Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriff Arpaio's Investigator Mike Zullo Reveals New Devastating Evidence On Obama's Birth Records ^

Posted on 06/01/2013 10:34:19 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Cold Case Posse chief investigator Mike Zullo this morning addressed the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention (CSPOA) being held in St. Charles, Missouri. Much of the information that was revealed by Zullo we have already heard but he also unveiled new evidence that we have not been aware of. Commander Mike Zullo appears in the video at the 36:00 mark. The audio and video from the streaming isn't that good but pay attention very closely.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: alvinonaka; arpaio; birthcertificate; certifigate; congress; conspiracy; corruption; democrats; electionfraud; fraud; govtabuse; hawaii; media; mediabias; mikezullo; military; naturalborncitizen; naturlborncitizen; nbc; neilabercrombie; obama; sheriffarpaio; sourcetitlenoturl; teaparty; voterfraud; zullosusedcars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-250 next last
To: Nero Germanicus

Yes, and Obama’s OWN PUBLICIST said for 16 years on his official biographies that he was born in Kenya!

My point is that Obama has lied about his place of birth. Perhaps Obama lied because he found it exotic to claim to be born in Africa. The point is, he lied, and you can sling stones at birthers all you want, but the fact remains that Obama himself appears to be the original birther.

Obama created this controversy and he owns it.

181 posted on 06/02/2013 10:10:52 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
OK, then YOU iterate the facts and Constitutional passages backing up your contention that nobama is not the “legal” President.

Here ya go!

The US Constitution.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice..(But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States..)



.Article V.

The(1) Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

182 posted on 06/02/2013 10:11:45 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
Your turn.

YOU iterate the facts and Constitutional passages backing up your contention that “a person being the legal President once the Oath of Office has been given”.

Show me the passage and verbage.

And don't quote Rush Limbaugh.

If YOU can not do that then you will have shown us YOU have no ground to stand on.

183 posted on 06/02/2013 10:12:40 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

I am guessing here - but it was probably to make clear that there were strict instructions on how to code race, and to also explain what the little penciled numbers were about. There had been a ton of questions about the little numbers.

It also serves to demonstrate that back in the 60s there was no official category of race that allowed for the random use of African.

The local level race codes may or may not have paralleled exactly the federal codes, I don’t know this, but it’s doubtful that they would have had whole other categories of race.

184 posted on 06/02/2013 10:18:59 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

>>The gist was, telling me that the documents are forgery is hearsay unless you witnessed the forgery or are an expert.<<

Not if you were the purported author of the documents and you testified that you didn’t author them.

I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this. There are rules for admission of documents, and in general, government documents are admitted without “proving” them up. If there is a question about their authenticity, no it does not take an expert to prove that — all kinds of fact witnesses can testify to that.

For example, the following hypothetical individuals can say:

— “I have seen the original document and it is different...”
— “I am the custodian of those records and this is not part of that...”
— Another person can testify that the entire set of records are not authentic for whatever reason

I’m sure there are other scenarios.

185 posted on 06/02/2013 10:25:39 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“”The feds didn’t put pencil marks on the birth certificate. They worked from microfilm copies of the full birth certificates.

So the whole claim that the number “9” proved that the race on that birth certificate was “not stated” in the federal manual, which in turn supposedly “proved” it was a forgery, was bullsh*t in the first place.

So it’s bullsh*t from two or three different perspectives. Number 1, as far as anyone can tell, whatever manual was used by the feds, it doesn’t seem to have said what Zullo and Co. said it said. Second, the evidence that they presented to the public was most certainly not from any 1960 or 1961 manual. They faked that nicely enough. Third, even if the federal manual HAD said what they claimed, it would’ve been totally irrelevant, as the federal data entry was done by the feds from microfilm copies, so the codes weren’t written on the original certificates for any federal purposes.

BS on top of BS on top of BS.

It sounds like Ladysforest talked to Zullo, and he’s trying to blame it all on Corsi. Well, either Zullo was in on the scam, or he wasn’t. If he was, then he’s a scammer like Corsi””

Yes, I did speak with Mike. I spoke with him about the 1961 Vital Stats manual being different than the one presented in the “code-gate” presser.

Here is what I learned: Corsi set up the entire slide show presentation, and scripted it. Mike had already verified much of what was in the presser, but when it came to the codes he didn’t feel it was developed enough, nor was there “proof” enough that the information Corsi was asking him to present was period correct.

Mike spent a very long time on the phone with the director of the CDC, back and forth on the codes and the use in 1961,
and she finally indicated that the race code listing they were to use in the presser was probably accurate. Mike still wasn’t thrilled about presenting that part of the material, but reluctantly did so based on the none too enthusiastic assurances of the CDC director.

I spoke to Corsi before I spoke with Mike. Corsi basically said that he didn’t care WHAT people were saying about the codes shown being from the 1968 manual instead of a 1961 VSIM. He didn’t care and had no plans to take steps to correct the publicly released info. He tried to be all cryptic about knowing what he knows. Pissed me off. After that was when I got a hold of Mike.

I know Mike did speak to the CDC director - his description of her was spot on, and he gave me the name of the woman. It was the same woman that I had spoken with and who had emailed the ‘61 VSIM to me.

Corsi was working to sell a book. Mike is really involved in this. I don’t think Mike is the type to “blame” the issue of code-gate on Corsi, but I notice they no longer work together. I can say from the conversations that I’ve had with Corsi - he is just compiling and manipulating material that bloggers have researched, and doing so for his own outcome. He has no skin in the game. Mike does.

186 posted on 06/02/2013 10:52:47 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

The bumbling at the beginning made it appear to be a prank.

I’ll bet that you lost a ton of viewers that weren’t patient and just clicked on by.

187 posted on 06/02/2013 11:35:19 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Somehow, I am not able to assist you in gaining some understanding that nothing you think, or I think or the whole country may think is ever going to roll back the damages this President has done by declaring him ineligible to hold the office..... he was sworn in and holds the office.

I doubt if the Constitution has any direct specific clause regarding “legal President once sworn in” , that among a million other things is a matter of Law and interpretation. As you copied and pasted, the Constitution addresses eligibility, but never gives any recourse if eligibility is ignored and Electoral College vote is certified without objection, similarly with no definition of NBC. It most distinctly outlines the only course of action Congress may take in removing a President from office, impeachment. I think the Founders just assumed that no one would try to slip under the fence of eligibility and that potential Presidents would be honorable patriotic persons.

Under your thinking of he being not legal, he might not be subject even to impeachment. Wouldn’t that be a pickle if no one had any authority to remove him? Which of course is a ludicrous as your thinking on his legal Presidential status.

All this leads right back to my point that Congress and/or the States need to address this lack of clarity and lack of recourse on eligibility to prevent any similar occurrences in the future. Can we agree on that point?

188 posted on 06/02/2013 12:05:21 PM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

That’s rich. I give you the Constitution and a well sourced eloquent and articulate article that you couldn’t even bother to read.

You’ve stated that once the oath is given, a usurper magically becomes legal. PROVE IT.

I want passages from the Constitution. Not YOUR opinion.

189 posted on 06/02/2013 12:28:16 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: 1L
Not if you were the purported author of the documents and you testified that you didn’t author them.

I concede your points, there are varied ways hearsay is admissible, death bed confessions are generally considered, but some of the examples you have given are not hearsay because they are direct testimony and not a repeat of what somebody else had said, or a layman's opinion.

190 posted on 06/02/2013 1:13:22 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
You know this, but your goal is to waste everybody’s time so you refuse to engage with the facts.

Lol, all I do is repeat facts and enumerations from the U.S Constitution, and from things not enumerated in the U.S Constitution I draw the conclusion (as do others) that no judicial court up to and including the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the matter.

If this were not so then *every* Presidential election would be contested in court just as a matter of political strategy and machinations.

I do not believe in this grand conspiracy that you've concocted nor do I believe in this across the board incompetence that others may claim.

Furthermore, even if you are right (and I make no such concession) that this cannot be pursued judicially and can only be dealt by Article 2 Section 4 U.S Constitution.

191 posted on 06/02/2013 1:28:49 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 specifies how the Office of President is to be filled when a vacancy occurs for "Removal from office" (impeachment), "Death", "Resignation", or "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of office"

This was modified by U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 1 which specifies that the Vice President shall become President when a vacancy occurs for "Removal from office" (impeachment), "Death", "Resignation".

The "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of office" is addressed by §§ 3, 4 of the Amendment whereby the President or the "Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" may give a written declaration that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office"

Death is beyond human control, Resignation is the act of a President, Impeachment is an action performed by Congress (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4) and is inherently political. Impeachment is not criminal, nor does it affect criminal liability:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 (emphasis added)
Criminal conviction, regardless of Impeachment, would result in the "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of office".

Another inability would be ineligibility. Article II's non-discretionary imperative "shall" requires a natural born citizen.

In these cases the Vice President and such other body as Congress may by law provide may give a written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Amend XII consolidates partisan power over the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. There is a nasty interaction between Amend XII and Amend XXV, § 4 which gives a political faction a lock on power. Does any one believe that a partisan extremist such as Biden would perform in any way other than as a partisan?

That Inability should result in the Vice President immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as Acting President, can not be doubted. Perhaps this would entice dufus maximus Biden. He would be a lame duck, so don't fret too much. The foreign usurper must be prosecuted and punished according to law. Congress and the Vice President can then declare an Inability on the part of an imprisoned ineligible foreign criminal Soetoro aka Obama. The Office does not protect him from criminal liability for fraud or espionage.

192 posted on 06/02/2013 1:32:39 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

In one of the earliest eligibility challenges, a federal judge explained the Constituitional process. This eligibility challenge went to the Supreme Court of the United States but it was denied a hearing.
The original trial court judge said:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009

No court decision and no act of Congress has found Obama ineligible or ruled that he did not qualify for office. There have been 207 adjudicated eligibility challenges to Obama. None have found him ineligible.
In 2012 there were 50 legal challenges to his eligibility to be on the ballot in 22 states plus the District of Columbia. Every challenge was unsuccessful.
Several court rulings have explicitly stated that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012

Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012

Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010

The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”

Both Houses of Congress have sent Obama scores of bills to sign into law and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of Obama nominees.

Under the De Facto Offcer Doctrine, at the very least, Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

193 posted on 06/02/2013 1:41:20 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding


194 posted on 06/02/2013 3:42:39 PM PDT by AllAmericanGirl44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

Hope it isn’t 2 out of 3

195 posted on 06/02/2013 3:55:50 PM PDT by Tuketu (The Dim Platform is splinters bound by crazy glue. We need a solvent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

It seems implausible that there are not some news people who know a lot about what is not being told and don’t have the USA fortitude to let their conscience come forth; unless the threats to their well being override any patriotic bravado. There is more than just Chicago thuggery involved here. It will be interesting to see how the ‘Spirit of 76’ plays out on the 4th of July. I’m betting Obama comes out with a Muslim Taquiry(?) on that date.

196 posted on 06/02/2013 4:09:40 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear

IRS cannot be an Army. Of the people on board, some where between 2800 and 3200 are gun carrying Special Agents. The rest are mostly spineless. S/A s are trained in hand weapons and shot guns with a few other skills. Besides, Homeland Security stole all the ammo and there would be inter agency rivalry over possession thereof.

197 posted on 06/02/2013 4:09:42 PM PDT by Tuketu (The Dim Platform is splinters bound by crazy glue. We need a solvent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
"Obviously you do not understand the Constitution to not grasp that a President is the legal President once given the oath of office, regardless of how he was elected. When a Supreme Court judge swears him in he is the LEGAL PRESIDENT.

This is totally bull-shit.

The Twentieth Amendment, Section Three REQUIRES that the "President-elect" provide proof of his/her eligibility to Congress, or Congress is instructed to name a replacement. The eligibility requirements listed in Article Two clearly state that NO PERSON who does not meet the eligibility requirements can be President.

No Person doesn't allow for someone who "fails to qualify" under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, either because he/she wasn't eligible or because Congress didn't do their duty by enforcing it. If he/she is not eligible, he/she can NEVER serve as a legal President no matter how many corrupt judges swear him/her in.

What you are saying is that if someone gets away with murder, murder becomes legal. What you are refusing to say is that we have a usurpation of the office of President.

198 posted on 06/02/2013 4:14:05 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

JMO but “Anchor Babies” are NOT Citizens because they were born to parents subject to a foreign power, sic excluded by, I believe the 14th A. Also The Civil Rights Act of 1866 just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power.

199 posted on 06/02/2013 4:15:46 PM PDT by Tuketu (The Dim Platform is splinters bound by crazy glue. We need a solvent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Tuketu
That is what the Wong Kim Ark case was about, it was about the "jurisdiction clause" issue. This is what the Minor case said they had doubts. MANY believe that the WKA case was improperly undecided based upon geographical, and not political jurisdiction.
200 posted on 06/02/2013 6:53:42 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-250 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson