Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Hold Second Press Conference on July 17


by Sharon Rondeau

Image purported to be a certified copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate

(Jul. 5, 2012) — Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been investigating the background of Barack Hussein Obama II, whose purported “long-form birth certificate” was presented to the public on April 27, 2011.  Arpaio and a Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation have stated that both the birth certificate and Obama’s Selective Service registration card are forgeries.

An initial press conference was held on March 1, 2012, at which time the Posse’s findings were revealed to the anger of many mainstream media reporters.  A second press conference had been tentatively scheduled for the end of May beginning or end of June, but did not materialize. A firm date for the next presser is now July 17 at 2:30 MT.

Last month, Sheriff Arpaio; Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse; and writer and researcher Dr. Jerome Corsi had provided sworn affidavits to an attorney in Florida challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be on the state’s ballot for the November election based on the fact that he does not have two U.S.-citizen parents.  Judge Terry Lewis dismissed the case with prejudice on June 29, 2012, stating that the Secretary of State does not have the responsibility to determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for the position he seeks and that, moreover, Obama is not the official nominee at this time.

Since 2008, doubts have existed that Obama meets the eligibility criteria in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution because of rumors of his birth in Kenya, a literary biography which surfaced in May which stated such, and statements reportedly made by the Clinton campaign prior to the election.

Zullo had visited Hawaii with a sheriff’s deputy in May and stated that the Honolulu Police Department had cooperated with them in an unidentified investigation.  At approximately the same time, Arizona’s Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, received an electronic “verification” that the Hawaii Health Department contained information identical to that which Bennett had asked them to confirm.  Bennett’s office refused to confirm to The Post & Email that it had received a paper copy of the verification in the mail as was expected by Bennett’s communications director, Matthew Roberts.

Zullo has also stated that Hawaiian birth certificates have been illegally sold to non-citizens and that birth announcements might not always necessarily reflect a birth in Hawaii.

The former director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, has told CNN reporter Gary Tuchmann that there is “no doubt” that Obama was born in Hawaii.  During the televised segment, CNN shows what appears to be a microfilm of a birth certificate, giving the impression along with the narrative that it is the microfilm of Obama’s original birth certificate.  When The Post & Email contacted CNN to ask how the news company was able to obtain the microfilm without having “a direct and tangible interest in the record,” as specified in Hawaii state law, no response was provided.

Constitutional eligibility for the presidency requires the candidate be a “natural born Citizen,” which some scholars believe necessitates that the father or both parents be U.S. citizens in order to avoid the problem of divided allegiances.

Obama’s background has also been questioned because the social security number he is using appears to have originated in the state of Connecticut, where Obama has never worked, lived, nor attended school.  A private investigator who has filed a lawsuit in Ohio is demanding that the number Obama is using be verified before his name can be placed on that state’s ballot.

Zullo has promised that the next press conference will contain “breathtaking” information and that an informant in Hawaii has predicted that another forgery “created with 1961 materials” will be released in October.

Zullo has stated previously that he “has a problem” with the August 4, 1961 birth date on the Obama birth certificate image.  An investigator has claimed that Obama has been using a “synthetic identity” and that his real name is Bari Malik Shabazz.  A blogger suggests that Obama is related to Malcolm X, who was murdered in February 1965.  Some have suggested that Obama’s father is Frank Marshall Davis, not Barack Obama Sr.

In an interview with Mark Gillar of the Tea Party Power Hour, Zullo emphasized that no one in the mainstream media has reported on the discrepancies in Obama;s life story.  In an article published on July 5, 2012, Fox News’s James Rosen raises questions about David Maraniss’s recent book about Obama’s college and post-college years, Barack Obama:  The Story.

Maraniss claimed in August 2008 that he had in his possession Obama’s “birth certificate.”  When The Post & Email contacted Maraniss by email to ask how he obtained the document without having a “direct and tangible interest in the record,” we received no response.

There is a report that Zullo has told The Globe magazine who assisted in creating the birth certificate forgery.

3 Responses to "Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Hold Second Press Conference on July 17"

  1. slcraig   Monday, July 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

    Small words were used in forming the subject provision; ” … no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible for the Office of president…”

    The historical record that is generally accepted as the origin of the insertion of the term of words “natural born Citizen” into the Constitution at A2S1C5 was the penning of a letter by John Jay addressed to George Washington in his capacity of President of the Constitutional Convention;

    “ … “New-York, 25th July, 1787.

    Dear Sir,

    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

    I remain, dear sir,

    Your faithful friend and servant,

    John Jay.”

    Although John Jay was not a “delegate” at the Convention it is not out of context to consider him as being a “Delegate at Large” given his status among the “Indispensable Men” within attendance evidenced by the thoughts later expressed by John Adams; “… Jay was “of more importance than any of the rest, indeed of almost as much weight as all the rest…”

    John Jay was occupying the Office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the authority of the Articles of Confederation and later participated in the penning of the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Madison.

    [The Matter of Authorship
    Of the eighty-five Federalist letters, all published under the pseudonym “Publius” (the name taken from Publius Valerius Publicola, a founder and defender of the Roman republic), only four drafts are extant, and all four are in Jay’s hand.]

    The above citation suggests that John Jay was a student of history and that “all roads lead to Rome” when the subject of “republican” forms of guv’mnt arises. The likes of the Scipio’s. Cato, Pliny, Cicero, among others, defined the application of ‘republicanism’ in the 450 years (approx) of the Roman Republic, yet the “Western” version of a ‘republic’ has been considered best defined by Aristotle’s Books of Politic’s, and when considering the subject matter at hand, “citizenship” is laid bare in his Book III;

    “Part I

    He who would inquire into the essence and attributes of various kinds of governments must first of all determine ‘What is a state?’ At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the state has done a certain act; others, no, not the state, but the oligarchy or the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely with the state; a constitution or government being an arrangement of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is composite, like any other whole made up of many parts; these are the citizens, who compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term? For here again there may be a difference of opinion. He who is a citizen in a democracy will often not be a citizen in an oligarchy. Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear. Similar difficulties to those which I have mentioned may be raised and answered about deprived citizens and about exiles. But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. Now of offices some are discontinuous, and the same persons are not allowed to hold them twice, or can only hold them after a fixed interval; others have no limit of time- for example, the office of a dicast or ecclesiast. It may, indeed, be argued that these are not magistrates at all, and that their functions give them no share in the government. But surely it is ridiculous to say that those who have the power do not govern. Let us not dwell further upon this, which is a purely verbal question; what we want is a common term including both dicast and ecclesiast. Let us, for the sake of distinction, call it ‘indefinite office,’ and we will assume that those who share in such office are citizens. This is the most comprehensive definition of a citizen, and best suits all those who are generally so called.

    But we must not forget that things of which the underlying principles differ in kind, one of them being first, another second, another third, have, when regarded in this relation, nothing, or hardly anything, worth mentioning in common. Now we see that governments differ in kind, and that some of them are prior and that others are posterior; those which are faulty or perverted are necessarily posterior to those which are perfect. (What we mean by perversion will be hereafter explained.) The citizen then of necessity differs under each form of government; and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not necessarily to other states. For in some states the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly, but only extraordinary ones; and suits are distributed by sections among the magistrates. At Lacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors determine suits about contracts, which they distribute among themselves, while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes are decided by other magistrates. A similar principle prevails at Carthage; there certain magistrates decide all causes. We may, indeed, modify our definition of the citizen so as to include these states. In them it is the holder of a definite, not of an indefinite office, who legislates and judges, and to some or all such holders of definite offices is reserved the right of deliberating or judging about some things or about all things. The conception of the citizen now begins to clear up.

    He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.

    Part II

    But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question: How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’ Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other. For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state…”

    I do not know if John Jay ever laid eye’s on Aristotle’s Books, nor do I know with absolute certainty that he had been influenced in any way by Emmrich de Vattel. What I am certain of his that Vattel was greatly influenced by Aristotle’s works, the latter being honored as the great philosopher of the natural laws.
    Vattel followed in the traditions of Aristotle and codified the compilations of considerations attending to the various forms of guv’mnt and in the chapters dealing with the formation of a new ‘state’ under a republican form of constitutional guv’mnt he opined;


    § 211. What is our country.

    THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Much has been made regarding the translation from the original French to English but the “context” of the relevant passage makes clear that the “indigenous and natives” are intended to refer to the prodigy of the Founding Generation of a new State and is made even more clear when read in the light of the passages that followed, specifically § 213 to § 233.

    So the question is, what’s the big deal in not being able to get beyond the contrived ambiguity of the “term of words” and applying the legal requirement to any and all ‘persons’ that aspire to the office of POTUS…?

    The fact that both ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘citizen’ were used in the original and complete text of the subject Clause informs us that the ‘citizens’ at the time of adoption of the COTUS would be exempt from the fullness of the exclusionary provision which leads to the conclusion that the provision also ‘established’ a doctrine of ‘inheritable Citizenship’, by the words used and by what the used words then required.

    What was left to the promulgation’s of the Congress was whether Citizenship would be inherited by blood, the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis in Latin, or by birth within the territory of a ‘State’, the doctrine of Jus Soli in Latin, would be the uniform Rule of the new Nations national naturalization.

    “ … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; …´A1S8C4

    The objects and meanings of the provision are obvious on the surface, however, there is a perceptible nuance in its construction to those so disposed to parse intents.

    Treaties of Peace had been made and commerce was in full bloom among the newly free and independent States and there existed inter-state, intra-state and inter-national contracts written under well known Rules of commerce. Therefore the need for new Rules governing Bankruptcy would have been an unwelcome intrusion upon commerce as a whole, but establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy that were in conformity to the established Rules of commerce among the States was required to fulfill the obligations of Article IV Section 1, Full faith and credit Clause.

    But when we look to the words of the naturalization provision and apply the rules of “precise language” to the construction of the provision while holding them to the light of the context of their need and purpose to the “new Nation” we can dispel the basis of the willy-nilly conclusions later drawn in many of the institutions of trust.

    Foregoing the offering of a primer on “precise language” let it suffice to know that those who oversaw the ‘style and form’ of the Constitutions construction were generally well read and linguistically concerned to the extent that the hierarchical distinction between the words and usage’s of “Rule” and “Laws” were not lost to them.

    In that hierarchical scheme a “Rule” is the guiding principle upon which laws find their authority, ergo, “laws” are regulations that conform activities to the intents of the guiding principle.

    It was then left to the Congress to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization; providing that such a Rule would be consistent with the requirements of the COTUS.

    In being a ‘new’ sovereign nation it was the right of the nation to say who was and could be its Citizens; the 1st U.S. Citizens being only those that were “Citizens” of a signatory State upon adoption, and NO OTHERS. (Scott v Sandford as construed from the 1790 / ’95 Acts)

    Naturalization being the process of ‘conferring’ citizenship upon “aliens” requires then the promulgation of attending laws of process that conforms the “alien” to the nature of a Citizen.

    Some of the separate States had and continued to apply the doctrine of inherited citizenship by blood while some chose citizenship at birth to the soil.

    The 1790 Act established ” inherited citizenship by the blood of the father, Jus Sanguinis” as the legislated uniform Rule of citizenship under the authority of the naturalization Act.

    The proof of this is found in the zeal of the Congress to extend the privilege of being born a natural born Citizen to even those children born abroad to a married U.S. Citizen father, with the recognition that women were “considered as” being of the same citizenship as the husband/father.

    Further proof is provided in that the minor children of a newly naturalized alien were then also “considered as” citizens, provided that they were residing with the father in the U.S. and, as before stated, with the recognition that women were “considered as” being of the same citizenship as the husband/father.

    That some States continued to apply the Jus Soli doctrine within their States was ended with the 1795 Act, which also ended the ‘foreign born natural born Citizen provision’.

    “… SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: — ”

    ” … and not otherwise: — ”

    In dissecting these two Acts it is made obvious who were “aliens”.

    Everyone who was not a Citizen of a State upon adoption; or not born to Citizen parents; or had not completed the process of naturalization as defined in the Acts.

    The word “alien” was used as a general term to describe all manner of ‘persons’, vagrants, vagabonds, adventurers, indentured and bond servants, many of which might, within and upon due process, be conformable to the nature of a Citizen within the process of naturalization.

    Both Acts also identified a specific ‘class’ of persons who were proscribed from being eligible for naturalization without the various States pass a specific piece of legislation allowing such a person to be eligible;

    “SEC 3. “… That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.”

    I point out these specifics in order to dispel the ‘notion’ that “citizen of the soil”, Jus Soli, was ever a “Rule” under the Constitution as interpreted and applied by and in the Acts of 1790 / ‘95.

    Further, in spite of the flawed interpretations of the 14th Amendments declaratory collective naturalization “born” statement and the greatly flawed and misinterpreted WKA Opinion, (which chose foreign law over the Acts of the U.S. Congress in a willy-nilly fashion), there has been NO Amendments to the subject ‘provision’ A2S1C5 that would in any way affect or effect the nature of a natural born Citizen.

    It was the intent of the Constitution to be framed as a Static document of Laws, Rules and Regulations designed to at once constrain the Dynamic processes of Guv’mnt and to unleash the Dynamic processes of individual Liberties.

    The nature of a Constitutional natural born Citizen remains Static, since the repeal of the 1790 Act and replacement by the 1795 Act, a proposition that is voiced by the Opinion of Justice Waite in the Minor V Opinion regarding the 14th Amdmt;

    “…The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had….”[Pg 171]

    The “circumstance” of natural born Citizen, plucked from the history of its usage and set apart in a singular manner from all prior usage’s while retaining its prior substance as voiced by Aristotle in his Books of Politics and further illustrated by Vattel within the light of similar reasoning, but now being imbued with an “Executive privilege” reserved as a ‘right’ while excluding all others and too, being immune from any review or obligations to any subsequent requirements of any naturalization Act, the U.S. natural born Citizen has been made an Orphan for want of acknowledgement.

    Being or not being a U.S. natural born Citizen is a Citizenship question in the 1st instant under the Rule of Law, but by virtue of the term of words being used within the Constitution for the specific exclusionary purpose within A2S1C5, it also is attached with a “transient Political nature” which is subject to Separation of Powers concerns making it alterable only by the Amendment process.

    These several combinations of aspects combine to make “term of words” a wholly American “idiom” when discussed in the context of the COTUS.

    Currently there is NO uniformly acknowledged legal, (enforceable), definition of natural born Citizen within the Federal Guv’mnt or among the various States.

    Therefore the provision is rendered to be without effect making the legality of the occupancy of the Office of POTUS as ambiguous as the status of the provision.

  2. 2discern   Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:37 AM

    The usurper cannot occupy the Oval office without the total cover of CIA, CONgress, FBI, DoJ, etc. The biggest challenge facing REAL citizens that love America (as it was intended) is how to seek the credible people in positions of power. There may be one or two left in hiding that have a genuine fear of God.

    The integrity would require courage against such corruption the country has ever experienced on blatant criminal conduct. Our hope is not in the country, the government, it’s leaders or documents. Our hope is in the ONE who ordained such a country as the USofA.

    His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. The civil decay and deception is but the graphic display of biblical history recorded spanning thousands of years. Turning from the living God returning back to the living God. A privileged people became fat in blessings then became thankless and prideful. Evil leaders have always been instruments in God’s hand to turn people unto Himself. Seldom a painless experience.

  3. Veritas   Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

    These stories are bubbling up on Drudge now too, which means that
    “alea iacta est.” I would speculate that the Dems will even drop Obama from the ballot or face the worst defeat in American electoral history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.