Lt. Mike Zullo: Source 'In Position To Know' Confirms Obama Was Never Born At Kapi'olani Hospital

Lt. Mike Zullo, lead investigator of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has revealed new information in his investigation of Obama's birth. He revealed that he has a source 'in a position to know' has confirmed that 'there was no birth' of Barack Obama at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961. That would call into question the comments made by former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle on May 2, 2010. In a nationally syndicated radio broadcast on the Rusty Humphries show, Lingle told the audience:

"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

Even though Lingle claimed she issued a news release stating Kapi’olani is Obama’s birthplace, the actual release said no such thing, making no reference to Kapi’olani nor any other specific location of Obama’s birth. On the other hand, Linda Lingles successor Neil Abercrombie was never able to verify Obama had a long form birth certificate. His investigation into the matter conflicts with Lingles attempt. Albercrombie only suggested his investigation had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,”

You have no way of knowing what expenses they’ve had either, so your snide comments about “birthers” - including the Cold Case Posse members - making money off of this are unfounded. Everybody I know who has worked on this research has LOST money - some of them LOTS of money - because of their research, but were willing to do so because they love this country. IOW, your insinuations are slandering patriots who put their money where their mouth is. The only people I know who would have any desire to do that are those who want to shoot the messengers, and that bears with it the stench of Obama.

As I testified in the Nebraska legislative committee hearing, the state eligibility bill is necessary so that we can get a conclusive, legally binding ruling on what “natural born citizen” means - and it is much, much more about currently rising leaders than it is about Obama. Those people have a right to know whether it is worth investing their time and money pursuing the presidency, or whether they should be fashioning their plans based on other areas of influence. Having answers is important to what they do RIGHT NOW, and SCOTUS is stealing from them by refusing to address this issue. And stealing from all of us because we’re dividing into the circular firing squad over hypothetical questions regarding this or that prospective candidate. We ALL have standing to get an answer on this. Anybody who votes has standing because it pertains to their personal decisions regarding political contributions and time. Every one of us has suffered particularized, justiciable harm by SCOTUS’ refusal to apply the Constitution to Barack Obama’s eligibility issue. Anybody who donated money to John McCain’s campaign or to the Republican party has suffered particularized harm by their refusal to address John McCain’s eligibility. They are screwing every last one of us, while the courts all pretend it is none of our business. THAT is what concerns me, regarding the questions about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I don’t know if he’s eligible or not, and that is making my way murky right here, right now. I have been harmed.

Well, of all the folks that I have run into on these Cold Case threads, you have always seemed to me to be the most sincere and also the most willing to exchange ideas in a rational manner. I mean that.

I really don't view "birther" as a pejorative. I think it describes people in this movement better than any other term that I've heard. If you know of a better one that you prefer, I'll try to abide by your wishes.

As you say, the point of all this is supposed to be determining the facts underlying the constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates no matter how someone might interpret the meaning of natural born citizen. And, yet, when I read these threads dealing with Obama's eligibility, I learn that after all of these years of intensive study, investigation and deliberation, it appears that there does not yet appear to be any final consensus about 1) where Obama was born, 2) the identity of his mother, or 3) the identity of his father. Am I wrong about that? Are we ready to come to any conclusions about any of those facts?

If not, how can we even begin to determine his NBC status? And, how can the public be confident that all of this investigation is leading to something worthwhile?

Does it really matter to you, since Rafael Edward Cruz admits that he was born in Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father?

Yes, because I also accept that because his mother was a U.S. citizen, he was born a citizen and is a natural born citizen. I recognize that others interpret the NBC clause in a different way and I have no desire to have you tell me again about Vattel or 18th century Swiss philosophy or Grotius or 17th century Dutch philosophy or books written in foreign languages. I have expressed my views of the NBC clause and its proper role in our presidential selection system right here. You're free to agree or disagree with me.

My concern extends beyond the narrow definition that most birthers seem to want to give to the NBC clause. There is no reason to believe that the birther movement will even accept as true anything that Ted Cruz says about the identity of his parents, his place of birth or anything other fact and there is similarly no reason to believe that the movement will accept as genuine any documentation that may exist.

My concern is that a Ted Cruz campaign can be damaged by claims that, in the end, lead to nothing but confusion.

A U.S. Passport will work for any and all identification purposes. Under federal law, passports are the preferred form of personal identification and evidence of citizenship for all federal purposes, including employment.
Birth certificates are a secondary form of evidence of identity and citizenship.
CFR › Title 42 › Chapter IV › Subchapter C › Part 435 › Subpart E › Section 435.407— Types of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship

For purposes of this section, the term “citizenship” includes status as a “national of the United States” as defined by section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) to include both citizens of the United States and non-citizen nationals of the United States.
(a) Primary evidence of citizenship and identity. The following evidence must be accepted as satisfactory documentary evidence of both identity and citizenship:
(1) A U.S. passport. The Department of State issues this. A U.S. passport does not have to be currently valid to be accepted as evidence of U.S. citizenship, as long as it was originally issued without limitation. Note: Spouses and children were sometimes included on one passport through 1980. U.S. passports issued after 1980 show only one person. Consequently, the citizenship and identity of the included person can be established when one of these passports is presented. Exception: Do not accept any passport as evidence of U.S. citizenship when it was issued with a limitation. However, such a passport may be used as proof of identity.
(2) A Certificate of Naturalization (DHS Forms N-550 or N-570.) Department of Homeland Security issues for naturalization.
(3) A Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (DHS Forms N-560 or N-561.) Department of Homeland Security issues certificates of citizenship to individuals who derive citizenship through a parent.
(4) A valid State-issued driver’s license, but only if the State issuing the license requires proof of U.S. citizenship before issuance of such license or obtains a social security number from the applicant and verifies before certification that such number is valid and assigned to the applicant who is a citizen. (This provision is not effective until such time as a State makes providing evidence of citizenship a condition of issuing a driver’s license and evidence that the license holder is a citizen is included on the license or in a system of records available to the Medicaid agency. The State must ensure that the process complies with this statutory provision in section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. CMS will monitor compliance of States implementing this provision.).
(b) Secondary evidence of citizenship. If primary evidence from the list in paragraph (a) of this section is unavailable, an applicant or recipient should provide satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship from the list specified in this section to establish citizenship and satisfactory documentary evidence from paragraph (e) of this section to establish identity, in accordance with the rules specified in this section.
(1) A U.S. public birth certificate showing birth in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico (if born on or after January 13, 1941), Guam (on or after April 10, 1899), the Virgin Islands of the U.S. (on or after January 17, 1917), American Samoa, Swain’s Island, or the Northern Mariana Islands (after November 4, 1986 (NMI local time)). A State, at its option, may use a cross match with a State vital statistics agency to document a birth record. The birth record document may be issued by the State, Commonwealth, Territory, or local jurisdiction. It must have been recorded before the person was 5 years of age. A delayed birth record document that is recorded at or after 5 years of age is considered fourth level evidence of citizenship. (Note: If the document shows the individual was born in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the U.S., or the Northern Mariana Islands before these areas became part of the U.S., the individual may be a collectively naturalized citizen. Collective naturalization occurred on certain dates listed for each of the territories.) The following will establish U.S. citizenship for collectively naturalized individuals:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/435.407

Did they call the original “real” child named BHO “David” at the time, or just later when they real subterfuge was needed?

And I do wonder if Zullo etc found any record for one “BHO” with Anna for a mother, would have been around January 1961, wouldn’t it?

I don’t see why any “black boots” would worry at all about birth records in Kenya.

Unless, as I think someone may have mentioned ...?.... even a birth to a Kenyan father that happened in the US might have been recorded in Kenya at some point; so maybe the birth of the child actually named BHO might have been recorded in Kenya? With a non-SAD mother and different birthdate? Is that a possibility? Otherwise I don’t see why anyone would bother about Kenyan birth records.

And as always, I’m always open for correction, since it’s truth I”m interested in, not being “right”.

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.