Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
The dispute over Barack Obama’s eligibility captured the imagination of the American public with stunning revelations, lawsuits, a best-selling book and, finally, the release of what was described as the “original” birth certificate from Hawaii in an attempt to silence the doubters.
Since that time, it’s been mostly Obama’s defenders gloating and deriding anyone who questions the official narrative as so-called “birthers.”
Lt. Mike Zullo told WND there is interest being expressed in Congress about the investigation’s conclusion that the White House document is fraudulent – an image created on a computer.
A contingent of citizens in Maricopa County had asked Arpaio to look into the issue because they were concerned an ineligible candidate would be on their 2012 presidential election ballot.
Zullo previously has contributed evidence to a court case – now pending before the state Supreme Court in Alabama – on the dispute. He has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained earlier. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”
Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
See some of Zullo’s evidence:
Most recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes had said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.
At the heart of the dispute is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” which at the time the nation was founded was considered to be the offspring of two citizens of the country.
But Zullo notes that the re-creation of an official document or the creation of an image represented as an official document is a crime itself. And the facts surrounding Obama’s case suggests there’s either no original or something in the original is being concealed.
Zullo told WND that there have been inquiries about the evidence from members of Congress, and he’s met with a few to answer their questions. His hundreds of pages of reports also are being forwarded to those who ask.
Carl Gallups, a former deputy sheriff in Florida and now a pastor and talk-show host, told the Tribune, “It was Barack Obama who said for 16 years, along with his publisher that he was ‘Kenyan born.’”
He was referring to the literary agency Dystel & Goderich, which published a brochure that said Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.”
When Obama ran for president, it was changed to say he was born in Hawaii.
He elicited audible gasps and shock when he showed evidence that Obama’s document is fraudulent.
He later told Gallups that Sheriff Arpaio wants the issue investigated in Congress.
The argument over Obama’s eligibility first was raised by Hillary Clinton’s campaign when she ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Zullo said Obama has raised further questions by refusing to release the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.
Monckton also noted the recalcitrant attitude on the part of authorities in Hawaii to the official law enforcement questions about the document’s validity.
And he cited the fact that in 1961, state law permitted Hawaiian parents of children born anywhere in the world to register them as Hawaiian-born, a legalized backdoor to U.S. citizenship.
“Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii’s governor, said he was present at Obama’s birth. Then he changed his story,” Monckton wrote.
“The posse has reported to the sheriff that two crimes have been committed: first, fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House had characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and secondly, fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery that the White House had represented as ‘proof positive’ of Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate.”
Zullo repeatedly has explained that if the records are there, and they show what the White House says they show, what could possibly be a reason for keeping them concealed?
And if they do not show what has been alleged publicly, he asks, what do they show?