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.

[F15Eagle]

No kidding. This is a Chicago Mob that Sheriff Joe is up against.

[F15Eagle]

No kidding. This is a Chicago Mob that Sheriff Joe is up against.

[Mr Rogers]

If Obama was going to release the originals, then you are right. However, he released something that looks to me like what Hawaii issues now - not the original document, but a document with information placed into it.

It looks like a computer-generated paper form. If I ask Minnesota for my birth certificate, I now get one similar to that - an ‘official form’, but not the original documents. And I would assume it would be pretty easy for the head of a state agency, with lots of democrat workers, to produce a state document pretending to have real info in it.

That seems a more plausible route for forgery than digitally altering an image.

[tomkat]

I understand what you're saying .. however, I do believe there are legal instances where one is required to show a certified copy of one's original b.c..

I could goggle it, but it's been a really long day .. seem to recall its being required for marriages, enlistments, etc ...

[Chattering Class of 58]

Where did I read about the microfiche discrepancy?

[advertising guy]

I was in the room...ABC sucked ditch water

[Mr Rogers]

Can’t speak to all states or purposes, but a state issued birth certificate is all that is needed for the military, marriage or for a passport.

[opentalk]

Hope this means he is not allowed on the AZ ballot (Phoenix) in Sheriff Joe’s jurisdiction.

[Fred Nerks]

thanks for the ping and the links...

[BuckeyeTexan]

His father’s race is listed as “African”...in 1961 such a listing was impossible...it should read “Negro”, or “Black”...everyone knows this.

That's incorrect. Please my FR Home Page for a explanation on this item: BuckeyeTexan's FR Homepage

[BuckeyeTexan]

Americans absolutely were allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1981 on their blue American tourist visas. Please see my FR Homepage for more details.

Rumor: Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1981 because there was a U.S. State Dept. travel ban in place.

Truth: The U.S. Department of State issued Travel Advisory No. 81-33A for Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981.

Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa. Tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must, repeat must, have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not, repeat not, issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha.

[SoConPubbie]

Oh, give me a break. They left because of religious persecution and for the record, there was no US LAW regarding marriage at the time so get over it. You might also want to study the different types of jurisdiction as you obviously have no clue as to what type jurisdiction presides over citizenship.

No, they left because our culture was still grounded in morality and would not accept the immoral nature of a man marrying more than one wife.

Sorry, but a religion that is accepting of polygamy, does not have God's blessing, and is a sham.

[FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs]

If you study the green bc closely, you will notice that someone overwrote the "unham 0bama" portion of Ann Dunham Obama's signature so as to modify it so she'd appear married. You can see that someone used a different pen only on that part of her signature.

If they had ADDED just "Obama" after Ann Dunham using a different pen, that would've been too obvious so they started the overwrite earlier in her signature so it would look more believable.

The joke's on us.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Please don't continue to spread this disinformation. Here are the known facts.

Rumor: Obama Senior's race would be listed as "Negro" in 1961 not "African."
Truth: The Hawaii Department of Health accepts the race as specified by the parent(s).

"They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as 'African'? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us 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.' We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as 'African'." ~FactCheck.org: The truth about Obama's BirthCertificate

The instructions for the 1962 Kenyan census instructed Kenyans to identify themselves as: "Write European, Arab, Somali, or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan.”

Instructions for 1962 Population Census of Kenya

A Certificate of Live Birth issued in 1973 and certifying a 1907 birth lists the father's race as "American" and the mother's as "Hawaiian." (American is not a race, as you know.)

Yes, Keala Harriet Hardesty is a real person and these are her real parents. You can look it up for free at ancestry.com.

[STARWISE]

;)

[BuckeyeTexan]

Does Sheriff Joe’s report provide any technical analysis that substantiates the posse’s claim that the electronic image of the long-form on the WH website is an electronic forgery?

I’m eager to see what technical details they’re releasing.

[little jeremiah]

Why are you using Factcheck as a source of reliable info?

[spokeshave]

If you study the green bc closely, you will notice that someone overwrote the "unham 0bama" portion of Ann Dunham Obama's signature so as to modify it so she'd appear married. You can see that someone used a different pen only on that part of her signature.

I seem to recall that a smiley face and some other obvious mistakes were made by the forger....

It was postulated at the time that these were some sort of "insurance" placed by the forger to avoid taking tea with Polonius (a dirt nap in Fort Macy Park for those in Rio Vista).

[patlin]

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.

[Parley Baer]

It’s a little different when someone with the color of authority and a well known national figure comes and says it is a forgery. Has more weight to it than WND for example.

[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.

[lilyfreeper]

He is the most ugly-looking sheriff on the planet. He has this typical ‘racist’ face full of hatred as depicted in the movies. Why would any freeper applaud this nuts is beyond me. We can do better than this.

[patlin]

To Christians, the New Testament is actually more important than the Old Testament

this is exactly why I left the church a couple of years ago. YHVH finally revealed the truth to my heart.

Joh 5:45 “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Mosheh, in whom you have set your expectation. Joh 5:46 “For if you believed Mosheh, you would have believed Me, since he wrote about Me. Joh 5:47 “But if you do not believe his writings,1 how shall you believe My words?” Footnote: 1Lk. 9:33, Lk. 16:31, Mal. 4:4-5.

Joh 12:44 Then יהושע cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. Joh 12:45 “And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. Joh 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not guard My Words. And the Word which you hear is not Mine but of the Father Who sent Me. Joh 14:25 “These Words I have spoken to you while still with you. Joh 14:26 “But the Helper, the Set-apart Spirit, whom the Father shall send in My Name, He shall teach you all, and remind you of all that I said to you.

You see, xtianity preaches and worships the sent one, not "THE ONE" as the sent one commanded us to do. It is all about the Father, not the son. IOW, they teach & preach the doctrine of man, not that of God. Why? Religious power, the worst of all evils. The Catholic leaders proudly proclaim that they have the power to change the doctrine of the Creator and thus all xtianity is under their authority to this day, even those still in protest since the Luther. Regardless, Scripture only denied multiple marriages to the priesthood because of its tendancy to corrupt the spirit. Do I promote polygamy? Hell No! But it is not for me or any man to judge as a moral or legal issue outside the priesthood.

[milkncookies]

Emote much?

So because you don’t like the way he looks “we can do better than this?”

Are you female by chance?

[SoConPubbie]

Are you of the Reformed church?

[FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs]

It’s probably Jarrett or some 0bama fanatic in the ‘corrupt to the core’ Hawaiian health department.

[patlin]

Another piont. You might want to actually look intpo the Greek to see the difference between “Law” & law. “Law” is Torah and in Mt 5, Yeshua Messiah said he did not come to take it away, in fact he said it was to stay in tact as long as this heaven & earth still exist.

“law”, small “l” is dogma, the religious doctrine & ordinances put in place by man. That is the law that was nailed to the cross, not the “Law”, Torah of God.

FYI, there was no Greek word for Torah and thus the Greeks translated it as law. Atleast they were intellectually honest as to use the correct definitions which xtian doctrine sidesteps in their teaching, which is totally intellectually dishonest! But if one actually takes the time and looks up what Torah means, they find it literally means “instruction” as in how to live according the instructions of YHVH.

[Boogieman]

“he got into Columbia...where he claims in his book...to have taken every drug he could get his hands on...where did he get the money???”

My money is on... hustling for tricks in Time Square.

[patlin]

Are you of the Reformed church?

NO!

[Diego1618]

Once and for all, Romney's father, George, was an American citizen. George's father never renounced his American citizenship while in Mexico & Mexico never issued a birth certificate for George Romney.

I'm surprised that people still get confused by the simple explanation of "Natural Born Citizen". It has nothing to do with where you were born......but everything to do with whom you were born to. If both of your parents were citizens of the U.S. (now pay attention) at the time of your birth.....you are a Natural Born Citizen. If one of your parents was a citizen......let's say, of Kenya..... at the time of your birth and the other was a U.S. citizen.....you could have been born in the lobby of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the fourth of July with the Marine Corps band playing the National Anthem outside on the lawn. But.....you would be designated only as a citizen......and not a Natural Born Citizen because one of your parents was a foreign national.

This whole birth certificate thing is nothing more than a diversion. Both parents must be citizens (at the time of your birth) to qualify you as NBC. This is one reason Marco Rubio is unqualified. His parents were not yet U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, even though he was born in this country.

Same situation with Bobby Jindal. Both he and Marco were born as citizens of this country but since their parents weren't citizens (at the time of their birth) they are not NBC.

And the obvious is also true with Obama. His father was a foreign national...... so it makes no difference where B.O. was born.....in Hawaii or downtown Nairobi. One of his parents was not a U.S. Citizen! He is not a "Natural Born Citizen!"

[SoConPubbie]

Another piont. You might want to actually look intpo the Greek to see the difference between “Law” & law. “Law” is Torah and in Mt 5, Yeshua Messiah said he did not come to take it away, in fact he said it was to stay in tact as long as this heaven & earth still exist.

True, however, there cannot be any doubt that Jesus, as the Son of God, and as God himself, came to do away with the sacrificial law of the Old Testament and replace it with his sacrifice, thereby providing man with the ability to actually have power over his sin and have no need for future sacrifices to atone for sinful behavior.

The moral law is still intact and Christ came to fulfill that law by providing a path to redemption and forgiveness and the ability to live the moral law through his death and resurrection.

This is the current message or Gospel of God to man as of today.

This is the dispensation we live in.

We do not live in the Old Testament because it was impossible to obey God according to Old Testament laws.

Only with the salvation offered by Christ through repentence and believing the Gospel does man have the ability to live according to the moral laws stated in the Old Testament.