ARE FORGERIES CONCEALING A “HIDDEN” AGENDA?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 27, 2016) — Four years ago, Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo disseminated the results of a criminal investigation of the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 bearing the name “Barack Hussein Obama II.”
The investigators determined that the image could not have originated with a real, paper document and that it was posted “with the intent to deceive,” the details of which were released in two press conferences.
At the first presser on March 1, 2012, Zullo and Arpaio stated that there was “probable cause” to believe that the birth certificate image is fraudulent. At the second, on July 17 of that year, they declared that the probable cause standard had been overcome based on new information gleaned from the ongoing investigation.
Also included in the criminal probe was an analysis of Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form, which Zullo told The Post & Email “was found not to be a ‘computer-generated forgery’ like the Birth Certificate pdf file, but believed to be an actual hard-copy, paper-created document created at a much later date in time.” Those conclusions were based, in part, on the two-digit year stamp, which differed from the four-digit year stamps of 17 other Selective Service registration forms obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Linda Bentley of The Sonoran News.
As quoted by Bentley on April 4, 2012, Zullo said of the Selective Service registration process, “You were required by law to present yourself at the post office, fill out the card and show ID. If Obama were here getting college aide [sic] as foreign student, he wouldn’t have been required to register … that became a problem later.”
It has been hypothesized that Obama attended college as a foreign student, either accurately or falsely, in order to obtain scholarship money designated for non-U.S. citizens attending U.S. universities.
Two years earlier, prior to the launch of the investigation into either of Obama’s documents, Bentley reported:
On Sept. 7, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” and stated, “I had to sign up for Selective Service (SS) when I graduated from high school … And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”…
Following a description of a chain of events revealing discrepancies in documentation released to two different FOIA requesters for Obama’s Selective Service form, Bentley then said:
It became obvious records were created after the fact for Obama and were later changed. However, the computer access date is frozen on Sept. 9, 2008; two days after Obama appeared on Stephanopoulos’ show saying he registered with SS in 1979 when the requirement was nonexistent.
In June 2010, The Post & Email received the same documentation from the Selective Service System as had Kenneth Allen, the second FOIA requester cited in Bentley’s report.
Current federal law, 5 U.S. Code § 3328, passed on November 8, 1985, requires all males in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 25 born after December 31, 1959 to register with the Selective Service System (SSS).
Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.
If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.
The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.
The current law was preceded by the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 453, which required that “male citizens of the United States and other male persons residing in the United States who are between the ages of 18 and 26, except those exempted by Sections 3 and 6(a) of the Military Selective Service Act, must present themselves for registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner as determined by the President…”
Obama claims a birth date of August 4, 1961 and residence in the United States from birth through 1966, with four years then spent in Indonesia through 1971. At that time, he reportedly returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.
He reportedly graduated from the private Punahou School in 1979.
His life story states that he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981; Columbia University from 1981 to 1983; worked as a community organizer in Chicago between 1985 and 1988; and attended Harvard Law School from the fall of 1988, graduating in the spring of 1991.
He reportedly returned to Chicago in 1993, where he worked for the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard until 2004.
From 1996 to January 2005, Obama represented District 13 in the Illinois state senate. In November 2004, he ran for the U.S. Senate, winning handily over opponent Alan Keyes, who made a last-minute bid for the seat after former contender Jack Ryan’s divorce documents were released from state seal.
On February 10, 2007, Obama declared himself a candidate for President of the United States.
Current Selective Service law further states:
(a) An individual—…
(2) who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,
shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an Executive agency.
Permanently disabled males are required to register except if disqualified by a very narrow exemption provision. Men without a Social Security number, “documented or undocumented,” are required to register if between the ages of 18 and 25, as are dual nationals.
Foreign diplomats and those in the United States on visitors’ visas are not required to register.
On Sunday, The Post & Email reported that the SSS website was unavailable, which was a result of scheduled maintenance. In light of that, The Post & Email accessed the Federal Register, which states of Selective Service registration requirements:
The Selective Service System provides manpower to the Armed Forces in an emergency and operates an Alternative Service Program during a draft for men classified as conscientious objectors.
The Selective Service System was established by the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. app. 451-471a). The act requires the registration of male citizens of the United States and all other male persons who are in the United States and who are ages 18 to 25. The act exempts members of the active Armed Forces and nonimmigrant aliens. Proclamation 4771 of July 20, 1980, requires male persons born on or after January 1, 1960, and who have attained age 18 but have not attained age 26 to register.
The SSS’s “agency missions” are stated as:
“…To furnish manpower to the Defense Department during a national emergency, to manage alternative service for men classified as conscientious objectors, and to register, with only a few exceptions, all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants residing in the United States who are ages 18 through 25…”
Registration does not automatically result in a person’s draft into the military.
The SSS website further explains:
Some non-citizens are required to register. Others are not. Non-citizens who are not required to register with Selective Service include men who are in the U.S. on a valid student or visitor visa, and men who are part of a diplomatic or trade mission and their families. Almost all other male non-citizens are required to register, including undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents, those seeking asylum, and refugees.
“Conscientious objector” status is determined by a hearing at a local Selective Service board. According to SSS, “The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented. A man may appeal a local board’s decision to a Selective Service district appeal board. If the appeal board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the national appeal board.”
Types of “alternative service” in which a conscientious objector may participate in lieu of bearing arms include those in the fields of:
- caring for the very young or very old
- health care
On Monday, The Post & Email spoke with Zullo about what he believes is a nexus between Obama’s apparent lack of Selective Service registration and the option made available last year to new U.S. citizens to decline to “‘bear arms on behalf of the United States’ and ‘perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States’” when taking the oath of allegiance.
Without the “new guidance,” the oath appears as:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Of the Oath of Allegiance, USCIS explains:
Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.
The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:
- Support the Constitution;
- Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
- Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
- Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
- A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.
USCIS’s announcement of the option to avoid “bearing arms” or “performing noncombatant service” on behalf of the United States reads, in its entirety:
Reciting the Oath is part of the naturalization process. Candidates for citizenship normally declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.
A candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection. The new guidance clarifies that a candidate:
- May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
- Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
- May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.
This guidance updates Volume 12 of the Policy Manual.
To provide feedback on this guidance, please visit Policy Manual for Comment no later than August 4, 2015.
A one-page “Policy Alert” dated July 21, 2015 bearing the subject, “Modifications to Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization” states, in part:
On Monday, Zullo told The Post & Email:
During our press conference, we spoke about the Selective Service issue [begins at 37:27 at link].
After we replicated what we believed actually transpired to create the appearance of an authentic stamp, with in three or four days later, the Selective Service changed its policy. Selective Service stonewalled our investigation by issuing a new policy whereby they would cooperate only with federal investigations. We weren’t allowed to proceed with them, we would not be permitted to view the actual hard-copy document or the microfilm record of the “original” if it had in fact been preserved. To us this new position by Selective Service was rather telling.
Moving forward to today, this new option in the oath of allegiance by this administration is obviously Obama’s position on the matter. It’s jarring and it’s unnerving, because we have an individual who we don’t think ever registered for Selective Service sitting in the White House who is obviously OK with foreigners coming to the USA, being naturalized but never having to take an oath to defend this country. What does that really mean about their Selective Service status? What happens in the future? In a draft situation do they become conscientious objectors? Do they become someone who’s exempt from fighting on behalf of this country from some untested legal position because pledging to defend the country was an opt-out option for them? Do they get a pass?
If you go back and think about Obama’s position on the “DREAMERS” and now his position on those who want to become full citizens, he is saying, “You don’t have to take an oath to defend this nation.” His idea of a foreigner coming in here isn’t to have them assimilate to the culture; for him, someone who’s a foreigner can come over here and try to change this country but does not have to risk his or her life to defend it. Obviously that’s how he thinks. This is an unconscionable position for the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military known to man to take.
Looking back to the Selective Service form, it really raises the suspicion even higher as to whether he actually registered and if he himself would take an oath to defend this country. He took an oath to defend the Constitution, the very document that he calls “pesky.” Looking back at his actions of the last seven plus years, you have to look at this and say, “This is starting to look like ‘birds of a feather.’ Birds of a feather on immigration, birds of a feather with loyalty to the United States of America…you have to step back and take a hard look at this.
I don’t believe that that Selective Service document is authentic on any level, and I think the federal government stonewalled us from pursuing it, because inspection of that document would have been problematic for them. Because they wouldn’t cooperate, it stopped us cold.
Here’s the ploy they’re using: This goes in tandem with the stonewalling of the birth certificate investigation, because what they’re saying is, “Turn your stuff over to the FBI, because we’ll make sure the FBI never looks into it.” That’s what people need to realize. This whole thing has been stonewalled because of the chess pieces that are in place around this administration and what they control. It is no different than Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: if Obama wanted it shut down, they could just shut it down.
The picture painted here is one of obfuscation and outright deceit, and that goes right to that birth document that I maintain was not created in 1961.
The Post & Email asked, “Is there any way to know if Obama ever registered for Selective Service, perhaps under a different name?”
There’s no way to verify that. What we know is that stamp is suspect. It obviously matches no other stamp in existence that we know of to date. We also had retired postmasters general look at that document, and it raised their eyebrows. We have people who have dealt with those stamps for 40 years and said, ‘There is something way wrong here.’
Even from a mechanical standpoint, the stamp does not and cannot be operated in such a manner to cause the effect as displayed on his Selective Service card. You wouldn’t be able to rock that stamp to get that effect. And the inverted “8”…we showed you how that happened in the video.
We ran into the stonewall in the state of Hawaii, where they hid behind their state statute, stopping us from going in and getting an eyeball, hands-on look at the birth certificate and have the actual witness, Dr. Onaka, who purportedly stamped it, vouch for it. We were not permitted access to Onaka; even though he was in the building and knew who we were and why we were there, he refused to speak with us.
Then the Selective Service form comes out, and they have a problem. They don’t have a statute to stand behind. So what do they do? They changed their policy to make it difficult for us. They knew exactly what they were doing when they so abruptly changed their policy. If we pursued the matter it would have ended up in court and we would have had to prove “standing” and jurisdiction. We would have had to have gotten a judge to order them cooperate, and they knew we would not be successful there. So that’s how they stonewalled that. Everything pertinent to this narrative is stonewalled on some governmental level.
The actions of Selective Service only bolster the argument that Obama never registered because he himself doesn’t think that this is a necessity or he did not have to for other legal reasons.
Think what his lifting of this requirement to defend the country means in this context: You are born here in the USA. You have an automatic allegiance to your nation; no oath is required. It is expected of you to serve in the defense of this nation if called upon to do so. It is a birthright and privilege and your obligation as a United States citizen. You should be willing to defend your nation as you would defend your own family
So what he’s saying is that if you are born here you have no choice but to risk your life in service to your country, but if you immigrate here, as a naturalized citizen you have a special privilege: you can have allegiance to the United States up until the point that the United States becomes embattled, and then you’re under no obligation to uphold your allegiance to this country to defend it. That appears to me to be a distinct separation of a class of people. Natural born Citizens have to fight, whereas foreign-born citizens don’t.
Here’s the next legal battle that will come: In a draft situation, are we now going to have to have a legal fight going to the Supreme Court based on the position “I did not take an oath of allegiance to defend the nation so therefore I am exempt from being drafted because I was an immigrant? When I became a citizen, I made no such agreement as a condition upon receiving my citizenship so I don’t have to defend this country. I don’t have to serve in its military; I’m exempt.” Oaths are important and oaths are binding.
If you really look at it, this is an anti-American, anti-American-culture agenda.
What he wants to do is change the culture. To do that, he has to bring people in who aren’t of the culture. He can’t change it at the ballot box, so he has to do it this way.