Check out # 134.
Thanks, David.
Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid
"Recent WND Inquiries Appear To Have Established Obama’s Birth In Hawaii.
I don’t know how this slipped below my radar, but back on May 9, 2011, World Net Daily published an investigative report entitled, “Bombshell: U.S. government questioned Obama citizenship“, which – in my opinion – conclusively established that Obama was born in Hawaii. In that report, Aaron Klein revealed official documents stored in US immigration files which chronicle the troubles faced by Obama’s mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, when he petitioned the US Government for a visa extension.
The WND report correctly notes that US officials expressed an interest in determining whether Soetoro’s step-son, President Obama, was actually a US citizen. The US officials who were handling Soetoro’s Visa extension application made copious notes in the file and the official comments therein illustrate that these officials doubted some of Soetoro’s statements. So, they decided to investigate the relationships listed in his application.
Below is the text of the relevant portion of the WND report:
One critical exchange is dated August 21, 1967, from Sam Benson, an officer at the Southwest Immigration and Naturalization Service office in San Pedro, Calif.Benson’s query stated, “There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, who may suffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(a).”
The reference is to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which defined a “child” as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who, among other qualifiers, could be a “stepchild,” whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the “age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.”
A response to Benson’s inquiry came from one “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office, who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen.
Mix replied: “Pursuant to inquiry from central office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouse’s child by a former marriage.”
“The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicant’s step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child’s mother on March 5, 1965.”The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu.
So here we see the US Government looking into an application for Visa extension by Soetoro. Further review of those documents reveal that the officials did not trust everything in Soetoro’s application. Therefore, the Government officials wanted to establish whether Obama Jr. was truly a US citizen. They made a direct inquiry on this very issue. And they concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Again, this was established by “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office.
Having taken such an exhaustive look into Soetoro’s application, and especially considering the government’s examination of Obama’s citizenship, I don’t see how the government officials involved would have overlooked the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham would have been out of the US and far away in Kenya on the date W.L. Mix established as DOB for Obama – if Obama had been born in Kenya.
Furthermore, a report today by WND, “Documents show marriage of Obama’s parents a sham“, illustrates that a similar investigation as to Obama, Sr. was conducted when he was also applying for a Visa extension. Those official documents include a handwritten memo from the file, written by (presumed) INS official William Wood, which states that Obama Sr.’s son, “Barack Obama II”, was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
Moreover, in today’s WND article, Jerome Corsi concludes, as a result of reviewing all of the relevant INS documents, that if President Obama was born in Kenya, Dunham must have traveled there without Obama Sr., who was definitely in the US on August 4, 1961, according to these US Government records. This analysis by Corsi is correct. Obama Sr.’s presence in the US at the time of Obama’s birth is now sufficiently documented. This fact alone adds very heavy weight to President Obama having been born in the US.
I don’t see how two sets of US government officials, independently investigating the relationships between Soetoro and Dunham on one hand, and Obama Sr. and Dunham on the other, could both fail to reveal that Dunham would have been in Kenya at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. The government officials would’ve had access to Dunham’s passport files. The contents thereof were relevant to the investigations since she was married to both men, and the marriages were relevant to immigration status, as was the issue of children.
Those who persist in accusing Obama of not being born in Hawaii do so in light of official government investigations, between 1961 and 1966, which established his birth, to the satisfaction of inquisitive government immigration officials, as having taken place on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
As far as I’m concerned, the issue is settled with a massive presumption of authenticity. I do not see how the information published by WND regarding US immigration official W.L. Mix’s investigation into Obama’s US citizenship flew so far below the radar. That is the single most important fact I have come across that establishes Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
CLOSURE IS POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO BC ISSUE.
For those who insist on keeping the birther circus alive and kickin’ (despite the info listed above), I believe there is a simple way to settle the issue once and for all. I have found two references to the fact that the US Government keeps passport “issuance” records for all passports issued. The most recent is from Congressional testimony on the House floor from March 10, 1998:
“In addition, the committee on conference is aware that on weekends there is no Departmental procedure or mechanism to access the passport issuance records maintained by the Consular Affairs Bureau. The result is that when a foreign law enforcement authority inquires about the status of a person or passport on the weekend, the State Department does not or cannot respond. This is a clear deficiency in border security procedures.” (See pg. 41/53 in the PDF counter.)
The second reference is to a US Government GAO report – written for the Secretary of State – that argued for the destruction of passport application materials. The destruction of such materials was the basis of more conspiracy theories as to Dunham’s various passport applications and renewals requested in a previous FOIA by Christopher Strunk.
Unfortunately, the FOIA request by Strunk, which has been well documented online, failed to request passport “issuance” records for Stanley Ann Dunham. Strunk only requested passport “application” materials. And the government’s reply to his FOIA request was specifically limited to passport “application” materials. Since Strunk didn’t specifically ask for passport “issuance” records, the government was not obligated to search for those records… but they do exist and they can be found.
The GAO report – which refers to passport issue cards – documents the destruction of passport application materials, but it notes that the Government retains all “old passport issue cards”:
“During numerous discussions with GSA about document retention periods, Department officials have presented many reasons for the continued storage of original passport applications. They have placed great emphasis in pointing out that old passport applications can be used to derive the citizenship of others…But other ways are just as reliable and effective… Should the Department need to verify if a parent was ever issued a passport, old passport issue cards have been microfilmed and can be referenced by the Department.“ (See pg. 44/70 in the PDF counter.)
Therefore, if Stanley Ann Dunham had been issued a passport prior to President Obama’s birth, there will be a passport issue card available with that information. If no such card exists, Dunham did not have a passport prior to August 4, 1961, and Obama could not have been born in Kenya. She would have needed a passport to be in Kenya.
It is my opinion that a proper FOIA request for passport issue cards (or copies thereof) will establish that Stanley Ann Dunham did not have a passport prior to August 4, 1961. Such a request must be SPECIFICALLY designed to eliminate all wiggle room. I suggest the following wording:
Please forward all passport issue cards and/or microfilm or microfiche copies, or any other copies thereof – or any other documents – which reference the issuance of any passport for Stanley Ann Dunham. To be perfectly clear in my FOIA request, please understand that I am NOT interested in passport application materials. Please limit your response and documents to passport issue cards or copies thereof – as well as any other documents – which the government possesses for Stanley Ann Dunham that refer to her being issued a US passport.
Any FOIA request should NOT ask for more than the passport issuance materials. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the FOIA be strictly limited as suggested above. Such a FOIA should end this conspiracy theory with authority and finality.
I should note that I have come across a certain rabid Obama eligibility supporter who alleges to have done a proper FOIA request as to passport issuance materials. I do not trust this source and I do not have access to the EXACT wording of the alleged FOIA request. Suffice to say that anyone who wants true closure on the place of birth issue should do a FOIA – strictly worded as I have suggested above – requesting passport issuance documents for Stanley Ann Dunham.
I nominate the folks at WND to take this on and make all aspects public since they are the main news resource for this issue. They are invited to take the suggested FOIA request as written above (in red) and to run with it.
The fourth estate has the power and responsibility to see this through. They should thoroughly document the exact wording of the FOIA request, and they should also document the stages of compliance by the government to such a request as is required by law. Definitive documentation regarding whether Stanley Ann Dunham held a passport prior to August 4, 1961 is readily available to the public.
The Government is required to respond to the EXACT request made. No mention of passport application materials should be forwarded by the government in response to a properly worded FOIA request for passport issuance cards (or other issuance documents). We know the cards/documents exist and that they are necessary to the government as is proved by the GAO report and Congressional testimony.
The GAO notes in their report from 1981 that while passport application materials may be destroyed, “passport issue cards” are kept. This is beyond dispute.
If no passport issuance documents can be found for Obama’s mother prior to his date of birth, then he could not have been born in Kenya.
I am not a person who needs to see anymore proof. I believe now and have always believed President Obama was born in Hawaii. But if you still have doubts, this line of inquiry is crucially necessary.
The BC issue and the birther circus surrounding it have served Obama well. Like Chester Arthur before him, the nation was thoroughly distracted by the place of birth faux conspiracy whilst the true legal question concerning his dual national status – despite place of birth – was obscured.
Everyone loves a big green juicy salacious conspiracy theory. That’s much more fun than a certified boring legal question, the answer to which was never in the hands of Obama, whereas the BC always was. He who controls the game, controls the outcome. (“Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” – Johnny Rotten)
I am writing this to clear your attention spans for what will be the most authoritative and well documented analysis I have to offer on the dual national issue concerning Obama’s perpetual POTUS eligibility dilemma. I do not want the circus to obstruct the law. If you understand the importance of this post, you will pass it on far and wide so the attention of the nation can focus on the true Constitutional crisis.
Leo Donofrio, Esq."
That would explain the need to fake the BCs and SSs.
This is very similar to my currently favored theory. Stanley Ann had an Aunt Eleanor, who APPARENTLY (I say apparently because it has been called into dispute) Lived in Blaine Washington, which is just across the border from White Rock Canada. Blaine had no Maternity Hospital, while White Rock did.
If I recall, commenter "Beckwith" said he received a letter from a Niece of Aunt Eleanor claiming she never lived in Blaine. I would certainly like to find out if this is true or not. Radaris lists Aunt Eleanor as having lived at two addresses in Blaine.
Anyways, that a young pregnant girl might get shipped off to live with an Aunt in 1961 seems completely reasonable to me. The fact that Stanley Ann Showed up in Seattle also indicates that she was somewhere nearby all along.
But to preserve the maximum amount of protection we still have, we need to be practical and make effective use of the legal process we do have. To date, that hasn't happened in the argument over Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President.
As one wit remarked about the challenge to Prop 8 in California:
"Why don't we save a lot of time and just ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks? "
Yeah, the courts are screwed up because of political influence. They are virtually predictable. On any given issue, you can usually figure out how All the Judges will vote. The Democrat appointed ones will always vote wrong, and the Republican appointed ones will USUALLY vote right. (But not always.)
There is actually little trustworthy evidence - none, really - that Stanley Ann is the the guy in the White House’s mother. So if a woman went to Kenya to have the son of the Kenyan Obama, it would not have been SA.
I have not. Thanks for the info.
Thank you for your response. I am not at all optimistic about our Constitutional Republic right now, at least in the short term.
Check out # 134.
Thanks, David.
Hmmm. Why wouldn’t SA know her parent’s address in 1968? Does she not write to them? Who would write her emergency contact as c/o a parent’s employer (the WRONG parent)? Is the document a fake? Very odd.
little jeremiah, you wrote:
“...So if a woman went to Kenya to have the son of the Kenyan Obama, it would not have been SA.”
DiogenesLamp, note the following related comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2731448/posts?page=668#668
Everything about this family is odd. There is so much that is odd, it's hard to tell what is significantly odd vs what is just typically odd. :)
put simply, INS(Homeland Security) is admitting there is an immigration file for BO?
Donofrio’s gone off the deep end now, anyway. He’s not in any way a conservative, if that means anything. He’s said recently that he’s finished with the NBC issue.
David,
So?....You say that these lawyers did know how to prepare these proceedings properly, but then did not do so.
Question: Did these lawyer **deliberately** improperly prepare their cases?
Question: Why would they go to so much expense and time to improperly prepare cases when they did, indeed, know how to prepare them correctly?
Comment: Personally, I am heartsick.
Obama’s eligibility is about far, far more than Obama. It is like pulling a bandage off a wound and seeing the hopeless, festering, and malodorous gangrene underneath. Fundamentally, every legislator, secretary of state, all state attorney generals, the entire electoral college, the Supreme Court and lower level judges, our highest military, all law enforcement agencies, and the conservative media are **CHOOSING** to overlook the oozing petulance of identity theft, impersonation of a Commander in Chief, election fraud, and fraudulently taking millions of dollars in campaign donations.
All of the above people, whose job it is to be our nation's watchdogs, are willing to let a very likely usurper have access to all of our nation's most sensitive secretes, and who can, with a nod of his head, bring down the world's economy, starve billions, and send forth the world's most destructive military power since the dawn of creation.
Unbelievable! There isn't much hope for this nation. If it isn't Obama that brings this nation to its knees it will soon be something else. The moral core of this nation is rotten. No one is willing to stare down evil. Is there even *ONE* real man in this nation?
I pray that God will have mercy on us.
Yes. They’re admitting there is an immigration file for Barack Hussein Obama II.
FYI .. comment and Donofrio’s response, plus flashback
~~~~~~~~~
NeilBJ Says:
June 9, 2011 at 11:22 PM
What then are we to make of the recent birth certificate fiasco?
I remember making a comment on a blog somewhere that if all this is a cruel joke, it’s not funny. It apparently is a cruel joke.
If Obama really did go through with all these elaborate theatrics merely to keep the focus on his place of birth, it does not say much for his character.
Did he deliberately have the birth document digitally created with all the anomalies just for his own amusement?
None of this makes sense to me. What am I missing?
(Donofrio( ed. you are missing the fact that up until October 27, 2008, nobody had raised his true eligibility issue… and the faux BC issue continues to cloud the real issue. It’s a classic bait and switch…smokescreen.
You and millions are missing the same thing. The BC – which he controls and always will control – is a red herring. He does not control the fact that he was a dual national at birth. But as long as people focus on the BC, he is happy to have them so focused. – Leo
Donofrio flashback:
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
December 6, 2008
###
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.
But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
*snip*
Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history.
I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.
About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:
*snip*
I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland.
By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.
Well, if that is true...then why isn’t there are REAL B/C...for him. Obviously, he wasn’t...otherwise, he’d have shown the world his authentic HI B/C years ago. He was born in Kenya...and his authentic HI B/C says it at the bottom.
Do you think any of them are still alive?
No.
That's the kind of hypothetical question you would get from the Supreme Court. Because there isn't any doubt that the answer is no. And in fact, that might not have been the answer in the 1860's; but the Liberal judicial and legal system would like to believe that the clear answer is yes so that better be what you come up with if you are standing there and the Court gives you that.
Do you mean in the Biblical sense?
Using Jindal as a keyword, I see there are several threads discussing Bobby Jindal prior to the 2008 election with many FReepers encouraged about his name on the ticket either as presidential nominee or running mate in 2012. I can't find any posts arguing that Jindal is ineligible prior to January 2009.
Granted, I haven't read all of them. There were a lot of threads with Jindal as a keyword in 2008.
David,
So?....You say that these lawyers did know how to prepare these proceedings properly, but then did not do so.
Well that isn't what I said. But I can see why you read it that way.
For the most part, we have had lawyers who were motivated by the kind of emotional considerations reflected in the comments here and not by thoughtful professional consideration of the merits of the individual cases.
And I am a little jaded obviously but in my experience, lawyers who do stuff like this invariably screw it up because they didn't know what they were doing.
I quit looking at the cases after Lakin; but having looked at a number of them to that point, I can only point to one District Court case where the judge clearly had it wrong--and there was a clear right of appeal there and counsel didn't pursue it.
If Lakin had done it properly, he had a responsible legal case against the government and the military to preclude them from enforcing his orders and punishing him for the objection. It was never really clear to me whether some lawyer had told him this was the way to do it or whether he just stepped up to the plate on his own. But he did have an argument which he had standing to assert which could have been on its way up the appellate court chain.
The problem with that from the perspective of the lawyer who has been there is that victory in Lakin's case gets you to a trial on the merits--where was Obama born. And you don't sign up to do the work to get there until you have the evidence on the merits. Which costs real money to develop.
******
I'm confused about the years listed: 1965 on the top of application, and it looks like Obama's mother signed it in 1968.
Could you please help me with the two different years---1965 and 1968--- on the application? Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.