The mainstream media, ever late to the party, are at last reporting on the Obama birth certificate story. Most of their reports drip with scorn. But the Arizona sheriff who broke the story two days ago now says that his investigation will not stop with one press conference.
Latest Obama birth certificate news
The latest news comes not from the mainstream media, of course, but from WND. Bob Unruh filed this exclusive (by default) report on the steps that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona, will take next. Two days ago, Arpaio’s all-volunteer Cold Case Posse revealed evidence that the Obama birth certificate file that the White House released last year was a forgery. (And not only a forgery but an amateurish one.) The Posse said that they had identified a “person of interest” in the case, without giving that person’s name. Now WND reports that the Posse have briefed active law officers who would be involved in hunting that person down.
In other words, the Sheriff’s office takes this investigation seriously, and is going through the logical next steps. Unruh’s report says only that the Posse is “briefing” those officers on the “status of the evidence.” But that is one step closer to the office using phrases like “wanted for questioning” and “material witness.”
What evidence the sheriff has
On Thursday, Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse said that:
The Obama birth certificate document has “anomalies” that make it look like a forgery, “anomalies” that they cannot reasonably explain.
Someone in the White House seems to have acted with fraudulent intent by releasing that document as if it were real and authentic.
Barack H. Obama’s Selective Service registration also looks like a forgery.
Obama might, for all that the Posse can say for certain, have been born overseas after all.
The Posse said that last after finding that records of persons entering the country from Kenya during a critical period were missing from the National Archives:
To quell the popular idea that Obama was actually born outside the United States, we examined the records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards routinely filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights that originated outside the United States in the month of August 1961 [Obama's birth month]. Those records are housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, records from the days surrounding Obama’s birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 are missing. This is the only week in 1961 were these immigration cards cannot be found.
This is the most stunning piece of evidence that the Cold Case Posse revealed: a seven-day gap in records of persons entering the country, not merely from Kenya but from everywhere in the world. (CNAV apologizes for referring earlier to a nine-day gap instead of a seven-day gap.) The Obama birth certificate says that Obama was born on August 4, 1961.
(The Obama birth certificate document also has what looks like a rubber-stamp date of August 8, 1961, as the date that the Hawaii registrar accepted the certificate. But that date exists over two of the many layers of the PDF document, and one of the characters looks like s strikeover.)
How the press report it
Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ.
The Associated Press issued this report (from the Chicago Sun-Times) yesterday morning. The AP almost called Sheriff Arpaio a publicity hound, and duly noted that Arpaio is under investigation himself for alleged abuses of power. But the AP will not talk about the political motives behind those investigations. Thus far no one has brought credible evidence that the sheriff has done anything more serious than vigorously enforce the law and try to run his prison system without breaking the county bank.
Nor did the sheriff seek out the Obama birth certificate story to investigate. Instead, 250 Tea Party activists petitioned him to investigate, and not allow an ineligible name to appear on ballots for Presidential electors for Arizona in 2012. The sheriff asked the Cold Case Posse to look into it, because they work free of charge. They in turn expected to validate the Obama birth certificate, before they found evidence that it is invalid.
Jim Kouri, in Eurasia Reviews, got the point. He should know; he sits on the Board of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He’s familiar, both with the Obama birth certificate issue and the reputation of “Sheriff Joe” for his often unconventional approach to law enforcement. Kouri picked up on one other point that the AP missed:
Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.
Of course they should. “Chain of custody” is a fancy word for “Who handled this document after the original typist typed it out?” The Hawaii Department of Health won’t say. Until they do, we have no reason to believe that the Obama birth certificate is even truthful.
Lourdes Medrano of The Christian Science Monitorseems to think that the Obama birth certificate case is just a game to Arpaio. Bob Unruh has shown conclusively that, as far as Arpaio see it, this is not a game.
Barbara and David Mikkelson, of Snopes fame, areplaying games. Two weeks before the press conference, they trotted out the same theories that the Cold Case Posse considered and discarded, to explain the many layers in the Obama birth certificate file:
Someone optimized it for a wide release, so that many downloads would not crash the White House server, or
Someone scanned the document into a computer and then treated the file with an Optical Character Recognition program.
The Cold Case Posse showed that neither program could have produced layers like these. (For one thing, none of the layers contains machine-readable or editable text.)
What this issue means
In 2008, some anonymous supporters of Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign first suggested that the man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, was not born in the United States after all. Obama has always insisted that he was. Many lawyers, including most famously Phil Berg and Orly Taitz, have insisted equally vehemently that he was not (or at least that he cannot prove that he was). Other lawyers, and pro se litigants, have said that even his birthplace would not make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution. The reason: his father was a British colonial subject, and the United States government never naturalized him.
Obama never disputed his parentage. He merely dismissed it as irrelevant. Natural-born citizenship, according to him and his supporters, can derive either from the Law of the Soil or the Law of the Blood. The best applicable Supreme Court precedent, Minor v. Happersett, says that natural-born citizenship needs both. But now a conscientious sheriff has suggested that Obama might meet neither rule for natural-born citizenship.
That is something that too many news organs would rather ignore. Some of their reporters and editors voted for Obama in 2008, and plan to do so again this year. More to the point, none of them seem to want to face an unpleasant prospect: that someone stole the office of President of the United States.