View Full Version : SHERIFF JOE TO RELEASE 'INVESTIGATION' OF OBAMA...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/
This could be interesting, or it could be a total Flop. Investigation into Obama's eligibility as president under the Constitution. It will stream live today, starting at 3pm EST. :munchin
hydrashok
03-01-2012, 15:04
"President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public," Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference today in Phoenix.
This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.
Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history.
Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting:
• President Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.
Beginning in October 2011, the Sheriff's Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, examined dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents, as well as taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake the investigation.
The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.
The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in what Sheriff's investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.
"Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have," said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse.
The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged, but investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The Cold Case Posse investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers most likely committed two crimes: first, in fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represented as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
"A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery," Arpaio said.
Among the evidence released at the press conference were five videos the Cold Case Posse produced to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.
The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.
The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators' conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.
Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.
"That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself," Zullo said, stressing that if the Registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.
The investigators also chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
"As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."
Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.
Arpaio went on to say the President should also authorize Kapiolani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any and all hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, in order to provide additional corroboration for the original 1961 birth records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.
"Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Zullo said.
"In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States."
Arpaio concluded the press conference by suggesting a congressional investigation might be warranted and asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.
Mr Furious
03-01-2012, 19:32
If you have illustrator/bridge installed go ahead and watch the video and then download the birth cert and try it yourself!
If all you have is reader you can still zoom to 1600%, and the altered images becomes very obvious. It actually leaves little doubt that what is posted on the WH site is not a scanned copy of an original.:munchin
http://tinyurl.com/7su2zdw
Just in time for Super Tuesday.
John_Chrichton
03-01-2012, 19:42
Nothing to see here America. Just move along.
This "fluff-n-stuff" focus is - IMO - making American conservatives appear as if they are nothing more than an all-star cast in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest II - and as my wife is wont to say, "Perception is reality." Sad and maddening...because it merely fuels the fires of the "left's narrative" and only furthers the possibility of yet another four years of the incumbent and his administration. :(
Personally, I cannot formulate an expression using tangible words from any language that would even begin to express just how much this inanity pisses me off and makes me want to yell, "The issues, stupid! Stick with the issues!"
And so it goes...:mad:
Richard :munchin
Sheriff Joe might be 100% correct, but most people could care less where he was born, if he is an imposter, a real life Manchurian candidate or whatever. So right or wrong I don't think it is going to make any difference. The only thing I see coming out of this is Sheriff Joe will be know as a silly old man, who discriminates against Mexicans and who has come out as birther.
Snaquebite
03-01-2012, 20:34
All the videos here
http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-eligibility-investigation-results-live-stream/?utm_source=Floyd+Reports&utm_campaign=21fa6cf689-Press_Conference_Announcement_Impeach&utm_medium=email
Eagle5US
03-01-2012, 21:05
It is shameful when there is blatant societal apathy in the face of so many facts. When the truth, or at least the perceived "provable circumstance" is dismissed as not even BEING an issue...especially given the track record of destruction and dismantling this country has endured for the past three years.
To be able to rightfully disqualify someone off of an upcoming ballot based on the Constitution of our Country, a document which has been mercilessly dismissed and ignored over the previous 36 months, would be a tremendous opportunity for the United States of America.
"Crazed Birther's" be damned...why must they choke on the truth?
Perhaps if they were taken seriously 4 years ago, and the candidates were properly vetted, many of today's "current issues" would be significantly different.
In every effort of importance the same mantra is recited..."Theories are fine, now prove it". People have been making very compelling arguments for the evidence to back their claims...in defense of that evidence, millions of dollars have been spent to block the release of documents, seal personal and professional records, and little more than verbal dismissals have been offered and received as gospel.
Fool us once, shame on you...fool us twice...:boohoo
Personally, I cannot formulate an expression using tangible words from any language that would even begin to express just how much this inanity pisses me off and makes me want to yell, "The issues, stupid! Stick with the issues!"
And so it goes...:mad:
Richard :munchin
I couldn't disagree more. I am not a conspiracy theorist and, until today, thought the birthers were out of their minds. I watched those videos and found them to be extraordinarily compelling. Compelling enough to warrant a congressional investigation as Arpaio suggests. If we say "there is nothing we can do about it" or "he's already president, why not focus on winning the election" we.re lost. If true, a complete fraud, not just an empty suit foisted upon us, has been perpetrated against the American people.
Fool us once, shame on you...fool us twice...
The problem is the fools are now the majority (at least those that vote).
For example, here is a response from retired school teacher who claims to be an Independent and gets all of her "news" from MS-KKK and PuffHo).
Are you kidding me!!!! The birth certificate again.. I will be so glad when the Republicans can sort out a candidate and I and thousands of us can finally vote for President Obama.
She cannot get that it is not a Republican or a Democrat issue but rather an American issue. She refuses to read/view, let alone consider anything that does not fit her established doctrine.
Too many "informed" people have entrenched themselves into their camps and are unwilling to even consider another point of view and happily lap up the pablum at their feel good biased media of choice.
And Richard - I understand your valid points, but this is an issue!
So continues the hair-pulling, rending of cloth, gnashing of teeth and hoarse yelling!
I couldn't disagree more. I am not a conspiracy theorist and, until today, thought the birthers were out of their minds. I watched those videos and found them to be extraordinarily compelling. Compelling enough to warrant a congressional investigation as Arpaio suggests. If we say "there is nothing we can do about it" or "he's already president, why not focus on winning the election" we.re lost. If true, a complete fraud, not just an empty suit foisted upon us, has been perpetrated against the American people.
Unfortunately, hes back on the Georgia ballot: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html :mad:
The good thing is that this may set some sort of precedent for other states where there may be a successful challenge, you can't be president of a union that isn't a union...
tom kelly
03-01-2012, 23:28
Everyone who files a Federal Income Tax Return must include their Taxpayer Identification Number which for most U S citizens is their SSN. Since the POTUS files a personal federal tax return probably a IRS Form 1040 his SSN/ Taxpayer Identification Number must be included in the label part of the return. I believe that The POTUS has his return made public. The SSN will probably be redacted, for privacy reasons, However if anyone can get just the first 3 digits of his SSN it will indicate where that number was issued eg. 042 was issued to a select few residents of the state of CONNECTICUT; Within each area, the group number the middle 2 digits range from 01 to 99 but are not assigned in consecutive order. For administrative reasons, group numbers issued first consist of the ODD numbers from 01 thru 09 and then EVEN numbers from 10 through 98, within each area number allocated to a state. After all numbers in group 98 of a particular area have been issued, The EVEN groups 02 through 08 are used, followed by ODD groups 11 through 99. The middle 2 digits can indicate a time frame that the SSN was issued. The last 4 digits within each group run consecutively froom 0001 throurgh 9999. It would be interesting to see the first 5 digits of Obama's SSN. Regard's, TK
Unless his wife claims him as a dependent .
All bad jokes aside. Even if he want born outside the US his mother being a US citizen PROBABLY gives him citizenship. At one time a woman that married a foreign national gave up her citizenship and had to apply to become a citizen. I know of someone who grandmother that happened to about 1915 or so. Was that the case in 1961? I don't know. I wonder if the certificate list him as white? That would be a deal killer for his image.
The videos do bring up some interesting questions. If it were me I would hold a press conference at the hall of records and get on CNN me getting my legit birth cert just to put it to rest, but then again there are several other odd documents as well.
The issue would be where he was born AND the fact that his father's nationality was not US.
The issue would be where he was born AND the fact that his father's nationality was not US.
Really? Maybe this can help.
Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
But Obama is a natural-born citizen, even if he were not born within this country's borders, since one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to just "citizen."
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And even "IF" he was born outside the US - which I personally don't believe to be the case - this is the law as it is applied to:
• Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
• Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
And as far as SSANs go:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
Guess there's no chase as exciting as a wild goose chase - or a Loch Ness monster chase - or an Area51 UFO chase - or a remake of the "X Files" by TCM (Teaparty Conspiracy Movies) - or...but at what cost...:confused:
Now - about those 'REAL' issues...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Richard,
I don't disagree with you. For me personally the issue is not if he is a citizen or not. I really did not give a damn about this stupid conspiracy until I watched those videos. The real issue is why DID the white house forge the BC? Whats the point? Why? That is a very serious question.
What they are really talking about with the image of the BC is not just the obvious layers, but the metadata as well. This is something I do professionally studying and analyzing things like this, including stenography. This is 100% proof, beyond any reasonable doubt that this document is in fact fake. It is even more interesting, that whoever made it, did not even understand the concept of metadata, and how it would show it is a forgery.
Metadata is a fairly new thing in courts too. There is not many people that really understand it, and its even harder to get a judge to understand it. The most recent time I can think of that this was discussed was the case of Abu-grav. Army CID nailed those soldiers to the wall with the metadata of the images.
The fact is, any computer image, or file for that matter, has data hidden in the file. It is simply how computers and digital devices think , process, and communicate on the I/O levels.
Some things that are in Images are:
Type of Camera or device used, to include manufacturer, and sometimes serial number.
Time and date
Time and date of file modification
Computer used to manipulate or edit the file
Time and date of manipulation or edit
Programs used to the edit file
The order the file was manipulated in
When the photo was uploaded
...ext
There is no way around arguing that this information is false, the information is VERY difficult to hide. Forensically, based on metadata, this image of the BC that was posted on a government website is fake. Again, WHY? Yes there are many incredibly huge issues right now, but this just adds to it. Why would the government do this?
So yeah, I have joined the tin foil hat club. Weird that is the case for something so substantially proven, but if it is popular opinion on the subject, I guess I need to find some Reynolds Wrap. :mad:
Fellow computer forensic experts, please back me up on this! Thanks!
This "fluff-n-stuff" focus is - IMO - making American conservatives appear as if they are nothing more than an all-star cast in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest II - and as my wife is wont to say, "Perception is reality." Sad and maddening...because it merely fuels the fires of the "left's narrative" and only furthers the possibility of yet another four years of the incumbent and his administration. :(
Personally, I cannot formulate an expression using tangible words from any language that would even begin to express just how much this inanity pisses me off and makes me want to yell, "The issues, stupid! Stick with the issues!"
And so it goes...:mad:
Richard :munchin
Yeah. Like whether he really cheats at golf.
Mr Furious
03-02-2012, 09:21
Richard, great post and very informative.
I really haven’t paid much attention to this issue until looking at the pdf myself. I have to echo 35NCO on this one. Why the fake? Why even do that and try to pass it off as a scanned original? Questioning the validity of the document has nothing to do with tinfoil, and everything to do with motives and integrity of those involved.
Our company uses several third party resources for recruitment, and two of the services send resumes that are OCR’d and optimized as a standard. We also convert anything that is sent to us in the same manner before archiving to facilitate future queries. We have enough of our own examples to compare to what was posted. I don’t prescribe to the position that the anomalies of the cert were a product of OCR and optimization. You also don’t need the tools available in CS5 to see the obvious.
Dusty, good to see you back!
Yeah. Like whether he really cheats at golf.
Been wondering about that me'self :D
On that note, welcome back QP Dusty!
The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?
I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".
Really? Maybe this can help. et all
Thanks for the research material.
Maybe it will answer the question of why only "certain" candidates have their citizenship questioned - like Eisenhower, McCain, Romney, etc.
The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?
I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".
"White"? :D How uncool; in that case, how can you blame the guy for faking it?
The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?
I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".
That would certainly ruin the narrative...
Mr Furious
03-02-2012, 12:18
I might have found the original :eek:
I might have found the original :eek:
:D:D:D Made my day, Bro.
greenberetTFS
03-02-2012, 14:03
All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp .......:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Badger52
03-02-2012, 14:07
The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?
I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".Wouldn't be an unusual policy at all, many places in the world. One of those deferences to the maternal side of things that, in a '?' situation, the child is the race of the birth mother. I'm with your wife on this.
I think making a choice between ferreting this out -or- looking at "more important issues" is an unrealistic option - do both (and plenty of people will). Are there circumstances where it's important to put full illumination on fakers & posers? I think there is an august group here that has already decided that one.
Mr Furious
03-02-2012, 14:36
All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp .......:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
I found this interesting - Here's this bloke’s own words regarding the Fox News blog post that is also cited in Snopes. He probably felt some heat for those associating him with being anything forensic or expert. He was also on the defensive about his “Yes We Did!” book review on Amazon. Even though he’s French Canadian, he's now as neutral as Switzerland.:rolleyes:
http://www.proficiografik.com/2011/05/02/rectifications-regarding-obama-birth-certificate-pdf-validity-foxnews.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1LIB33Q3PP6QJ/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0321631536#wasThisHelpful
Eagle5US
03-02-2012, 15:14
All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp .......:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Problem is...those are the same "arguments" the administration makes in claims that the document is legitimate. When it has been shown / demonstrated / scrutinized / proven that a scan of an original document will not behave in the same manner.
"Snopes" is not above influence...
I might have found the original :eek:
Now that is funny!!!!
Richard, great post and I really haven’t paid much attention to documents or What Donal Trump was saying. But now looking at this PDF. I'm on the side that nothing will be done. People will find ways to make what the DEMS did and MSM.
Really? Maybe this can help.
Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
But Obama is a natural-born citizen, even if he were not born within this country's borders, since one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to just "citizen."
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And even "IF" he was born outside the US - which I personally don't believe to be the case - this is the law as it is applied to:
• Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
• Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
And as far as SSANs go:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
Guess there's no chase as exciting as a wild goose chase - or a Loch Ness monster chase - or an Area51 UFO chase - or a remake of the "X Files" by TCM (Teaparty Conspiracy Movies) - or...but at what cost...:confused:
Now - about those 'REAL' issues...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
You are missing the point. That investigation, and those videos, prove to me that the birth certificate and selective service registration given by the whitehouse of proof of his citizenship/birth ARE FALSE. Who knows where he was born, but it doesn't really matter anymore. If they are forgery's, then they certainly rise to the level of high crimes and misdeamenors and he should be impeached for that fact alone.
By the way, your comparison to Area 51, et al is a straw man argument.
GreenberetTFS: That snopes article is from 2008 before this investigation occurred.
alright4u
03-02-2012, 17:10
"President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public," Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference today in Phoenix.
This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.
Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history.
Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting:
• President Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.
Beginning in October 2011, the Sheriff's Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, examined dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents, as well as taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake the investigation.
The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.
The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in what Sheriff's investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.
"Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have," said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse.
The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged, but investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The Cold Case Posse investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers most likely committed two crimes: first, in fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represented as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
"A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery," Arpaio said.
Among the evidence released at the press conference were five videos the Cold Case Posse produced to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.
The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.
The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators' conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.
Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.
"That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself," Zullo said, stressing that if the Registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.
The investigators also chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
"As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."
Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.
Arpaio went on to say the President should also authorize Kapiolani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any and all hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, in order to provide additional corroboration for the original 1961 birth records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.
"Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Zullo said.
"In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States."
Arpaio concluded the press conference by suggesting a congressional investigation might be warranted and asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.
A document expert who went by Techdude uncovered all this prior to the 08 election.
alright4u
03-02-2012, 17:13
Problem is...those are the same "arguments" the administration makes in claims that the document is legitimate. When it has been shown / demonstrated / scrutinized / proven that a scan of an original document will not behave in the same manner.
"Snopes" is not above influence...
It is another Saul Alinsky group.
turboprop
03-02-2012, 17:16
Has there been any tests done to the actual document, or is all this over whatever was uploaded and then viewed from the internet?
Even if he shows evidence nothing will happen. Zip Zero. IMHO it is time to move on to other more important issues. He has many legit things he can be called on the carpet on this is a distraction at best.
Agreed, it makes his opposition look like idiot's
The Reaper
03-02-2012, 17:45
The posted BC has been proven a fake. The question is why was it done?
I think my wife is right - the real BC lists him as "White".
I agree. At the minimum.
TR
Agreed, it makes his opposition look like idiots
MOO, this outcome has been the plan all along. The birther controversy allows the president to protect himself from criticism from a core constituency (blacks). The controversy provokes his opponents into activating deep rooted historical memories of the long nineteenth century. A few years back, QP Richard posted a link to an editorial by Stanley Fish that, IMO, remains relevant (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276688&postcount=35).
I think that questioning the current president's legitimacy is not going to work as well for the opposition as raising questions about the efficacy, propriety, and sustainability of his policies or about the man's competency as chief executive.
My $0.02.
People have been making very compelling arguments for the evidence to back their claims...in defense of that evidence, millions of dollars have been spent to block the release of documents, seal personal and professional records, and little more than verbal dismissals have been offered and received as gospel.
This is what I've been saying for years, too many people are dismissive of these facts.
Agreed, it makes his opposition look like idiot's
I respect your opinion, but I disagree why that is the outcome. The real problem is the total lack of intelligent people left in our country, that can think, research, and solve problems, without being told what the solution is by other resources, such as the media.
kgoerz- Just to be clear, the following is not directed at you, it is just my opinion.
The white house has already spun this, they are referencing X-files and such. The main media pages of CNN/FOX make zero mention of this at all so far.
Reading the commentary of people on the white house remarks you get outstanding representations of our country, such as:
"Keep it up. Between Arpaio, Mitt, Rick and Rush it almost guarantees another four years for President Obama. There is nothing better to fight than just blatant stupidity. Truly shows the racism of these people. Makes me sick to listen to them. "-Racism remarks started with the media, CNN to be exact.
"And why would anyone believe the likes of Joe Arpaio who is awaiting charges of cruelty and unjust treatment of his prisoners and some other charges pending? He is not exacely the pillar of society and not anyone I would hedge any bets on. This topic of President Obama's birth certificate is over ...at least for those with a brain." -Red, also from the media
"No part of the SSN indicates the state that issues the card or number. That myth was debunked some time ago. Try to keep up." -Thats pretty neat...
"You know, Joe, every time you open your mouth, I'm reminded of the Mark Twain saying, "Be better to keep your mouth shut and thought a fool then to open it and remove all doubt." Unfortunately, Joe, you like to open your mouth at anything you perceive as a given opportunity..." -Nit-picking, but Mark Twain was not the origins of that phrase.
"If you idiots even paid attention at all, this is an ABC news article, not yahoo thats why it doesn't have the yahoo format, and following another attack on the President, there should eventually a legal way of deporting all these idiot birthers if not that at least a form of a class action suit against their liabel. " -Oh a Commie!
"This is utter nonsense. I am disgusted with ABC for carrying this non story. There is a difference between reporting the NEWS and reporting the serious mental illness of someone unable to let go of a lie. As for the rest of you "Birthers", shame on you. Do you REALLY believe this nonsense? Don't you think every single fact about Barack Obama was checked out before he was inaugurated? My personal opinion is that most of you don't like him because he is black and smarter than you. ABC...why don't you focus on REAL news?" -This dude worships him.
Believe it or not, those are the most intelligent people I could find that disagree with the case. How many of them watched the video? How many of them understand metadata, or even tried to research it? I doubt any of these people did. They just did what they are told.
Saying it makes the opposition look like idiots is only in a direct correlation to the backlash the media will spew out. The believers of this crap will say "Republicans are dumb, cause they are birthers." I believe this is called propaganda. In another means, it is the result of Psychological Political Warfare. (yes I made that up)
Its like when people like Ron Paul (sorry, but its a good example) use big words and discuss real economic principles, you get comments like. "Hes crazy." "He is sooo dumb." and the current favorite of anyone in opposition to obama. "nothing he says means anything, cause hes racisit."
Right, so really, we dismiss all real issues and pay attention to NOTHING important, by using the crazy PPW that we learn from TV. It numbs the mind, and ceases any real thinking.
Any real computer expert can show this thing is fake. I searched youtube today trying to find people that have a reasonable explanation to why the document is this way. A couple claim that they have the answers to the layers. The trouble is all of them come up with 30-100+ layers when trying to duplicate it. The BC has only 7. There is no way around that, and if people would take the time to learn that, they would believe it, because it is based off of computer science fact. I thought we were all anti-god pro science these days on that side of the political field? So where is the Science now? Or is that a inconvenient Science?
The Reaper
03-02-2012, 19:25
The MSM has said that this is all irrelevant and you are delusional.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
TR
By the way, your comparison to Area 51, et al is a straw man argument.
It wasn't any sort of argument at all - it was meant to be nothing but blatant sarcasm.
Has there been any tests done to the actual document, or is all this over whatever was uploaded and then viewed from the internet?
I think this is a valid point to be considered - exactly what "my sources" did Joe's posse 'examine' to obtain their "may be"-"could be"-"might be" conclusions. :confused:
Richard
alright4u
03-03-2012, 11:58
If you have illustrator/bridge installed go ahead and watch the video and then download the birth cert and try it yourself!
If all you have is reader you can still zoom to 1600%, and the altered images becomes very obvious. It actually leaves little doubt that what is posted on the WH site is not a scanned copy of an original.:munchin
http://tinyurl.com/7su2zdw
A document expert called Techdude showed how this was done. The sad thing is we have Americans who do not care where Obozzo was born.
A document expert called Techdude showed how this was done. The sad thing is we have Americans who do not care where Obozzo was born.
At this point, I don't care, myself. I just want a brand new President.
One not raised on Rules for Radicals and groomed by domestic terrorists and racist preachers.
tom kelly
03-03-2012, 13:02
At this point, I don't care, myself. I just want a brand new President.
One not raised on Rules for Radicals and groomed by domestic terrorists and racist preachers.
At this point in time , The Executive, The Legislative, and The Judicial branches need the citizens to vote out the corrupt, lying and inefficient members out of office. The ultra left liberal Judges need to be made to resign or be impeached for their misguided agende to make & interpert the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the other laws of the U S A. TK.
At this point in time , The Executive, The Legislative, and The Judicial branches need the citizens to vote out the corrupt, lying and inefficient members out of office. The ultra left liberal Judges need to be made to resign or be impeached for their misguided agende to make & interpert the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the other laws of the U S A. TK.
It's gonna be a long 8 months...
greenberetTFS
03-03-2012, 17:00
The Republican party is screwed,that don't have anyone to rally around to get the big "O" kicked out of office........:rolleyes:Prepare for his next 4 years,the only help we can look forward to is JC's coming back again before the end of this term............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
At this point, I don't care, myself. I just want a brand new President.
One not raised on Rules for Radicals and groomed by domestic terrorists and racist preachers.
At this point I am willing to put my faith in the electorate come November, and I urge you all to try to do the same thing. There were a lot of gullible voters who bought what the annointed one was selling back in 08. Plus the fact that McCain was IMHO a terrible candidate. Obama has managed to burn almost everyone whether they voted for him or not. There will always be a percentage of democrat voters who will vote strictly along party lines. Our danger is that we are not far off from hitting the point where he has more than 50% of all voters on some sort of govt. program and dependant on the govt. This election may very well be our all or nothing election. Obama and his ilk have got to go, and its in the hands of conservatives and independants to see that he is removed. Its time for that "Silent Majority" to rise and have its voices heard.
Our danger is that we are not far off from hitting the point where he has more than 50% of all voters on some sort of govt. program and dependant on the govt.
They'll stay home and watch judge shows instead of voting this time.
The Republican landslide will be similar to Reagan's.
...the only help we can look forward to is JC's coming back again before the end of this term...
I hope not - I served during Jimmy Carter's first administration. ;)
Richard :munchin
All you guys know I'll not a supporter of the big"O",however this info from snopes cannot be dismissed either........ I've learned a lot from Richard on addressing a post for accuracy,so http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp .......:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
I'd personally say their so called expert is full of it and would like to see someone challenge him to duplicate the results with another document. No way in hell it was scanned/OCR'd and separated out the way that document was.
But Obama is a natural-born citizen, even if he were not born within this country's borders, since one parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. As a congressional act approved on 26 March 1790 states:
Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02280104.tif
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from "natural born citizen" to just "citizen."
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. And even "IF" he was born outside the US - which I personally don't believe to be the case - this is the law as it is applied to:
• Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
• Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
And as far as SSANs go:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
Guess there's no chase as exciting as a wild goose chase - or a Loch Ness monster chase - or an Area51 UFO chase - or a remake of the "X Files" by TCM (Teaparty Conspiracy Movies) - or...but at what cost...:confused:
Now - about those 'REAL' issues...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
You left out that the 1790 congressional act goes on to say "Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
ZonieDiver
03-03-2012, 20:38
Dusty, good to see you back!
Dusty was gone? :D
As for Sheriff Joe's part in this, along with one of his "posses of the aged and infirm" - he is so full of it that his eyes have to be brown! "Toughest Sheriff" - my ass. His "Tent City" has nothing on Camp Mackall's old tents in August 1970.
GratefulCitizen
03-03-2012, 20:52
The Republican party is screwed,that don't have anyone to rally around to get the big "O" kicked out of office........:rolleyes:Prepare for his next 4 years,the only help we can look forward to is JC's coming back again before the end of this term............:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Don't worry Big Teddy.
The USA will still muddle through even if the president is reelected.
Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for their leaders or even the evil found there.
They were destroyed for the lack of 10 righteous men.
The way I figure it, so long as there's at least one full A-team stateside, we'll be fine.
;)
ZonieDiver
03-03-2012, 21:22
Don't worry Big Teddy.
The USA will still muddle through even if the president is reelected.
Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for their leaders or even the evil found there.
They were destroyed for the lack of 10 righteous men.
The way I figure it, so long as there's at least one full A-team stateside, we'll be fine.
;)
Good point, fellow "Zonie"! However, four more years of Obama... along with majorities in Congress for the Dems is almost too much for me to contemplate. (And I fear that is where the current crop of "Repugnants" are headed.
alright4u
03-03-2012, 22:52
I'd personally say their so called expert is full of it and would like to see someone challenge him to duplicate the results with another document. No way in hell it was scanned/OCR'd and separated out the way that document was.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
The story on this guy came around sometime ago. I believe it is a husband wife team in CA. They are OK until it get's political. They buy that Obama birth certificate. They do not mention the 40 SSN's for Barrack Obama.
Last hard class
03-03-2012, 23:52
250 tea party members from Suprise AZ sign a petition. With J. edgar shopping at Victoria Secrets, Sheriff Joe is compelled to put together a legal eagle dream team and investigate the President.
Without the help of any political advisors, Joe has the presence of mind to designate the task force as a 501c. This way it may not cost the good taxpayers of Maricopa County any money. I am sure the righteous on this thread have sent their tithes already.
I don't know much about forged documents, and I sure can't say whether the king was born here, but I know I would not have used Joe to lead this investigation if I wanted anyone but the "faithful" to take it seriously. While I am always a fan of the counter accusation, rumored to have his name on a few inquiries himself, Joe's motives for a diversion seem clear.
I am just glad this is about the truth and not just more BS politics.
LHC
You left out that the 1790 congressional act goes on to say "Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States.
Yep - I left it out because I was only interested in making the point that you've got to follow the entire chain from then to now with all the 'clarifications' (read: changes) which have led to where we were when BHO was born and where we stand today. The 1790 Act was just the beginning of a long succession of those events.
Under the terms of the original Constitution and before the 1790, 1795, and following clarifying Acts, and there have been many more, the first POTUS who actually would've met the criteria to be POTUS was James van Buren (8th POTUS) who was born in the US in 1782 - remember, the US wasn't a nation which could grant such citizenship until the Articles of Confederation were signed on 1 Mar 1781 - and the Constitution wasn't adopted until 1787 and ratified until 1788 - which would make George Washington (1789-1797) our first POTUS who did not meet the criteria for POTUS as stated in the Constitution...if he and so many others had not been 'grandfathered' in as 'citizens' by the newly created body of Congress.
I hear "original intent" being argued a lot in regards to this issue, but when it comes to original intent, we need to remember that Congress had to begin changing the Constitution before it was even adopted with the addition of 10 of 12 proposed Amendments (Bill of Rights) to 'clarify' what was not absolutely stated in the original document. After that, it's been a near continuous (albeit minor) 'tuning' of the original 'intent' IAW the needs of a growing nation and constantly changing world.
One such clarification has been the issue of citizenship. The 'natural born' wording of the original in regards to the Presidency was representative of their fears of a foreign sovereign of some level becoming POTUS and taking the government over. However, as soon as there was a national legislature and a POTUS (Washington, Adams, Jefferson) who allayed those fears, they realized the necessity to better define or explain the intent of certain items in the Constitution which were now found to be either 'fuzzy', unclear, or unnecessary. 'Natural born citizen' vice merely 'citizen' (which denoted full, natural born citizenship no matter where one was born of a US citizen) and 'naturalized citizen' for those who were not born of a citizen.
The US Constitution is an amazing document - but is not without its flaws. Thankfully, it has the capacity to be amended (as necessary within reason and with some difficulty) and is to be lauded for its elasticity which has been used over the few centuries of its existence to clarify issues related to those flaws.
Be that as it may, I, apparently along with Congress who is the authoritative body which defines such matters, tens of millions of eligible voters, and the Electoral College think BHO is a "citizen," not a "naturalized" citizen, and, therefore, the currently elected POTUS...he's just a shi**y POTUS.
And as for Sheriff Joe's latest Circus of Dr Lao affair...I guess we'll have to wait and see whether or not the two-headed Loch Ness Media and Political Monster tries to devour him or he manages to escape its clutches yet again. I'm surprised Sheriff Joe hasn't sent his posse out to chase this one down yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/andrew-breitbart-death-sparks-conspiracy-theories-galore-175523779.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Is it Fake or is it not a Fake - that is the question.
It has been proved a fake.
The question remains - WHY?
No President has ever allowed a "fake" such as this to remain out there flapping in the wind - and no press cycle has allowed the same to flap for so long.
20 years from now the details might come out as to the "WHY" and then it will be "Ha, Ha, Ha, they sure pulled one over on us."
You young folks remember this time - some of you were not fooled - you demanded the truth but were laughed at.
Is it Fake or is it not a Fake - that is the question.
It has been proved a fake.
The question remains - WHY?
N
I am willing to cede that I am no expert on the US Constitution. However, the fact that congress hasn't said anything on the issue is small comfort. The real issue, to me, is what Pete just said. The document posted online at whitehouse.gov, is a fake. That is his website. That is worthy of a congressional investigation into impeachment hearings for high crimes and misdemeanors. Forging a document and foisting it upon the american public, even if only to quell rumors, certainly rises to that level.
alright4u
03-04-2012, 11:17
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/01/22/father-of-communist-china-sun-yat-sen-obama-received-hawaiis-colb/
Go Devil
03-04-2012, 13:04
My nephew's application to the maintenance facility at Indianapolis International Airport received more scrutinay than our current president's application for office did. My nephew was born in Germany while his father was serving in the Air Force.
F the birth certificate, his college application information would illuminate what the Birthers are picking at. Let's see what he claimed at that point.
Remember Mr Dan "Fake but accurate" Rather and his faked presidential "documents"?
The press will do everything in it's power to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple in America.
They're in the tank for the libs right up past their eyeballs.
alright4u
03-04-2012, 17:43
The man has paid more money to attorneys to block the requests under the FOIA then I have made in my life.
I wonder about that PFC Smith or was it Jones assualting against those fortified positions to take out the enemy before a round killed him. Why can't Obama stop his BS. Yes, no more law shool BS. Show your best shit one time.
charlietwo
03-04-2012, 23:35
The only possible reason for the administration posting an obvious forgery: a trap. The lie of the trap is just as important as whatever information the true birth cert contains.
To Richard- I agree with the dangerous road you point out, however I ask one question: Is the document a forgery? If so, it is a lie. If he is a citizen and presented a forged document to any official agency and authorities determined it to be a forgery, he would be arrested. *If* he were a normal civilian.
Now that he is President, he can present obvious lies which trap his opposition into a narrative battle. That narrative battle will always be played on the field of the media, which is like playing football with corrupt referees.
I know *why* he would lie about it, and that lie is enough for me. I know what would happen if I created a birth certificate out of whole cloth and uploaded it as a recruiter (Ft. Leavenworth as a worst case scenario). Not holding the President and his administration to the same standard is foolish.
Their narrative is "You don't believe he is a citizen." The counter narrative needs to be "An American citizen knowingly presented a forged document (lie) to the public as truth."
The reason for the lie does not excuse the lie.
To Richard- I agree with the dangerous road you point out, however I ask one question: Is the document a forgery?
I understand the point and say maybe - maybe not, but I suspect we'll find out one way or another in good time. However, even if it has been altered, this POTUS has shown himself to be as politically slick as teflon-coated whale snot at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, and I'd wager there are enough cut-outs between him and any such document(s) to give him plausible deniability in claiming no knowledge of any such shenanigans...and nobody being able to prove otherwise as some-level errand boy (ala a Casper Weinberger or an Ollie North) gets smacked while the Administration, Congress, and MSM wring their hands in disbelief that such a thing could ever possibly happen again in this democratically constituted rebublic.
His track record of demonstrated ineptitude as POTUS should be enough to sink him and his party...unless the opposition is perceived to be even more inept in their machinations to unseat him.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
His track record of demonstrated ineptitude as POTUS should be enough to sink him and his party...unless the opposition is perceived to be even more inept in their machinations to unseat him.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
He got elected because his PR guys and the press fooled everybody who was too lazy to research his record; a secretive, misleading and (basically) legislatively non-existant one at that. His ineptitude was obvious to everyone but the moronic Eloi who swallowed a sales blitz put together by wealthy anti-American Way stringpullers.
He's determined to drain and dismantle the construction of the Country, because he hates the way the foundation was laid. If people are blind enough to elect him again, America will fail. Even though I believe enough voters realize that, this time, we're perilously close to having a majority who want to kick back and suck the government tit.
Well - if America was a car, its CHECK PRESIDENT warning light would be on and I'd be leery of spending my money on one.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
With 100% voter turn out he has proven he is not exactly fair when it comes to elections.When did this happen? I believe in a fair election with impartial press he would be out.Interestingly, the left offered similar assessments in 2000 and 2004.
MOO, the president's opposition has only itself to blame for its collective inability to gain traction. While the president's polling numbers remain down overall (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx), the GOP has proven more capable at undermining its own credibility than the incumbent's. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/46627194#46627194)
So, by all means, let's stick to the script that worked so well in 2008.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=146355My question was about the "100% voter turn out." <<LINK (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm)>>
My question was about the "100% voter turn out." <<LINK (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm)>>
Not everyone voted, especially the people who were intimidated away from the booths by the New Black Panther Party thugs.
charlietwo
03-05-2012, 16:41
His track record of demonstrated ineptitude as POTUS should be enough to sink him and his party...unless the opposition is perceived to be even more inept in their machinations to unseat him.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Saying he is inept is giving him too much credit. At what point does this become a planned deconstruction?
I read this a while back (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml) and it outlines much of what has been done in the past 50 years in the west. The past 6 years or so has been Progressive->Communism fast track under the cover of compassion. "The spread of communism has never been by force of battle, but by conquest of the mind. Pg67"
All planned... all planned.:(
The Reaper
03-05-2012, 17:08
When did this happen? Interestingly, the left offered similar assessments in 2000 and 2004.
MOO, the president's opposition has only itself to blame for its collective inability to gain traction. While the president's polling numbers remain down overall (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx), the GOP has proven more capable at undermining its own credibility than the incumbent's. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/46627194#46627194)
So, by all means, let's stick to the script that worked so well in 2008.
It doesn't matter what you do, or don't do, as long as the Propaganda Ministry spins things for you and against your opponents.
Both Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin had great press in their nations.
"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."
How do you change that, before the system is irrevocably corrupted?
TR
Getting busted for lying about his BC will prolly be the least of his problems once he's out of office, provided the collective sanity of the Country returns.
If a guy has to cheat, mislead and hide information just to seem legal for annointment, imagine what else could be revealed.
How do you change that, before the system is irrevocably corrupted?TR--
MOO, the fact that the GOP did not take Bush the Younger to task in a very big way for the absence of WMDs in Iraq undermined the party's credibility for such issues in the eyes of many rank and file Democrats. (The fact that Sean Penn's sneering acceptance speech at the 76th Academy Awards drew so little heat was instructive.)
This credibility had already suffered greatly during the impeachment of President Clinton. (I remember Democrats wondering why an extramarital affair was a big deal given the escapades of Gingrich and Hyde?)
I believe that if Republicans were a track record for holding their own membership accountable in ways that resonate with the informed public, then they would gain more traction when we ask questions about Democrats and the questions resonate among Democrats.
Also, and at the risk of beating the dead horse, what America needs as much as anything is resurgence of professionalism in the Senate and the House of Representatives --or, failing that, some sort of institutional conflict between the legislative and executive branches.
My $0.02.
MTN Medic
03-05-2012, 21:19
MOO, the fact that the GOP did not take Bush the Younger to task in a very big way for the absence of WMDs in Iraq undermined the party's credibility for such issues in the eyes of many rank and file Democrats.
That is likely due to the fact that rank and file democrats are simply dimwitted voting machines incapable of voting on issues but rather party lines.
Don't get me wrong; line humping republicans are the same way. Given the evidence, I would have assumed the same thing that GWB did.
Those that know me know that I am no GWB apologist, but WTF was he supposed to do? If you say you would have done differently with the information you had, you are an imbicile or a liar.
WTF was the GOP supposed to do? Impeach his ass for not prognosticating the outcome?
FWIW, the GOP's credibility has been crushed for decades. The only thing that has kept the fat elephant afloat is their retarded donkey bretheren across the aisle screwing $#!t up left and right for decades.
TR--
MOO, the fact that the GOP did not take Bush the Younger to task in a very big way for the absence of WMDs in Iraq undermined the party's credibility for such issues in the eyes of many rank and file Democrats. (The fact that Sean Penn's sneering acceptance speech at the 76th Academy Awards drew so little heat was instructive.)
This credibility had already suffered greatly during the impeachment of President Clinton. (I remember Democrats wondering why an extramarital affair was a big deal given the escapades of Gingrich and Hyde?)
I believe that if Republicans were a track record for holding their own membership accountable in ways that resonate with the informed public, then they would gain more traction when we ask questions about Democrats and the questions resonate among Democrats.
Also, and at the risk of beating the dead horse, what America needs as much as anything is resurgence of professionalism in the Senate and the House of Representatives --or, failing that, some sort of institutional conflict between the legislative and executive branches.
My $0.02.
Sig, there are many that to this day think President Bush was correct, and that the reason we didn't find them is that they made their way to Syria. ( I am one of those people) Victor Hanson brings up the subject in his column today.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292658/syrian-ironies-victor-davis-hanson?pg=2
<<SNIP>>
Those that know me know that I am no GWB apologist, but WTF was he supposed to do? If you say you would have done differently with the information you had, you are an imbecile or a liar.
WTF was the GOP supposed to do? Impeach his ass for not prognosticating the outcome?
<<SNIP>>
Sig, there are many that to this day think President Bush was correct, and that the reason we didn't find them is that they made their way to Syria. ( I am one of those people) Victor Hanson brings up the subject in his column today.
<<SNIP>>QP MTN Medic y AFCHIC
Make no mistake, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision. However--and as I've sketched in previous posts--I believe Bush the Younger should have made Iraq's possession of WMDs the last and least important of five reasons. I also believe that the president mishandled the debate over the congressional authorization for military operations against Iraq. That is, he settled for authorization when he might have also insisted on a consensus. (He should have threatened to call an emergency session in the fall of 2002 as it became increasingly clear that both chambers of congress were posturing for the upcoming midterm elections and wanted to get out of D.C. as soon as possible so they could campaign back home.) IMO, insisting upon a consensus might have inspired a more compelling debate. At the very least, it would have made it very difficult for various Democrats to argue that they were for invasion until they were against it.:rolleyes:
Internationally, it was unlikely that Bush the Younger could have put together a coalition like his father had for the Second Gulf War. Yet, he could have done more to build international consensus. For example, had he exercised a bit more patience and agreed to the UN's inspection team for a little more time (four to six weeks), they would have found more evidence of Iraq's non compliance with existing UN resolutions. This evidence would have shifted the debate from Iraq's possession of WMDs to Iraq's thumbing its nose at its responsibilities to the international community.
From there, Bush the Younger could have rebooted Thatcher's argument about a "new world order" in which might does not make right. IMO, a revival of this argument would have offered Tony Blair and other foreign leaders a better political position with their domestic constituencies. This move would have also called the very credibility of the United Nations into question. If its members were unwilling to use military force when its members went back on agreements, and if its members could not agree that Iraq epitomized intransigence in the service of malevolence, then what is the point of collective security?*
Moreover, Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor in COBRA II, and Dale Herspring Rumsfeld's Wars: The Arrogance of Power offer compelling arguments that the secretary of defense badly managed the planning of the invasion by disregarding input from the state department, by shutting out members of the armed services whose professional views did not fit into Rumsfeld's belief in the RMA, and by making changes to the Time-Phased Force and Deployment List. As a consequence of this civilian mismanagement, warriors on the ground were tasked to solve problems outside of their specific training, .GOV threw money at the wrong Iraqis, .GOV empowered Blackwater to do work that should have been tasked to QPs and others in the SOF community, and, most pressing of all, too many of the bad guys lived to fight another day. (MOO, this last point will be the "lesson" of OIF.)
Somewhere along the line, congressional Republicans should demanded that Rumsfeld answer directly the question "What the heck are you guys doing?" and insisted on a straight-talk answer. And there should have been an audit. While it is purely an act of ahistorical speculation to argue that such a response would have made a difference in Iraq, I think one can say that it would have demonstrated the GOP's commitment to the principle of personal accountability.
My $0.02.
__________________________________________________ ____
*FWIW, much of the previous three paragraphs are the product of a series of informal debates with a progressive Democrat between the spring of 2002 and the winter of 2005 over GWOT and the invasion of Iraq. Sometimes, it pays to talk to Americans who don't agree with you.
I love you Sig, you know I do, but I am not buying what you are selling. Hussein had been thumbing his nose to the UN and its resolutions for years, and you think 4-6 more weeks would have changed things? Give me a break. The only thing another 4-6 weeks would have done would be to let the Iraqi military dig in more deeply, and continue to make the world look like fools because the UN is worthless. Everyone knows the UN is worthless, but no one is ever going to stand up and say that, regardless of what the situation is.
Darfur, check UN doing nothing, Syria- check, UN doing nothing, Iran-check doing nothing, Israel, oh hold on, lets put something out there that says Israel is BAD, ok well done, the UN stood up for SOMETHING.
Every one of us who has been to Iraq can tell you that by not securing the nation after the government toppled, and allowing the lawlessness to continue was a HUGE mistake. But that does not negate the fact that we were right to go in there. Obama is now taking credit for the surge working, what a joke. W may not have been the best President, but history will be much more kind to him that it will be to the Chosen One.
W may not have been the best President, but history will be much more kind to him that it will be to the Chosen One.
Reading profundity like this just makes my whole day snick into place. :o
I love you Sig, you know I do, but I am not buying what you are selling. Hussein had been thumbing his nose to the UN and its resolutions for years, and you think 4-6 more weeks would have changed things? Give me a break. The only thing another 4-6 weeks would have done would be to let the Iraqi military dig in more deeply, and continue to make the world look like fools because the UN is worthless. Everyone knows the UN is worthless, but no one is ever going to stand up and say that, regardless of what the situation is.I think we're agreeing with each other.
The four to six weeks of additional inspections would have strengthened Bush the Younger's position domestically and internationally. In a speech before the United Nations Security Council on 6 March 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/08/iraq.unitednations3?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487), Hans Blix said:How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
At the time of this speech, it was increasingly clear that Iraq was incapable of a "proactive" attitude. (The subsequent Iraqi Perspectives Project would find out why). If Bush the Younger had split the difference between weeks and months, the inspectors would have collected evidence of Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with existing UN resolutions regarding WMDs.
The interval itself, as well as the additional evidence would have undermined a key point of those who opposed invasion--that Bush the Younger was rushing to war. It would also have given Bush an affirmative argument for invading Iraq that would not have been compromised by the subsequent discovery that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. That is, Hussein failed to meet the burden of proof as he'd agreed.
To you, to me, and to other Americans who were paying attention, this exercise would have seemed like deja vu all over again. However, for many on the left, it would neutralized their strongest arguments against the invasion because it would have been the act of measuring thrice before cutting once.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/
This is absolutely worth reading.
See below:
"By Dianna Cotter (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/#)
A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.
A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.
Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.
On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a "Long Form Birth Certificate" from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,". Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.
That's right, forged.
The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.
Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the "Long Form" likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.
Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?
The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio's audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.
For months before Mr. Obama released the April 2011 forgery, American businessman Donald Trump had been demanding that the president show the country definitive proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii, and eligible for the Office of President. The birth certificate forgery which was presented by Mr. Obama was in response to the repeated public requests from the billionaire businessman.
One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.
On the contrary, the press itself forged documents regarding the 43rd President: Long term CBS newsman Dan Rather lost his credibility along with his job when he presented forged Air National Guard documents allegedly denigrating the president's service in the 1970's. One can imagine the glee evidence presented by law enforcement officials of a real forgery made by President Bush would have generated. The press feeding frenzy would have eclipsed that of Watergate, the most controversial political event in modern America history which led to the resignation of President Nixon in August of 1974.
The questions in the White House Press room would have been merciless to say the very least.
What has been the response from the Obama era press?
Silence.
Silence so loud it can be felt.
What has been the response from the 44th president so far?
A tweet from Obama Campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, containing a link to the conspiracy theory television show "The X-files" theme song: a mocking, Saul Alinsky like, retort.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors appear to have been committed by the President of the United States or his personal representatives in presenting a forged document to the press and the Nation as a legitimate document, and this information has been delivered from Law Enforcement Officials.
Arpaio refused to take the bait offered by a clearly hostile press in the conference room. He refused to accuse the president directly, instead informing the world that they had a "person of interest" in the forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.
Where is the outrage from the press??
As surreal as this is, it isn't the main event. It's only a part of a larger story."
"Citizenship
Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.
There are two reasons for Obama's concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which 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,".
Except for Barack Obama.
The second reason for Obama's concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen: "
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since.
This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.
The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America's armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the "Law of Nations", Emerich De Vattel's encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
E. De Vattel 1758 Sec 212 Ch19
Vattel's definition has been accepted since the days the United States was still a motley collection of British Colonies. It has been accepted in no less that 3 Supreme Court Cases, has been accepted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. It is by no means an original source; only recently dug out of dusty tomes in 2008. Indeed, this concept is enshrined in every Nation the world over. Every nation not only accepts, but has enshrined this concept: a person born to two parents who were citizens of that nation and born on its soil was a natural born citizen of that nation.
After his rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama was considered a shoe-in for running for president in 2008, and indeed his campaign began that night in Boston. Yet his citizenship was a serious obstacle to his ambitions, and the ambitions of the liberal progressive movement which supported him.
So the efforts to obfuscate Obama's citizenship issues began in earnest. The plan was deviously simple, make certain that people focused on his Hawaiian documents, and minimize the visibility of Minor V. Happersett and Citizenship to the public."
"The State of Hawaii
The state of Hawaii's role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.
It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship. This is the only state in the United States where this condition existed. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to forge birth documents for. It is why Obama's birth is being alleged to have occurred there instead of somewhere like Washington State or elsewhere, and is so vitally important.
Obama, by being born in Hawaii, got automatic citizenship status in the United States without regard for whether the United States had jurisdiction over his citizenship. Otherwise, his citizenship would have legally followed his father's, British, as Barack himself admitted on his "Fight the Smears" website during the '08 campaign.
And it only took a witness signature to gain it. It is unknown how many children gained U.S. citizenship through this means. The real citizenship status of these individuals is similarly unknown, and now that it has been discovered that Barack Obama has put forth a forged Hawaiian Birth certificate, his own proof of birth in the state is subject to serious questions by law enforcement officials.
Months before the election of 2008 Barack Obama began deliberately directing public attention to his Hawaiian Records. The Obama campaign, before redirecting the site to "Attack Watch" maintained the "Fight the Smears" website which can still be found on archival websites. The Obama campaign posted the candidate's "short Form" birth certificate with the following information from FactCheck.com:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982."
The campaign obviously wanted public attention directed at his birth documents in Hawaii.
The campaign itself created the entire birth certificate controversy, and acted to maintain and fan the flames of that controversy for several truly simple reasons. As long as the public was wondering about what being born under "the British Nationality Act of 1948" meant, and the birth certificate "birther" controversy in general, they were not looking into laws which would have legally prevented the senator from assuming the role of candidate and then President. Legal cases such as Minor V. Happersett.
This case was, and still is, of tremendous import. Had it been found during the campaign it would have prevented his candidacy, certainly preventing him from taking the oath of office in Jan 2009.
So a campaign to hide Minor V. Happersett was undertaken at the same time. "
Any of the lawyers on this forum want to discuss this further? I am just curious to how strong this debate really is from the legal standpoint. Is it all true that it is criminal, or is there some other legal loophole that we are missing that does in fact make it not matter that the president was never a natural born citizen. Or is he a natural born citizen?
"Justia
Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed "JustiaGate".
The author of this article personally documented and published the scrubbing done by Justia, documented the failure of Tim Stanley's explanation for the "errors", and assisted in the research which connected Justia.com to Public.Resource.Org, where Stanley is on the board of directors. Public.Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
Justia erased "Minor v. Happersett" along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance.
These two separate efforts, raising the profile of the Senator's birth certificate in as controversial a manner as possible, while minimizing the legal role of Minor v. Happersett succeeded. Barack Obama was able to illegally win the election, and illegally take office. It was stolen right in front of the American public.
The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama's ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be "highly suspect" as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being "highly suspect" as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.
The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama's Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren't so blatantly obvious.
It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama's fraud itself.
Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean's and President's Lists for academic achievement. She has published at Examiner.com, in American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters. "
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-tons-more-shocking-obama-info/
America’s toughest sheriff” says there is “tons” more potentially shocking information on Barack Obama in connection with his probe into the president’s eligibility, and he calls the media’s suppression of his findings of a likely forged presidential birth certificate and Selective Service Card “probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States.”
“I’m not going after the president to keep him off a ballot or anything else, but that could happen,” Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. “I’m going at it strictly as a law-enforcement guy investigating a possible forgery and fraud. I’m sticking with that, but I’ll tell you one thing. We got tons of other information that could be very shocking, too, but I’m sticking now with just the [forgery] investigation and possible criminal violations.”
The lawman from Maricopa County made the comments March 16 on a national radio show hosted by Roger Hedgecock. (Scroll down for video.)
Snip
tom kelly
03-21-2012, 16:27
The Social Security Number That Pres. Obama is and has been using ? IF that SSN was not initally issued to him & he is using it on his Income Tax Returns he is commiting FRAUD.Because the SSN belongs to someone else. If the Pres. discloses his Federal Income Tax Return for 2011 that the SSN will in all likely-hood be redacted, However if the first 3 numbers are disclosed you will be able to determine where the SSN was issued, each State is assigned a group of numbers to be issued in that State that the applicant applies for a SSN. ...TK Some Questions? 1.Has the Pres. ever in his life been in that State that issued the number eg Conn.? 2.Was the SSN the Pres. is using issued years before he was born, to another person who never collected benefits from SS and that individual died in say Hawaii and the SSA was never notified of the death because no benefits were ever paid by the SSA & since it was not reported to the SSA the SSN would NOT be on the death list.
Snaquebite
03-21-2012, 17:06
The Social Security Number That Pres. Obama is and has been using ? IF that SSN was not initally issued to him & he is using it on his Income Tax Returns he is commiting FRAUD.Because the SSN belongs to someone else. If the Pres. discloses his Federal Income Tax Return for 2011 that the SSN will in all likely-hood be redacted, However if the first 3 numbers are disclosed you will be able to determine where the SSN was issued, each State is assigned a group of numbers to be issued in that State that the applicant applies for a SSN. ...TK Some Questions? 1.Has the Pres. ever in his life been in that State that issued the number eg Conn.? 2.Was the SSN the Pres. is using issued years before he was born, to another person who never collected benefits from SS and that individual died in say Hawaii and the SSA was never notified of the death because no benefits were ever paid by the SSA & since it was not reported to the SSA the SSN would NOT be on the death list.
According to this article his SSN is bogus...
http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344461/
The first three digits are supposedly 041 which is allocated to Conneticut.
And BTW it seems several courts including SCOTUS has ruled that it is not neccessarily illegal to use someone elses SSN.:munchin
http://www.rense.com/general93/ssn_dev.htm
According to this article his SSN is bogus...
http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344461/
The first three digits are supposedly 041 which is allocated to Conneticut.
And BTW it seems several courts including SCOTUS has ruled that it is not neccessarily illegal to use someone elses SSN.:munchin
http://www.rense.com/general93/ssn_dev.htm
LOL, identity theft isn't a crime, I heard it all now. The Sheriff better put out what he knows before he dies of natural causes. :cool:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/
(live stream)
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/
(live stream)
I read about it last night, it was interesting.
The problem is as Sheriff Joe stated he doesn't know who to hand it off too because all the normal channels answer to the top. Likely a larger problem is that if Sheriff Joe's findings are indeed true it would implicate both sides of the isle and call the system into question.
For example the Dem research on Allen West (and others) that was made available last week. The RNC surely runs the same type of intel ops, and it would unimaginable the RNC didn't have a clue in 2008. And by the slim chance they did indeed botch the 2008 intel op, they surely by this stage in the game know exactly what the circumstances are.
As long as we maintain our 1st Amendment rights, my guess is this story is going the way of Dealey Plaza and we'll see it on the History Channel in 20 years minus the Final Three Episodes.
I read about it last night, it was interesting.
The problem is as Sheriff Joe stated he doesn't know who to hand it off too because all the normal channels answer to the top. Likely a larger problem is that if Sheriff Joe's findings are indeed true it would implicate both sides of the isle and call the system into question.
For example the Dem research on Allen West (and others) that was made available last week. The RNC surely runs the same type of intel ops, and it would unimaginable the RNC didn't have a clue in 2008. And by the slim chance they did indeed botch the 2008 intel op, they surely by this stage in the game know exactly what the circumstances are.
As long as we maintain our 1st Amendment rights, my guess is this story is going the way of Dealey Plaza and we'll see it on the History Channel in 20 years minus the Final Three Episodes.
Nobody will touch this. The implications, if true, are too damning. For the sake of argument, a President elected who shouldn't have been a candidate in the first place? The media, courts, congress and definitely the executive branch will all stick their fingers in their ears and yell: "La La La La La La" and hope it goes away.
In my opinion, this is the reason it isn't worth re-hashing by Arpaio or any one else. He is the president and NOBODY, no matter how much evidence to the contrary, will dispute that AND you will be labeled a loon.
In my opinion, this is the reason it isn't worth re-hashing by Arpaio or any one else. He is the president and NOBODY, no matter how much eveidence to the contrary, will dispute that AND you will be labeled a loon.
It could impact a re-election.
GratefulCitizen
07-18-2012, 08:18
Nobody will touch this. The implications, if true, are too damning. For the sake of argument, a President elected who shouldn't have been a candidate in the first place? The media, courts, cocngress and definitely the executive branch will all stick their fingers in their ears and yell: "La La La La La La" and hope it goes away.
In my opinion, this is the reason it isn't worth re-hashing by Arpaio or any one else. He is the president and NOBODY, no matter how much eveidence to the contrary, will dispute that AND you will be labeled a loon.
Information technology is changing the game.
What would've happened to the '96 election if information technology was farther along when TWA 800 went down.
Information technology is changing the game.
What would've happened to the '96 election if information technology was farther along when TWA 800 went down.
Technology or not, the media and our elected officials are going to do exactly what I said and denigrate anyone who raises the issue. It will go nowhere and the media will go a step further, as SIGABA does, and tell the world how foolish and nutty "those" people are. Just stating facts.
Golf1echo
07-18-2012, 08:45
Wouldn't Eric Holder take care of this? :D
I will echo my post made here as it aptly applies:
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=449105#post449105
This will never be fully resolved. It can't be. It would indicate a complete failure of the system (even though it already is, but to admit it is another facet), and how easily we as a country were decieved, not by just one man, but the MSM, and politicians from all sides.
No one wants to admit this kind of mistake...a null and void presidency. What do we do? A do over? Can't be done, and the damage is extensive. No one will step up in this case, no group, or body of individuals accepting fault; no one left holding the bag and taking responsibility for this mistake, oversight, slip up, whatever it is.
No one to hold accountable, no one to dismiss from their job, which is what we would normally do when grave mistakes of this nature are made in the corporate and/or job world. It could never happen this way, we as a country, are too smart for that, right?
Big thanks out to Sheriff Joe!
It could impact a re-election.
So let me go out on a limb here. (Surprising, I know).
I am no Obama supporter, and during the last election I suscribed to what you are saying. But we are three and a half years into this circus. Do you know what the implications for this would be?
Yes some would say, undoing all the laws that were signed under Obama would be great. Getting him and the Chicago machine out of our house would be awesome. But what about all the criminals that were successfully prosecuted under any federal law that he signed, who would now be unleashed on the public? What about our already faltering economy, this would throw it into collapse.
You think we are on the precipice of our Great Nation going under now, can you even beging to imagine the chaos in this country, and the ramifications of such? You think the flash mobs are bad now? What do you think would happen if everything that was done under Obama had to be undone? We are not looking too good to anyone in the world right now as it is, but we would have NO credibility after this, and he has trashed our relationships with our allies to the point that they would probably stand by and let us burn, just for spite.
Don't you think that if there was something nefarious going on, The Clintons (of ANYONE) would have found it and exposed him during the primaries?
I think Obama is an ass, and can't wait to get him out of the White House, but I am with Sig on this one, is one man worth destroying EVERYTHING this country has worked for? Explain to me, in your opinion, how the country would handle this, and still be the greatest nation on this earth? You may think defeating Obama this way is worth it, and 3 to 3 1/2 years ago I would agree with you, but we are well past the point of diminishing return on this particular issue.
The man has no honor, and no shame. I am not saying Romney fight him with one hand tied behind his back, but he CAN beat him on the issues, without destroying the country in the process by continuing on with this diatribe.
It could impact a re-election.
If one could if the right people were to run with it, but finding anyone willing to take the potentially life threatening risk is going to be nearly impossibly. And even if you do, that person or persons is going to need the assistance of others in the bureaucratic maze.
The odds of that happening are .000000000000001%
So let me go out on a limb here. (Surprising, I know).
I am no Obama supporter, and during the last election I suscribed to what you are saying. But we are three and a half years into this circus. Do you know what the implications for this would be?
Yes some would say, undoing all the laws that were signed under Obama would be great. Getting him and the Chicago machine out of our house would be awesome. But what about all the criminals that were successfully prosecuted under any federal law that he signed, who would now be unleashed on the public? What about our already faltering economy, this would throw it into collapse.
You think we are on the precipice of our Great Nation going under now, can you even beging to imagine the chaos in this country, and the ramifications of such? You think the flash mobs are bad now? What do you think would happen if everything that was done under Obama had to be undone? We are not looking too good to anyone in the world right now as it is, but we would have NO credibility after this, and he has trashed our relationships with our allies to the point that they would probably stand by and let us burn, just for spite.
Don't you think that if there was something nefarious going on, The Clintons (of ANYONE) would have found it and exposed him during the primaries?
I think Obama is an ass, and can't wait to get him out of the White House, but I am with Sig on this one, is one man worth destroying EVERYTHING this country has worked for? Explain to me, in your opinion, how the country would handle this, and still be the greatest nation on this earth? You may think defeating Obama this way is worth it, and 3 to 3 1/2 years ago I would agree with you, but we are well past the point of diminishing return on this particular issue.
The man has no honor, and no shame. I am not saying Romney fight him with one hand tied behind his back, but he CAN beat him on the issues, without destroying the country in the process by continuing on with this diatribe.
I merely state that the Arpaio brouhaha could impact Obama's re-election. Negatively.
sinjefe's right-anybody who jumps on the bandwagon will be tagged loony, but I say it could negatively effect Obama's numbers.
Badger52
07-18-2012, 13:14
MSNBC is going to have to order vast quantities of <insert mood-levelling drug of choice> just to come down enough to get someone coherent on camera.
338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of state.
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had 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.Not a lawyer, but I read & write the American language and that thing is AFU, as written.
mark46th
07-18-2012, 14:09
I just wish Arpaio would release all of the documents.
Buffalobob
07-18-2012, 14:14
It is sad such a looney toon has anything to do with law enforcement.
It is sad such a looney toon has anything to do with law enforcement.
Why do you call him a looney tune? You don't think his tactics are effective?
It is sad such a looney toon has anything to do with law enforcement.
See, what did I tell you? Don't attack the argument, attack the individual. :(
See, what did I tell you? Don't attack the argument, attack the individual. :(
Libthink
Buffalobob
07-18-2012, 17:18
Sheriff Joe reminds me of Bull Conner and a lot of people supported him.
Sheriff Joe reminds me of Bull Conner and a lot of people supported him.
You're exactly right. I'm gonna go down to his office steps, strum a guitar and sing "We Shall Overcome" until he quits enforcing laws! :rolleyes:
I think Obama is an ass, and can't wait to get him out of the White House, but I am with Sig on this one, is one man worth destroying EVERYTHING this country has worked for? Explain to me, in your opinion, how the country would handle this, and still be the greatest nation on this earth? You may think defeating Obama this way is worth it, and 3 to 3 1/2 years ago I would agree with you, but we are well past the point of diminishing return on this particular issue.
The man has no honor, and no shame. I am not saying Romney fight him with one hand tied behind his back, but he CAN beat him on the issues, without destroying the country in the process by continuing on with this diatribe.
Very well said afchic. Sometimes it takes a village.
Holly:)
Very well said afchic. Sometimes it takes a village.
Holly:)
I don't understand the correlation. What takes a village?
I don't understand the correlation. What takes a village?
"I think Obama is an ass,"
"The man has no honor, and no shame"
My statement was in reguards to these fine points brought up by afchic.
Sometimes it takes a village of folks, rallying together under this pretense to accomplish the goal of making folks see the darkness though the trees.:(
And it is just my little small humble opinion.:o
Holly
"I think Obama is an ass,"
"The man has no honor, and no shame"
My statement was in reguards to these fine points brought up by afchic.
Sometimes it takes a village of folks, rallying together under this pretense to accomplish the goal of making folks see the darkness though the trees.:(
And it is just my little small humble opinion.:o
Holly
I see what you mean. Makes sense in that context. :cool:
ZonieDiver
07-18-2012, 20:20
You're exactly right. I'm gonna go down to his office steps, strum a guitar and sing "We Shall Overcome" until he quits enforcing laws! :rolleyes:
His office doesn't have steps, it has an express elevator to palatial offices on an upper floor of an exclusive office building. County digs are not good enough for Chief Wiggums... I mean Sheriff Arpaio.
So, since Libs attack people, not arguments... are those of you levelling personal insults at forum members who dare offer opposition to your narrow views now to be considered Libs, too?
His office doesn't have steps, it has an express elevator to palatial offices on an upper floor of an exclusive office building. County digs are not good enough for Chief Wiggums... I mean Sheriff Arpaio.
So, since Libs attack people, not arguments... are those of you levelling personal insults at forum members who dare offer opposition to your narrow views now to be considered Libs, too?
What personal insults?
ZonieDiver
07-18-2012, 20:51
What personal insults?
Sorry, I was referring to comments in another thread (or two), and most definitely not to your post in this thread.
What personal insults?
You know, where Joe was referred to as a looney tune. :rolleyes:
Whenever I hear the term "It takes a Village" I think of the CIDG program in order to put it into its more proper context.