IS EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN DENIAL?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 11, 2012) — On Thursday, March 1, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse gave a presentation demonstrating the conclusions of a six-month investigation into the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate presented to the public last year amidst questions regarding his birthplace and background.
Over the last three years, concerns rose that Obama might not be a “natural born Citizen,” the meaning of which has not been defined by any court in recent history. Several law cases from American history, the most notable of which is Minor v. Happersett, have mentioned the requirement, which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. While some attorneys have maintained that Minor‘s outcome was a “holding” regarding the definition of the term, others have stated that it was only “dicta.”
The Cold Case Posse conducted its investigation as the result of a request from members of the Surprise, AZ Tea Party, who asked that the birth certificate image be examined to determine its validity. The posse performed its work at no cost to taxpayers.
In a press conference lasting an hour and 20 minutes, lead investigator Mike Zullo, Sheriff Arpaio, Dr. Jerome Corsi, and others explained their respective roles in the investigation, which also included a forensic examination of the Selective Service registration card released to those having made FOIA requests.
Both documents were deemed to have been manipulated by computer software and not originating with verifiable paper documents. Video analysis on each document was presented to show how the investigators arrived at their conclusions. Arpaio and his posse concluded that the forgeries indicated fraud upon the people of Maricopa County, the people of the state of Arizona, and the people of the United States.
Toward the end of the press conference, Arpaio stated that the investigation would continue, but that he was unsure as to where to go with the evidence which had been collected. Arpaio’s team stated that they have an idea of who might have created the “birth certificate.”
Obama has claimed the image presented to the public on April 27, 2011 as his own.
With the exception of The Washington Post, online media reported the results of the March 1 press conference later that day and evening, Several reporters who had attended the presser had appeared angry at its conclusion and asked Arpaio if his purpose was to remove Obama from office. Arpaio responded that his investigation had focused on the two documents and other data that had been gathered, not ejecting Obama from the White House, which the reporters apparently extrapolated from the results of the probe.
Did those reporters or any others contact the White House for comment following the press conference? Did they contact the FBI? the Attorney General of their respective states? their local U.S. Attorney?
Why is the Russian media saying what the U.S. media will not?
While the ramifications of a sitting president having forged documentation are as yet unknown, some have attacked the messenger rather than asked for a response from the White House. Neither Obama nor any of his surrogates has offered any explanation of which The Post & Email is aware for his documentation to have failed forensic and historical examination.
The crimes of fraud and forgery are felonies. When asked by a viewer why he was not discussing the findings of the posse, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly answered that Arpaio “has not presented any hard evidence to back up his assertion.” O’Reilly also said he was “very busy” and that he himself had “looked into” the birth certificate. However, O’Reilly never presented any “hard evidence” that the short-form certificate which had been the focus of his alleged investigation was authentic.
Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer stated that she did not believe the results of Arpaio’s investigation, having spoken with then-Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii and reportedly been assured that “everything was in proper order” in regard to Obama’s birth record.
The FBI has failed to respond to criminal complaints from citizens and a New Hampshire state representative. The Post & Email’s media inquiry about Obama’s questionable documentation and background has not been addressed to date.
In 2007, a Hawaii reporter had stated that Obama was born in Indonesia, then changed his story. The archived version then became inaccessible on the internet except for screenshots. Others hypothesize that Obama was born in Kenya. Still another researcher states that Obama was born in New York City and is the son of slain civil rights leader Malcolm X.
Why has the media gone mum on the results? Is it for the same reason that Daniel Amon at the Selective Service Administration refused to answer our questions about Obama’s documentation? Why have those investigating Obama’s past been marginalized by other media outlets?
Why has the FBI failed to investigate? Is there no one there who will uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution? Is it easier to allow federal crimes to go unprosecuted because of the fear of “riots” should Obama be proven to be a fraud? What is it that allows Obama to maintain his position in the White House after having possibly committed serious crimes against the people he is supposed to be serving? Why does Obama provide no answer to the report of forgery?
Which is more dangerous: the specter of riots committed by a relative few, or the destruction of the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution?
In the midst of multiple challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility to run for office in 2012, state courts continue to rely on a “birth certificate” which has now been declared a forgery. Will the ballot law commissions, Election Boards and judges stand by that allegedly forged document and maintain Obama’s name on the ballot?
Experienced investigators declare a sitting president’s scant documentation to be forged, and the media does nothing? Rather than asking tough questions, they say that Arpaio is “needling” Obama with the results of the investigation? What does the media believe Obama is doing to America by failing to address the conclusions which were reached?
Why has Obama refused to respond to a criminal complaint of treason lodged three years ago? Is he admitting to the charge?
Is the thought of “America’s first black president” having gotten there by fraud and deceit too much for people to absorb? Is Obama really the first black person to occupy the White House, and does it matter? Is the person’s race what matters, or the person’s level of integrity, honesty, and patriotism?
Even National Review Online, an arguably well-known publication, allowed a piece denigrating Sheriff Arpaio to be published but failed to ask why a sitting president would issue and claim a forged birth certificate as his own. Altering a Selective Service record is a federal crime.
Is America steeped in political correctness to the point where it cannot recognize a crime for what it is?
If Obama cannot answer a treason complaint nor explain why his documentation is likely computer-generated rather than authentic, what does that mean?
The Post & Email will be contacting the White House about these questions on Monday, March 12.
Update, March 12, 2012, 10:16 a.m. EDT: The Post & Email called the White House minutes ago, identified itself as the press, and was connected to an aide named Peter. We asked for a comment on the press conference held on March 1, 2012 by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose Cold Case Posse determined that there is probable cause to believe that the birth certificate and Selective Service registration card with Obama’s name on them are forgeries. Peter asked, “So you want a comment on that?” and we said, “Yes.” Hen then said, “Well, the best way to submit that is through an email,” and gave us the email address.
We then sent an email as follows:
From: Sharon Rondeau
Sent: Mon 3/12/12 10:15 AM
As stated in my phone call with Peter at 10:06 a.m. ET, my question is the following:
“On March 1, 2012, Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse gave a press conference during which they stated that they found ‘probable cause’ to believe that the image of an alleged certified copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate is a ‘computer-generated forgery’ as well as the Selective Service registration card dated September 4, 1980. Could I obtain a response to those findings?”
Thank you very much.
Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.