Zullo Provides New Insights on Obama Birth Certificate Mystery, Part 2


by Sharon Rondeau

(Dec. 4, 2017) —During an interview on Friday night, former Obama birth certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo discussed discrepancies, connections and revelations arising from the five-year probe which concluded that the image representing Barack Hussein Obama’s  “long-form” birth certificate posted at whitehouse.gov in 2011 is a “computer-generated forgery.”

Part 1 of The Post & Email’s synopsis of Zullo’s remarks on the December 1 edition of “Freedom Friday,” hosted by Carl Gallups, is here.

Starting at the 13:11 mark in the 45-minute interview, Zullo reminded listeners that in January 2011, the newly-elected governor of Hawaii, former Congressman Neil Abercrombie, claimed that he was “investigating” where Obama’s original birth certificate could be found and planned to make the document public to settle existing doubts and Obama’s eligibility before the 2012 election.

By virtue of hundreds of requests submitted to the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) beginning in 2008 for Obama’s birth record resulting from reports that he was born in Indonesia or Kenya, concerned Americans learned that “vital records,” which include birth certificates, are not releasable publicly under state law.

In an article published on January 18, 2011 now categorized as an “editorial” despite its straight-news format, the Honolulu Star Advertiser’s “political columnist Richard Borreca” questioned Abercrombie about how he planned to advance his gubernatorial priorities, particularly in addressing Hawaii’s financial crisis.

At the end of the interview, Borreca asked Abercrombie about his remarks, reported on December 24, 2010 by The New York Times, indicating that he was “seeking ways to change state policy to allow him to release additional proof that the president was born in Honolulu in 1961.”

In its article, The Times wrote that Abercrombie had contacted “the state’s attorney general and the chief of its Health Department about how he can release more explicit documentation of Mr. Obama’s birth…”:

Although faulting “birthers” for being politically-motivated in major media interviews the month before, Abercrombie reportedly told Borreca that he considered at least one concern expressed to him about Obama’s eligibility  to be “genuine.”  In response to Borreca’s first question on the topic, Abercrombie said, “I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.”

The new governor added of Obama’s birth record that “It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down…”

On October 31, 2008, just days before the presidential election, then-HDOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino had issued a statement claiming that she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

On July 27, 2009, Fukino issued a second statement in which she said that she had personally viewed Obama’s “original vital records” on file with the department.

FukinoPressRel090727 (courtesy CitizenWells)

On July 28, 2009, Dan Nakaso of the Honolulu Advertiser, which later merged with the Honolulu Star to become the Star Advertiser, reported that Obama’s “original” birth certificate was “in storage” while referring to Fukino’s statement of the day before.

Abercrombie ultimately said he could not produce the document for public consumption because of Hawaii’s confidentiality laws.  On January 21, 2011, CBS News reported:

Regarding Fukino’s and Abercrombie’s conflicting statements, Zullo observed, “Abercrombie comes after her in the timeline, and they can’t find it.”

Following that discussion, Zullo raised questions about a letter Obama allegedly wrote as his “first official act” in the White House to Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children to congratulate the facility on its 100-year anniversary.

Although Obama was first reported by major media as having been born in Queens Hospital, he claims to have been born at Kapiolani on August 4, 1961, when it was called “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.”

Zullo said that Abercrombie participated in the decision to use the letter to organize a Kapiolani fundraiser.  On July 9, 2009, some six months after it was allegedly written, WND reported that Abercrombie, then a U.S. congressman, read the letter to those assembled at the January 24, 2009 event.

As WND reported on March 24, 2011, the letter was featured in the spring 2009 edition of Kapiolani’s e-zine, “Inspire.”

Zullo then pointed out to the audience that “Through a WND investigation, it was later determined that the actual letter…was actually a fraudulently-created PDF file printoff,” he said.

“It was a test run,” Gallups responded with a chuckle.

“Abercrombie knew that that wasn’t the real letter, but he tried to pass it off as such…Where is the nexus?  Abecrombie looking for the birth certificate, can’t find it; now we have a phony birth certificate, and he’s no stranger to using phony documents or having phony documents created,” Zullo continued.

“A digital cut-and-paste, fraud,” Gallups replied.

Zullo then revealed that he believes that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, or the “short-form” birth certificate released online in June 2008, was “authentically-created by the Department of Health.”  Additionally, Zullo said that the investigation ultimately unearthed “documentation that points to about seven computer breaches over a four-year span of time [which] looks to be coming from Washington, DC, Virginia area into the Department of Health in Hawaii’s vital statistic records that are housed at the University of Hawaii.”

“And you’ve got the hard-copy records of those breaches,” Gallups stated declaratively.

“Yes, and what’s significant about that is, back when files were done with paper and ink, what could happen is someone would create a phony file in a department of health — it happened in New Jersey — put in phony documents, and the unsuspecting clerk, when the individual who was supposed to receive that illegal document would go in and ask for a copy of their birth certificate, the clerk would look, unsuspecting; everything looked in order and issue the document,” Zullo said.

“We believe there is a good chance that what was done is, a surreptitious record was placed in those computer files, and that would allow for the creation of an official short-form birth certificate out of Hawaii,” he continued.  “But the problem became when they wanted to see the long form…” he expounded.

This series will be continued in a near-term third installment.

This story was updated at 10:47 a.m. EST on December 5, 2017 to include Dr. Fukino’s July 27, 2009 written statement.





16 Responses to "Zullo Provides New Insights on Obama Birth Certificate Mystery, Part 2"

  1. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 1:04 PM

    “Robert Gibbs, Dan Pfeiffer and Bob Bauer obviously made the exact same mistake independent of each other…transposing “8” for “7”.”

    Please provide a link to Robert Gibbs’ statement.

    Pfeiffer and Bauer made the same mistake during the course of the press gaggle in April, 2011. Not exactly independent of each other.

  2. James Carter   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:12 AM

    Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and Counsel Bob Bauer each stated, the latter two a couple years after the first, that in 2008 Obama’s campaign requested and received a certified copy of his birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health. Robert Gibbs, for at least one of those three, additionally stated that the campaign posted an image of that birth certificate on FightTheSmears and disseminated the image to a few other blogs/web-sites mid-June 2008.

    The images posted on FactCheck, alleged to be photos of that birth certificate taken at Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago in August 2008, show a “Jun – 6 2007” date-stamp on the backside. To explain away that anomaly FactCheck said they asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and campaign spokesperson Shauna Daly told them “The certificate is stamped June 2007 because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on”. Robert Gibbs, Dan Pfeiffer and Bob Bauer obviously made the exact same mistake independent of each other…transposing “8” for “7”.

    So many anomalies with so many important/pertinent documents, so many lame explain aways.

  3. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM

    What is your evidence that any of the judges who have ruled Obama eligible are corrupt? The fact they don’t agree with your definition of natural born citizen?

    These were conservative and liberal judges in eight or nine different states at both the federal and local levels. Both district courts and appellate courts.

    Why in not one of these cases has the plaintiffs produced civic or history books from elementary, high school or college that verifies the two citizen parent rule has been taught for decades?

    Produce evidence not just the opinions of self-proclaimed experts.

  4. Sharon Rondeau   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM

    Not if the judges are corrupt.

  5. Mark Bellison   Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:10 AM

    As Constitutionalist, we understand the role of the Courts in our Republic. We know that being a Constitutionalist requires that we accept the decisions of the Courts even when we disagree with them. Aand as Constitutionalist, we understand that it is up to the Courts to determine what is and what is not a Supreme Court precedent. The Courts have repeatedly determined that Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent and that under the guidance of Justice Gray’s ruling with few exceptions anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

  6. Jeffrey Harrison   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:18 PM

    Thanks to The Post & Email for covering updated information and the evidence about
    the fraud of usurper Obama. Likewise, I appreciate the remarks of those who post here
    about one of the greatest hoaxes pulled on American Citizens. This shows there is
    still life in this subject.

    Numerous individuals and many organizations have revealed that Obama was a fraud in
    the White House. Here too, I am grateful for their efforts, information, and doing the
    hard work.

    Zullo’s recent remarks adds more puzzle pieces and indicates to me that the train is still
    on the tracks. In short, things are still in motion. While justice may take awhile, Obama
    is not out of the woods yet, his actions may snag him yet.

  7. Three-Pound Sledge   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM

    Thinkwell’s summaries are spot-on to all except those that pour an 80-Lb bag of reddi-mix concrete into their skull and add sufficient water to attain a rock-solid barrier or as an alternative, desire to pursue an agenda to take-down or circumvent this Constitutional Republic as the Founding Fathers designed.

  8. thinkwell   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:56 PM

    The SCOTUS has never directly ruled as to the meaning of natural born Citizen although in the handful of cases where they have come close their rulings have supported that it (nbC) means born within the territory of the USA AND born to parents both of whom are citizens of the USA.

    The language of the Constitution itself refutes T.F. BOW’s specious claim that just being in the USA or being born a mere citizen is sufficient. If that were the case then the requirement would have simply been written that the president must be a “born citizen” (a phrase that was considered, but rejected by the founders), yet the actual requirement is “natural born Citizen.” It is simply not credible to claim that the founders inserted a totally superfluous adjective into a key phrase within the Constitution.

    T.F. BOW asserts presidential eligibility of the statutory born citizen child of legal resident aliens or even of invading illegal aliens (an anchor baby). However, such people may have zero natural allegiance to the USA, but a true natural born Citizen can only result when no other citizenship outcome is possible. Thus, he or she is an exclusive citizen of the USA by inherent nature (and hence the keyword “natural”) rather than by the artifice of statute or law (or any further choice or action at all).

    A statutory born citizen child of alien parents is born with allegiance and citizenship rights outside the USA and, unlike the true natural born Citizen of the USA, has USA citizenship that would not exist without a law or statute and often (upon reaching the age of majority) must actively choose one citizenship over another.

  9. thinkwell   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:46 PM

    T.F. BOW, I know you can’t really be as obtuse as you present yourself, so I assume you are forgoing logic in order to push your globalist, leftist agenda.

    The entire point of the Constitution’s natural born Citizen requirement for the presidency is to ensure that our national executives have sole, exclusive allegiance to the USA and to no other country or sovereign. The most common way this happens is to be born in country AND to be born to parents both of whom are exclusive citizens of the USA (note that the parents may be naturalized citizens).

    Imagine an anchor baby born to illegal invader aliens who then is removed to the native country of his or her parents to be raised as an alien in an alien land and culture, only to return as an adult to attend university. Such a person has ZERO natural allegiance to this country (the USA) and should never be eligible for the presidency even if they were to reside here long enough to meet the residency requirement. Unlike you and other anti-Americans like you, the very idea would have been an anathema to the Founders.

  10. thinkwell   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:36 PM

    T.F. BOW, the sad fact is that there is no law against a Constitutionally unqualified presidential candidate declaring and running. Sometimes the individual states are diligent enough to kick them off their state ballots, but both underage and non-citizen presidential candidates have made it onto state ballots in the past.

    Enforcing presidential eligibility requirements is up to an educated electorate (who should reject such candidates regardless of politics), then the electoral college and, as a last line of defense, congress where in joint session the electoral votes will be certified and accepted unless at least one representative and at least one senator object (if this happens, then a sort of eligibility “trial” immediately ensues).

    The purpose of the Constitution’s presidential eligibility requirements are to ensure that all our presidents have sole, exclusive allegiance to the USA. The founders proved their allegiance by fighting and risking death for the USA, thus they exempted themselves from the natural born Citizen requirement with the so-called “grandfather clause” for anyone who was a citizen at the time of the founding. No such citizens are alive today so that clause is now moot.

  11. Mark Bellison   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 10:52 AM

    The WND investigation showed that the letter was real.


    Both articles (the posted by Ms. Rondeau) and this one were written by the same author Joe Kovacs

  12. Cody Robert Judy   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 9:13 AM

    Rep Maxine Waters of Ca & #Dems asked whether the bank’s loans to Trump, made years before he ran for Pres, were in any way connected to Russia. The bank previously rejected Trump has denied any wrongdoing. @realDonaldTrump #Birther #SCOTUS #Utpol #MAGA

    Let me just say I did not meet w/♦President #Trump [On Monday, as he left the White House for trip to Utah] but can you IMAGINE a SPECIAL COUNSEL assigned to #Obama Art.II Qualificatns , ID Fraud, & Forgery like the #Mueller investigation? #MAGA #Birther #SCOTUS @nypost #Utpol


  13. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:17 AM

    What does this say? http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103503/

  14. T.F. B0W   Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:56 PM

    Zullo said, “Through a WND investigation, it was later determined that the actual letter…was actually a fraudulently-created PDF file printoff.”

    Which is, of course, not true: No WND investigation determined that. Questioned, sure, but never determined.

  15. Clark Kent   Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:40 PM

    One would think President Trump would have DOJ pay a visit to Hawaii Health and Hospital to get records to verify the fraudster Barry

  16. T.F. B0W   Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:33 PM

    There’s no evidence that Abercrombie ever said that they couldn’t find Obama’s birth certificate, and Zullo was wrong to say otherwise.

    Zullo’s belief that the Hawaii Department of Health’s records were breached comes from Dennis Montgomery. (We know this because Zullo is heard saying so in a 2013 conversation that was introduced into evidence during the Melendres hearing.) But Arpaio testified at the Melendres hearing that Mongomery’s data was “junk.” So Zullo is relying on information that even Arpaio doesn’t believe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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