Obama: The Fake president by Chris Knight

One of the remarkable news stories which occurred in mid-December 2016, which was ignored by both the establishment and alternative new sites, was Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s closing of his Obama birth certificate probe. The controversial Arizona sheriff of Maricopa county had been investigating the authenticity of the birth certificate that Obama had posted on the White House website, a response that Obama made at the time to probes by Donald Trump.

Investigator Mike Zullo showed a video at a press conference, the video focussing on nine areas on the birth certificate that showed it was a fake. Essentially, the date stamps on the lower-left portion of the birth certificate, according to forensic computer experts, had their angles identical to the birth certificate of Johanna Ah’Nee, whose birth certificate was allegedly used as a template for the forged Obama document.
The document purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate seems to be a scanned and printed computer document, according to these experts.
This is fascinating viewing.

The US Constitution requires that the president be a “natural-born citizen,” which has traditionally been taken to mean, a citizen at birth, born in the US to two citizens of the US, or the offspring of two citizens. It has been claimed by “birthers” that Obama was born in Kenya, and that only his mother was a US citizen. It has been pointed out, that the use of the term “African” on the Obama birth certificate would not mean “African-American,” because that expression was not used in the 1960s at the time of Obama’s birth.

The new evidence breathes life back into the birthers critique. If Obama really was born in the US, then there would be no reason to fake the birth certificate. The fake birth certificate is a “smoking gun” indicating a fake presidency. All that Obama has done as president is therefore illegal and he is guilty of fraud.

Sheriff Arpaio has turned his evidence over to congress. It remains to be seen what they will do with it, if anything. Will Trump be brave enough to revisit birthism? I doubt it.

On a related note about the establishment coming unstuck, Senator Rod Culleton has exposed how the High Court of Australia has been acting unlawfully since 1979 because of its prevention of ordinary Australians being able to be heard before them. As he said in parliament:
“Chapter III of the Constitution creates a Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court. Could the Attorney General please explain to the Senate how the High Court of Australia Act 1979, complies with the first paragraph of Chapter III Constitution and why when the Federal Supreme Court in the United States overturned sixty seven Statutes between 1952 and 1998 when the book, The Judicial Process (which I have) was last printed, the High Court in Australia hardly overturned any at all, because they have been allowed to make Rules of Court preventing ordinary Australians going to them for Judicial Review of alleged breaches of the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth.”
See: https://cairnsnews.org/2016/11/22/one-nation-senator-cullenton-confirmed-high-court-is-flawed/.

Attorney General George Brandis admitted that the existing rules did not conform to the Constitution.
This means that because the High Court of Australia has been refusing to file process without first approving it, among other things there has been no judicial review of commissioners appointed by the parliament. There would also have been challenges made to many purported laws, such as car registration by the states, which is a tax on goods. Again, it remains to be seen where this will travel, but I hope that it does.