by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 16, 2018) — In the first segment of last night’s “Freedom Friday” radio show with Carl Gallups, Obama birth certificate investigator Mike Zullo opined that in light of a number of FBI agents reportedly being willing to testify about corruption within the agency, in regard to the Obama “birth certificate,” “the truth about this thing is going to surface.”

A former Florida deputy sheriff, Gallups said that he believes “people are going to start flipping” after Thursday’s release of the Justice Department inspector general’s report revealed FBI agents accepting bribes from reporters in exchange for leaks; the exchange of politically-charged text messages between agents while involved in “sensitive” investigations; and expressing contempt for Trump voters while indicating interest in seeing that he lost the election or did not take office if elected.

As a federal law-enforcement agency and subsidiary of the U.S. Justice Department, the FBI is expected and mandated to be non-partisan in the execution of its work.

“If this issue raises its head during the course of this investigation, somebody’s going to look into it,” Zullo said of the findings of forgery in the creation of the “long-form” birth certificate image posted by the White House in 2011 and the inspector general’s ongoing work into DOJ and FBI conduct in 2016.

In addition, several congressional committees continue to investigate the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence operation launched into the Trump campaign in 2016; the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, largely covered by the IG’s most recent report; and possible abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the DOJ and FBI by using an unverified “dossier” compiled by a British Trump opponent, Christopher Steele.

The House Intelligence Committee has been requesting and subpoenaing documents from Justice and the FBI since last August, Chairman Devin Nunes has said on a number of occasions.  A deadline Nunes set for last Tuesday for Justice to release more records came and went, with Justice then offering to meet with Nunes and members of the “Gang of Eight” this past Thursday.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz previously issued a report in March which led to the termination of former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe for reportedly lying to investigators about leaks to the press.  McCabe’s termination followed former FBI Director James Comey’s firing in May 2017 and a host of other high-profile resignations and terminations since Donald Trump took office.

In the coming weeks, Horowitz is expected to produce a third report dealing with how the FBI handled its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and “collusion” between Trump campaign aides and the Kremlin, a probe assumed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller under what some say are questionable circumstances.

Interestingly, it was Trump who in early 2011 first publicly questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve as president given that no tangible, documentary evidence had ever been released showing that he was born in Hawaii, as he has claimed.  Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” which most Americans interpret to mean “born in the United States.”

Some legal scholars go farther, contending that a presidential candidate must have also been born to U.S.-citizen parents.

Earlier in Obama’s political career, he was inexplicably reported by mainstream sources as having been born in Indonesia or Kenya, some of which later changed their stories to say he was “born in Hawaii.”  In December 2007, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, an ardent Obama supporter, reported him as “born in Indonesia.”

Obama claims that his father was Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya, a British and then Kenyan citizen after Kenya achieved its independence from the Crown in December 1963.  The elder Obama never applied for, nor was awarded, U.S. citizenship.

Despite the credibility of the reports issued by such sources as NPR, the AP, and The Honolulu Advertiser before the 2008 presidential election stating Obama was foreign-born, anyone questioning his background, life narrative or constitutional eligibility has been the object of derision and ridicule in what some believe is an orchestrated effort.  Obama critics and “birthers,” as the mainstream media has called them, are often labeled “racist.”  A topic of discussion later in Gallups’s broadcast, a new book written by one of Obama’s senior aides, Dan Pfeiffer, again makes that claim while relating a revised version of events leading up to the publication of the long-form birth certificate image.

Between August 2011 and December 2016, Zullo conducted a criminal investigation into the origins of the image, declaring it in March 2012 to be a “computer-generated forgery.”  However, despite overwhelming evidence that the image is not a genuine representation of a real, paper document, the FBI has never investigated it.

In at least one instance, someone claiming to be an FBI agent in the New Haven, CT office insisted that Obama’s birth in Hawaii rendered him eligible, essentially refusing to accept a citizen’s complaint.

Congress has long dodged the issue, with some claiming that the appearance of birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers stating that a baby boy was born to “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” on August 4, 1961 is sufficient to prove Obama’s birth in the Aloha State and therefore render him a “natural born Citizen.”

Zullo discussed the birth announcements later in the broadcast as well as a Yahoo! article featuring Pfeiffer’s new book to be released on Tuesday.

Some have noted that the raising of the Obama “birth certificate” issue has repeatedly and spontaneously come from Obama supporters, and not those who questioned his eligibility in the past, since Donald Trump was inaugurated in January of last year.

Later in the first segment, Zullo focused on research compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) between 2009 and 2011 which purposely misled members of Congress about presidential eligibility by excising certain wording from the law cases it cited.  The omitted wording reflects that the U.S. Supreme Court had considered a father’s naturalization a factor in determining the “natural born” citizenship of the child.

By excising that point, members of Congress were led to believe that a birth on U.S. soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, made the child a “natural born Citizen” as far as the U.S. Supreme Court was concerned.

There were four CRS reports in total, including a later report issued in 2016 and expounded upon in detail by The Post & Email’s Joseph DeMaio.  In Part 3 of his series on the 2009 memo, DeMaio detailed the Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg, in which a Prussian father lived in the U.S. for five years, became a U.S. citizen, and had a son the following year in the United States.  The father then left the country with his family to live in Germany, where they continued to reside until his child reached the age of 20 and was conscripted to serve in the Germany military.

At that point, the young man invoked his U.S. citizenship as a reason not to report for duty, with then-Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont stating that young Steinkauler could make a decision at age 21 as to which country — Germany or the United States — he chose to give his allegiance. 

However, the CRS memo omits the relevant section of the attorney general’s “letter of advice” to then-Secretary of State Hamilton Fish revealing that the elder Steinkauler had become a naturalized U.S. citizen before his son was born.  In explaining the CRS’s omission, DeMaio further wrote:

The following is a verbatim replication of the CRS Memo language beginning at the bottom of p. 13 and continuing over to p. 14 of the memo, and note the ellipsis deletion of the punctuation and words “…, was naturalized in 1854,…” and the ellipsis omission of the entire ensuing two sentences from Pierrepont’s letter:

“One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848 and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. …” On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:…” (Ellipsis underlined)

Stated otherwise, and in graphic form, this is what Attorney General Pierrepont said in Steinkauler’s Case.

Pierrepont’s “letter advice” to Hamilton Fish on the Steinkauler case. From Opinions of the U.S. Attorney General, Vol. 15, p. 15, 1875




“There’s no mention of the father being naturalized,” Zullo told Gallups, “Now in their conclusion, that son is still able to claim natural-born status and become president of the United States if he wanted to,” Zullo said of Pierrepont’s letter.

Gallups responded, “So they’re basically setting up the narrative of Barack Obama.”

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. A brief revisit of the history of events re the first CRS Memo. This is how the first CRS Memo surfaced to the public (which was circulated secretly to members of Congress in the spring of 2009) in response to the Kerchner et al vs Obama and Congress et al lawsuit. It was leaked to Atty Mario Apuzzo by a congressional staffer who thought he should know about it since he was bringing the lawsuit against Obama, Congress, and others and it was working its way through the appeals court on the way to the Supreme Court. See: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html and https://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions Subsequent to the reveal of the secret first one, which circulated secretly to members of Congress so they were all on the same page in responding to constituents communications about the hue and cry about Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility, two additional ones were created for Congress. And it is correctly stated that these CRS Memos were full of misinformation to the members of Congress and by commission and omission. But imo most members of Congress if at not all in both political parties were quite willing to use the misinformation to hide behind and duck the issue of confronting Obama’s lack of Article II constitutional eligibility. The FIX was in on this subject by both political parties: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/i-believe-the-fix-was-in-for-the-2008-election-and-the-cover-up-is-still-going-strong-the-perfect-storm-for-a-constitutional-crisis/ The 2nd and 3rd were made public immediately. Subsequent to Atty Apuzzo getting the copy via a FedEx package and his blogging about it on his blog, it was then picked up a few days later by World Net Daily and published to a wider audience. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  2. It’s simple: Because there is no proof in the public domain that substantiates aka Obama’s purported identity. There is absolutely NO PROOF that he is who he says he is. No proof of his legal name, his birthplace, his date of birth, his legal citizenship, or his actual parents. In FACT there is more evidence that his real legal name is Barry Soetoro and his place of birth is somewhere other than Hawaii; namely Kenya (but who knows?). Also his date of birth has not been verified, his legal citizenship has never been substantiated although there is evidence that aka Obama was absolutely an Indonesian citizen at some point during his childhood. As for his parentage there is no evidence that aka Obama’s parents are who he says they are. Not at all. All we have seen are forged identity documents and a phony life narrative. Just a story. How about a DNA test Barry?

  3. Because the now desperate panic by those complicit in the Obama fraud over the, “birther”, Donald Trump being elected, instead of the planned and promised after Obama cover of Hillary, is exposing the true depth of Obama and his regime’s hatred for America. Not much of a stretch to believe someone who spent 8 years trying to destroy our nation might just be a person with no allegiance to America and hatred for everything she represents. Anyone awake during Obama’s 8 year usurpation, and witnessing the panic exhibited by those complicit when Trump was elected, should be able to connect the dots to Barry’s forged and sealed documentation and why both were required. Also, watching Congress continue to protect Obama, with only a few exceptions, because of their complicity in allowing and/or covering for his usurpation since he was sworn in back in 2009, and by their inaction to join the few in Congress who now do appear to have the courage to take on the Obama fraud, should be a great indications they are protecting themselves from something really bad for which they never want to receive what should be the appropriate punishment. The forged birth certificate issue validates itself when watching the behavior of all complicit in, THE OBAMA FRAUD!