Obama Birth Certificate Maybe Forged, Sheriff Joe Arpaio Says
Posted on 03/01/2012 9:16:11 PM PST by neverdem
America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff finds himself entangled these days in his own thorny legal troubles: a federal grand jury probe over alleged abuse of power, Justice Department accusations of racial profiling and revelations that his department didn't adequately investigate hundreds of Arizona sex-crime cases.
Rather than seek cover, though, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeking to grab the spotlight in the same unorthodox fashion that has helped boost his career as a nationally known lawman.
Arpaio on Thursday unveiled preliminary results of an investigation, conducted by members of his volunteer cold-case posse, into the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, a controversy that has been widely debunked but which remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives...
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.verizon.com ...
” - - - exposing yourself as a total dumb@$$... - - - “
You are EXACTLY correct. I read the thread’s article only, and foolishly did not read the article from the hotlink provided by TigersEye in comment # 10.
This has been an indelible lesson for me to read ALL of the hotlinks BEFORE I expose myself to be “ - - - a total dumb@$$... “ AGAIN.
Hence, I extend to you and all of the FReepers AND Lurkers my abject apologies, and promise to read ALL of the hotlinks before I post a comment.
Sincerely,
Graewoulf.
My apology is on post # 41. Thanks for pointing out my error.
*
“Joe, if you say that both items were forged, then have the courtesy to support your statements with proof.” - GW
You did not watch the press conference, or read any of the stories that actually covered the evidence of forgery, and then you come up with this gem of a post-—Where have you been hiding?
And why bother to come out now?
Not just the BC. Butterdezillion has been instrumental in exposing George Soros' earthquake machine as well.
“Joe, if you say that both items were forged, then have the courtesy to support your statements with proof.” - GW
You did not watch the press conference, or read any of the stories that actually covered the evidence of forgery, and then you come up with this gem of a post-—Where have you been hiding?
And why bother to come out now?
That’s interesting regarding the CSO memo. Alright, now I’ve watched the MCSO video and have questions:
Are there other types of optimization or optical xx software that MCSO hasn’t tested ?
If it is forged, this would be a large scale conspiracy. While the president doesn’t HAVE to provide a document, he would have falsely used document stamps from the State of Hawaii. It’s not that I dont believe in conspiracies with this crew, I just question so many people being able to keep their mouths shut.
madame:”While the president doesn’t HAVE to provide a document, he would have falsely used document stamps from the State of Hawaii”
Unless he had Hawaii provide the document for him. Hawaii has been less than forthcoming in this entire investigation and appears to be complicit in this issue. I am guessing that Hawaii is the source of this botched forgery and they have been doing all they can to be sure that any information that is in their possession is kept under wraps. Although at this point, I don’t think they have an orginal LFBC for Obama on file. It would be extremely easy for them to produce if it were...
I do believe the AP is the main distribution office for all main stream media and democrat talking points.
Lots of spin and attacks on the messenger, Arpaio, but not a single reference to the evidence.
That’s what passes for journalism these days?
TE—I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.
Butterdezillion, you are being vindicated—slowly but surely.
I am grateful for the work you have done, as well as other Freepers.
Someday, somehow, the fraud who sits in the Oval Office will be unmasked.
This is one step closer.
Anytime you pursue the truth, you will have detractors.
Keep pursuing.
Were you really there? If so, how were the people there responding to the evidence that was presented?
The reports I’ve seen - like this one - give no indication that the author was even there, since none of the evidence actually given were mentioned - not even really key things like the experiment with a control document showing that the certifying marks were specifically added to an already-existing document, the National Archive’s microfilm records over 10 years missing just Aug 1-7, 1961, the draft registration’s postal date stamp having to have been forged with a stamp only accessible by law enforcement (or possibly the post office), or the government worker who’s signed an affidavit saying Bill Ayers’ mother introduced Obama to him around 1980 as a “foreign student” that they were helping to get an American education.
Those are critical pieces of evidence, and any report that fails to mention them suggests to me that either the author wasn’t at the press conference or they are selectively editing out the critical information.
See post # 41 above.
Conversely, if Joe had said, “We’ve investigated this, and I have come to the conclusion that there’s no issue here”,
how many would have dropped it?
I’m pretty sure, since I thought about this possibility before his unveiling, that I would have dropped it in my own mind at least.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. There was tons of evidence presented at the press conference, and the posse has MUCH more evidence than they actually presented. I’ve actually said that the big problem with Obama is that there is TOO MUCH evidence of wrong-doing, and people don’t have the attention span to really absorb it all.
Looking at my post, I realize that if somebody didn’t know me they might think I was saying that no evidence was presented at the press conference. What I was actually saying was that the reporter mentioned no evidence, which is a travesty since there was a lot of evidence at the press conference (albeit a small portion of what the posse actually has). The reporters are refusing to let the actual EVIDENCE even come into the public discussion, and that stinks.
I do know why they’re doing it though: because they’ve been threatened by Soros operatives if they report on this. And I’m no longer saying that on the basis of Hagmann’s claims alone.
You have to keep up. Hawaii DID provide a document. Whether the one Obama put on the Internet is the exact same document, without alteration, we don't know. In any case Hawaii is complicit in this fraud. Either they provided the forged document or after seeing an altered document on the Internet, said nothing.
“Although at this point, I don’t think they have an original LFBC for Obama on file.”
This may very well be true OR the TYPE of BC he has may not prove his birth here. It may be one of those Hawaii BCs that you can get no matter where or when you were born.
Since he won't produce it, (only produces forgeries) and Hawaii won't respond to subpoenas demanding access to the original BC, It is OBVIOUS there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM with Obama’s birth records.
Ah, that makes more sense. And I can say from my own dealings with Mike Zullo that he was not about to accept any bullcrap for evidence or get distracted too far from the central issue of whether or not crimes had been committed.
He knows the difference between probative, legal-quality evidence and speculation. He told me which of my evidence would be good enough for legal argument and which wouldn’t, and in what kind of investigation the various kinds of evidence would apply (most of mine would apply in a criminal investigation of the actual GOVERNMENT entities, which is beyond the scope of what the posse is doing but does influence whether they would be willing to let various government entities handle any follow-up investigation).
He knows the difference between certified legal document examiners and internet amateurs, and this was examined by multiple legal document examiners - who are trained to identify forgeries. From the Q&A at the end a person could see that there are a LOT more issues the posse has evidence about but they chose to make this press conference about the central issue, which is whether what we’ve been presented as legal evidence regarding Obama’s birth is in fact a forgery. And after having it examined by the same examiners that would examine documents if you or I were accused of forgery, the conclusion is that it is indeed a forgery. Both the alleged birth certificate and the draft registration.
Yes - I saw that...
You sure don’t have a self confidence problem.
(you would have to have paid just minimal attention to see all the facts/evidence put forth.
That one reports exactly one piece of evidence, or at least a claim of a piece of evidence - the claim that the registrar’s stamp was imported from an outside source. It also reports the claim that the draft registration was forged. It doesn’t report on the evidence or even the KINDS of evidence that was reported at the press conference. And I don’t remember seeing any link to official reports, to video of the conference, or any other way that would allow the reader to see for him/herself the evidence that was actually presented.
They are doing their level-best to hide the evidence and make this all about a political sh!t-fight between Arpaio and Obama.
They noted that this press conference was the same day as Obama revealed some Facebook thing - but totally ignored that Jerry Corsi had said that Arpaio had granted an advance interview regarding the posse’s findings.... to ANDREW BREITBART, who died a few hours later - which is the big news of the day.
If we weren’t in the middle of a communist-Islamist coup, this standard of reporting would be unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.