Having just attended Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse”news conference in Phoenix,Arizona,we candidly admit we have never seen a greater example of raw media bias in our 30 years of watching the fourth estate.
Arpaio organized the cold case five-member law enforcement posse last year to investigate allegations that the Obama birth certificate released to the public by the White House on April 27,2011 might be a forgery,and he said he constituted the posse after a request by 250 Maricopa County citizens.
In less than an hour,Arpaio’s team laid out a compelling case that individuals working under the President of the United States have engaged in criminal forgery. And most interestingly,the case isn’t just about Obama’s birth certificate.
The case against Obama was made with simple,clear videos describing the techniques the forgers used to falsifying important documents released by Obama’s team. It was obvious that the law enforcement professionals doing the actual investigation are real pros. If you want the details of the techniques used you can watch the videos on Westernjournalism.com.
The Arpaio team devastated the legitimacy of Obama’s purported birth certificate from Hawaii. The investigation by document forensic experts systematically showed how the document could not be real and is part of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.
But we found the most interesting information presented to have nothing to do with the Obama nativity story. Instead it had to do with the selective service records. Forensic document analysis proved this document was also a forgery. Intensive documentation proving that Postal indicia on the form was forged was particularly damaging,as this type of postal fraud is a federal felony.
In the days ahead,it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media provides any coverage of the event’s allegations. Sitting in the room we were overwhelmed by the professionalism of these sworn officers of the law. They clearly used the best experts in their investigation. Finally a legitimate law enforcement official has looked at the evidence and found,as Arpaio said,“probable cause that a felony has been committed.”
Going forward,Arpaio said that he would continue to investigate. Illusions were made to the existence of over 200 sworn depositions by witnesses in the case,including a witness that,when he met Barack Obama was introduced to him,as a foreign exchange student.
If you don’t believe us,go and watch the video of the news conference yourself;it is posted online.
Obama’s team responded with ridicule,not answers. His campaign tweeted links to an old episode of the X-Files TV show. But ridicule in the face of legitimate questions only works so long.
Citizens are still daring to ask questions about Obama. And by doing it you face certain ridicule,name calling and being treated as children. Even when you may be asking legitimate questions,which have been routinely asked of presidential candidates in the past or have been asked of Republican candidates this year,you are censured.
As WND.com has reported,“Poll after poll in recent months has indicated that Americans have a high level of concern over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president;with one poll showing fully half of the nation wants Congress to investigate the question.”But to date,nothing has been done.
Let’s hope the US Congress can have the courage of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Yes, I would say, without doubt, that a "forgery" has occurred. The Selective Service Card, alone, PROVES "forgery." You see, you CANNOT have a 1980 document signed and recorded on a MAY, 2007 FORM! And it doesn't take a Harvard graduate to figure that one out! When I worked for a government entity,for many years, it NEVER HAPPENED! The Selective Service Card is a blatant FORGERY, and now NO ONE can dispute that, in any way.
ReplyDeleteBUT, can you actually say, without a doubt, that the forged document that is said to be a forgery by Obama actually came from the Selective Service?
DeleteMaybe it was a forged draft card prepared like other birther forgeries and then shown by the same birthers to be a forgery.
After all birthers have forged "Kenyan birth certificates" three or four times. They are perfectly capable of forging a draft card, then saying that they got it from the Selective Service, and then showing that it was--of course--forged.
I do believe the Selective Service card was obtained by Investigator Susan Daniels (in late 2008 or early 2009). You see, always before, in our Government, if there was ANY doubt, whatsoever, then our Congress investigated it, if ANY "Investigator" contacted Congress with the information that a "possible" fraud might have occurred. However, with one-half of our Congress being of the President's own party---NOTHING was ever going to happen! This is VERY EASY to settle, once and for all. All Hawaii has to do is show the "original" microfilm to ANY Law Enforcement Official (NOT a politician).
DeleteTHAT would either prove or disprove the issue. It is SO SIMPLE---yet Hawaii REFUSES, and so does Obama! However, Sheriff Arpaio DOES have a "retired Government official" who IS willing to testify that he met Obama in the front yard of Bill Ayer's mother's home, and Obama was introduced to him as a "foreign student," who the Ayers family was financially helping in college"!!! They also have OVER 200 already-vetted witnesses from "around the world" who state Obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. Is that "enough" for you?
Re the SS card being obtained by "investigator Susan Daniels."
DeleteThat is what she said, of course. But what is the proof that she did? If she did, did she take the image that she was sent and put it onto another form?
Unless the posse did all the work for itself, it can never prove that the image was forged.
Re: "original microfilm." Actually, it is in a paper book. However, the original is not the official copy. The original does not have the seal nor is it on security paper, and it is never taken out of the files. The official copy is the official physical copy that the DOH of Hawaii stated that she saw being copied and sent to Obama. And the two Republican officials who saw the original in the files have not said that there is anything different in the image online from what they saw.
And there was definitely a birth certificate issued for Obama in 1961 as confirmed by the birth notices in the newspaper (which was sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii, and only for births in Hawaii).
Baloney on the 200 witnesses. YOU are making that up. It is not in the posse report.
Re: "he was introduced as a foreign student." Who said it? Was he or she drunk? Who is the "witness?" Is she or he reliable. Is she or he objective?
For those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born somewhere else than in Hawaii, a question for you:
I’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.
So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?
Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?
All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.
Well, they never did. There is no such file.
So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?
Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?
The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
WND's "poll" was as accurate as WND, which is not very accurate.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia said: "Polls conducted in 2010 suggested that at least one quarter of adult Americans doubted Obama's U.S. birth,[8][9] while a May 2011 Gallup poll found that doubts persisted among 13% of Americans and 23% of Republicans.[10]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
So, when WND was saying 50%, other polls, the reliable kind, were saying 25%, and now the figure is down to 13%.
How high is 13%? Well, it is less than one half of the 27% of Americans who believe in ghosts.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292464/sheriff-joes-birther-posse-kevin-d-williamson
Obama was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate–short form and long form–and the confirmation of three Republican officials, and the further confirmation of the birth notices in the newspapers (always sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii and not placed by relatives) and the witness who wrote home about the birth all say. Oh, and Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that Obama was born in Hawaii, and she said in another interview—with the Hartford Courant newspaper—that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born somewhere else than in Hawaii, a question for you:
ReplyDeleteI’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.
So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?
Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?
All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.
Well, they never did. There is no such file.
So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?
Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?
The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
THOSE are the Immigration Archive Records you're talking about. Sheriff Arpaio told you/us that TEN YEARS of those records (flights into the US from foreign countries)were all investigated and accounted for---BUT ONE WEEK WAS MISSING OUT OF THE ENTIRE TEN YEARS---August 1 through August 7, 1961---the very week of Obama's birth! (Sorry, but FACTS ARE FACTS, and Obama just has TOO MANY "COINCIDENCES" surrounding his life story!) The "odds" of those coincidences happening in ONE PERSON'S life, are just too astronomically IMPOSSIBLE!
DeleteCheck your facts. Ten years missing indeed.
DeleteNow imagine that you were in the Bush Administration and you found that the INS records were indeed missing. You'd simply check whether Obama was issued a passport, or was entered on his mother's passport, or received a US visa--wouldn't you?
Well, there is no such document.
Not only is there NO evidence that Obama's mother traveled outside the USA in 1961 or Obama arrived in the USA in 1961, there is no evidence in any foreign country that she arrived there or that he left there or was born there. But there IS evidence (the birth certificate, the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers, the statement of a witness, Obama's Kenyan grandmother saying that the first she had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii) that Obama was born in Hawaii.
THREE Republican and several Democrat officials have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, and they are further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were only sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii. The papers did not accept birth notices from relatives or birth notice advertising in those days.) And still further confirmed by a witness who wrote home after being told of the birth (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a child being born to a woman named Stanley that day).
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born somewhere else than in Hawaii, a question for you:
ReplyDeleteI’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.
So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they?
Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?
All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.
Well, they never did. There is no such file.
So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?
Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?
The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Re: "es, I would say, without doubt, that a "forgery" has occurred. The Selective Service Card, alone, PROVES "forgery." You see, you CANNOT have a 1980 document signed and recorded on a MAY, 2007 FORM!"
ReplyDeleteWhere is the PROOF that the document you are referring to actually came from the Selective Service and was not forged by a birther?
Birthers have forged "Kenyan birth certificates" several times. They are perfectly capable of creating a forged draft card, and then saying that it was forged.
Sorry, it was a "liberal" who forged the Kenyan birth certificate---and he ADMITTED he did it as a JOKE!
DeleteObama's Kenyan "birth certificate" was forged at least three times. Twice by birthers. And, even if this had not happened, it still would be possible for a person other than the president to forge the draft card and then release it and claim that Obama had forged it. Only if some law enforcement agency gets the draft card directly from the Selective Service and then shows that there was something wrong with it, would it be proof. But the posse did not say that it did that.
DeleteYou are MISTAKEN! In 1961, Hawaii DID accept births from other nations (Just ask the Japanese Government!!!). Also, they ACCEPTED as proof of birth a "relative" stating that a child was born in Hawaii---up to ONE YEAR AFTER THE BIRTH! Your "sources" ARE NOT very reliable!
ReplyDeleteRe: "You are MISTAKEN! In 1961, Hawaii DID accept births from other nations (Just ask the Japanese Government!!!). Also, they ACCEPTED as proof of birth a "relative" stating that a child was born in Hawaii---up to ONE YEAR AFTER THE BIRTH! Your "sources" ARE NOT very reliable!"
ReplyDeleteI have this from the PUMA Lori Starfelt, who tried to prove that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, and found the contrary.
“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the newspaper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”
Let me repeat: “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife.”
What made you think that a person could just waltz in to a Hawaii DOH office and claim that a child was born in Hawaii and get a Hawaii birth certificate with a Hawaii place of birth on it without any proof?
Continuing;
ReplyDeleteDr Conspiracy put it this way:
The allegation that Hawaii allows registration of any child in Hawaii over one year old as being born in Hawaii:
This comes from misquoting a comment from the Hawaiian Homelands Act of 1911. The Hawaii Department of Health web site says: “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.” The misquoted version leaves out “born in Hawaii”. More advanced versions of this theory take into account the Hawaiian birth requirement, suggesting that only minimal documentation was required for such a registration. Any version of this theory is, however, ruled out because Certificates of Hawaiian birth are for registrations of a one year old or older and Obama COLB shows his registration 4 days after his birth.
The allegation that Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii:
Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) 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… [L 1982, c 182, §1]
The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.
Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982, but this is not true. When Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above. In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.
To summarize. The law in Hawaii in 1961--and until 1982--did not allow a child born outside Hawaii to receive a Hawaii birth certificate. If there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii asked for proof.
Obama, by the way, has a birth certificate that shows that he was born IN a hospital, and there is the signature of the doctor involved right on it.
Re: "Sorry, it was a "liberal" who forged the Kenyan birth certificate---and he ADMITTED he did it as a JOKE!"
Answer: Obama's "Kenyan birth certificate" has been forged at least three times. The most recent was by a guy named Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon (one of whose crimes was, wait for it, forgery). That is the one with the footprint on it. Smith claimed that he had gone to Kenya and gotten the document at a hospital there.
But he used US date formats on the document, where Kenya uses British date formats, and most significantly, Smith refused to prove that he had gone to Kenya. He simply refused to show his passport with a Kenya stamp on it. Nevertheless, birthers believed him, and his creation continues to pop up on the Web, posted by people who believe in it.
If Smith could do that, then another birther could get (or claim to have gotten) Obama's draft card, insert the image on a form that was 27 years after that date, and claim that the forgery was by Obama and not by the birther.
IF the posse got a copy of the draft card itself, and had preserved the chain of custody, proving that IT had gotten it, and it was on the wrong form, it would have been able to take that fact to any federal district attorney and claim that a crime was committed. What it did, instead, was to claim that a crime had been committed, but did not state that it had gotten the draft card itself and did not take the claim of a crime to a district attorney.
NOT true.
ReplyDeleteDr. Conspiracy put it this way:
Regarding the allegation that Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii:
Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) 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… [L 1982, c 182, §1]
The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.
Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982, but this is not true. When Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above. In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.
There are three "Kenyan birth certificates," all forgeries. And there are several forged videos.
ReplyDelete