation for Arpaio’s highly publicized investigation of Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration card.   

“My office has been vindicated,” Arpaio told Klein.

Arpaio continued by saying the investigation of his office has been ridiculous. 

“We’re glad it’s over,” he said, “…It’s been in the media constantly for four years.  I guess it’s because it’s me.  If it was somebody else, you probably wouldn’t hear about it.”

Klein then asked the sheriff, “Leading up to the November election, do you plan to continue your investigation and make the eligibility issue and Obama’s birth certificate into a campaign issue?”  

“We’re continuing it,” Arpaio responded.

 “It’s not whether he was born here.  We’re looking at the fraudulent government documents. That’s been my mission from day one…to see if those birth certificates were false.

Since before the 2008 election, many have suspected that information about Obama’s past and his true identity have been intentionally obscured and counterfeited to prevent the American public from discovering what many believe is politically, if not legally, destructive evidence against Obama's legitimacy to serve as president. 

For many, the lack of verifiable information about Obama’s true identity disqualifies him, by default, from being a legitimate president.  However, if authentic documents were discovered containing information about Obama's alleged birthplace and parentage of his birth; His citizenship status as a resident in Indonesia; His unverified identity records, including a suspicious social security number issued from Connecticut, a state he never resided in, and a foreign passport used to travel to Pakistan, they would have a cataclysmic impact on Obama’s legitimacy as president if any of them either a.) revealed he was not born in the U.S. to two citizen parents or, b.) proves that he did not maintain his citizenship from birth to election or, c.) shows he has been lying about his real identity.     

“We haven’t given up on it,” Arpaio continued. “We have a lot of information.  We’ll see what happens.”

When Klein asked the sheriff if he thought the birth certificate would be a significant issue in the election, Arpaio said he believes the issue will, unfortunately, continue to be ignored by the political parties and the mainstream media.   

“I don’t think so,” Arpaio responded, “…because everybody’s ignoring it on both sides of the fence.  Even the media ignores the evidence we have. But we did our job, I was asked to do it, we used my volunteer posse at no cost to the government. We did a great investigation; we’re still coming up with information, so we’ll see what happens on that issue.”

The DOJ opened the investigation of Arpaio in 2010 after it received allegations from left-wing groups of financial improprieties by the sheriff and his deputies.

The DOJ found no such evidence of impropriety.

A separate federal investigation into Arpaio’s office regarding alleged civil rights abuses is still ongoing, but also appears to be based on personal politics rather than any legal precedent.  After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of part of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration enforcement law, allowing police to request immigration status from those suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, radical leftists retaliated by prompting the Obama administration to initiate a civil rights investigation against Arpaio.

It has long been known that radicals, like those infesting the Obama administration, rail against laws prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting because illegal immigrants tend to vote, by a wide margin, for the democrat party.  Obama’s recent Executive Order granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is just one example of padding the liberal voting bloc by circumventing immigration laws.  

Therefore, Obama and his party of radicals only seek to ingratiate themselves with political power by disregarding the U.S. Constitution and harassing long-serving immigration law enforcement officials, like Arpaio.     

ANTI-ARPAIO PROBE DROPPED BY OBAMA’S DOJ AS ELIGIBILITY “TRADE OFF” FEARED

OBAMA’S “MONTY HALL” PROBLEM – In the wake of Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigation of Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration, the federal government has mysteriously closed its criminal probe of alleged misconduct by the Arizona lawman saying no charges would be filed, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.  However, the sudden reversal by the Department of Justice after such vigorous pursuit of Arpaio leaves many wondering if a deal was struck to prevent Arpaio’s evidence of forgery and identity fraud against Obama from damaging the democrat's 2012 re-election bid.

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Despite a vigorous two year investigation, federal authorities speaking Friday on behalf of Obama-appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that the Department of Justice will not be filing charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office after closing what amounted to be a politically motivated investigation into false allegations of racial bias and abuse of power.

Confirming Arpaio’s innocence, the initial inquiry by the DOJ found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of MCSO officials, Arpaio or his deputies.  However, Arpaio’s concurrent year-long investigation of Obama’s eligibility has discovered evidence to support criminal charges of document forgery and identity fraud against unknown individuals working on behalf of Obama.  

With the 2012 election looming, the timing of the decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to discontinue the investigation is raising suspicion.  The DOJ dropped the investigation just as Arpaio’s own investigation into the forgery of Barack Obama’s alleged birth certificate and Selective Service registration card gained powerful public interest after a July 17, 2012 press conference during which Arpaio’s investigators revealed vast and condemning evidence of an attempt to cover-up his illegitimacy as president. 

In the second of two press conferences, Arpaio’s Cold Case investigators presented findings after a 10-month law enforcement investigation indicating that the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to an official government media source by the Obama White House, was a computer manipulated forgery.  It was also determined through testimony provided by the Hawaiian Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, that the digital image presented to the American people was not the form originally provided to attorney's on behalf of the Obama administration in April, 2011 by the Hawaiian Department of Health. 

Millions of Americans, including Arpaio's investigators, have strongly refuted claims from the administration that the .pdf file peddled by liberal pro-Obama media as authentic ever existed in paper form.  The municipal government of the State of Hawaii simply did not possess the technology to produce a "certifiable" computer (.pdf) image of a birth certificate in 1961 therefore indicating that operatives secretly working for the Obama administration forged the image sometime between April 25th and April 27th, 2011. 

Many Obama supporters lack the intellectual ability to understand that the very existence of a computer image of any original birth document alleged to have been issued by an official government office, regardless of the accuracy of the information within it, is, by definition, a counterfeited record.  The State of Hawaii does not, nor has it ever, issued "certified" birth certificates in the form of a computer image because it is commonly understood that such records are vulnerable to digital manipulation. 

"Obots are developing clear signs of mental illness over this specific issue," says TDP editor, Pen Johannson, "because they simply do not have the moral or intellectual capability to accept the fact that someone other than the State of Hawaii created this computer image!"

"When confronted with this mind crushing reality, there is no other possibility other than a criminal forger working on behalf of Obama!  There is simply too much psychological pain to admit this because such an admission opens the flood gates of indictment against Obama's lies.  They have no way to provide an explanation for how this computer image was created by any valid objective source which can legally and verifiably support Obama's documentable legitimacy as president.  The truth is simply not on their side...and they are becoming collectively psychotic in there toil to defend these epic and unprecedented lies."

Investigators also discovered historical evidence that the State of Hawaii has for decades issued native birth records to foreign born children essentially granting artificial U.S. citizenship to foreigners in a blatant violation of U.S. Immigration laws.  The evidence for these conclusions was discovered in thousands of historical Census enumeration cards listing the foreign birthplace of children of heads of households in Hawaii cross referenced with their subsequent "native hawaiian" birth registration announcements in local news papers and archived birth records.   

Prior to this, in March, the CCP presented forensic evidence which demonstrated that Obama’s Selective Service Registration card was also forged given the fact that it was allegedly signed by Obama a day after it was stamped and that it was stamped with a PIKA stamp containing only two digits in the year.  The post office has never used a two-digit year in its PIKA stamps to stamp any of the millions of Selective Service registration cards received by its branches accept, apparently, one...Barack Obama's.  

Absurdly, based on yet another digital image posted on the internet, abettors for Obama are foolishly claiming that only Obama’s Selective Service card has ever been stamped with a two-digit year stamp in the entire history of the Selective Service registration program.    

Obama also claims he filed the Selective Service registration card with a post office in Honolulu on July 29, 1980 but Obama’s signature appears to have been collected a day later, on July 30^th, 1980.  This renders the registration invalid because a postal worker must witness the signature in person after checking the individual’s identification, before applying the PIKA stamp.  In order to be legally eligible to serve as president, a male candidate must register for the Selective Service at the legally mandated time after his 18^th birthday, before his 26^th birthday. 

The Selective Service Administration refused to provide the original record to Maricopa County investigators simply saying they “have no evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration is fraudulent”. 

The response simply indicates the Selective Service Administration has no evidence of fraud because they refuse to accept the evidence from Arpaio’s investigation.  Testimony from Obama himself also suggests that he may not have even been in the U.S. in 1981.         

The DOJ’s decision to drop the probe concerns many involved in the Obama eligibility investigation.  In what appears to be rank political gamesmanship, questions are being raised about whether or not Arpaio will leave open his investigation of Obama, which he said he would do, now that Obama is no longer pursuing an investigation of Arpaio.   

The allegations against Arpaio held no legal merit.  However, as salaciously dishonest as the rumors against Arpaio’s office were, the public’s ignorant perception could put many citizens in danger as community support for his deputies and corrections officers is politically compromised without warrant.  Officials say such libel against community law enforcement puts deputies and the public at risk. 

Prompted by radical anti-Arpaio activists, DOJ authorities were investigating the sheriff’s office for its part in several failed public corruption cases against officials who were politically opposed to Arpaio as well as allegations of racial bias against Hispanics and minorities.   

MCSO deputies are regularly forced to respond to higher incidences of crimes involving Hispanic and minorities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, where the Sheriff’s office has jurisdiction.  Arpaio had also brought criminal cases against a Democratic judge and two liberal county officials in 2009.

Activists also accuse Arpaio of neglecting dozens of alleged sex crimes despite the fact that hundreds of other Sheriff’s offices in more liberal cities, like San Francisco, across the nation apply more stringent evidentiary guidelines to sex crime allegations and, thus, are even more ‘backlogged’ with their investigations than Arpaio’s office.

According to Fox News:

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel released a statement saying her office ‘is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct’ by current and former members of the sheriff's and county attorney's offices.  Scheel, who is based in Arizona, didn't elaborate but said she was acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The report by Fox continued:

“The federal probe focused specifically on the sheriff's anti-public-corruption squad. In a separate probe, the U.S. Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office of a wide range of civil rights violations, and in another case, a federal judge has yet to rule in a civil case brought by a group of Latino plaintiffs that claimed Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.

Arpaio was scheduled to give a news conference Friday night after returning from the Republican National Convention in Florida.

His deputy chief Jack MacIntyre, said, "the U.S. attorney's office and its investigators recognized what sheriff's office has said all along: We did not make any prosecutorial decisions, even though things were referred to the then-county attorney."

The timing of the federal authorities' announcement -- at 5 p.m. on a Friday before a holiday weekend -- was questioned by some Arpaio critics.

"It is a miscarriage of justice that the federal government is dropping its case against Sheriff Arpaio and to make such an announcement on the Friday night before the Democratic National Convention can only be politically motivated to shield the administration from criticism," Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said in a statement.

The 79-year-old sheriff and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, were embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges and defended their investigations as necessary to root out corruption.

The officials who were targets of the investigations contend the probes were trumped up as retaliation for political and legal disagreements with the sheriff and prosecutor.

Criminal cases against former Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and county supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley were dismissed after a judge ruled that Thomas prosecuted one of the three officials for political gain and had a conflict of interest in pressing the case.

Authorities say the charges against Donahoe were filed in a bid to prevent the judge from holding a hearing regarding Arpaio and Thomas' claim that judges and county officials conspired to hinder a probe into the construction of a court building.

Donahoe had disqualified Thomas from handling the court building investigation and was poised to hold another hearing over a request to appoint special prosecutors to handle the probe. The hearing was called off after the charges were filed against the judge.

The judge also had been critical of the ability of Arpaio's office to bring inmates to court on time for hearings.

Thomas was disbarred in early April by an ethics panel of the Arizona courts that found he brought unsuccessful criminal cases against the judge and two county officials for the purpose of embarrassing them.

In the separate probe, which is still ongoing, the Justice Department says Arpaio's office racially profiles Latinos, retaliates against critics of its immigration patrols and bases its immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. The sheriff denies the allegations.

And in the civil case, the Latino plaintiffs aren't seeking monetary damages. Instead, they want a declaration that Arpaio's office uses racial profiling and an order requiring policy changes. If Arpaio loses the case, he won't face jail time or fines”

OBOTIC MEDIA DESPERATELY CHANGING LANGUAGE DEFENDING OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

FLEEING FROM BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO “LEGITIMACY” - A shocking change in the content of reporting at NBC, CNN and CBS indicates the pro-Obama media are beginning to stagger under the weight of facts which plainly show that Barack Obama has never provided valid, corroborated documentation proving he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president.

By Dan Crosby,

of The Daily Pen 

New York, NY - The pro-Obama, liberal mainstream media is showing symptoms of fatigue in their endless defense of Barack Obama’s fraudulent identity. 

A sudden reverse in liberal media content indicates they are realizing defense of Obama’s “eligibility” based on rapidly fading support of his fraudulent birth certificate is no longer sustainable.  The lies about Obama's identity are becoming too heavy for those undersold as errand-slaves for the bowing liberal consensus.  

   

In at least two broadcasts by CBS ad MSNBC, following Mitt Romney’s campaign rally joke about his own birth certificate, hosts from the leftist networks used a new word to defend Barack Obama’s fading credibility.

Legitimacy.

 

Defense of Obama's "legitimacy", not "eligibility", is now emanating from media propagandists indicating they can no longer defend the lie that the digitally forged image of an alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” proves he is “eligible” to be president.  Now, they are desperately hoping everyone will forget their abetment of the “eligibility by fake computer image” lie and show grace for Obama’s contingent claims to “legitimacy by popularity” instead.

On Friday, Obama lover and "The Ed Show" host, Ed Schultz, instead of defending the authenticity of Obama’s alleged birth document, which he has done with vigor until now, used the word “legitimate” to defend Obama saying, “Another day at the office with the “Mittster”.  Today Mitt Romney reignited the fringe, those in his party who don’t see Obama as a legitimate president.”

See video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7sKRRb-plQ

Then, Romney’s joke evoked an almost desperate need from CBS’s Scott Pelley to hear Romney say that Obama was a “legitimate” president, while Pelley completely avoided the tired lie that the digital image of Obama's alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on an official government website in April, 2011, was authenticated proof that Obama was eligible to be president.

See the video here.

 

Pelley asked Romney, “In the rally today, you said, ‘No one has ever asked for my birth certificate.  They know this is the place I was born and raised.’ Why did you say that?”

Romney told Pelley the comment was a joke based on the fact that he and his wife, Ann, were born and raised in Michigan.  However, the only reason Romney has for referencing a request of a birth certificate is Obama's failure to provide a valid one over the past five years.   

Pelley then embarked a pathetic defense of Obama, “But, this was a swipe at the president.”

"No, no, not a swipe," Romney replied. "I've said throughout the campaign and before, there's no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home. And humor, you know -- we've got to have a little humor in a campaign."

Unconvinced under the crushing weight of his chronic dissonance, Pelley then posited a question which reveals the old lie is no longer effective and that he is beginning to rethink his position on Obama’s alleged birth certificate and constitutional eligibility.

“For the record, will you say, once and for all, that you believe Obama is a legitimate president?” pleaded Pelley.  

Romney replied with a confident smile, “I have said that 30 times, I guess 31 won’t hurt.”

 

Romney answer accompanied a light in his eyes indicating he now understands that a question about Obama’s "legitimacy" is not the same as one about his "eligibility".  He also realized from Pelley’s question that the media knows it, too. 

“If you have the wherewithal to suspect that sharks are preparing to attack because they happen to smell blood in the water, perhaps instead of asking why the sharks are attacking, you should ask, why am I bleeding?” asks TDP editor, Pen Johannson.

“Obama was bleeding credibility on the issue of his eligibility long before anyone challenged him.  The media is beginning to see this.”   

 

Eligibility is based on a legal requirement rooted in the rule of law and doctrinal precedent over the past 250 years in America.  Legitimacy, on the other hand, is a transient status of subjective entitlement based on the fact that voters supported the candidate, even though the candidate was never legally eligible to be elected.

In 1840, John Tyler, serving as Vice President as the first ever candidate eligible for the office of President born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, became the first candidate required by the Constitution to be a Natural Born citizen of the United States, which he was.  However, Tyler was also the first candidate to perform the duties of President without being elected to the office.  He was forced to assume the powers and duties of president upon the untimely death of President William Henry Harrison just after the 1840 election.

Many in opposition to Harrison’s administration refused to acknowledge Tyler as a “legitimate” President, even disparaging him as “His Accidency”.  Harrison's unprecedented death in office caused considerable confusion regarding Tyler’s succession despite the fact that he was eligibile. 

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution merely states:

“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President.”

The Constitution did not endow Tyler with the title of President in his own right, just the powers of the office.  It only stated that the “Powers and Duties” of the deceased President Harrison would “devolve” upon him as Vice President, not that he would hold the office.  Read literally, Tyler would remain the Vice President with presidential powers, as Acting President, but he could not be called “President of the United States”. 

In spite of his constitutional eligibility to be president, Tyler’s opponents refused to acknowledge that he was a “legitimate” president.  Therefore, it is completely absurd for the liberal media to actually expect that Obama would be considered “legitimate” without a shred of documented proof of eligibility. 

Obama’s legal right to hold office has never been verified because he does not possess the historical proof to show that he meets the requirements stipulated by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

        

DRIVING OBOTS CRAZY

Shultz and Pelley, like the remaining slew of pathological liars in the liberal media, are being confronted with a terrifying reality that there is no proof that Obama is actually who he claims to be, let alone be eligible to be president.  Moreover, they are realizing that only Obama, not original sources, has been the only one they were allowed to receive information from about his identity, which they willingly swallowed and so enthusiastically defended as the truth.

 

Now, they see the fox in the hen house.  The shift in perception indicates the delusions of liberal media are now being confronted with the reality that Obama has poisoned and corrupted their personal and professional reputations.  They are beginning to think Obama might actually be a fraud.

Long ago, CBS and NBC sold out to Obama’s lies and have no way to reconcile with the soul crushing truth so they no longer have the credibility to fight the cause for Obama based on the losing proposition that the birth certificate represents the truth about his identity.  It does not.  It represents the greatest lie ever told to the American people, and they are beginning to realize it.

Mitt Romney’s recent joke about his own birth certificate, according to CBS, was apparently an endorsement of suspicions by so-called “birthers” that “…ultimately drove Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.”

Yes, a CBS writer, lost in ideological delusions about Obama’s eligibility grandeur, actually used the word, “drove” in attempting to convince themselves of an elusive reality about the intentions of Romney’s comment.

Of course, CBS reporters can provide no documented proof that Romney’s comment was directed at Barack Obama.  Sounds a little like CBS believes there is a coo-coo conspiracy to undermine Obama.  They are beginning to sound more like what they accuse so-called “birthers” of, everyday.

   

CBS and other liberal emanations seem to be slowly admitting, now, that the derogatorily called “birther” movement must have had the power and facts to “drive” the anointed One of a bowing liberal consensus to the brink if destruction by forcing him to actually provide evidence that he is who he says he is.

 

Think about what CBS is claiming.  A bunch of crazy, rightwing fringe racists “drove” Obama to present a digitally fabricated image of an alleged 1961 birth certificate which was proven by 10 month-long criminal investigation to be a forgery?

They sound like crazy left-wing conspiracy theorists.  Acknowledging the power to drive an alleged “legally eligible” president to prove his legitimacy is a lot of respect to assign those formerly considered a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists.

Imbalanced pundits like Shultz and Pelley are beginning to look like fools.  Labeling those who question Obama’s eligibility as racists and crazy people is beginning to come back on liberals in a very destructive way.  When the truth is against you, your condemnations will return to haunt and destroy you because no aspersion you cast holds credibility once the lies you defended are exposed.  At that point, you have become worthy of destruction and ridicule. 

Let’s talk about Obama’s legitimacy, shall we?

After all, sarcastically speaking, it’s not as if suspicions about Obama’s illegitimacy were actually based on facts about his past, like the fact that his alleged father was never a U.S. citizen…which means he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and therefore not constitutionally eligible to be president based on 250 years of legal and doctrinal precedence.

Legitimacy?  

Facts like, Obama voted in favor of congressional resolution 511 stating that his 2008 opponent, John McCain, was a natural born citizen because, unlike Obama, both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens serving in the military and, therefore, eligible to run for president, despite the fact that McCain was not born in the U.S.    

Legitimacy?  

Obama lived to Indonesia as a boy, attended school as Indonesian citizen as required by Indonesian law and so stated on his school registration form, and has never provided documentation showing that he retained his American citizenship upon return to Hawaii in 1971. 

Legitimacy?  

Obama traveled to Pakistan, by his own admission, using a passport which would show his citizenship status in 1980 and, yet, it has never been allowed to be seen by anyone.  Legitimacy?  

Legitimacy?  

Obama refuses to provide his college transcripts which contain information about whether or not he attended school as a foreign student, which would show that if he received foreign scholarships he could not have applied as a U.S. citizen.

Legitimacy?  

The Democrat Party of Hawaii chairman, Brian Schatz, refused in August of 2008 to provide an “Official Certification of Nomination” containing legally required language under Hawaiian election laws stating that Obama was “constitutionally eligible” to hold the office of President.

Legitimacy?  

Obama’s literary publicist printed in an official promotional brochure for 16 years that he was born in Kenya.   

 

Legitimacy?  

Obama’s alleged Selective Service registration card, allegedly signed by Obama a day AFTER it was stamped by a Honolulu postal worker, apparently using the only two-digit year received stamp ever possessed by the U.S. post office, was determined by a six month law enforcement investigation to be a forgery.  Requests by investigators for the original record from the Selective Service Administration were denied without explanation.  

Legitimacy?  

The digital .pdf image of his alleged 1961 Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” has been proven through a criminal investigation by officials with decades of federal, state and local law enforcement experience to be a fraud.

Legitimacy?  Obama’s horde of puppets have a better chance of winning the eligibility argument using the forged birth certificate.