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.

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.

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:

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”:

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:

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.

Here is a Senate Resolution Co-sponsored by none other than Barry himself.

The issue of two parent requirement is spelled out here.

There is no force of law in this resolution.

The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.

In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.

There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.

I've leveraged some work on this from

Obama’s ineligibility: Were Americans set up by the press and then scammed by the Congress?

On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCain’s eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCain’s eligibility.

After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCain’s eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.

Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)

Obama said:

“Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party’s nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.”

SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:

As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:

“Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.”
“Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months,” said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. “We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.”

So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.

Senate Resolution 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

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.