WND TV to live-stream Arpaio eligibility report

www.wnd.com...

When Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio announces the findings of the first official law-enforcement investigation into the questions surrounding Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office at a news conference Thursday, March 1, WND TV will be there to provide exclusive live-streaming, founder and editor Joseph Farah announced today.

“When I took this mission on, I took it on to possibly be able to clear the president,” Arpaio said during a speech in Maricopa County. “I was doing him a favor. We’ll see what happens.”

Hmm, just the way that's phrased, sounds like he may have cut a deal. Stay out of his county and drop the "immigrant maltreatment" charges, and Arpaio finds in favor of Obama.



Would I be surprised?

:shk:

“I don’t have press conferences just to get my name on television. When I have a press conference, I talk about something,” Arpaio said. “I had about 250 tea party people, to sign a petition . . . came to me and asked their sheriff to investigate Obama and the birth certificate. So what should I do? Throw it in the waste basket and forget it like everybody else has done?”

Be sure to let them down easy, Joe...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Overall, I like him, but...

Most Sheriffs are politicians at heart.

This makes me wonder.

Also, why would the POTUS worry about a County Sheriff?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Also, why would the POTUS worry about a County Sheriff?

Cause this county Sheriff is digging around deep with a Posse for records which Obama is hiding, maybe?

I'll bet you Obama himself will be watching the WND TV live stream.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I don’t have press conferences just to get my name on television. When I have a press conference, I talk about something,

Translation:

I am going to have a press conference just to get my name on television. I won't actually talk about anything we don't already now.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I'll bet you Obama himself will be watching the WND TV live stream.

Really? Do you really think that the president will be watching a silly internet stream?

'Sheriff Joe' is the most publicity-hungry man in America. A truly disgusting human being, only in a place like Arizona can a man like that come to power.

YUUUP---Time for this foreign national POTUS to go!

America's 1st Foreign National POTUS

This will wake Soros 'paid' crew of 'talk the talk' comrades at MoveOn,FactCheck,PolitiFact,Daily Kos,Media Matters--up!

Here they come >>>and none will understand the "Deny Ignorance" sign!

*snipped*

reply to post by TrueAmerican
he hasn't been sheriff of Maricopa county since 1992 because everyone likes him has he?is this another Donald Trump stunt?Probably
like you said I won't hold my breath on this one

Originally posted by Monger
'Sheriff Joe' is the most publicity-hungry man in America. A truly disgusting human being, only in a place like Arizona can a man like that come to power.

Hey, any Sheriff that takes the demands of his constituents seriously enough to mount an investigation with a posse, especially into a matter as sensitive as this, can have all the publicity he wants- as far as I am concerned. He's certainly doing more about it, or so it appears, than much of anyone else in law enforcement. So I am interested in what he uncovered, if anything. I am just saying not to expect much. And who knows, maybe he'll surprise us and maybe he won't. Sorry if I didn't just wash my hands of the issue, just because you are trying some agenda driven character defamation on him.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Sorry if I didn't just wash my hands of the issue, just because you are trying some agenda driven character defamation on him.

edit on Thu Feb 23rd 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Let's not forget that the 'issue' in question is that some whackadoo's in the Sheriff's country think their President is a Kenyan secret muslim who also is the antichrist.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The cutting a deal remark is a bit off. Since the sheriff cannot file charges, there would be nothing to "exchange". Also, because the request came from citizens within the county he is Sheriff, because they made specific complaints, and because Arpaio accepted and launched an investigation (and with the publicity he created for it) made the investigation official.

I cannot see any way to influence any outcome. Because the investigation is official, at some point down the road it should become a matter of public records, as well as fall under FOIA requests should there be a loop hole.

I am curious how this could possibly play out.. The issue in Georgia along the same lines, unless I missed an update, is still ongoing.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What are you hoping Arpaio to announce TrueAmerican?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I don’t have press conferences just to get my name on television. When I have a press conference, I talk about something,

Translation:

I am going to have a press conference just to get my name on television. I won't actually talk about anything we don't already now.

edit on 23-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

It is rather telling from the fact Arpaio decided to announce that he'd make an announcement in a months time, must be really explosive information there for him to have everybody wait for a month

My guess is that he'll probably just come out and announce that through 'investigation' he and his posse found that Obama was ineligible based on Minor v Happersett, i.e he sides with the birthers.

Every-time I see the President campaigning
I have this vision of him
in Pink Arpaio Underwear.
Campaigning from a Tent City near you.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

What are you hoping Arpaio to announce TrueAmerican?

I have no idea, seriously.

But you have to admit it is at the very least interesting, don't you think?

Or are you planning on calling Arpaio a racist too, in spite of the fact that his investigation was in response to his employer's demands?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

What are you hoping Arpaio to announce TrueAmerican?

I have no idea, seriously.

But you have to admit it is at the very least interesting, don't you think?

Bitherism has always been an interest of mine. I will certainly be listening to what Arpaio has to present, I doubt it will be anything new though.

Or are you planning on calling Arpaio a racist too,

I think bitherism is motivated in part by racism, although I had not made the assumption that Arpaio's pending presentation will be racist in itself. We are yet to see what he has to present.

in spite of the fact that his investigation was in response to his employer's demands?

Arpaio was not at any time obligated to carry out an investigation on Obama's eligibility, this isn't part of his position. Constitutionally, presidential eligibility is left up to congress and the Electoral college, the supreme court also lends weight to the matter. Arpaio volunteered personally to carry out an investigation, maybe because he knows he needs to appeal to his constituency, his supporters, if he intends to have standing in his ideological community? I am really curious as to what he'll pull out of the hat that's new.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Arpaio was not at any time obligated to carry out an investigation on Obama's eligibility, this isn't part of his position. Constitutionally, presidential eligibility is left up to congress and the Electoral college, the supreme court also lends weight to the matter. Arpaio volunteered personally to carry out an investigation, maybe because he knows he needs to appeal to his constituency, his supporters, if he intends to have standing in his ideological community? I am really curious as to what he'll pull out of the hat that's new.

Actually thats not quite correct. Elections fall under State law for how names appear on the ballot and the requirements to get those names there. As an example we have the current investigation in Indiana where it was discovered fraudulent signatures were used in order to get Obama's name on the ballot in 2008.

The FEC declined to initially investigate because they have nothing to do with the State established criteria to get names on the ballot. Since that state investigation started, its resulted in a few resignations from the DNC as well as charges against the top guy for Indiana for the DNC.

Georgia law that was passed requires a person to provide documentation that are qualified to appear on their ballot for any elected position, regardless if its local, state or federal.

In this case, citizens of the State of Arizona who reside in the County he is Sheriff of, living outside of incorporated areas, took there complaints / concerns to the right individual. His position as Sheriff requires him to consider seriously any complaints he receives where there is a possibility of violations of the law. If he finds information substantiating the claims, that information / case file can be forwarded over to the AG's officer for their review and follow up investigation. So long as his team followed the law and correct procedures, its a valid investigation.

Just because his investigation turns up a possibility of wrong doing on Obamas behalf, it does not mean anything will happen. Its the purview of the PA's office at the city /county and the AG at state to decide if the prosecution is in the interests of the public.

Arizona revised statutes - Election law

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually thats not quite correct. Elections fall under State law for how names appear on the ballot and the requirements to get those names there.

We're not talking about elections in general here, we're talking about the vetting of the president and presidential candidates, we're talking about what documents are 'valid' to confirm ones eligibility, this is something left up to congress, not the States individually

When it comes to the vetting of the presidency, States don't have a say in this individually. This is the problem with birther laws, this idea that the State of Arizona can refuse to accept Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate because they don't 'trust' the way Hawaiian health officials handle birth records. In this case there would be a conflict with the full faith and credit clause for example. I'm sorry, it doesn't work this way and it never has.

As an example we have the current investigation in Indiana where it was discovered fraudulent signatures were used in order to get Obama's name on the ballot in 2008.

And where is your evidence for this? You're using this as a reference, and yet you have no solid sources to back it up. Link me a legitimate source.

Georgia law that was passed requires a person to provide documentation that are qualified to appear on their ballot for any elected position, regardless if its local, state or federal.

I wasn't aware of any such law that passed in Georgia, again, do you have a link? I don't actually have a problem with presidential candidates needing to present some form of proof that they were born on U.S soil, so long as we're not setting criteria on specific forms of I.D (realistically not everybody has held their original birth certificate from birth to adulthood) and so long as those State officials understand that they need to accept and respect the verification and record keeping (Full faith and credit clause) of the State that candidate was born in.

In this case, citizens of the State of Arizona who reside in the County he is Sheriff of, living outside of incorporated areas, took there complaints / concerns to the right individual. His position as Sheriff requires him to consider seriously any complaints he receives where there is a possibility of violations of the law.

Individual sheriffs are not responsible nor do they have authority to 'vet' presidential candidates. Don't be silly. Arpaio is doing this investigation voluntarily to appeal to his constituency, it is not a requirement.

If he finds information substantiating the claims, that information / case file can be forwarded over to the AG's officer for their review and follow up investigation.

Certainly, if he finds some solid evidence (not the same debunked birther claims) that Obama was not born on American soil, then he'll definately get my attention. I really just don't think he'll present anything new. Maybe he'll come out and cite the 'law of nations' as evidence again that Obama is ineligible? Something along the lines of this I can see happening.

Just because his investigation turns up a possibility of wrong doing on Obamas behalf, it does not mean anything will happen.

Define possibility? Because so many things are possible in this day and age. It is possible that Obama's parents could have concealed his birth in Kenya until their graves, it is possible that Hawaiian officials are purpousfully lying about his birth records, it is possible that we never went to the moon. 'Possibility' casts such a wide net. If there is solid evidence that Obama is foreign born then the birthers will get the attention they so desperately seek. We are waiting for this, again.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We're not talking about elections in general here, we're talking about the vetting of the president and presidential candidates, we're talking about what documents are 'valid' to confirm ones eligibility, this is something left up to congress, not the States individually

No its in the states field of jurisdiction. A possibility of fraudulent activity (and what that fraud may be) is a state matter. The responsibility of Congress is to certify the elections.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
When it comes to the vetting of the presidency, States don't have a say in this individually. This is the problem with birther laws, this idea that the State of Arizona can refuse to accept Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate because they don't 'trust' the way Hawaiian health officials handle birth records. In this case there would be a conflict with the full faith and credit clause for example. I'm sorry, it doesn't work this way and it never has.

State do have the ability and believe it or not at the primary level the political parties have a say as well. Full faith and credit will apply of course, but it does not preclude states from establishing different criteria. The Constitution sets up the framework in this area, and the state operate within that framework.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And where is your evidence for this? You're using this as a reference, and yet you have no solid sources to back it up. Link me a legitimate source.

Obama Voter Fraud Case Heats Up In Indiana
College Student Credited With Uncovering Possible Election Fraud in Indiana's 2008 Primary
Indiana's Elections Chief Charged With Voter Fraud
In Wake of Indiana Petition Forgery Probe, New Rules Offered to Prevent Fraud

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I wasn't aware of any such law that passed in Georgia, again, do you have a link? I don't actually have a problem with presidential candidates needing to present some form of proof that they were born on U.S soil, so long as we're not setting criteria on specific forms of I.D (realistically not everybody has held their original birth certificate from birth to adulthood) and so long as those State officials understand that they need to accept and respect the verification and record keeping (Full faith and credit clause) of the State that candidate was born in.

Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Individual sheriffs are not responsible nor do they have authority to 'vet' presidential candidates. Don't be silly. Arpaio is doing this investigation voluntarily to appeal to his constituency, it is not a requirement.

In the State of Georgia a citizen can challenge the eligibility of candidates running for office. The election laws from state to state are not uniform and will vary. If credible evidence is discovered (DNC in Indiana for example) for election law issues, it is criminal. Just because a sheriff investigates does not mean its going to go anywhere. If information does come from the investigation it would go to the State Attorney Generals office for follow up.

There is nothing wrong with looking into it. To be honest I i wish Law Enforcement / AG's would be a little more active to investigate valid complaints.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Define possibility? Because so many things are possible in this day and age. It is possible that Obama's parents could have concealed his birth in Kenya until their graves, it is possible that Hawaiian officials are purpousfully lying about his birth records, it is possible that we never went to the moon. 'Possibility' casts such a wide net. If there is solid evidence that Obama is fore

Hence using possibility.. If we knew for sure, we wouldn't need an investigation into the allegations. With that being said im all for laws that require anyone running for public office, at any level, to be required to prove they are eligible to hold the seat they are running for.

We have to wait until March 1st to have an answer.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
State do have the ability and believe it or not at the primary level the political parties have a say as well. Full faith and credit will apply of course, but it does not preclude states from establishing different criteria.

States do not have the power to set their own eligibility criteria for presidential candidates, they never have. It wouldn't make sense to give them such powers in anycase. What sense would it make if Idaho decided to disqualify candidate A from their ballot because he failed to present to them an original long form birth certificate, but the State where candidate A was born, Arizona, only supplies short form birth certificates upon request regardless? Is this logical? No it's not and it would also violate the full faith and credit clause as Idaho refuses to respect and recognize the laws and processes of Arizona.

States can make candidates ineligible to participate in their elections (Gingrich and Santorum are examples of this), but this isn't based on birth right. This is purely based on failiure to follow specific state guidelines in registering for the ballot, this is what states can and will enforce often through each election cycle.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obama Voter Fraud Case Heats Up In Indiana

Breitbart? no thanks.

College Student Credited With Uncovering Possible Election Fraud in Indiana's 2008 Primary
Indiana's Elections Chief Charged With Voter Fraud
In Wake of Indiana Petition Forgery Probe, New Rules Offered to Prevent Fraud

Fox news reported that there was an investigation going on in Indiana regarding their primary elections in 2008, there was no confirmation of fraud in either of the articles. These articles hold little relevance as to whether Barack Obama was born in the United States and whether he is eligible the presidency. Yes, election fraud is a bad thing, but this doesn't automatically point to Obama being born in Kenya or whether he requires both parents to be citizens.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot

World net daily? Seriously? Well anyway, I went to the source and this is what I found:

An administrative law judge in Georgia today ruled that Barack Obama’s name can be on the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution.

And Georgia's birther bills have not gathered sufficient support to come to law thus far:
www.ncsl.org...
There will be another attempt later on this year to get these bills passed, but as of now they are not nor have they ever been law in the State of Georgia.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
In the State of Georgia a citizen can challenge the eligibility of candidates running for office.

Citizens of Georgia can challange a candidate, ya betcha, but they cannot disqualify a candidate based on birth right eligibility. Currently there is nothing written in the constitution requiring candidates to present birth certificates to run for the presidency, there is no state that requires candidates to present birth certificates as proof of eligibility, and no candidate has done so as a requirement, ever. Even if Taitz had won that Georgia lawsuit, the case would have been taken to the high court, and probably quashed.

The election laws from state to state are not uniform and will vary.

Election law, not the vetting of individual presidential candidates, and there is a difference. No state has a law in place setting specific criteria towards the vetting of candidates.

If information does come from the investigation it would go to the State Attorney Generals office for follow up.

Yep, we're waiting for what Arpaio has to show. We've seen all the others.

There is nothing wrong with looking into it. To be honest I i wish Law Enforcement / AG's would be a little more active to investigate valid complaints.

Of course there is nothing wrong with it, the Sheriff is welcome to personally investigate this matter. As for these complaints being valid, well that's your position on the matter.

Sheriff Joe's posse: 'Probable cause' Obama certificate a fraud

Here is his report -

"President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public," Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference today in Phoenix.

This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff's Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.

Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama's life history.

Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting:

• President Obama's Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;

• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama's birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.

Beginning in October 2011, the Sheriff's Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, examined dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents, as well as taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake the investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in what Sheriff's investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.

"Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have," said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse.

The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged, but investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

The Cold Case Posse investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers most likely committed two crimes: first, in fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represented as "proof positive" of President Obama's authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

"A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery," Arpaio said.

Among the evidence released at the press conference were five videos the Cold Case Posse produced to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.

The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.

The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.

The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators' conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.

Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar's name stamp and the Registrar's date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.

"That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself," Zullo said, stressing that if the Registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.

The investigators also chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.

"As I said at the beginning of the investigation," Arpaio said, "the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession."

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.

Arpaio went on to say the President should also authorize Kapiolani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any and all hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, in order to provide additional corroboration for the original 1961 birth records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.

"Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted," Zullo said.

"In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States."

Arpaio concluded the press conference by suggesting a congressional investigation might be warranted and asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.