to read BBC story 2nd March
The birth certificate of US President Barack Obama could be a forgery, a controversial Arizona sheriff claims.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County - who styles himself as America's toughest - unveiled the results of a probe into the origins of the document.
His investigators found "probable cause" the certificate may have been made by "forgery and fraud", he said....click above BBC link to read more.
John O'Sullivan: Media Bans Evidence that Obama Holds U.S. Presidency Unlawfully
Arizona Sheriff and team of investigators reveal further damning evidence that Barack Obama holds his position as U.S. President unlawfully. Mainstream media conspiracy buries the story while it makes headlines overseas.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five-time elected Sheriff, and former federal narcotics agent who served in several foreign countries hit the front pages in Europe with evidence that may fatally wound the political career of the current incumbent of America's highest public office. The revelations are supplemental to an immutable reason to oust Obama by enforcing an arcane U.S. federal court decision.
Article continues below this advert:
Arpaio, formerly of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), reveals that his team of six investigators in Arizona has obtained proof that both the "Long Form Birth Certificate" presented by President Obama on April 27, 2011 plus his Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, are both forgeries.
However, the most likely "killer evidence" against the president comes not from Arpaio but from a 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes the issue of the alleged forgeries almost superfluous. But that clear cut federal court decision is being systematically "disappeared" from mainstream archives. Critics ask why would this be if the Obama conspiracy theories were just that - theories without substance.
Legal analysts hold that this particular federal ruling confirms that Obama is not eligible for the highest public office because, even if he was born in Honolulu as he claims, he cannot have the status of "natural born citizen." This legal hurdle is not widely understood because "natural born citizen" is defined under law as someone with both parents born in the United States. Obama's father is from Kenya. As we shall see below this intriguing and highly relevant court case is strangely missing from mainstream "birther conspiracy" accounts.
Under Law Obama Not 'Natural Born Citizen'
Sheriff Arpaio refused to throw accusations at the president directly, merely stating his offices had a "person of interest" in the documents forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.
Notwithstanding the Sheriff's findings, constitutional analysts will regard the applicability of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution as most relevant. It states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
Obama is proven not to be a "natural born citizen" because of his father's Kenyan origin. In fact Obama more likely could claim to be British (Kenya being a U.K colony at the time of Barack's birth).
Under law there is only one test of what constitutes a 'natural born citizen' and it is enshrined in a crucial judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) of 1875. The 'Minor-v-Happersett' case clearly defines Natural Born Citizen as someone who can show that both of their parents were born in the United States, which obviously excludes Obama on his father's side.
Sinisterly, it may be no coincidence that even before his election in 2008 Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution on this issue. He and his supporters tried to remove the current requirement that stipulates a presidential candidate must have had both parents born in the U.S. Thus Obama and his accomplices may thus be proven to have knowingly subverted the law. Arpaio's new evidence serves to add further salt to the wound.
Minor V. Happersett has been cited and held true in dozens of cases over the last 138 years. However, despite it's importance, this landmark judgment is strangely being expunged from Internet archives by supporters of Obama. Critics say this apparent fascist revisionism of American legal history seems to have begun in earnest after Obama's rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention when he first was hotly tipped for the presidency.
The State of Hawaii Red Herring
Obama's birth certificate is not the gravamen of this crucial issue but does substantiate allegations of a party political conspiracy. Therefore those who cite the “birther” controversy may have been sidetracked by the Hawaii red herring. It has long been known by legal analysts that in Hawaii any person could have registered the birth of a child late with only the signature of a witness. Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form. This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare).
Thus Hawaii has long been known as the only state in the U.S. where a baby receiving state documents late could be declared a Citizen of the United States. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to resort to forging birth documents. But in the final legal analysis it is not where Barack was born but where his parents were born, in particular, his father.
CNN, Wikipedia & Others in Shocking Media Bias
The very fact that Obama's father was born outside of the United States means that under the law he can never lawfully hold the Office of President. But mainstream outlets won't reveal this fact when addressing the "conspiracy theories" on this.
We see that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, forbids inclusion of the Minor-v-Happersett ruling in it's entry about the Obama "conspiracy theory." Yet Wikipedia does have a separate entry for the case here (but no mention Obama).
Even a supposedly respectable source for legal research, Justia.com, the prime free legal internet research site for decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, has gone out on a limb to scrub Minor V. Happersett from it's server. This is despite almost every other Supreme Court case in American history being on their search engine.
No surprise then to learn that Justia.com is owned by wealthy Obama supporter Tim Stanley - so follow the money. The controversy is now dubbed "JustiaGate." Dianna Cotter who writes for Examiner.com, American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters writes more on these worrying developments here.