Tuesday, March 13, 2012
What I found most interesting about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 'Cold Case Posse' findings
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 'Cold Case Posse' presented their findings on March 1, 2012. They concluded that President Obama's long form birth certificate file and Selective Service registration form were probable forgeries. You should view the video of the press conference, if you haven't already, before you make up your mind. It can be seen here. Much of the meat of the press conference consisted of six short videos Arpaio's investigators made detailing the problems with the electronic files released by President Obama. The video dealing with the Selective Service form was a slam dunk. In my opinion, they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt this document is a poor forgery. The short version is the year stamp on Obama's alleged form is only two digits and the Post Office always used four. Also, the spacing was different from documents stamped around the same date at the same post office. They were easily able to reproduce the forged date by buying a 2008 stamp, cutting it in half and turning it upside down. I will come back to the question of why Obama may have found this forgery necessary later. Most of the press conference short videos dealt with the released pdf file of Obama's alleged long form birth certificate. The pdf has 7~8 layers. I downloaded it when it was released and easily found this was true. However, I am no document expert and could not draw conclusions from this fact. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 'Cold Case Posse' claims they brought in document experts and had them try to duplicate and explain these layers. The two possible causes cited by Obama supporters are OCR (optical character recognition) software and optimization software. They completely debunked the OCR defense. OCR simply does not make a document like Obama's birth certificate pdf. Using optimization software did produce layers. However, the layers were much more numerous and very different from what was in the document Obama released. This wasn't the complete slam dunk the analysis of the selective service form was, but is was damning. The fact that two of the 7~8 layers consisted solely of the stamps that would make the document 'real' is highly suspicious. These stamps appear to be imported into the document. As interesting as the above information is, it is not the most interesting thing they revealed. They claimed to have a witness, a former government employee, who will testify that Bill Ayers' mother introduced them to Barack Obama in 1980. Obama was introduced as a foreign exchange student they were helping with college expenses. The witness is allegedly willing to come forward. This is startling information if true. They are referring to the same former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers that Obama claimed was only a guy in the neighborhood. Let's assume that this is factual information and see if it fits other things we know or suspect about Barack Obama. Young Barack Obama first enrolled in college in the U.S. at Occidental college. At that time he was known as 'Barry." It is unclear if he was known as Barry Soetoro (Indonesian stepfather's name) or Barry Obama. Is there any evidence he was enrolled as a foreign exchange student? We can't see any actual records. Occidental college won't release them and Obama opposed release even to the point of having the college threaten sanctions against those seeking the records. Obama reportedly roomed with Imad Husain, a Pakistani, as a freshman at Occidental college. Most of his known friends were foreign nationals. Since one of Obama's roommates was a foreign national and he hung out with the foreigners, it is not unreasonable to believe he was claiming to be a foreign student. This may explain why Obama had to forge his Selective Service registration. A foreign student would not have been required to register. After 'Barry' decided to become Barack Hussein Obama II, he may have registered, but the date would have been past the appointed time. This would bring up questions if revealed. The biggest question is, 'How can a man who was a foreign exchange student in 1980 be President now?'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
But Obama looks just like his mom. He's gotta be her child. This alleged witness say he isn't?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Other research done on this issue:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-review-a-question-of-eligibility/#more-16786
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-conspiracy-theories-blog-launches-investigation-into-sheriff-joes-cold-case-posse/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-1/
http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/03/on-the-release-of-report-from-sheriff-joe-arpaio-stating-barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
The DOH of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it.
"But Obama looks just like his mom. He's gotta be her child. This alleged witness say he isn't?
March 13, 2012 10:11 PM"
No. I have no idea why you are asking this.
"The DOH of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it."
I have little doubt that Hawaii gave Obama's lawyer a document. They have not confirmed to my knowledge the accuracy of what Obama released to the press and posted on the White House website. There is no proof the documents wasn't scanned and altered. The letters you refer to are here. http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/birth-certificate-correspondence.pdf
I haven't had time to research all these links, but much of the info here http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/ is blatantly false.
Re: "They have not confirmed to my knowledge the accuracy of what Obama released to the press and posted on the White House website."
They have not said that there was anything wrong with it either. Why do you think that they have to confirm that the facts on the image are the same as the facts on the document that they sent? It works the other way. If Obama had made changes in the facts on the document, he could expect at least one of the officials who had seen the document in the files to say something about it being different from what she or he saw.
So, how many people saw the original document in the files? At least three, two Republicans and the current DOH of Hawaii. There is a fourth whose name we do not know, the clerk who prepared the short form birth certificate. He or she got the information that was entered on the short form from the original document in the files. That is how the short-form system works.
Re: "There is no proof the documents wasn't scanned and altered."
The image of the document was certainly scanned. However, Obama also had the physical copies--on security paper with the seal on the back--passed around in the White House press room. And everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the seal.
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate that was passed around in the White House Press room, and the statement of the reporter who photographed it that she had felt the raised seal:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of Obama's short form birth certificate, front and back.
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Here is confirmation that it is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php
Further to: "There is no proof the documents wasn't scanned and altered."
None of the Republican candidates for president has shown his birth certificate. There is no proof that they were not born in foreign countries.
Obama has shown his short form and long form birth certificates, both images on the Web and the physical copies to the press. And the facts on them were confirmed by officials, and there were birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii papers (notices that were ONLY sent to the papers by the DOH in those days, and the DOH only sent notices for births in Hawaii).
The birth certificate file Obama released is certainly suspicious, but I haven't claimed it is an outright forgery. Arpaio's posse said there was probable cause. I haven't found anything in the links provided by anonymous to dispel this.The topic of this post is about Obama's Selective Service record being a forgery and why that might be. Would anyone care to address that issue?
"there were birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii papers (notices that were ONLY sent to the papers by the DOH in those days, and the DOH only sent notices for births in Hawaii)."
You really didn't watch the Arpaio press conference, did you? They found adopted three year old children listed as newly born in the newspaper birth announcements. It appears that any birth certificate issued was added to the list. This would have included new ones issued for adoptions and registrations of births that were foreign.
Re: "Arpaio's posse said there was probable cause. "
And, you are implying that Arpaio is like George Washington, a thoroughly honorable person. But is he?
He used the WND "experts." he never even called the officials in Hawaii to ask whether there was any factual difference between the image of the birth certificate and the document in the files.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Re: "The topic of this post is about Obama's Selective Service record being a forgery and why that might be. Would anyone care to address that issue?"
No problem. WHERE did Obama's Selective Service application referred to by the posse come from? Did it come from Obama? No. Did it come from the Selective Service? No.
It came from a birther bloger who claimed to have gotten it from the Selective Service using the Freedom of Information Act.
Unfortunately that does not prove that the document was not altered by the birther or by someone else.
If you wanted to cast doubt on the Selective Service application of an enemy, what would you do? Why you would get the Selective Service document using the FOIA and then fool around with it, put it on the wrong form for example, and then publish the manipulated document, and claim that it was forged. Well, in this case it WAS forged, by the birther.
In order for the posse to prove that Obama's Selective Service form was forged, they must get the form directly from the Selective Service, but they never said that they had done that.
Continuing:
Re: "They found adopted three year old children listed as newly born in the newspaper birth announcements...'
They did not actually show that fact, did they? The two newspapers have both stated that in 1961 they only took their birth notices from the DOH. ONLY. It is possible that in another section of the paper people were allowed to announce adoptions, but not in birth announcements.
For those readers who still believe that Obama could have been born in Kenya, or in any other country than the USA, 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.
1/9/2008 - First Break in of State Department files
2/21/2008 - Second Break in.
3/14/2008 - 3rd and final break in
3/12/2008 - Date stamp electronically encoded into the original Fact Check photos used for the August 2008 'Born in the USA' article.
This Date stamp data (EXIF data) was later removed by Fact Check and they said that the camera had a battery malfunction and reset the date. Pretty sloppy work if that were the case. Especially when you are supposedly photographing a historical document.
Where the photos given to Fact Check by those accessing (and likely updating) State Department files?
As to Kenya.
From a birth aspect it is likely a red herring. But nothing can be ruled out given the lack of transparency.
Obama may have very well been a full sole citizen of Kenya in December of 1971 though. This is when he moved back to the US or at least when the 'grand family meeting' with his mother (who was still married to an Indonesian citizen and returned back after this 'grand family meeting') and his father (whose travel and lodging were paid for by Obama's grandparents) who traveled from Kenya.
So why the need for this reunion?
Obama Senior may have legally had to 'reclaimed' Obama II so that his Indonesian citizenship that he acquired at the marriage of his mother and step-father was legally terminated. Indonesian law allowed adopted children to re-unite with their natural father. This was needed since Obama's mother stayed in Indonesia. She removed Obama from her US passport in 1967. So between 1967 and 1971 Obama probably had an Indonesian (only) passport.
The events of December 1971 are murky. But ask yourself this - if you were the grandparents who were to raise this child would you not want to ensure that citizenship and guardianship status is completely resolved. Since both parents would be leaving Hawaii and going to foreign countries - of course you would.
Obama citizenship trail may be this:
Born US/British Overseas Citizen (due to British father)
1965 - 1967 - Indonesia/US/BOC
Still in US but mother married to Indonesian national.
1967 - 1971 - Indonesia/BOC.
Mother removed Obama from US passport. Indonesia does NOT recognize dual citizenship. BOC is never 'lost' .
1971 - Kenyan/BOC.
Father establish claim as natural father. Obama's Indonesian citizenship is terminated.
1971 - BOC/US(?)/Kenya(?)
This assumes Obama naturalized as a US citizen upon return from Indoesia and claim by natural father. Kenya is now independent of Great Britain.
To 'lose' BOC status you have to submit form 'RN'. This will formally renounce your claim to being a British Subject. You never 'lose' the ability to claim BOC otherwise.
Obama could claim BOC to this day.
"No problem. WHERE did Obama's Selective Service application referred to by the posse come from? Did it come from Obama? No. Did it come from the Selective Service? No.
It came from a birther bloger who claimed to have gotten it from the Selective Service using the Freedom of Information Act."
http://wiki.birtherdebunkers.net/index.php?title=President_Obama%27s_Selective_Service_Registration
Not even the antibirther sites are crazy enough to make that claim.
http://wiki.birtherdebunkers.net/index.php?title=President_Obama%27s_Selective_Service_Registration
"Here is confirmation that it is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii."
This article refers to the original form Obama claimed was his birth certificate. You know. The one they claimed was the original and only one. That is until they released the second one.
"They did not actually show that fact, did they? The two newspapers have both stated that in 1961 they only took their birth notices from the DOH. ONLY. It is possible that in another section of the paper people were allowed to announce adoptions, but not in birth announcements."
You are claiming they are liars and are attempting to frame Obama for a forgery? Really? Why doesn't Obama sue them or have them arrested?
"Re: "Arpaio's posse said there was probable cause. "
And, you are implying that Arpaio is like George Washington, a thoroughly honorable person. But is he? "
Did you know Arpaio was a 25-year veteran with the DEA was once the head of DEA for Arizona? He has been elected Sheriff 5 times. You cast doubt on his integrity on what grounds?
The Selective Service record was released in response to an FOIA request by Ken Allen.
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ken-Allen-FOIA-Letter-Received.gif
Richard Flahavan responded.
Take a look at this link. It also includes a response from Mr. Flahavan concerning someone other than Obama. And it appears Mr. Flahavan may have altered facts and documents.
http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2008/10/questions-about-senator-mitch-mcconnells-military-record.html
"...indicating that Mitch McConnell did not receive a Armed Forces Physical Examination as stated by Richard Flahavan..."
RE: "Did you know Arpaio was a 25-year veteran with the DEA was once the head of DEA for Arizona? He has been elected Sheriff 5 times. You cast doubt on his integrity on what grounds?"
BECAUSE he did not even ask the officials in Hawaii whether or not the birth certificate was forge. He did not even call. He could have asked them whether there was anything factually different between the BC and the document Obama published, but he did not even ask.
It is Sheriff Joe who is alleging that the officials in Hawaii--three of whom are Republicans--are lying. He says that the birth certificate does not even exist. Two Republican officials say that they saw it in the files. The current DOH said that she saw the original being copied and that that was the document that she gave to Obama's lawyer. But he says that it does not exist--therefore she must be lying.
Is that honorable?
And apparently he used the claim of the Selective Service document being forged WITHOUT GETTING IT FOR HIMSELF. He simply relied on the birther who claimed to have gotten it, and relied on that birther not to have altered it. He is a trained law enforcement person. He knows about the need to preserve evidence. Yet he made that claim without getting the Selective Service document for himself.
Oh, and he apparently used WND's "experts." He never said that he used any of his own to check them.
And there is this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
In order for Sheriff Joe's claims to be true a lot of people have to be in on the conspiracy including two State of Hawaii administrations, one Republican and one Democratic (including two governors, two Department of Health Directors, and one Director of Vital Statistics), the White House, the US Selective Service System under President George W. Bush and NBC News Correspondent Savannah Guthrie who said she saw, felt and photographed the paper birth certificate that the book says doesn’t exist.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
As has been pointed out elsewhere:
"The two most vocal proponents of the claim that Obama's LFBC is a forgery are Jerome Corsi and Mara Zebest. The vast majority of the claims and analysis made by the Cold Case Posse were directly copied from work these two individuals published BEFORE the Posse was even formed. Both wrote the majority of the final reports, and both published them under their own names. Both were avidly anti-Obama even before the birth certificate controversy began. If they were that closely involved, how unbiased can the investigation have been? "
Honorable?
Re: "This article refers to the original form Obama claimed was his birth certificate. You know. The one they claimed was the original and only one. That is until they released the second one."
Yes. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out CORRECTLY, the short-form birth certificate is the OFFICIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. In fact, it is used by thousands of people every year.
It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. Obama got a copy of his long form birth certificate on security paper and with the seal on the back. But that is not something that Hawaii normally issues. Other people cannot get certified copies of their long form birth certificates.
Obama asked them to make an exception, and they considered whether or not they have the power to make the exception, and they decided that they did.
What you are glossing over is that in fact the short-form birth certificate says that Obama was born in Hawaii, and it is a legal document. And the officials in Hawaii confirmed the facts on it. Indeed, the first of their confirmations was before the 2008 presidential election, and they are Republicans.
The fact that Obama published the long-form that Hawaii sent him does not prove that the short form does not exist, nor does it show that there is anything wrong with the short form. But the short form shows that the long form must exist. How? Because the short form is generated by a clerk looking at the document in the files and filling in the form that generates the short-form.
So the clerk, plus the two officials saw the original in the files. And the DOH who had the long-form copied onto security paper saw it too. That's four.
Defending the original 2008 COLB image takes a lot of faith.
DOH Hawaii NEVER 'authenticated' that document. In fact - Janice Okubo said - "we may never know what is a picture of" in reference.
But the fact that the White House references a poor quality print - that came from snopes.com as the document now is purely laughable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Link at the end of the first paragraph is a pdf.
http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
At the bottom of this poor quality black and white scanned printout is the location of the printed file - msgboard.snopes.com.
Come on - snopes? Really?
We know that Obama had a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961 because of the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. We know that the DOH of Hawaii was the only source of those notices. The papers have said that they did not take birth notice advertising in 1961 and that they only took their birth notices from the DOH.
Yet, you seem to be alleging that because you found something wrong with the image of Obama's short-form birth certificate, Obama did not have one.
Re: "DOH Hawaii NEVER 'authenticated' that document. In fact - Janice Okubo said - "we may never know what is a picture of" in reference. "
Try to calm down and let the madness pass. The document is not the IMAGE of the document. The document is the physical copy, the one with the seal on it.
All that the DOH could see would be the image of the birth certificate, not the real physical document. So it could not authenticate the document.
What it did was that it AUTHENTICATED THE FACTS ON THE DOCUMENT. As you know, two Republican officials said that they saw the original in the files. And the current DOH of Hawaii said this year that she had seen the original being copied onto security paper to make the official physical copy. So three officials have seen the original.
ALL of them have seen the original and not one of them has said that the facts on the image of the birth certificate (either the short form or the long form) was different from what they saw.
As for the image being poor quality. So what? Not all the people who work in the White House are smart and efficient. They have a lot of unpaid interns who do not know how to make good scans.
Where is there a shred of proof that Obama was born elsewhere than in Hawaii? What evidence overcomes the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers and the birth certificate itself, and the confirmation of the officials, and the witness who wrote home after hearing about Obama's birth?
We know that Obama had a Hawaii birth certificate in 1961 because of the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. We know that the DOH of Hawaii was the only source of those notices. The papers have said that they did not take birth notice advertising in 1961 and that they only took their birth notices from the DOH.
Yet, you seem to be alleging that because you found something wrong with the image of Obama's short-form birth certificate, Obama did not have one.
Re: "DOH Hawaii NEVER 'authenticated' that document. In fact - Janice Okubo said - "we may never know what is a picture of" in reference. "
Try to calm down and let the madness pass. The document is not the IMAGE of the document. The document is the physical copy, the one with the seal on it.
All that the DOH could see would be the image of the birth certificate, not the real physical document. So it could not authenticate the document.
What it did was that it AUTHENTICATED THE FACTS ON THE DOCUMENT. As you know, two Republican officials said that they saw the original in the files. And the current DOH of Hawaii said this year that she had seen the original being copied onto security paper to make the official physical copy. So three officials have seen the original.
ALL of them have seen the original and not one of them has said that the facts on the image of the birth certificate (either the short form or the long form) was different from what they saw.
As for the image being poor quality. So what? Not all the people who work in the White House are smart and efficient. They have a lot of unpaid interns who do not know how to make good scans.
Where is there a shred of proof that Obama was born elsewhere than in Hawaii? What evidence overcomes the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers and the birth certificate itself, and the confirmation of the officials, and the witness who wrote home after hearing about Obama's birth?
The Nordyke twins file numbers:
Aside from the fact that the last numbers (#37 & #38) are lower, even though their birth certificates were filed 3 days after Obama's (#41), their file number denotes the year as "61" while Obama's is presented as"1961"... Completely different! Hence, either Obama or the Nordykes are presenting forged documents as their birth certificates. Look for a Registrar at the Hawaii Dept. Of Health to come forward and fess up to this difference being a "mistake" attributed to human error, much like the book agent fell on her sword for listing Obama's birthplace as KENYA 16 years ago.
The Nordyke twins file numbers:
Aside from the fact that the last numbers (#37 & #38) are lower, even though their birth certificates were filed 3 days after Obama's (#41), their file number denotes the year as "61" while Obama's is presented as"1961"... Completely different! Hence, either Obama or the Nordykes are presenting forged documents as their birth certificates. Look for a Registrar at the Hawaii Dept. Of Health to come forward and fess up to this difference being a "mistake" attributed to human error, much like the book agent fell on her sword for listing Obama's birthplace as KENYA 16 years ago.
Post a Comment