Reader Receives “Quick” Response from Fox News on “Obama’s Usurpation” Tip

“BY FRAUD”

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 7, 2019) — On Tuesday morning, longtime reader Robert Laity forwarded a response he received after contacting the Fox News Channel on the topic of “Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency by fraud.”

Laity is a disabled Navy veteran, former federal government employee and volunteer court assistant.  He has written a number of editorials published at The Post & Email and has consistently maintained that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible for the presidency because he does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as the U.S. Constitution requires of the president and commander-in-chief.

Since 2008, Laity has not only written to federal officers about what he believes was the “usurpation” of the presidency by an unqualified individual, but he has also filed a number of ballot challenges toward  the presidential candidacies of others he believed were equally ineligible, such as Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and former Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal.

As Laity has correctly pointed out, the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) describes Article II’s citizenship requirement for the president as “born a citizen,” not “natural born Citizen.”  The Board has not responded to Laity’s request, made as part of a ballot challenge, to correct its error, nor did it respond to The Post & Email’s inquiry, made over a year ago, as to why the requirement is given incorrectly on its website.

As with other state election boards in 2012 and 2016, the NYSBOE chose not to address the underlying issue of candidates’ constitutional eligibility.

In late 2015, Laity also filed an “Official Notice of Dispute” with the State of New Hampshire’s attorney general.  In the previous election cycle, Laity filed a ballot challenge which eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Questions as to Obama’s eligibility arose in 2007, perhaps most notably when ardent Obama supporter and MSNBC host Chris Matthews declared him “born in Indonesia” on his nightly show, “Hardball.”  The Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 “natural born Citizen” requirement is understood by most Americans to mean, at a minimum, that a presidential candidate must have been born in the United States.

Some scholars go farther, referring to statements in the Congressional Globe and by the U.S. Supreme Court which state unequivocally that a person born in the U.S. to two citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.”  In its opinion in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett, the court wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Obama claims a birth in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961, but Matthews’s statement, as well as news reports from the AP, The Honolulu Advertiser, and NPR in addition to a biography written by Obama’s first literary agent in 1991 stating that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii” have raised doubts in many Americans’ minds as to his true place of birth.

Members of the Kenyan Parliament also declared Obama as born in their country, not the United States.

Further complicating Obama’s “eligibility” question is that his claimed father was never a U.S. citizen.

After months of urging by then-businessman Donald Trump early in 2011, the White House released what it said was a PDF scan of a certified copy of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).  Within hours, the image was declared problematic, eventually giving rise to a 5+-year probe conducted by a volunteer arm of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Launched in August 2011 and concluded in December 2016 as Sheriff Joseph Arpaio was preparing to leave office, lead investigator Mike Zullo gave three press conferences to update the public — and the media, which became notably hostile in some instances — on the progress of the investigation.

On March 1, 2012, Zullo said that investigators found probable case to believe that the image is a “computer-generated forgery.”  Also found inauthentic was Obama’s Selective Service registration form.

Further probing concluded, Zullo announced at a second presser on July 17 that year, that the standard of probable cause in regard to the birth certificate image was surpassed, leading investigators to conclude it “definitely fraudulent.”

At the third press conference on December 15, 2016, Zullo demonstrated through a video that at least nine elements in the Obama long-form image were lifted and electronically duplicated onto a blank template on a computer screen to create the “PDF” uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011.  He also reported that forensic examiners Forlab of Italy and Reed Hayes of Hawaii, through their own analyses of the image, reached similar conclusions to his own independently and from different disciplines.

In interviews over the last year, Zullo has revealed new information on the investigation, including that high-ranking White House officials have received a “cursory briefing” on the investigational findings.

In August last year, The Post & Email published a synopsis of an interview with Carl Gallups of “Freedom Friday” during which Zullo said, “It has been an open secret in the intelligence community and DC that Obama could never satisfy the constitutional requirement of being born on American soil.”

Zullo has also said, against the backdrop of emerging details of extensive government “spying” on the Trump campaign and average Americans by the U.S. intelligence community, that in his view, “all roads lead to John Brennan.”

Regarding his reaching out to Fox News, Laity told us on Tuesday, “I went on the FOX news website and used the online ‘Contact Us’ form. This morning. I got a quick response.”

The reply reads as follows:

From: Fox News
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:35 AM
To: Robertlaity
Subject: RE: Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency by fraud.

##### REPLY ABOVE THIS LINE #####

Hi Robert Laity,
Thanks for reaching out to us to share your story idea or news tip. We’ve passed your message to our Editorial team.

If they’re interested in pursuing this they’ll be in touch with you to get more information.

Best,
The Fox News Digital team

For answers to commonly asked questions visit us at help.foxnews.com

This email was sent by Fox News Network, LLC at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036.
© 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

[KZV7DD-R6YY]


In an interview about his 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case, Laity told The Post & Email:

Every time Fox News refers to him as “president,” they’re doing a great disservice. Sometimes I wonder if they do it on purpose, because they say it an awful lot. No matter how many times they’re going to repeat a lie doesn’t make the lie truthful.

3 Responses to "Reader Receives “Quick” Response from Fox News on “Obama’s Usurpation” Tip"

  1. Liz   Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:30 PM

    Perhaps if we all wrote to fox news they would pick up this story…..NOPE we have a better chance if we go to OANN….

  2. Robert Laity   Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:03 AM

    Fox news stated on Tuesday morning that the new royal baby is eligible for dual US citizenship and that he could ultimately become “either King of England or President of the United States”. I educated them on the issue, The founders would NEVER allow the son of a british prince to be our President. It is very apparent that, even after (11) years many people STILL do not understand what a “Natural Born Citizen” really is. One born IN the US to parents who are both US citizens themselves. As I said earlier, to Sharon, the founders knew what happened when royal families from different nations married. Edward VIII of England actually had to abdicate the throne when he married Wallis Simpson, an American. Why now does anyone think that the Son of Prince Harry, 7th in line to be King of England, can EVER be POTUS? Fox news’ comment is clearly out in left field. Out of the park actually. If article II remains, a British royal will never be POTUS. I end with this question, we had two dual US/UK citizen usurpers already. Obama and Arthur. Ted Cruz was from Canada. Are the Brits trying to retake the US “colonies” that they lost? Are they still attempting to do that? After all, it was a british man named Steele that created a faux dossier on President Trump at the bequest of Hillary Clinton.

  3. Clark Kent   Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:42 PM

    Just thinking out loud, but with some of the attorney type birthers out there like Orly Taitz and Chris Strunk, I propose a Billion dollar class action lawsuit by the few hundred “birthers” including you Sharon-who fought for the truth only to be ridiculed, threatened, harrassed, and some tried sanctions to shut us up. If the Covington kid can sue ( and he will win) the media for libel, so could we?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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