Say It Ain’t So, Joe!!! (Or, Auguring Arpaio)

Balthazar Left No Stone Unturned In His Quest For The Absolut

Well, here is my prediction of what is going to happen Thursday, March 1 , 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio holds his press conference and announces the findings of the Cold Case Posse which has been investigating Obamas’s eligibility.  First, I predict that whatever the results are,  there will be a lot of people wailing, “Say It Ain’t So, Joe!!!

Now, from that very safe position, let me venture into less safe territory. I predict that Arpaio is going to do the right thing, for the right reasons, and tell the Birthers that there is nothing to their claims. My basis for this assessment is  that after nearly four years,  there simply isn’t any substantial evidence that Obama is not exactly who he says he is, or that he was not born in Hawaii.

There is a question as to why Obama has, or had, a Connecticut social security number when he never lived there.   There is a question as to whether or not his social security number belonged to another person, one born in 1890.  There is a question as to whether he is eligible because his father was not a citizen. There is a question as to whether or not Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. There is a question as to why his birth certificate number seems out of order with the Nordyke twins.   And questions have been raised as to whether or not the Internet image of his long form birth certificate is genuine.

Those questions fall into three general categories:

1. Obama is either not who he says he is, or a very bad boy who uses other people’s identities.

2. Obama’s alleged birth certificate images are false and he was not born in Hawaii, and is thus not eligible to hold the office.

3. Obama is not legally eligible to hold office because he was adopted, or because his father was not a citizen.

Here is where  the first category of questions break down:  Identity theft is a real crime, but when it occurs, you generally have a real person out there bringing it to the attention of the cops, complaining that “somebody is pretending to be me!”  Here, you don’t have anyone doing that.

It could be free floating identity theft,  where a person just assumes an invented identity.  But there are problems with that approach.  Unless someone got the papers when they were children, there is no history for the personna.  For example, Pedro, a 30 year old illegal alien,  who slipped across the border last year, may have a social security card showing he is Skippy Throckmorton III.  But Skippy doesn’t have friends from high school, because Skippy didn’t  exist then. Here, you have people who have known Obama for years.  None of them claim that the person in the White House does not exist, or that he is not the real Obama.

Michelle Obama has not called the police and complained that some stranger is occupying her bed and pretending to be the father of Sasha and Malia. You don’t have law professors out there saying that this person is not the same one they taught in law school. Old friends on the island don’t call Hawaii Five O to report that somebody is impersonating their friend that they have known since high school. Or, complain that such a friend never existed in the first place, and is crashing their golf game.

I suspect that the Cold Case Posse has the ability to run Obama’s driver’s license, and some way to check his social security number.  But again, even if the number was incorrect,  there is still a lack of anyone complaining that their number is being usurped, and a lack of anyone who knows him complaining that he is not who he says he is.

Which leads the possibility of a false identity scam dating back to the date of his birth. This possibility lies  on the borderline of the first and second categories and brings the birth certificate questions into play.  However, all questions about the long form birth certificate, including the numbering questions, are going nowhere because the State of  Hawaii has already gone on the record affirming the relevant facts.

Plus, if Obama was actually someone else, and the birth certificate is false as to identity as opposed to being false about the place of birth,  then more implausibility arises.  One would have to believe that the present-day  Obama, who was either switched at birth or created from whole cloth,  has been exclusively playing the Barack Obama role his entire  life.  He has gone through elementary school, high school, college, law school, and adult life as Barack Obama.  It is unreasonable to the max to imagine some Svengali has enough influence to steal over 50 years of a person’s life.

Returning to place of birth, there is no substantial evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. There are several African newspapers and an African politician or two who say Obama was born in Kenya. That’s it.  But how likely is it that the Cold Case Posse is going to give those statements more credibility than the Americans over in the Hawaiian DOH??? Not very.

The third category of questions also crash of their own weight.  If Obama had been adopted, the Cold Case Posse might be able to turn up the paperwork,  but there is no law against being adopted.  Any effect on his natural born citizenship status would be a legal question for the courts,  not the sheriff’s office.  And the same thing applies to the whole gamut of legal questions relating to eligibility, including the two citizen-parent foolishness.

Plus, unless the Cold Case Posse is cold because they have been stuck in a freezer somewhere for years, they are surely aware that the courts have been throwing out the Birther lawsuits left and right. I do not see it as very likely the Posse is going to pick a fight they can not win.

All of the above  are very simple and basic observations.  So simple, that I do not see either Sheriff Joe Arpaio, or the Cold Case Posse missing them, and risking being labeled The Posse That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.  I have read some Internet Articles which suggest that Arpaio may  hedge his bets and clear Obama, but do it in a way designed to leave the issue in doubt. For example, announce that they could not find any evidence because neither the State of Hawaii nor Obama would cooperate.

That is a possibility, but  my take on Arpaio is that he is a blunt, no-nonsense guy and will call it like he sees it.  If political considerations were on his mind,  then it would be more likely that he would not wish to be associated with a pack of looney tune Birthers. Particularly at a time when his professional conduct is under attack from the DOJ and others.

Some of the Birthers seem to be preparing for the Second Coming convinced that Obama will be arrested shortly after the press conference and frog-marched away to Gitmo. World Net Daily is going to carry the press conference live and at first blush, the idea arises that Farah and crew must be privy to some secret information and has hired a band to play some marching music.  But World Net Daily has a story either way this shakes out. Either, Arpaio Nails Obama!!! or Obama Thugs Get to Arpaio!!! works for them.

Sooo, that is my prediction and the basis for my guess.  I can hardy wait for Thursday.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Say It Ain’t So, Joe.  This phrase relates to a story is from the 1919 World Series scandal. As Wiki says,

Shoeless Joe Jackson did admit to receiving a cash payment of $5,000 ($67,025 today) and that he had been originally promised a $20,000 ($268,100 today) bribe. Legend has it that as Jackson was leaving the courthouse during the trial, a young boy begged of him, “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” and that Jackson did not respond. In an interview in SPORT nearly three decades later, Jackson contended that this story was a myth.

Regardless of whether Jackson’s exchange with the shocked young fan was a true historical event or a fabrication by a sensationalist journalist, the “Say It Ain’t So” story remains an oft-repeated and well-known part of baseball lore.

Note 2.  The Quest For The Absolut.  A wordplay on Balzac’s The Quest Of The Absolute, a novella which strangely presages the Birthers’ unsuccessful attempts to transmute poop into gold.

But–unexpected shock!–Madame Claes learned through the humiliating medium of some women friends, who showed surprise at her ignorance, that her husband constantly imported instruments of physical science, valuable materials, books, machinery, etc., from Paris, and was on the highroad to ruin in search of the Philosopher’s Stone.

http://www.freefictionbooks.org/books/a/13969-the-alkahest-by-honor%C3%A9-de-balzac

Absolut,  on the other hand,  represents a successful transmutation of baser materials  into a higher state.

Note 3. Augurs. Well, there’s augurs and then there’s augers.

au·gur

verb /ˈôgər/
augured, past participle; augured, past tense; auguring, present participle; augurs, 3rd person singular present

1. (of an event or circumstance) Portend a good or bad outcome
* – the end of the Cold War seemed to augur well
* – the return to the gold standard augured badly for industry

2. Portend or bode (a specified outcome)
* – a new coalition would not augur a new period of social reforms

3. Foresee or predict

noun /ˈôgər/
augurs, plural

1. (in ancient Rome) A religious official who observed natural signs, esp. the behavior of birds, interpreting these as an indication of divine approval or disapproval of a proposed action.

au·ger

noun /ˈôgər/
augers, plural

1. A tool with a helical bit for boring holes in wood

2. A similar larger tool for boring holes in the ground

I sure hope I am not boring here.

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

20 responses to “Say It Ain’t So, Joe!!! (Or, Auguring Arpaio)

  • David Farrar

    Not enough, Squeeky.

    It’s not enough to simply say: It’s up to you to prove a negative. By Georgia law, it is up to Candidate Obama to prove he is qualified.

    If this Sheriff Joe Arpaio guy finds independent, corroborative evidence that Barack Obama was born when and where his birth certificates indicates, and this evidence can be authenticated; I, too, will be happy to put this aspect of Obama’s true identity to rest. But not before positive, independent corroborative evidence is found.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi David!!!

      I agree that a person should have to prove they are qualified to run for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. Obama can prove it by offering up his birth certificate which shows his age and place of birth. Unless somebody has substantial evidence otherwise, I don’t think the legal burden thingy shifts over to him.

      I have not been following the Georgia stuff much. Where are you on the appeal???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    Re: “By Georgia law, it is up to Candidate Obama to prove he is qualified.”

    Who told you that? That is not what the court ruled or what the Secretary of State of Georgia decided.

  • TheEuropean

    Hi Squeeky,

    “Absolut, on the other hand, represents a successful transmutation of baser materials into a higher state.”

    You are absolutely right. The Swedes can transmute potatoes or grain to a magnificent higher state, called “Absolute”.

    Sincerly

    Your European

  • Monkey Boy

    You are absolutely right. The Swedes can transmute potatoes or grain to a magnificent higher state, called “Absolute”

    I am well acquainted with European vodkas made with potatoes and the potato-like aftertaste is atrocious. Give me Smirnoff any day.

    • Monkey Boy

      Smirnoff is allegedly produced from corn, but, unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), is not reminiscent of the ‘shine produced by small-scale local distillers in my youth.

  • Monkey Boy

    I am afraid that I am giving things away about myself. Just the other day it was Yukon Jack, and now it is Absolut. Oh well, maybe google will pick up on it, and send me coupons.

    Squeeky, j’accuse you of starting Mario the Putz on cheap, domestically-produced chianti, and thereby, impelling him to board the crazy train of birferdom.

  • ellen

    Re:

    “I agree that a person should have to prove they are qualified to run for the Presidency…”

    So why haven’t the REPUBLICAN candidates for president proven their place of birth? Not one of them has shown his birth certificate. And none of the former Republican candidates for president showed her or his birth certificate.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      I don’t know the answer to that. But I have no problem expecting Republicans to do the same. What is wrong with states requiring a birth certificate and some sort of proof of residency from presidential and vice-presidential candidates prior to putting them on the ballot?

      As a practical matter you kind of hope the press and the political opposition will do that gate keeping homework, but even if they do, and the candidate is not eligible, say for being 33 years old, why wait until the swearing in ceremony to do something about it? Or rely on impeachment and conviction? Why not just nip it in the bud at the state level?

      Do you think it would be unconstitutional or morally wrong for a state to pass such a law?

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    Re: “What is wrong with states requiring a birth certificate and some sort of proof of residency from presidential and vice-presidential candidates prior to putting them on the ballot?”

    As a journalist, you should do some research before commenting.

    Question: Do adopted children get birth certificates. Answer sometimes, but not always, and many have enormous difficulty getting them. So would you make an exception for adopted children, or would you require under federal law that the states give the birth certificates of adopted children when they run for president or vice president?

    Second, what about in cases like New Orleans, where literally hundreds of thousands of birth certificates were destroyed in the floods, are those people not to be eligible?

    Are all the 50 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands (they get to vote in primaries, you know) to enact their own statutes, each different, each stating that the birth certificate should be shown to a different authority?

    Is the presentation of a birth certificate sufficient, or do the opponents get to challenge the document out of allegations that it is forged?

    Not all birth certificates are provided by states. Some are done by cities, such as New York.

    Currently it is highly likely that every place in the USA issues birth certificates. But they don’t have to. There is no constitutional right to a birth certificate, nor is there a constitutional obligation for a locality to issue birth certificates. Are you saying that there should be?

    In principle, I agree with you that it does no harm and perhaps does some good for states to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. But just saying “states should require” is meaningless. Unless they deal with all these issues, they are likely to do as much harm as good.

    And, anyway, it is up to the states to decide for themselves, and most have decided not to.

    Getting back to the Republicans not showing their birth certificates. Morally, it is up to the people who think that Obama has not proven that he was born in the USA to stress that the Republicans have not either each time that they post some anti-Obama “he hasn’t proved” claim. But, for some reason, none of them ever does.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      I think some people are challenging Santorum and Romney on this. If Mark Rubio is the vice-presidential candidate then you will probably see a Republican getting a good dose of the same medicine.

      As far all the logistics problems with a given state passing an eligibility type law, it is probably a lot better if that gets worked out now as opposed to 30 years in the future when some child of an illegal alien runs for the presidency.

      Wouldn’t it be nicer (and a lot quieter) if all that person had to do was cough up a birth certificate proving she or he was born here to comply with the law? Because if you think about, requiring a birth certificate to show you were born here, or born a citizen, negates all that two citizen parent stuff and divided allegiance stuff.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    A trick question for you. Can someone who is not 35 years old run for president?

    Think about it for a moment before you answer. The Constitution does not say that someone under the age of 35 cannot RUN for president. It simply says that they cannot BE president.

    Do you feel that it is constitutionally right to deprive millions of people under the age of 35 of the opportunity to run for president simply because they cannot be president?

    So, what would happen if someone under the age of 35 ran for president and actually was elected?

    Answer. The Constitution specifies that the Electoral College, and then the US Congress that confirms the vote gets to make the decision that the person is not eligible.

    But if a state were to deprive a person of his right to RUN for president simply because he did not have the right to BE president that would be a different thing, wouldn’t it?

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Which puts you right into the nightmare scenario where some people will be banging on the constitutional requirement and “we are a nation of laws” desk, and others will be banging on the “but the people knew her or his age and wanted them anyway” desk. All of which would probably break down along party lines, more or less.

      Better to just keep them from running. And yes, I am willing to: constitutionally deprive millions of people under the age of 35 of the opportunity to run for president simply because they cannot be president?

      Just like the SCOTUS finds an implied right of privacy in the Constitution, I find an implied prohibition against 20-somethings running for president.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    Re: “Just like the SCOTUS finds an implied right of privacy in the Constitution, I find an implied prohibition against 20-somethings running for president.”

    Implied rights, perhaps. Implied prohibitions? Hardly.

    Article X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Specifically, the people part.

    Re: “I think some people are challenging Santorum and Romney on this. ”

    I have not seen any legal filings, and that is hardly sufficient. The principle has to be every candidate, not just some. There are four Republican candidates currently.

    Re: “If Mark Rubio is the vice-presidential candidate then you will probably see a Republican getting a good dose of the same medicine. ”

    They are likely to challenge him on the crazy two-fer theory. Rubio was born in the USA, and I am sure that he can prove it.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Once again, I believe you are badly mistaken…

    David Farrar

    February 27th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    Not enough, Squeeky.
    It’s not enough to simply say: It’s up to you to prove a negative. By Georgia law, it is up to Candidate Obama to prove he is qualified.

    And, according to judge Malihi and SoS Kemp, he did. End of story… unless you are a pathetic birther who just moves the goalposts when things don’t go their way.

    If this Sheriff Joe Arpaio guy finds independent, corroborative evidence that Barack Obama was born when and where his birth certificates indicates, and this evidence can be authenticated;

    Arpaio doesn’t have any jurisdiction in the matter–besides (in my opinion) he’s just trying to appease his base and it’s probably going to backfire on him…

    I, too, will be happy to put this aspect of Obama’s true identity to rest.

    The matter has already been put to rest by everyone except stupid racist crackpots.

    But not before positive, independent corroborative evidence is found.

    Screw you. You don’t deserve to see anything more–you’ve already demonstrated your bad faith by moving the goalposts when things didn’t turn out as you hoped. President Obama is a natural born citizen–deal with it. We’re all sick of you addle-minded birthers desperately clutching at your delusions and your denial.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    February 27th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    Hi David!!!
    I agree that a person should have to prove they are qualified to run for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. Obama can prove it by offering up his birth certificate which shows his age and place of birth. Unless somebody has substantial evidence otherwise, I don’t think the legal burden thingy shifts over to him.

    A perfectly reasonable position.

    I have not been following the Georgia stuff much. Where are you on the appeal???

    I’m guessing he’s about to have his case dismissed for one of it’s many deficiencies…

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    Reply

    David Farrar

    February 27th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Correct.
    We were ready.

    No, you weren’t. That much is obvious to anyone who watched the pathetic performance that your incompetent former lawyer put on…

    We had the evidence to overcome his prima facie…

    No, you didn’t, you stupid liar. You let the facts of his birth be entered into evidence and the ALJ found the reasoning in Ankeny (which Jablonski brought to the ALJ’s attention) persuasive. Your “evidence” had no probative value whatsoever–let alone a fraction of the weight necessary to overcome the full faith and credit the Constitution guarantees President Obama’s birth certificate.

    but the Defendant skipped town, running away with his tail between his legs rather than face a challenge to his birth certificates.

    He was under no obligation to be there as there wasn’t an enforceable subpoena for him to appear nor was the presence of his counsel required (not to mention the fact that your ex-lawyer wouldn’t be able to figure out how to get a subpoena enforced even if it were repeatedly explained to her). The President of the United States should never be required to do anything to answer the frivolous legal theories and irrational arguments of a pissant like yourself.

    Unfortunately, no one realized it at the time just how bad our case and its evidence had been prejudiced by Obama actions.

    More stupidity. How, exactly, was your case prejudiced by anything other than your stupidity and your lawyer’s incompetence?

    Now we are going to take our case to a higher court; if we can.

    You can keep appealing up the chain, but your case will be repeatedly dismissed (for it’s many deficiencies) until the SCOTUS denies cert. If you persist in wasting people’s time and money with your worthless bullshit hopefully you will be heavily sanctioned for your actions. Last time Orly was in federal court in Georgia it cost her $20,000–can you afford that kind of fine? I’d really like for you to find that out the hard way.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    I think that you should be required to prove that you were born in the US (without being able to use a certified copy of your birth certificate) or face deportation–anyone who tries to desecrate the Constitution like you is obviously not a real American.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: