By DiMarkco Chandler:
Don’t get suckered into the “Birther” just because Sheriff Arpaio’s investigators present evidence that appears compelling and logical. Everything is not always what it appears to be!
Though the “birther” movement is fringe, no matter what you think of Sheriff Arpaio, he posse has presented some interesting discrepancies or at least questions about the birth certificate that Obama released in April of 2011. “This document is fictitious” said Mike Zullo, the chief investigator with the Arizona sheriff’s volunteer posse. On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Obama’s birth certificate was the topic of interest at a press conference in Maricopa County, Arizona. “It’s time for the charade to stop,” Zullo pleaded.
Sheriff Arpaio followed Zullo, stating, “We’d like to give it to somebody… I would like the congress to have hearings, maybe a special prosecutor, not only for this issue but at issue, how easy it is to get a birth certificate in Hawaii. When we’re talking about national security, talking about immigration, we are not accusing the President of any crime. We are strictly investigating a possible government forged document.”
It appears that Arpaio is bent on proving that the President’s birth certificate is a fake. Zullo says that numeric codes on certain parts indicate that the parts were left empty when in actuality they were supposed to be filled out. Zullo also claims that a 95-year-old former state employee who says he signed the birth certificate has explained the codes. In addition, investigators have found a writer who is publishing a book about Obama’s birth certificate and plans on assisting the posse with their investigation.
What Arpaio and “birthers” are looking for is to prove Obama was born in Kenya and not the USA.
Though officials in Hawaii have confirmed Obama’s citizenship, Sheriff Arpaio refuses to accept their claims.
Perhaps one reason why Arpaio insist that the document is a fake lies in what the sheriff has discovered on the face of the certificate. At issue is the fact that on the certificate, it asks for the race of the father, the document indicates that someone wrote the word African. The problem is that the term “African” was not used as an identifier until 1989, 28 years after Obama was born. The box is also coded with a 9, indicating by code that no information was provided. In other words, the number 9 means that the question was left blank.
In addition, after an interview with Verna K.L. Lee, the clerk who signed Obama’s long-form certificate, investigators arguably learned that Kapioloni Medical Center, Obama’s place of birth, had assigned him a number that was higher than a pair of twins whose records indicate that their birth actually followed the president’s. Thus, Arpaio is suggesting that either the hospital made an error or the president was not born there.
Well, as I said earlier, things are not what they always appear to be. Let’s take the Arpaio’s first piece of evidence. It proposes that since the term African or African American was not used until the 1980’s and official government agencies did not require the term until 1987 that because the term is written on Obama’s birth certificate to indicate his father’s race that it represents mounting that the document is fake.
Here is why Arpaio discovery is flimsy at best: His father, Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang Village, Kenya. Where is Kenya? That is right, Africa. What was the question on the birth certificate? What race is the father? Answer: African.
Arpaio’s second piece of evidence ask why does Obama’s birth certificate have sequential numbers chronologically higher than the birth certificate sequence numbers found on the twins certificate, who incidentally were born following his birth. I think this argument is simple to explain. The hospital either made a mistake or though he was born first they processed the twins before he was processed.
Clearly, if this evidence is the best proof Arpaio has to support the claim that Obama’s certificate of birth is fake, I’m afraid for all the people he has put in jail as a result of evidence he has collected to determine their guilt.
How incompetent can one be.