Pravda Chided U.S. Media for Ignoring Sherrif Joe Arpaio Investigation

PravdaDianna Cotter wrote on Pravda:

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio’s credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.

On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a “Long Form Birth Certificate” from the State of Hawaii in hand.  From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,” … Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document …

Read More: Pravda

40 Comments on "Pravda Chided U.S. Media for Ignoring Sherrif Joe Arpaio Investigation"

  1. FusionSaint | Mar 12, 2012 at 12:12 am |

    Really… from Pravda? Because the Russians have NEVER been known for propaganda.

    • What is your point?  Are you arguing that any facts posted on Pravda can’t be real because it is Pravda?  If Pravda posted that Obama won the 2008 election, would that make it not true?  All Pravda did was post an editorial about the Arpaio press conference that wanted to know why such a big story wasn’t widely covered in the media.

  2. I figured this little Ronulan would burst into flames at the sight of Lenin’s glorious jawline.

    Meanwhile, on the Internet, in the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth.

    • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 1:17 am |

      Suddenly Spam (aka Tibus Heth) is right to point out the Jawline of Stalin framing the reporting of this issue unfairly, in an an attempt to discredit the seriousness of the matter I imagine.  I actually offered a picture of Obama for my original submission.  Here it is, Barry Soetoro in all of his mysterious glory! 

      • Actually I’ll rephrase. I’m interested in debating you Camron. I just want you to know that your delusion of being the more intelligent one in this exchange is hilarious. I look forward to your clicks and whistles.

        P.S. Draw me a picture. My favorite color is blue!

  3. Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 1:29 am |

    I’m curious how many folks who post in the comments, 

    A. Read the article in it’s entirety.

    B. Understand that the definition of Natural Born Citizen requires that both parents were citizens of the United States of America and that their child be born within it’s borders.  This is evidenced in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.  The only time apparently that “Natural Born CItizen” is actually defined in the history of the Supreme Court.

    C. Realize that Barry has spent almost 1 million dollars in 12 states hiding his identity.

    D. That both his Social Security # and his Selective Service ID have also been found to be forged documents.

    That is just for starters.
    Please if you can avoid unnecessary degrading commentary.  We already ruled by divide and conquer, no need to play into pharaoh’s hands and spark any flame wars.  What do you think of the evidence and implications?  

    • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 1:30 am |

      We are already ruled by divide and conquer, I meant to say.  I blame teh chemtrails and fluoride.  Ha Ha Ha HA HA.  Fart.

    • I agree.  There is much anger misdirected toward you from regular posters on this site because of your support for Ron Paul. Why must they fixate on it and disregard your point of view? Please, everyone just stop attacking each other all the goddamn time.  It’s not achieving anything.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 4:42 am |

        Thank you Trish. 

      • sonicbphuct | Mar 16, 2012 at 8:58 am |

         That it is not achieving anything is a false statement – attacking each other satisfies my ego now that I can’t pee on kids in wheelchairs anymore, which, by the way, I am appealing.

        Camron is appealing as a victim for attack because of his uncanny intellect that so resembles the helmet wearing short bus rider, and his completely unexpected eloquence that makes it feel even better than peeing on wheelchair bound children.

        So, yes, it does achieve something … for me. Stop being so selfish!

    • emperorreagan | Mar 12, 2012 at 9:22 am |

      Here’s why this isn’t news:
      Joe Arpaio is a grand-standing fool who has been investigated repeatedly for mis-use of funds, unconstitutional prison conditions, and civil rights violations among others.  He’s been under grand jury investigation since 2009 by the federal government.  The source is not reliable.

      The research was conducted by his “cold case posse,” which is an all-volunteer group of people interested in proving that Obama isn’t a citizen.  They’ve got an agenda that runs counter to the supposedly prevalent “innocent until proven guilty” tact that law enforcement agencies are supposed to take.

      The supreme court case you mention specifically avoids defining “natural-born citizen.”  The definition of natural born citizen does not require both parents to be citizens.  The preponderance of case law today going all the way back to the English common law which the US used as a basis for its legal system supports birth-right citizenship.  Federal Statute defines birth-right citizenship.  The congressional research office reports that case law upholds birth-right citizenship.  

      • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

        Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which 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,”.
        Seems logical to me that whatever the law was, “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,”should determine eligibility.  
        “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
        This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is.  It has been cited in dozens of cases since.
        This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America’s armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the “Law of Nations”, Emerich De Vattel’s encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:”The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”Given that Barack Obama’s father was a British citizen, and given the definition of a Natural Born Citizen states that, “the natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.   Than it is fairly obvious by that technical definition, as cited in the Supreme court ruling,  that Barack is not legally eligible to be the POTUS.This was the common law understanding, “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” as cited by Minor Vs. Happersett 88 US 162, 168. Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which 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,”.The founding fathers codified their desire that only Natural Born Citizens be eligible to the office of President.  This is very clearly defined above.  Barack does not qualify as only one of his parents was an American citizen.  This of course is more than enough reason to reconsider the usurper in office’s legitimacy, but if you like we can also talk about the fraudulent nature of the documents point by point as further corroboration of conspiracy.

        • Mysophobe | Mar 12, 2012 at 8:44 pm |

          This particular constitutional argument was found to be groundless by the AZ superior court last Wednesday. Minor v. Happersett is not considered to establish the definition of natural born citizen by any serious source. I’d love to see this particular eligibility argument go before the SCOTUS but it sure seems to lack the seriousness required. That said, I’d like to hear the other stuff you’re throwing at the wall in the hopes that it will stick. Tell me about these forged documents that falsely establish his American citizenship, when he was already an American citizen by birth. Why forge a social security card when he could easily get a real one, like my mom helped me do when I was 10 years old? Why forge a selective service card when a real one could have been applied for at the age of eighteen due to him already having a valid SS number? Too funny.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 8:58 pm |

            Send me the source on your AZ ruling.  Also define what makes something a “serious source” in your mind?

            “Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which 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,”.

            Does this article still stand or has it been revoked by one states court choosing to ignore it?  On what grounds did they decide to rule this “groundless”?  

          • Mysophobe | Mar 12, 2012 at 10:05 pm |


            The ruling doesn’t find Article Two to be groundless, that would be ridiculous. The ruling finds your Minor v. Happersett argument to be groundless. Serious sources are people other than Jerome Corsi. Did you know that Arpaio’s “truth posse” never once contacted the hospital where Obama was born in the course of their investigation? Strange.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 6:54 am |

            So why is Jerome Corsi not allowed “serious” consideration in your mind?  As for the nature of those performing the investigation, provide your sources please.

          • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

            Seriously? Look at Corsi’s body of work. He’s clearly a partisan hack with an agenda he’s willing to advance by any means necessary. Dude thinks oil comes from inorganic sources. C’mon Camron. You’re either a deliberate propagandist or an abject fool. Not sure which is worse.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 6:54 pm |

            I’m sorry Myso.  I’ve extended to you respect and credit you consistently fail to recognize or reciprocate.  If you are presuming I am a fool because you need to attack the man and ignore the message you only indict yourself as a propagandist and abject fool.

            Perhaps you should refrain from projecting your own insecurities so blatantly and stick to the facts of the discussion?  

            Usually you tend towards this tactic when you begin losing on on logical grounds point by point.

          • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm |

            Just calling it like I see it. Stop acting like a child and lay your cards on the table, if you dare. Show me this irrefutable evidence which you happen to find so convincing. Fully reveal to me the depths of your pathetic gullibility.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm |

            Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at.  I presented evidence in the form of this article.  You have ignored most of it and brought up what you deem “irrefutable evidence” without supplying sources.

            I’m tempted to say your not willing to play fair and this is why you resort to name calling. 

            Either way it only makes my case that much more convincing as I dont’ need to engage in these tactics and prefer to stick to the facts.  

            Take care.

          • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm |

            If you think this article is evidence of anything then you’re more far gone than I thought. The topic is “Why is nobody in America taking Camron/Arpaio/Corsi seriously? The answer is self evident to everyone but you. Put up or shut up Camron, if you dare. You and your posse are accusing a sitting President of a crime. The burden of proof is on you. Time to step up, player.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 7:03 am |

            Please provide sources for your statement “This particular constitutional argument was found to be groundless by the AZ superior court”.  

            I don’t have to answer speculative questions.  I can provide you with links to evidence supporting that Obama’s SS# as well as his Selective Service information have shown to be fraudulent in nature.

    (you have to explain why a PhD from Harvard is not a serious source)

          • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 9:42 am |

            Please tell me you’re not buying the easily disproven lie that his SS# belongs to some Frenchman. It’s true that the 042 prefix was usually assigned by zip code to residences of Connecticut, but that’s apparently not a hard and fast rule. Also Connecticut’s zip is 06xxx and Hawaii’s is 96xxx, so a data entry error could easily explain the discrepancy. Really it doesn’t matter though. That is Obama’s unique SS#, assigned to him by the SSA. It doesn’t belong to anyone else. You couldn’t prove otherwise with an army of PhD’s at your disposal.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm |

            So again, you are presuming that you can dismiss strong evidence with a wave of your rhetorical wand.  I said nothing of a “Frenchman”.  So you do admit that the SS# associated with Obama belongs to someone from Connecticut.   “Really it doesn’t matter though.”  I beg to differ, it all matters and in context a pattern of obfuscation and forgery emerges obviously.

            You never provided satisfactory reasons why I should dismiss the sworn testimony of attorneys and law enfocement agents as well as a PhD from Harvard.  

            They are well aware that they could suffer under felony perjury charges to dare bring forward such accusations. 

             Obviously they would not make such allegations without the willingness to stand in court and testify as to their methods of discovery and investigation.  

            Obama is of course completely unwilling to stand before his peers and be judged as any other American citizen would be required to do.

            For the record.  Bush/Obama/Clinton they are interchangeable puppets.  Anyone who doesn’t see this is truly politically naive.  

            Your accusation that,
            “It’s just fodder for the gullible fools who see no other way to beat Obama.” is in fact your own contrived projection of their motives and is not sourced by anything other than your own imagination.  This also requires you to ignore voluminous evidence and attack personally the motives or capabilities of those brining forward these accusations and evidence.

            If you could just deal with the evidence I would really appreciate it 🙂

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 6:34 pm |

            What superior court ruling are you referencing?  Source?  I prefer not to open random PDF’s as links.  Show me where this event is referenced in any media.  (still waiting)

            You have a habit of throwing around thinly veiled, insults while presuming that I should take your opinion of “material” (still waiting) as prima facie evidence.

            Instead of using a tired and insulting rhetorical devices, just humble yourself and present logically why you think your points or valid. 

            The Social Security # actually does not link to Obama.  This is proven in a sworn affidavit as well as by the Cold Case Posse which was comprised of Attorneys and former Law Enforcement officials which you neglected to account for in your wand waving dismissal above. 


            How do you explain a young Barack Obama living in Hawaii being issued a Connecticut SS#?  Why can he not pass a simple E-verify system check of either his SS# or his Selective Service ID?

            Why spend a million dollars + sealing your records in 12 states if you have nothing to hide?

            “The only people who don’t want to expose the truth, are people with something to hide” – Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro)

        • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 12:07 am |

          From the Minor v. Happersett opinion:
          Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

          It doesn’t specifically define the criteria that exclude one from being a natural born citizen, other than that an alien and their children can be naturalized.  The other part your sources may be referring to is where the opinion states that Minor meets the most straightforward criteria to be a natural born citizen, but it never states that those are the only criteria.  The most pertinent opinion that speaks directly to this particular birther angle is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, you should check it out.  Think this through.  This Arpaio/Corsi investigation is kid’s stuff, dog and pony show.  Not serious and not meant to be.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 13, 2012 at 6:51 am |

            I will look up US vs. Wong Kim, please provide a link to the Minor v. Happersett you are citing.

            I did notice that it says that the child’s parent must have been admitted as a citizen of the U.S, correct me if I am wrong but Obama’s father was never a U.S citizen and so even in this instance he would not be considered eligible by the earlier statements regarding NBC requirements.  

          • Mysophobe | Mar 13, 2012 at 10:05 am |

            That’s from the actual text of the Minor v. Happersett opinion, word for word. Please tell me you actually read it for yourself before haphazardly running around calling the President a usurper. You completely missed the point. This case did NOT define the criteria for natural born citizen, it merely referenced other material. This case definitely did NOT define the criteria that exclude one from being a natural born citizen, aside from in the section where alien is used. Get it? It says what it is, but not what it isn’t. On the other hand, by the US v. Wong Kim Ark definition of natural born citizen, Obama is one no matter where he was born due to his mother’s citizenship. Why are your people looking at one SC decision when another is far more pertinent? Why did they not investigate the “scene of the crime” they were investigating, the hospital? Why did they not interview anyone who had knowledge of the “crime”? It’s NOT serious. It’s not meant to ever go anywhere. It’s just fodder for the gullible fools who see no other way to beat Obama.

    • Mysophobe | Mar 12, 2012 at 10:09 am |

      A. Done
      B. That decision didn’t define natural born citizen at all. Minor was born of two citizens on US soil, so they ignored that portion and moved on to upholding Missouri’s ban on women voting on unrelated grounds. Please cite another decision. Don’t forget to cite later contradictory decisions. No cherry picking.
      C. Prove it.
      D. Prove it conclusively.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

        Please read my reply above as it pertains to your response as well.
        Thank you.

    • mannyfurious | Mar 12, 2012 at 11:40 am |

      1 million dollars spent, and not a dollar of that was spent on forging a birth certificate that can’t past the eye of your average internet conspiracy theorist?

      Get the fuck out of here. You expect these people to be smart enough to pull conspiracy after conspiracy out of their asses, but not smart enough–with their endless government resources at their disposal– to create a birth certificate that is identical to any other birth certificate made a few decades ago. You’re a fucking nut…..

      • sonicbphuct | Mar 16, 2012 at 8:53 am |

         isn’t it weird that the CIA can create a citizen of any, really, *any* nation in the world, complete with all supporting documentation, records, etc. but they can’t seem to get it right for Barack? Even when he Commands them? Feeble androids.

        Seriously though, Camron, can’t the CIA just do this for him already? And, does it really make a difference if he *is not*, in fact, a citizen – after all, he can (as any future president can, natural born or not) kill ANYONE including citizens.

        Isn’t it a moot point already?

        • Camron Wiltshire | Mar 16, 2012 at 10:08 pm |

          You are mixing too many arguments and assumptions here in my opinion.

          I guess the question is, does the Constitution or the rule of law matter to you?

          • sonicbphuct | Mar 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

             i assume you don’t mean those (constitution or the rule of law) as an either – or proposition. However, more to the point, what difference does it make if a president is “illegal” when every single thing he does is “illegal”. It’s a bit like setting your sights on Ted Bundy because he ran a stop sign rather than his more egregious activities, is it not?

            The guy is obviously a citizen and splitting hairs over “natural” or not overlooks the elephant in the room: The rape of the Bill of Rights, extra-judicial murder, endless imperial wars, the wholesale give-away of the economy … by the time we get to “fake birth certificate”, we’ve drowned in crimes.

            Perpetuating this distraction perpetuates his ability to be truly evil.

          • Do laws matter or don’t they?  Should they be fair and equal?  Should they be explicit and be understood accordingly?

            He is not “obviously” a citizen.  That is the point of the article and all of the controversy.  The controversy exists for a reason.

            I’m not sure what point you think you are making other than you believe it is ludicrous to attempt to uphold this particular law.  
            You show me anyone else putting Obama in the spotlight for any of those war crimes and I will support them too.  No need for your False Dilemas.

          • sonicbphuct | Mar 19, 2012 at 4:13 am |

            obviously laws do not matter. Should they … anything? No. They are simply another mechanism for abstracting absolution.

            obviously, he is a citizen – with an American parent, born in America … the rest is semantics.

            If you really wanted to invalidate his presidency, then argue that an election after a coup is invalid … you’ve a better ‘point of law’ there than a phony birth certificate. It’s no false dilemma – it’s a waste of time.

  4. You know, i didn’t care much about Obama’s birthplace or origins too much until i actually downloaded the birth certificate from the white house website. I was reeeeeally curious why a flat image scan had layers. even in image optimization , you get random layers, not  solid blocks. I was like man.. this is a bag photoshop job. If its not faked, they sure went thru a lot of trouble to separate each bit of information and give it a different texture . If law enforcement is doin an investigation ::shrugs:: let em do it. Bush, Obama, whatever, they’re all war criminals anyway…

    • eyeoftheaxis | Mar 12, 2012 at 11:39 am |

      The original 1961 doc was scanned and printed in 2011 on a light
      blue pattern background of the kind used to prevent check and or prescription
      forgery, tampering, photocopying. Guessing the original paper has water marks
      too if held up to the light. I can see not putting it out on a plain white 8.5 x
      11 making it even easier for clowns like me to come along and for the lulz,
      change it to say he was born on mars. My guess is it was not team Obummer that
      printed it out on that paper but the office of the Dr. or the hospital. Any 12
      year old Photoshop fan could do a better shop than the official PDF so why would
      they put out such a horrible shop? My guess, it’s not shopped. FYI, I’m not an
      Obummer fan, and never had much hope for the lesser of two evils. Shits a
      distraction from the real issues like how we are going to hell in a hand basket.
      … I need to get back to forging my next oxy skrip. — later cousin .

  5. I might take all this Birther bullshit more seriously if I didn’t remember how their arguments against Obama’s citizenship have consistently shifted over the past four years as each previous argument has been weakened, proving that they’re arguing to an already determined conclusion.  I do take it seriously to the degree that there are much more valid reason to impeach Obama that all this Birther bullshit takes energy from and it makes legitimate criticism of him smell foolish.

Comments are closed.