Skip to content

Trump’s racist friend Joe Arpaio reignites birther debate against Obama

Photo credit: Twitter – @joearpaio

Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House began on a racist lie. The reality TV star and real estate investor began to gain a political following after he claimed that President Barack Obama was not an American citizen. The entire notion of birtherism was basically presented by White racists who wanted to discredit Obama and his achievements. For those racist Whites, there was no way that a Black man such as Obama could make history without cheating.

Trump used the racist idea as a political tool and rallied like-minded racists. One of those racist people who promoted birtherism is Trump’s friend Joe Arpaio. Arpaio’s entire career in law enforcement was criminal. He created tent city jails in Arizona that were inhumane to prisoners who were forced to live in scorching hot tents that would often reach over 100 degrees. Arpaio was eventually convicted of racially profiling Latinos. Trump recently pardoned his racist friend even after receiving backlash.

Now that Arpaio is a free man, he wants to continue his racist crusade. In 2012, Arpaio used taxpayers’ money to send one of his deputies to Hawaii in search of Obama’s birth certificate. Of course, it ended up being a waste of taxpayers’ money and resources.

But even after failing to find evidence and Obama showing his birth certificate in 2011, Arpaio is back on the hunt. In an interview with the Mercury News, Arpaio said that he would began searching for Obama’s birth certificate again. Arpaio claims that Obama’s birth certificate “has to go down as the biggest cover-up in the history of the United States.”

We live in an era where the president of the United States is an overt racist who pals around with other racists. Their entire agenda is to strengthen the cause of White supremacy while making life difficult for minorities on every level.

At some point, legislation must be passed to outlaw racist language and rhetoric from being spewed by individuals who hold public office.


  1. Vana on September 28, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Another racist idiot with a platform and big mouth. Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is the 50th State of the United States. Therefore, Obama is a citizen of the US.

    • Guest on September 28, 2017 at 2:09 pm

      I wonder which is worse, having lied about being born a US citizen or having America’s enemies help you win Presidential election? Hard to decide. Maybe both should be tried.

      • LW on September 29, 2017 at 1:30 pm

        Trump lied about being born a US citizen? I hadn’t heard that.

        I did know that he’s lied about his ancestry, though. He used to claim that his father was Swedish, rather than German. A weird thing to lie about, but it’s not like there’s anything that’s ever stopped him from lying before.

      • Vana on October 2, 2017 at 11:48 am

        Having enemies help you win the election. Obama never lied abut being a US Citizen. If he wasn’t a citizen, he wouldn’t have been elected.

  2. Stacey Dougan on September 28, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    The idea that there’s a standard for discerning what “racist” is impossible. It’s also contrary to the First Amendment. And thank god. Otherwise, when Obama said it was “stupid” for cops to arrest Henry Louis Gates, a Black Harvard law professor, for entering his own home, alt-right, et al would have argued it fell under the law you propose. The real solution is at the ballot box. That said, it’s getting more difficult to trust that voters will respond in the way we’d hope. Lost faith in many politicians a long time ago. Quickly losing faith in the American electorate now.

  3. DrConspiracy on September 28, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Wow, talk about beating a dead horse!

    Arpaio is a technically inept person with a strong bias against Obama. That’s fertile ground for con men and grifters to grow their poisoned fruit.

    In my mind, the crime that wants investigating now is whether Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse is guilty of income tax evasion. They were designated a 501(c)(3) charity, but never filed any financial reports with ANYBODY like other organizations, using a loophole that really doesn’t apply to them. It is a fact that there were material changes in the Posse operation after they originally filed as a non-profit, and the funds they handled were far above what they told the IRS they were going to handle. The Sheriff’s Office states that they have no financial records on the Posse since it operates independently. They refuse to report to the IRS claiming that they are part of a government entity. They can’t have it both ways.

  4. Grip holder!!💰💰💯💯 on September 28, 2017 at 6:48 pm


  5. Glenn Waite on September 29, 2017 at 2:42 am

    A.R. Shaw does not want the truth about Obama to come out and justice to be done and uses racist comments to support his position.

    • SylviaMHuerta on September 30, 2017 at 3:42 am

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineOrganicEasyTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sb103l..,….

    • LW on October 1, 2017 at 3:47 pm

      Look out! Behind you!

  6. SAMUEL on September 29, 2017 at 5:12 am

    It’s a waste of time I wish the press wouldn’t give guys like Joe a platform.

  7. Mason Youngblood on September 29, 2017 at 6:50 am

    Bold statement coming from Trump that Obama wasn’t born in the US when we now have a known foreign First Lady living around White House secrets. Smh.

  8. Anthony06811 on September 29, 2017 at 10:38 am

    You can tell what the Deep State is afraid of, by the energy they expend to continue the Big Lie. ….Anyone with high school level research skills can know for themselves. .Just repeating a State lie doesn’t really cut it. .Here are some basic facts. Perhaps we can start with the birth certificate proven to be an absolute forgery by two independent forensic laboratories commissioned by a law enforcement investigation into the matter.. .Or the CT issued SS# used by Obama even though he never lived in CT..Then there is the matter of the Selective Service registration. The only one known to have a two digit year stamp. 08 from 2008 flipped to read 80 with an upside down 8 on the forgery..All can investigate it!… ..Then there are the sealed records, that were sealed by Obama’s first executive order. .Born in Hawaii?..Maybe. ..The American people don’t know for sure because of the cloud of sealed records and forged identity documents…

    • LW on September 29, 2017 at 1:35 pm

      You should look up what Obama’s first executive order actually was; as you say, “All can investigate it.”

      Then maybe you (and “All”) can grasp that everything else you’ve said is either irrelevant or a load of dingo’s kidneys.

      • Anthony06811 on September 29, 2017 at 3:33 pm

        OK Genius..Here it is, but don’t let the facts change your mind. .LOL…

        • LW on September 29, 2017 at 3:53 pm

          I’m very curious about what you think this order actually does.

          The key part is section 6, which reads in its entirety:

          “Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.”

          EO 13233, as you can probably guess from the date, was issued by George Bush, and placed tighter limits on what presidential records could be released, and made it much easier for former presidents to say, “nope, you can’t release this”.

          By revoking this, Obama restored the Presidential Records Act to the pre-Bush era wording. That’s all EO 13489 did.

          The Presidential Records Act has zero, zip, nada to do with any records from before a person became president. Hence the name: ==> PRESIDENTIAL <== Records Act. Not "Ermahgerd CT SSN Records Act."

          This EO did not "seal" any of Obama's past records. It has no power over those records. It in fact made records of any activity he would conduct as president more readily available in the future, undoing the increased restrictions put in place by the previous administration.

          If you can correctly name one pre-presidency Obama record "sealed" by EO 13489, I will happily give you a shiny quarter.

          • Anthony06811 on September 29, 2017 at 6:35 pm

            Seems very clear to me!..Check out the forged BC….So clearly a forgery!

            2009, 03:30:11 PM »

            Obama seals his records as soon as he gets into the White House–



            Obama’s first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records

            The Betrayal: Executive Order 13489. Obama bans access to his records the first day in office with this executive order

            PDF Version download:

                THE WHITE HOUSE
                Office of the Press Secretary

                For Immediate Release
                January 21, 2009

                EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489

                – – – – – – –

                By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:

                Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

                      (a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

                      (b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

                      (c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

                      (d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

                      (e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

                      (f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

                      (g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

                      (h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

                Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

                (b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

                Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

                (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

                (c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

               (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

                Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.

                (b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

                Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

                      (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

                      (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

                (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

                (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

                            BARACK OBAMA

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                      January 21, 2009.

            Are you so brainwashed that you don’t see it and all the identity fraud evidence? ??

          • LW on September 30, 2017 at 12:51 am

            Again: this order revokes GWB’s Executive Order 13233, and thus restores the Clinton-era rules for — this is important, see if you can digest this — PRESIDENTIAL records. Not pre-presidential records, not random birther brainwaves, but records generated by a sitting president. The only addition to the Clinton-era rules is that it is expanded to also cover the records generated by the vice-president as well. If you want to go deeper, and you should, the Clinton-era rules are a reversion from the Reagan-era rules. In general, what you’ll find is that Republican administrations kept adding restrictions on what presidential records could be requested to be made public, and Democratic administrations kept lifting those restrictions.

            But the key part here which you are missing is that this only affects records generated by a sitting president’s administration.

            The State of Hawaii in 1961 was not President of the United States, so these rules do not, cannot, and never have affected Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

            The Social Security Administration in 1977 was not President of the United States, so these rules do not, cannot, and never have affected Barack Obama’s Social Security application.

            Your description of EO 13489 is false. It does not add any additional restrictions on the release of any records; in fact, it lifts restrictions. Moreover, the records that it has any purview of do not include anything prior to any president’s pre-presidential records.

            Saying that “Obama bans access to his records the first day in office” is utterly untrue.

            I’ve still got that shiny quarter for you if you can demonstrate that Obama’s BC, or any other of his records, has been “sealed” by this or any other action by Barack Obama.

        • Albert Camusing on October 1, 2017 at 11:25 pm


          “freerepublic?” LOL. Free Republic is a hardcore Right-wing Web site that traffics in white racist paranoia via proven lies, calumnies, slanders, and outright, blatantly idiotic claims over which a good sixth grade student could take apart on logical grounds.

          Sir, you’re a racist idiot (redundant), and your claiming “Free Republic” as your source advertises, loudly, the following:”I, Anthony06811, am a laughable white racist dimwit, a plonk, poltroon of no education, no intellect, and no credibility, save for my wildest fantasies.”

          Oh, yes, you are dismissed with the contempt you deserve.

          • Anthony06811 on October 2, 2017 at 9:25 am

            My dear Sheeple Al, you can recite the State inspired rant perfectly!. .Congratulations. ..It’s so much easier than investigating and thinking for yourself. ..

          • Albert Camusing on October 2, 2017 at 10:25 pm


            The “State” or whatever you, a racist, moronic Right-wing dupe, choose to call the facts with which you have sought exile, want to call it, has nothing to do with the rules of logic, evidence, rationality, fact, truth, and reality.

            The reality: Free Republic is a white racist Web site that spews risible but poisonous lies so outlandishly disconnected from the rules of logic, evidence, rationality, fact, truth, and reality itself, that only Right-wingers believe it.

            And that is the point of pivot: article of faith, belief, delusion separate from any reality. These are the cornerstones Right-wingers, whose entire ideology consists of articles of faith––white racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, magical thinking––wholly at war (or at Holy War) with reality itself.

            You’re a laughable slob, Anthony06811, and your arguments boil down to the level of Flat Eartherism, Birtherism, and every other “ism” directly connected with the Right-wing sociopathic break with reality.

          • Anthony06811 on October 3, 2017 at 8:27 am

            My poor Sheeple Al, you have a really, really bad case.You don’t even have your own thoughts anymore..You are now a perfect agent of the Deep State,thinking and spewing baseless hate…You probably hate Russia now too, because you have been commanded to through your mind control program….You will have to respond to this with more hate because your programming demands it, but I won’t waste my time with further communication. .I honestly doubt that there is any hope for you as you spiral deeper into the darkness. ..My final words to you are. .Get Help…

          • Albert Camusing on October 4, 2017 at 5:02 am


            Allez-vous se baiser, connard. I took my degrees with honours from Columbia University. You? You’re an ignorant, uneducated sot, a white racist dimwit who rabidly seeks stinking Right-wing heaps for your daily doses of bias confirmation as do flies congregate around heaps of excrement.

            You oink all of the insufferably stupid Right-wing barnyard sounds –– examples of terminal stupidity, such as “sheeple,” “your own thoughts”; BAISE-toi, connard, and go fellate Putin as your pig racist and traitor putain “president” does so as to have Pooty Putain’s oligarchs bail him out as no Western bank will lend this mountebank a farthing.


            “Get help?” Baise ta putain mère, connard. Try getting your Junior High degree, if you can, azzwhole.

  9. Cody Robert Judy on September 30, 2017 at 11:52 am

    The author of this article is dangerously close to Racial Demogaugry.

    Let’s not forget “Citizen at the Time of the Adoption of this Constituion” is part of Art. II. Sect.1 C-5.

    “Citizen” is not the Qualification, unless you were a patriot of the new jurisdiction created by the Revolution.

    Minor v. Happersett specifically states, and no one disagrees that those boen in the US to Citizen Parents having no foreign loyalty by parent or place are [natural born Citizens].

    That’s a remarkable point of “unity” among all Americans.

    Congress was given powers to adopt through naturalization and statute “Citizens” , not make “natural born Citizens”.

    Sen. McCain is the only person I know who has had 2 Acts of Congress by statute to first make him a “Citizen” and then in a non binding resolution have half of the legislative body say he’s a “natural born Citizen”

    McCain was challenged in 08 by Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy however the Fed DC Judge waiting to rule after the Nov. Election stated in Fact to the winner must be the burden.

    Obama was then challenged SCOTUS Case 12-5276 & 14-9396.

    The MY Times article’s Truth is Courts have used every excuse in the books to cook the 8 failed attempts by the Legislature to Amend the Constituion to include naturalized or statute citizens as eligible for the POTUS.

    Denying Facts doesn’t improve an argument. Obama claimed his father is Kenyan.

    Kenya wouldn’t allow Obama to run for President of Kenya because of his American mother and their strict compliance with “natural born Citizen”

    • dunstvangeet on October 1, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      Your argument has been rejected by every single court. It’s not really worth arguing, but every single court that has taken a look at the issue has directly rejected your bizarre interpretation of Natural Born Citizen, and accepted the traditional one which means someone who was a citizen from the moment of his birth (rather than going through Naturalization later to become a Naturalized citizen).

      • Anthony06811 on October 2, 2017 at 9:22 am

        No court has ruled on NBC since the Obama usurpation. …NBC has always been born to two citizen parents on US Territory. .

        • Facts not Feelings on October 2, 2017 at 10:14 am

          Wouldn’t that be the same in the case of DJ TRUMP , mother was born in Scotland ?

          • Anthony06811 on October 2, 2017 at 10:57 am

            I love your Handle…Facts not Feelings. ..Perfect…So please investigate the facts with Trump’s mom..Yes, she was born in Scotland, but she was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Donald’s birth. .A natural born citizen is born to two US citizens on US territory. ..See simple. .DJT is a NBC…..Read the Constitution because the founding generation had to exempt themselves from Article II section 1 because their parents could not have been US citizens. ..If you read John Jay’s papers you will see how important NBC was to the Founders. .They didn’t want split loyalty in the Presidency.

        • dunstvangeet on October 3, 2017 at 12:28 pm

          Actually, there have been about 12 different courts that have ruled on this since “Obama’s usurpation” as you put it.

          Ankeny v. Daniels: Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

          Tisdale v. Obama: It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

          Pupora v. Obama: No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.

          Allen v. Obama: Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

          Those are just 4, specifically addressing the case of Barack Obama. I have about a dozen more.

          Like I said, each and every court that has taken a look at this has actually ruled against the redefinition of “Natural Born Citizen” that birthers came up with to specifically exclude Barack Obama.

  10. lucas noah on October 2, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    It is not so typical of me to refer professionals online but I feel like I owe a lot to DISCREETHACK79 who helped me track my cheating fiance when he was having an affair, I got to find out that he has been lying to me for the past 5 months and seeing two other women. I was able to get direct access to his text messages, phone conversations and all social networks on his phone: what was most amazing was that his recently deleted messages were retrieved by Mr John. If you are getting less than you deserve in your relationship and want to be sure.
    You can also call him or send him a text: +1 908 693 9476