Sheriff Joe’s Lead Investigator Just Back From 2nd Trip to Hawaii: Only “pResident” Ever To Have 3 Aliases – New Interview

Detective Mike Zullo

Sheriff Joe’s Lead Investigator Just Back From 2nd Trip to Hawaii: Only “pResident” Ever To Have 3 Aliases – New Interview

Listen to the 4 part interview at the following link or watch the YouTube video/audio of the interview below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

# # # #

Also, read more about Obama’s Crimes and his Constitutional Ineligibility here:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the veil of indifference to their necessity to continually be “on watch” and at times to stand up and protect our U.S. Constitution from usurpation by progressive/marxist/radical politicians operating in relative secrecy protected by an enabling press and major media … thinking and saying it’s the job of someone else … and living their lives in general apathy about what the national government is up to, they will allow the adoption of every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s alert and paraphrasing earlier warnings about the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, fascist-socialist form of government.

2 thoughts on “Sheriff Joe’s Lead Investigator Just Back From 2nd Trip to Hawaii: Only “pResident” Ever To Have 3 Aliases – New Interview”

  1. The US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett found that for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen, both parents must be US Citizens at the time of that person’s birth. So, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, he isn’t eligible to be President.

    1. While I am as unhappy about Mr Obama being President as just about anyone, the actual opinion issued in the case in question does not state what you say. While it says children born of citizens are “Natural Born Citizens”, it also states there was another class of persons sometimes included in the definition which some may doubt, that being children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. The Opinion clearly states “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

      [EDITOR’S NOTE: You are misreading the 1875 Supreme Court case. That paragraph was discussing who were Citizens of the United States. It described who were Citizens by being “natural born Citizens”, which the court defined as being born in the country to parents who are Citizens. The doubt were as to whether people born into the country lets say to alien parents were even Citizens. Wong Kim Ark (1898) helped answer that question by saying if a person was born in the USA to legally domiciled aliens living in the USA, that that child was a “Citizen of the United States”. I did not declare that the child was a “natural born Citizen”. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law, treaty, constitutional amendment or otherwise to make them a Citizen. They are a Citizen of the nation by “natural law” not man-made laws. Their Citizenship in one and only one nation is “self-evident” per natural law. And that is the type of Citizen the founders and framers intended to be in command of our military and president, i.e., a citizen born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance to one and only one country at birth, a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Obama was born with dual allegiance and thus is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is not constitutionally eligible to be CinC or Pres. See this essay for more details: ]

      Would presumably need a court willing to address the doubts and with Chief Justice whom I previously admired unwilling to do the right thing and strike down Obamacare, it’s highly unlikely they would give this any serious consideration.

      Perhaps Charlie is on track with the US-Britain treaty in place at the time, but I have not researched it and do not know if it leaves open door for dual citizenship or whether determination based on status of just the father and not the mother (who was a US Citizen) would be anything a current court would consider given the sexist implications. Does not look like they have been willing to consider to date. And even then, let’s play devils advocate and say a members of a court gives some consideration, the defendant of such could then argue you can’t “prove” who the father was without a DNA test and doubt you’ll find willing participants to prove such.

      Best hopes now rest with voting him out of office before any more damage can be done to our country.


      Paul Wright

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: