Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

(May 7, 2017) — In an article dated January 18, 2017 about Donald Trump allegedly spreading “fake news,” The New York Times reported that doubts about the authenticity of Barack Hussein Obama’s “birth certificate” were “debunked and pushed to the realm of conspiracy theorists after Mr. Obama released his short-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2008.”

Faulting Trump for having tweeted in August 2012 that “an ‘extremely credible source’” had allegedly informed him that Obama’s “certificate” is fraudulent, the writer claimed that “Mr. Trump was roundly denounced for continuing to push the conspiracy theory.”

She then said that despite the admonitions, Trump won the 2016 election with the support of “the largely white Republican base” to which he reportedly “solidified his connection,” apparently because of his expressed questions about Obama’s personal records.

The writer is incorrect on several fronts.

On the first, the “birth certificate” to which the writer referred, released on June 12, 2008 on several websites, is still considered a forgery by a number of analysts who noted that it lacks a raised seal and registrar’s stamp.  Moreover, there exists no proof that the image posted on Obama’s 2008 campaign website, The Daily KOS, Politifact, Snopes and other websites was obtained through official channels.

In separate sections of the article dealing with Trump’s embracing of other alleged “fake news” subjects, The Times article cited Politifact and Snopes as “fact-checking websites.”

While acknowledging Trump’s statements made in early 2011 expressing his doubt as to the authenticity of the “short-form” image produced in 2008 and Obama’s claim to presidential eligibility, the author completely skirted the posting of a second image on April 27, 2011 by the Obama White House purported to be a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate.

Within hours of its publication, despite Obama himself having claimed ownership of it at a press conference, the image was declared a poor forgery by several experts.

In August of that year, then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, self-described as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” asked one of his volunteer posses to launch an investigation into the image given that more than 200 of his constituents had signed a petition expressing concern that if the reports of forgery were accurate, their votes would mean nothing in the upcoming 2012 election.

Rather than being short-lived, the investigation ultimately spanned more than five years when it concluded in December 2016.

Like most other mainstream media outlets, The New York Times ignored the evidence released during that time frame in three separate press conferences leading to investigators’ conclusion that the “long-form” birth certificate image is a “computer-generated forgery.”

In addition, the document disseminated to various FOIA requesters beginning in late 2008 by the Selective Service System (SSS) purported to be Obama’s Selective Service registration form was found to be fraudulent.

At the conclusion of the second press conference on July 17, 2012, Arpaio expressed incredulity that the media had ignored and failed to investigate the evidence released to that point and termed the matter one of “national security.”

An opinion piece published by The Times’s Editorial Board just after the U.S. Department of Justice announced it would prosecute Arpaio criminally upon the recommendation of a federal judge states that Arpaio’s investigation of Obama’s birth certificate was “a looney-tune vendetta.”

However, the Board and newspaper at large has ignored credible reports from NPR and the Associated Press stating that Obama was born in Kenya, which, if true, might explain why forgeries were created to make it appear that Obama was born in the United States.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” understood by most Americans to mean “born in the United States.”

MSNBC and the Honolulu Advertiser have reported Obama as “born in Indonesia,” facts also ignored by The Times.  In 1991, Obama’s then-literary agent published a biography of him stating that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

Any credible and reliable news organization would have looked into the various statements about Obama’s background to discover how and why discrepancies about an item as basic as his birthplace arose.

Obama’s own half-sister has described him as “Kenyan,” while members of the 2010 Kenyan Parliament claimed he was born there.

Arpaio had said at the first press conference on March 1, 2012 that in launching the investigation, he had hoped to “clear the president” of any presumed wrongdoing or suspicion.

Obviously relishing the prospect of Arpaio’s vanquishing in court by the Department of Justice on a criminal contempt-of-court charge announced in October, the NYT Editorial Board opined that ‘”Contempt’ is a fitting word for this long-overdue prosecution — not just contempt for the court, but for the people, for civil order, for justice.”

The Board then linked Arpaio to Donald Trump on the issue of illegal aliens, although not in those words:

In quoting Arpaio’s claim that the government had abused its power as retribution for his attempt to “enforce the rule of law,” the Board, whose members remain nameless, wrote, “Does he think the government is that stupid?”

On April 21 on the “Freedom Fridayradio show, lead birth certificate investigator Mike Zullo explained that a new law firm working on Arpaio’s behalf recently discovered that the Obama Justice Department charged Arpaio utilizing a law encompassing a five-year statute of limitations but requiring that the government have brought the case. However, the criminal contempt matter arose from a civil contempt finding as an outgrowth of the civil suit correctly referenced by The Times’s Editorial Board as having been filed by the ACLU.

The lead attorney, Mark Goldman, appealed his finding to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose two-judge panel at the time issued an order to the Justice Department to provide a response “within 14 days” to “issues that warrant an answer.”

On November 8, Arpaio lost his bid for a seventh term as Maricopa County Sheriff, an outcome Zullo speculated was the goal of the Justice Department.  “They needed a statute to charge him and they could not use the correct statute.  They ginned this up and used the wrong statute,” Zullo said on the radio program.

The New York Times failed to report that the final press conference of December 15, 2016, Zullo revealed that two forensic analysts which he commissioned, approaching the long-form birth certificate image from different disciplines and unaware of each other, reached very similar conclusions to his own.

Based on this writer’s research, The Times has published no articles containing Zullo’s name, while the outlet has written copiously about Arpaio.

Just after the final press conference, Arpaio and Zullo said on the Alex Jones radio show that they are determined to see that the evidence gathered over the five-year probe is presented to federal officials with the ability and the will to investigate.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “Based on this writer’s [Sharon Rondeau’s] research, The Times has published no articles containing Zullo’s name, while the outlet has written copiously about Arpaio.”

    On November 11, 2016 The New York Times published their editorial: “Voters Drive Sheriff Arpaio Out of Town.” In their editorial, The New York Times published a link to the September 21, 2016, Arizona Central article entitled, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio: I’m still investigating President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” Mike Zullo is prominently featured in the linked article published by the New York Times on November 11, 2016. It would appear that The New York Times gave an appropriate amount of attention to the unpaid, volunteer posse man.

    Link published by The New York Times on November 11, 2016:


    Link to The New York Times editorial published on November 11, 2016:


    1. Including a link to another outlet’s article containing certain information is not the same as stating the information directly. Many readers do not open links.

      There is no direct mention of Zullo in The NYT article of November 11, 2016.

      If you are you able to find a NYT article containing Zullo’s name, I will be glad to issue a correction. I do not believe you will find one.

      It is obvious you have an ax to grind.

  2. Aka obama, does anybody really know who this criminal identity fraud really is? Many theories exist as to who are aka obama’s true genetic parents. All have flaws.

    Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. — no marriage certificate, no real evidence of any relationship nor evidence for even a plausible chance of a relationship. No pictures of a pregnant Ann. All aka obama’s identity documents are fakes, thus the official story most certainly is a lie (and whatever the real truth is, is unknown and would need confirmation by DNA testing to be believable).

    Ann Dunham and Frank Davis — aka obama has very little resemblance to Davis or his legitimate son. Supposed naughty pictures taken of Dunham by Davis are not pictures of Ann, but of another, older woman. A very great age difference existed between the young Ann and the older commie pervert (but, hey, both families were amoral and anti-American).

    Stanley Dunham (the white grandfather) and an uknown black(ish) woman — the only thing supporting this theory is that there is a very strong family resemblance between aka obama and his white grandfather and that the grandparents acted more like the parents than did Ann (who essentially abandoned him while she did not abandon her true bio daughter). Also, no photos of a then pregnant Ann are known to exist.

    Ann Dunham and cult leader Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo — some pictures of the young cult leader look remarkably like aka obama even though the resemblance fades to next to nothing in his old age. Also Loretta Fuddy (state keeper of aka obama’s “BC” who was the only person killed in a mysterious plane crash off Hawaii) and Ann Dunham (the white mother) were longtime members of the Subud cult.

    Malcolm X and JoAnn Newman (from NY) — I don’t know much about this theory other than it is very persistent and is tied to aka obama’s supposed near fatal car accident as a young man in Hawaii (thus the supposed head scars).

    Malcolm X and Valerie Serruf — by this theory there was a half-white Obama child born in Kenya who actually “passed through the hands” of the Kenyan grandmother, but the criminal identity fraud aka obama was given his identity when they both were toddlers (some claim the real obama died as a child). Aka obama himself did not find out his true identity until he was a young man.

    Whoever the genetic parents, aka obama was adopted by his Indonesian step-father Lolo Soetoro and thereby lost his American citizenship. While the evidence is strong that aka obama legally became a Soetoro, it is unclear that this would result in a permanent loss of citizenship if he reasserted it when he obtained the age of majority (however this would still not make him a natural born Citizen).


    Let me put my two cents in… Sharon Rondeau is quoting the NEW YORK TIMES. Isn’t this the same NEW YORK TIMES that has GEORGE SOROS as an op-ed contributor? Here is one of his newest cesspool gems: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/george-soros-when-hate-surges.html?_r=0 (by George Soros).

    Soros is the puppet master for Mr. Soetoro (aka BHO) and for Hillary Sodom Clinton so of course, the New York Times will bow down to “Mr. Bilderberg” aka Robber-Barons-of-all-Robber-Barons (Baron Geo. Soros).

  4. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs >>> http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm >>>
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM2GJn6hpJE >>>

    Here is a test: ask any adult American you know, and the New York Times, what their response is to these four words, “Obama’s FORGED birth certificate”.

    A. They have no idea what you are talking about, but they suspect you are a kook for even asking for their response

    B. They know what you are talking about but believe this is fabricated race-based debunked non-sense; shame on you, and, besides, Obama is a fine president/ex-president

    C. They know what you are talking about, but there is nothing you can do to hold Obama accountable, so give it up, leave me alone and move on

    D. Whether they know or not, they believe Obama has behaved like a candidate for the gallows for all his crimes against America and humanity


    NO CITIZENSHIP BORDER = 11,000,000 illegal aliens plus “Obama’s FORGED birth certificate” = NO ORDER


  5. In-a-nutshell – people with more information than me on this subject have previously stated:

    “Congress protects Barack HUSSEIN Obama to protect themselves.”

  6. Bob,
    Exactly right !! They cannot act without revealing their complicity in the perpetrated fraud that they were all aware of (or should have been aware of). There were Senate hearings on McCain
    (who probably wasn’t eligible either since he was probably born in Colon Hospital (outside the Canal Zone), but no hearings on Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a deal cut between the Dems and the GOP to “Let the ineligibles ride” since doing any thing would at that point would have caused mass chaos in the electoral process (and most likely BOTH candidates were Ineligible).


    Hopefully, most here have already taken appropriate “economic boycott” steps by not buying “that rag” (which since most here are probably not “Advertisers”) is probably the most we can do.
    Would it be possible to organize a boycott against advertisers who placed ads with “That Rag” ?. It would be a bear to organize such thing.

  7. Bob68, you really nailed it. Excellent remarks and info.

    On another item, does a fake publication of the New York Times publishing fake news of Obama’s
    fake birth certificate produce a positive? Not!!! Just too many negatives here to affect a positive.

    Lies are like air bubbles in water, eventually they come to the surface.

  8. Many true findings about Obama have been “debunked” by those complicit in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, simply by saying they have been debunked, with no proof of any such thing. The media was, and still is, about making millions of people believe something simply by saying it in a positive way, while making the opposite viewpoint look like a conspiracy theory or worse. This is why “fake news” is so appropriate for the mainstream media and much of the so-called conservative media They don’t report the news, they just try to make their agenda the only logical choice by twisting and omitting the facts about whatever viewpoint they are trying to defeat.

    Too many Americans still give them credibility they do not deserve.
    On the issue of The Obama Fraud, the politicians shut themselves down the moment they did nothing to stop Barack Hussein Obama from being sworn in as the putative present in 2009. Both parties ignored their sworn oath to, “protect the Constitution from her enemies both foreign and domestic”, when they allowed a usurper to have control of America’s government and her military. The effect on Congress of that was they blackmailed themselves into a corner where they could do nothing to investigate or impeach Obama, because either could fully reveal and have acted on the truth about Barry………and their part in the, so far, crime to big to prosecute. So, Congress lied to their constituents and pretended Obama was a legitimate president…..and now they pretend he is a legitimate ex-president…….still, to protect themselves.

  9. Too bad “we” can’t retaliate with some sort of economic boycott and destroy this rag once and for all. Shameful.