This post is not having anything to do with the Operation American Spring directly, but rather an “idea” that some of the “sprung Springs” (unhinged membership) of OAS are repeatedly promoting. What is offered here is not just opinion, but rather is grounded in inescapable fact.
In such discussions as The Posse’s “Universe Shattering Evidence”, comment is made in support of Sheriff Arpaio’s “posse” investigation of Obama’s digital release of his birth certificate, an entirely irrelevant and false “affidavit”, and a frenzy over the much anticipated release of new “bombshell” evidence. .
First, I recognize that Obama is undeniably, by known facts, unable to hold the Office of President; he’s absolutely not an Article II natural born citizen. See “Natural Born Defined” (PDF). That’s not the issue here.
However Arpaio’s investigation of the layered digital document served no purpose, and did not establish fraud, nor forgery.
The fact is that the Hawaiian Dept of Health (HDOH) is entitled BY LAW, under Hawaiian Revised Statute (See HRS §338-13 below), to produce birth information in whatever form it deems necessary, which is reasonable. Can you imagine if a Dept of Health were not able to produce vital birth information in whatever form as necessary, and provide it to, say, court hearings, judges, or other authorities whose business is to consider such issues?
HDOH might literally put the birth information on a cocktail napkin, and along with appropriate certifications, it would be valid. The released Obama digital birth document is rather obviously the result of a digital compilation of at least 3 separate documents: 1) a photocopy of the bound ledger information, 2) the certification page, and 3) the digitized security background, which can be seen to not conform to the curved ledger book page, making claims that it is “tampered with” considerably oblivious. Of course it’s been “tampered with” – it’s a digital compilation! Beyond that, the document could be loaded with all sorts of conflicting font types, and hidden smiley faces, and none of this would undermine the fact that it is (still) a legally valid, legitimate document.
Furthermore that Obama document did not attempt to mimic any sort of official document form, but was a distinct document unto itself, therefore incapable of being “forgery” of some other document form. If one sets out forge something, it would be something with its own distinct form, like a Picasso, or a $100 bill. Being a compilation of other documents, the Obama digital birth document is obviously not any sort of pre-established format, and thus cannot be a “forgery” of anything! Those who imagine that a birth certificate must have things such as doctor signature, parent’s signatures and addresses, and even an inked baby footprint, really are not aware of what such documents are. Such documents are not final birth certificates at all, and rather only the hospital’s application for a birth certificate – notifications of birth.
And to be “fraud”, the birth terms indicated in that document must themselves be shown to be false, and deliberately false, but Arpaio’s investigation did not even attempt to establish this. The “posse” affidavit offers no statements to undermine the birth data on Obama’s birth documentation, so the Posse’s claim that it proved fraud is just utterly irresponsible nonsense.
On a larger scale, what bothers me about this still ongoing Arpaio investigation is that, even at this late date, it continues to focus attention on the “birth document”, as if being a citizen, or “born citizen”, were sufficient to meet the Article II requirement of natural born citizen, when it is not. This focus on the “birth certificate” is entirely distorting the terms of natural born citizen, and corrupting the issue in the public eye.
In fact this whole investigation is doing exactly what Obama himself wants, even as demonstrated on his early FightTheSmears page, because it continues to reduce the issue before the public and media to involving mere “citizenship” status, rather than the actual terms of natural born citizen — “birth on U.S. soil to parents who were citizens”, even as recognized repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Harry Riley has consistently made supporting statements of Arpaio on programs such as the “Birther Report”, which makes my discussion of this issue appropriate here. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that Birther Report recognized my own writing on Natural Born Defined.) The sort of “inexact thought” evidenced in the Arpaio investigation seems to proliferate throughout the OAS movement, and is particularly evident in Riley’s 3-phase plan, and glaring absence of demands justified in terms of the Constitution. Normally such sloppy thinking is not a problem, but when our nation’s future is at stake, and lives are on the the line, with the distinct possibility of indefinite incarceration in federal prison, then this sort of “rank” stupidity cannot be indulged.
With such vital issues at stake involving this country’s very existence, it’s time to stop with the “stupid people tricks”. This ain’t Ringling Bros, and Harry Riley is no Ring Master. If Riley is even any sort of “C.O.” (Commanding Officer), as they love to refer to him, then one has to question what exactly he is demonstrating command of.
Seriously, wake up, my fellow Americans. Dear God, wake up now; it’s America’s Midnight Hour!
Footnote: U.S.N. Commander (Ret.) Charles Kerchner also cited my article “Natural Born Defined” on his personal blog. . Kerchner sued Obama in 2010 in Kerchner vs Obama, represented by Mario Apuzzo. Hawaiian Revised Statute (HRS):
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]