Sheriff Arpaio: Obama birth certificate a ‘forgery’

The Washington Times ^ | March 1, 2012 | Stephen Dinan

[RobinMasters]

PHOENIX — Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Thursday he suspects the birth certificate President Obama released designed to prove his U.S. citizenship last year is a forgery.

“A six-month long investigation conducted by my cold case posse has lead me to believe there is probable cause to believe that President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computer-generated forgery,” the long-time sheriff, who has regularly battled the administration, said.

Sheriff Arpaio said at least two crimes were committed in his view through the forgery.

He released a 10-page report detailing what his investigators said were “inconsistencies” in the text characters of the birth certificate image the White House released, and also questioned details of the computer file itself.

Some of those claims had earlier been raised on the Internet as well, and the White House has rejected them.

The Justice Department has accused Sheriff Arpaio of civil rights abuses, but he said he began his investigation before that.

[dandiegirl]

Romney will never bother to ask BO anything about his past or present. He’s exactly like that wimp McCain.

[patlin]

The problem here is you cite a case based on the law of man not God. Now while polygamy is not promoted in Scripture as a good thing because of the fact that it is human nature to favor one wife over another, it was never against God's law for men to have more than one wife, UNLESS ....

one was a Levitical priest. Then the priest was to be married and he was commanded to have only one wife.

Geez, for supposed religious conservatives, ya’ll don't know much about the history of scriptural marriage. Me thinks ya’ll better leave the judgment up to God and look to where you are in offense to him in your own lives.

[Tennessee Nana]

They left because of religious persecution and for the record, there was no US LAW regarding marriage at the time
__________________________________________

The Romneys left the US because the Romney male would have gone to jail for bigamy just like many of his cohorts in the Mormon religion did...

Bigamy was a crime..a jailable offense... against nature and against the US laws..

He took his several wives and fled to Mexico...

All the “restoring” and shuffling of records will not change the fact that the Romneys were immoral criminals..

God looks on polygamy/adultry as he does homosexuality...

Both are equal sins and devient sexual practice..

[SoConPubbie]

OK, I get it, don’t like someone’s religion, then use it test means them illegally out of the political realm. Kinda seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

You might want to rephrase that post.

I'm not sure what you meant by it.

[patlin]

Ron, let's look at this a bit deeper...The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501)

The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.[2]

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was amended in 1882 by the Edmunds Act, and then again in 1887 by the Edmunds–Tucker Act. The act was repealed in 1978.

Can you say “unconstitutional”? Marriage has always been a religious issue, not a state issue and why Lincoln never enforced it but instead made exception for the LDS. It's time to get the govt out of the bedroom once and for all as the founders intended it to be. But this does stop at relationships between a man & a woman when done legally according to Scripture as God has had laws against homosexuality since HE created man.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I make no claim about the reliability of FactCheck's assertion. I included it because it references a statement supposedly made by a Mr. Kurt Tsue from the HDoH.

FC claims to have spoken with Kurt Tsue who told FC "that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that 'we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.'"

Whether Kurt Tsue's statements are true requires more research IMHO. In an attempt to determine if Kurt Tsue was telling the truth, I ran across a birth certificate that seems to validate Kurt Tsue's assertion that parents' are allowed to self-identify their races.

The reader must come to his own conclusion about the evidence supplied. At this point, there is more evidence supporting the idea that Senior would have identified himself as African than there is evidence that the HDoH followed some rigid specification document. The HDoH specification document indicates "White" should be used as a race instead of "Caucasian." But most of the BCs we've all seen online indicate "Caucasian." So I don't see that HDoH follows their own rules. And we've seen that before with that department on the UIPA requests.

[patlin]

The bible does not call polygamy immoral, so what right does man have to call something immoral that God Himself did not object to other than for the Levitical priests? I challenge you to find me one Scripture reference that outlaws polygamy for a man that is not a levitical priest.

[patlin]

Laws against polygamy are strictly laws of man, they not of God so basically the Romney's were being persecuted according the morals of man, not God.

Now had there been a Scriptural Temple & Romney had been a Levitical Priest, yes, then he would have been breaking the moral laws of God, but he wasn't now was he.

God looks on polygamy/adultry as he does homosexuality...Both are equal sins and devient sexual practice..

Actually, no they are not I challenge you also to give one Scriptural reference for that statement of yours. You say polygamy is equal to homosexuality and God says there is no law that is less or more than the other, they are all equal especially when it comes to worship. When one keeps sun day worship in lieu of keeping the Sabbath, while doing as they please on God's Sabbath they are committing adultry in their relationship with God. Do you keep the Sabbath according to Scripture as Jesus did and commanded us to do or do you go to sun day church and brush off God's Sabbath commandment as old and outdated as the sun day church teaches one to do there by causing every sun day worshiper to commit adultry every week?

[SoConPubbie]

Thank you for rephrasing that, now I can respond:

While there is no direct statement in the New Testament against polygamy, there is also no direct reference of any of the Apostles/Disciples engaging in polygamy and all references to the duties of both husbands and wife refer directly to monogamous relationships.

Furthermore, there are several scriptures in the New Testament that equate a monogamous relationship with a good and blameless reputation:

1 Timothy 3:2:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12:

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1 Timothy 5:8-10

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

Titus 1:6-7

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

So the ball is now in your court, show us any scripture in the New Testament that would support polygamy.

[SoConPubbie]

Can you say “unconstitutional”? Marriage has always been a religious issue, not a state issue and why Lincoln never enforced it but instead made exception for the LDS. It's time to get the govt out of the bedroom once and for all as the founders intended it to be. But this does stop at relationships between a man & a woman when done legally according to Scripture as God has had laws against homosexuality since HE created man.

Can you say ignorant of your country's history?

There have been laws concerning marriage from the beginning of this country. I'm assuming you are referring to the Federal constitution and leaving the various State constitution and laws out of your post.

[Grizzled Bear]

Sounds like they may know who actually forged the bc, but they simply said ‘a person of interest’.

Is there any room left under the community organizer's bus? Someone is fixin' to get thrown! You can't expect the pResident to fall on his own sword! That's why he keeps a big corral of czars and lackeys!

[SoConPubbie]

I'm assuming you are referring to the Federal constitution and leaving the various State constitution and laws out of your post.

This having been said, just because states implemented and enforced Marriage Laws, does not mean they aren't constitutional from a Federal perspective because we have the 10th Amendment to the constitution that reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[patlin]

#1: The law of YHVH is not found in the NT although it is quoted a lot. The NT wasn't even Scripture during the time of Christ and thus the only Scripture Jesus, Paul & the others speak of is found in Gen-Mal, but mainly Gen-Dt which we will be judged against.

#2: Had you studied 1st century history, you would know that deacons, bishops, etc were pharisees, scribes, rabbis etc who had formal training and were of the levitical background. They were all very well studied in Torah as Paul was.

#3 Widows, widows under a certain age were the responsibility of the family of the deceased husband and were to be given in marriage in the event the husband died. Only widows with no family, i.e., children and who were past marriage/childbearing age were the responsibility of the church.

Mt 5:17-19 I did not come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets, I cam to fill up with meaning...not one jot or tittle shall be taken away or added to Torah until heaven & earth pass away.

Well, since we are still here, then Torah still stands. I suggest you start in the beginning and not 2/3 of the way through because the last 3rd didn't even exist and there is no new law in it. Nothing new under the sun. Want to follow Christ, then study the Scripture He taught, the Scripture he gave from the beginning as he was there in the beginning(John 1:1-14) and all the way through until he came in the flesh.

Had Jesus even broke the tiniest of Torah instructions, he would have been disqualified as being the Messiah and he certainly did not come to abolish that which was his essence, his being, which is the Torah, the Word of God, the Memra.

In 2 Ti 3:16 Paul says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, & is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instrution in righteousness" Well, since this was merely a letter as are all his other works, Paul wasn't speaking of any NT, when referencing Scripture, Paul was speaking of Gen-Mal.

[patlin]

We’re talking Federal law, nto state law. I am very well aware of states rights. The law in reference here is national law, not state law.

[SoConPubbie]

Wow!

#1: The law of YHVH is not found in the NT although it is quoted a lot. The NT wasn't even Scripture during the time of Christ and thus the only Scripture Jesus, Paul & the others speak of is found in Gen-Mal, but mainly Gen-Dt which we will be judged against.

To Christians, the New Testament is actually more important than the Old Testament and whose commands (posited either by Jesus, our Lord and Savior, or his Apostles) are to be taken as just important as the Laws of the Old Testament.

#2: Had you studied 1st century history, you would know that deacons, bishops, etc were pharisees, scribes, rabbis etc who had formal training and were of the levitical background. They were all very well studied in Torah as Paul was.

So?

The New Testament covers just about every leadership position in the church with Deacons and bishops. The implications of the scriptures I posted is that if a man had more than one wife, they could not be a leader in the church since their reputation was not good, implying that they were sinning.

Well, since we are still here, then Torah still stands. I suggest you start in the beginning and not 2/3 of the way through because the last 3rd didn't even exist and there is no new law in it. Nothing new under the sun. Want to follow Christ, then study the Scripture He taught, the Scripture he gave from the beginning as he was there in the beginning(John 1:1-14) and all the way through until he came in the flesh.

And yet with Christ's comming and his death and resurrection he did away with a whole section of the law, mainly the sacrificial law.

His sacrifice was meant to do away with the endless and basically useless sacrifices of the Old Testament.

And yes, there is something new in the New Testament and Christ summed it up with "You must be born again".

[little jeremiah]

Again, why would anyone even bother reading what FactCheck has to say unless they were doing it from the view of what the enemy is up to. It was researched and the list of what races/ethnicities in use at that time were listed on many threads, many times.

And “African” was not one of them.

You are using FactCheck as an authority and saying someone else is wrong solely on the authority of that leftist 0bama connected site.

Weird.

[SoConPubbie]

We’re talking Federal law, nto state law. I am very well aware of states rights. The law in reference here is national law, not state law.

You've narrowed the discussion artificially.

The state marriage laws are, in effect, Federal law as a result of the 10th Amendment.

They are automatically constitutional under the US Constitution as a result of the 10th Amendment.

[patlin]

Since Messiah only taught the law of his Father YHVH, what was his Father's law

Exo 21:10 “If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished.

Gen 29-30, Jacob had many wives

Lev 18-21; Num 30; Dt 25 laws of marriage, sexuality & widows

Yeshua Messiah quotes from these references as well as the apostles. Nothing new under the sun, when they said Scripture, they were mostly talking about Torah, the 1st 5 books also known as Moses.

Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.”

2Co 3:15 But to this day, when Mosheh is being read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 And when one turns to the Master, the veil is taken away. 17 Now YHVH is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of YHVH is, there is freedom.

[television is just wrong]

absolutely, his life is in danger, and doesn’t have secret service protection.

[SoConPubbie]

Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.”

2 Co 3:15 But to this day, when Mosheh is being read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 And when one turns to the Master, the veil is taken away. 17 Now YHVH is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of YHVH is, there is freedom.

Sorry, but the scriptures you've posted could also, FALSLY be used to support the contention that the Sacrificial laws are still in place today, which they are not.

Furthermore, read in context, the scriptures I've posted deal specifically with the New Testament dispensation and declaritively state that if a man has more than one wife, they cannot be a Deacon, or a Bishop because their reputation is not good.

When your reputation is not good, there is something wrong with your actions, or your choices. The implication being your actions are sinful, or at best, displeasing to God. The Bible is black and white when it comes to the quality of our actions, there is no gray area with God.