WND EXCLUSIVE
1 IN 3 AMERICANS: OBAMA PROBABLY BORN IN KENYA
New poll shows doubts still strong about eligibility issue, even among Democrats
Bob Unruh
It’s been eight years since Barack Obama was elected president amid doubts about his eligibility to hold the office, when dozens of lawsuits challenged him, and even some members of Congress expressed concern.
It’s been four years since he was re-elected, just as most of those lawsuits were being dismissed by federal judges who mostly claimed the law gave them no authority to even hear the evidence.
But the latest Economist/YouGov poll indicates that fully one-third of Americans simply don’t believe the story promoted by the Obama administration, that he was born in Hawaii.
Specifically, 12 percent of all respondents say the statement “President Obama was born in Kenya” is definitely true, and another 24 percent say it is “probably true.”
That includes 20 percent of Democrats who place themselves in those two categories, 39 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.
The poll tab sheet shows that group includes 16 percent of those who call themselves liberal, 35 percent of those who call themselves moderate and 53 percent of those who self-identify as conservative.
For men, the figure is 33 percent and for women it’s 38 percent. For under 30s, it’s 38 percent, for those 30-44 it’s 37 percent, for those 45-64 it’s 36 percent and for those 65 and over it’s 32 percent.
For whites, it’s 37 percent; for blacks, 28 percent; for Hispanics, 38 percent; and for “other,” it’s 30 percent. For families with under $50,000 incomes, it’s 38 percent; for those between $50,000 and $100,000, it’s 30 percent; and for those over $100,000, it’s 30 percent.
The poll focused on “conspiracy theories.”
“One of the most notorious Internet rumors of the 2016 presidential campaign, that there was a pedophile ring in the Clinton campaign, with code words embedded in the hacked emails of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, is seen as ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ true by more than a third of American adults.”
On the question of “old conspiracy theories,” the poll’s charts reveal the split was 36 percent to 64 percent who believe it’s statement definitely or probably true that Obama was born in Kenya.
The 36 percent of the poll of 1,376 adults, taken Dec. 17-20, in fact, may have facts on their side.
Earlier this month, the only law enforcement investigation into the validity of Obama’s birth certificate, stating his Hawaiian birth, found the document to be a fraud.
WND reported when the lead investigator for Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s team that reviewed the authenticity of the document the White House posted as “proof positive” of Obama’s Hawaiian birth explained state officials never confirmed the document’s validity.
The information on the birth certificate was confirmed but not the document itself, said Mike Zullo, and that raises serious questions.
The conclusion is that it is not a copy of any original Hawaiian document, and while the investigation did not address whether Obama is a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution requires for presidents, or the political implications of such a forgery, they noted it certainly raises many questions going forward.
Their evidence, they say, showed how the digital images on the document released by Obama in a White House news conference in 2011 were copied from another document.
Zullo then explained Hawaiian officials engaged in a carefully parsed campaign to affirm the information but never the long-form birth certificate itself.
His comments came in an interview on the Hagmann Report, where he was joined by preacher, pastor, author, radio host and former law enforcement officer Carl Gallups of the PPSIMMONS blog, who was made a special deputy by the sheriff for the purposes of information exchange and accountability.
Zullo explained the investigation found that some of the images on the Obama document apparently were copied from an original birth certificate from the same time period that belongs to a woman named Johanna Ah’nee.
In the interview, Zullo explained state officials at one point, in a case in Mississippi over Obama’s document and eligibility to be president, stated, “The information contained in this certification of live birth, published at WhiteHouse.gov … and reviewed by me on this date … a copy of which was attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original certification of live birth for Barack Hussein Obama on file with the state of Hawaii Department of Health.”
Zullo noted the White House said it sent Obama’s personal lawyer to Hawaii to pick up the document to provide to the voting public.
The governor in Hawaii at the time said Obama’s records were handled no differently from others.
But Zullo pointed out Obama’s personal lawyer made it a private matter, and White House Counsel Bob Bauer at the time said a legal analysis was required to determine whether they could get the long-form document.
“That’s not true,” Zullo insisted. “All you had to do was contact the director of health and say, ‘I’m the president of the United States and I need a copy.'”
The state law allowed the director to make that decision.
“They make long forms all the time, they’re just not telling you,” he explained.
But the story still doesn’t add up. He said, in 2009, one official said she’d seen the Obama document in a bound book. But then in 2010, it couldn’t be found by the governor.
Then, Zullo said, they came up with a story about finding it an archive, describing it as half written, half typed.
“What that tells you is there was no birth certificate in the bound volume in 2009, and she changes in two different statements from ‘I saw the original certificate’ to ‘I saw the original records. Plural.'”
“The analysis they had to do was to manipulate Hawaii statutes to get him a birth certificate. I don’t believe that the document his counsel picked up looked anything like what’s displayed at WhiteHouse.gov,” he said.
He said the logical explanation is that Hawaiian officials amended Obama’s birth certificate, which is legal, but then had to hide it since state law requires an “amended” reference. After that document was buried, the “information” could be verified and a computer file could be released of the later document, which has become known now as the original.
“What Hawaii was doing is answering the question for verification in lieu of certification, saying we are verifying the information contained in the document. We’re not verifying that that’s the document we released.”
“Legally honest,” Zullo said. “Intentionally misleading.”
The interview:And a summary of the investigation results by Gallups:
WND reported after the announcement that investigators are working to transfer the evidence to members of Congress.
The atmosphere in Washington will be different under a President Donald Trump, who will be inaugurated Jan. 20, since he publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate in 2011. During this election season, he stated he now believes Obama was born in Hawaii.
At his news conference, Arpaio presented evidence that the image of the birth document posted by the White House was fraudulent.
One thing seems certain: The evidence will have to go elsewhere for action to be taken, since Arpaio, known as “America’s toughest sheriff” and innovator of such jail amenities as pink underwear and surplus Army tents in the desert heat for jail inmates, is leaving office Jan. 1 after more than two decades serving Phoenix-area residents, who had asked him for the birth certificate investigation.
His replacement already has stated, CBS News reported, that he “will cut off Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s birth certificate.”
Zullo told WND the evidence could be used in support of a Presidential Transparency Act, which would give secretaries of state across the nation the authority to investigate candidates with suspect qualifications.
“This is what we have learned. Every secretary of state is powerless to investigate a candidate,” he told WND. “They have to take everything on face value.”
That means a candidate whose qualifications are questioned cannot be reviewed by state secretaries of state, who run the elections
Zullo told WND that could be a very easy fix for the controversy that developed around Obama’s document.
The issue is that the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural-born citizen” but does not define the term. Scholarly works cited by the Founders defined it as a citizen at birth, born in the country to two citizens of the country, or merely the offspring of two citizens of the country.
The birth certificate Obama displayed on the White House website as “proof positive” of his eligibility states he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father.
Some immediately pointed out alleged anomalies, questioning its validity, while others argued it also could prove his ineligibility because his father was not a citizen. Some of the lawsuits over the issue argued Obama was a dual citizen at birth through his father, contending the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.
Eventually, just as the No. 1 bestseller “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” was combining with a challenge at that time from Trump to force Obama’s hand, Obama held a White House news conference to release a copy of his birth certificate.
Now the only official law enforcement investigation ever done into the Obama birth certificate has concluded it is “not authentic.”
See a video prepared by the investigators and released at a news conference on Thursday:
was credited by sheriff’s officials with contributing to the investigation.
Corsi said Zullo and Arpaio “have done the United States a heroic service demonstrating by forensic analysis that the long form birth certificate produced in a White House news conference on April 27, 2011, as Barack Obama’s authentic birth certificate is a forgery.”
“The nine points of forgery between the Johanna Ah’nee birth certificate and Obama’s [long-form birth certificate] prove convincingly that the Ah’nee birth certificate was the source document from which the Obama LFBC was created.”
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Jerome Corsi
Corsi said Arpaio’s five-year effort “vindicates the extensive research WND conducted over years to bring this issue to the attention of the American public.”
The sheriff’s video said there were nine images on the Obama birth certificate that appear to be identical to, and copied from, another birth certificate issued in Hawaii just days after his birth, that of Johanna Ah’nee.
The copied items include the word “Honolulu,” “Oahu” twice, three different Xs and two time stamps. The identical nature of the Xs raised serious questions since they would have been applied to original documents by moving a typewriter carriage and roller at the time.
Explained the investigator on the video:
Doesn’t it just make sense that Alvin Onaka’s stamp and the April 25th date stamp were lifted from someplace also? Ask yourself this question. If anyone presented you with a document in your life that was this suspect would you readily accept it or would you begin an intense vetting, be it a house title, a car title, a piece of currency, anything? Would you accept something this suspect if presented to you in your life? If you answered no, then ask yourself a second question, don’t the American people have a right to vet the documents that they are presented by public officials.
One of the experts who assisted in the investigation was Reed Hayes, a court-qualified handwriting and document examiner, who runs a business in Hawaii. He is on the board of the Scientific Association of Forensic Examiners and has been in business nearly 40 years.
Forlabs, an Italian company that specializes in extracting information from multimedia files, also produced the results.
“We had two experts from two countries in separate disciplines of forensics that came to one conclusion: Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate it not authentic,” the report said.
During the news conference, Zullo quoted from the investigation by Hayes: “The (nail in the coffin) that proves that Certificate of Live Birth is inauthentic is the exact lineup of numerous entries on both [certificates].”
He said the experts likened the evidence to being as reliable as a fingerprint.
Arpaio said he, like Zullo, at the outset was ready to verify the document as valid and drop the issue.
“Five years ago I said one thing, show us the microfiche, the birth certificate and we’ll all go home,” he said.
But he couldn’t because of the evidence.
He confirmed plans to turn the results over to the federal government and Congress.
“Maybe some members of Congress will hold some hearings, open to the public regarding this matter. … If they can hold hearings … on underinflated footballs, why can’t you hold one on this?” he said. “Look at our evidence, just look at it.”
He said at the news conference that he was withholding some “sensitive” information so that the next step could be taken.
But he called it a “fake, fake birth certificate.”
The evidence
The sheriff’s office concluded: “It is the opinion of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that the birth certificate on your right, belonging to Johanna Ah’nee, was in fact used as a source document in the digital creation of Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate.”
“What are the odds that two stamps in two separate boxes stamped by hand … days apart would have the exact same angle?” the investigators ask.
“It should be pointed out these stamps were looked at by two separate document examiners in two forensic disciplines on two continents,” the video explains.
WND reported when the news conference was announced how the issue had badgered Obama from before his first inauguration until well into his second term. Now, apparently, it’s raining on his legacy.
WND reported Obama explained he decided to release it because the Internet “chatter” was becoming a “distraction.”
At the time, the Washington Times described Obama as “visibly frustrated” and noted that a recent CBS News-New York Times poll showed 45 percent of registered Republican voters believe Obama was not born in the U.S.
President Obama
But while the issue became known in liberal and left-leaning circles as the biggest “conspiracy” theory of all time, some document experts questioned the validity of the birth certificate Obama released. The question was posed, unsuccessfully, to the U.S. Supreme Court many times.
In 2012, Arpaio held a news conference that concluded there was probable cause to believe the document Obama released as an official government document is a computer-generated forgery.
Arapaio, known for his strict enforcement of immigration laws, commissioned the investigative team after local citizens presented him with a petition expressing concern that Obama might not be eligible for Arizona’s presidential ballot.
The sheriff even deputized, for information purposes, preacher, pastor, author, radio host and former law enforcement officer Carl Gallups of the PPSIMMONS blog in his pursuit of the truth.
“This investigation and its forensic conclusions in my opinion will vindicate a lot of people. That vindication includes the sheriff and his investigator of course but also president-elect Donald Trump. It also vindicates millions of Americans who dared to ask questions about this nefarious birth certificate and have been lampooned and marginalized by certain members of the press and other operatives for doing so. The investigation also vindicates those in the press who did have the guts to speak to this and to spend time investigating it, like WND,” Gallups said.
“I have a feeling that this matter is not over. Not by a long shot. I cannot imagine that authorized federal authorities will now not step in and investigate this matter to its conclusion.”
Investigators at that time they believed forgers committed two crimes. First, they said it appeared the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
The investigators also said they had developed credible evidence that Obama’s Selective Service card was a forgery, based on an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Also, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., were missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.
Arpaio said then a “continuing investigation” was needed, and his investigators set to work.
Zullo has noted that Hayes, a document examiner who has served as expert witness for Seattle law firm Perkins Coie – the firm that flew an attorney to Honolulu to personally deliver two paper copies of the birth certificate to the White House – has concluded in a signed affidavit that the document posted on the White House website is “entirely fabricated.”
Also, at the time Obama was born, only a short time after Hawaii was admitted as a state, there were a number of ways a Hawaiian birth certificate could have been obtained without the person having been born in Hawaii.
Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are 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.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/1-in-3-americans-obama-probably-born-in-kenya/#9eAuaxvo1xUEOS3g.99
No comments:
Post a Comment