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."
Exactly. McEvil and the GOP was playing us and didn't want the election. That was crystal clear the moment McEvil stated we shouldn't be "afraid" of Obama or "scared" of his presidency and denied he is a muslim. The minute he said that, my chest tightened and I knew my suspicions were correct. The GOP went out of their way to find some unknown woman who talked funny, who was far removed from what they thought was middle America, and who was carrying a ton of baggage to be the VP. They didn't count on us falling in love with her so they (yes, the GOP) shut her up and hid her from the cameras. Then, imo, they instigated many of the scandals and law suits to throw the election to the RATs. They would have done anything not to take this election because of the housing bubble burst, the job losses, and the crashing economy. Because of this, I blame the GOP more than the RATs.
both sets of hands are different, as well as the wrinkles in the shirts. The photographs were probably from a group of different poses taken at a studio.
Possibly. I have a poorer eye than most when it comes to photos (which is why I rarely comment), but I still think whatever changes we see came from photoshopping. Nothing below the waist moves (except the hands). “Mark’s” torso looks thicker.
“Mark’s” head is definitely photoshopped from another photo. I question if it even could have come from the same photo session. FN seems to think only a portion of “David’s” head is photoshopped. I even question that.
I guess, in the end, the most important question I have is, Do you think the “before” and “after” pictures of “Mark” are both the same boy? I have a doubt.
The boy on the right - the bigger boy - has a different boy’s head in the photoshopped version. No doubt about it IMO. The other boy - smaller one - has photoshopped lips at the very least.
BTW after going to Mark’s site I had a few weird attacks on my computer, Norton caught them though. Be careful anyone who goes there.
I agree. Not the same boy IMO (but then again I am such a poor photo judge, lol).
~~~~~~~~
Fred Nerks: ALERT!!! from little jeremiah:
“BTW after going to Mark’s site I had a few weird attacks on my computer, Norton caught them though. Be careful anyone who goes there.”
The boy on the left, the darker boy, IS the same boy!
And thanks for the virus warning.
WHOOPS! I don’t know my left from my right.
THE DARK BOY ON THE RIGHT = SAME BOY!
thanks for your comments, help and patience, I am going to be ‘missing’ for a while, we have finally found a caretaker/house-sitter to look after our livestock and are off on a holiday.
There’s a message on my home page showing where we are heading off to.
Of course I’ll be taking my lap-top and will try to respond to any messages...but some parts of ‘Tassie’ are pretty wild, and it may not always be possible.
Keep up the good work - good wishes and good luck!
“off on a holiday.”
How wonderful for you to have an opportunity to replenish body, mind, and soul. I hope you don’t check in too often, lol; that would defeat the purpose of the holiday.
The same boy, then, just lightened up a bit and ‘shopped.
FN, I’m with thouworm - hardly check in at all! Forget all this stuff for a while.
“It’s just a fading, passing show”.
There is a real eternal existence not touched by all this hell.
You deserve a holiday!!! We will miss you but pray you will have a safe and renewing furlough that will allow you time to focus on the beauty and splendor of God’s creation. Have a wonderful time!
Mark was born in Sept 1965, IIRC, and as he appears to be 4 or 5 years old this picture it would have been taken in 1969 or 1970. At this time BHO II, pictured on the left, would have been 8 or 9 and would have been either in Indonesia or HI.
The younger boy, who is David according to Mark, is reported to have been born in 1967 and does appear to be about age 2, as would be appropriate for the age difference between Mark and David.
IMO, the striking resemblance between baby David and baby BHO II provides clear circumstantial support for BHO Sr. to have been their mutual father. For me, the resemblance of BHO II to Baby David provides the clearest refutation that any other man was BHO II's father.
IMO it is also extremely that any woman other than SADO was BHO II's mom given the "big smile" likeness of the adult Barry to her father shown in the picture with Gramps at the beach in HI. I have seen no documentary evidence with or without "PROVENANCE" which supports any other mom for Barry or which refute SADO as Barry's mom.
IMO, SADO is almost certainly Barry's mom because there are lots of documents with claimed provenance supporting SADO as Barry's mom, documenta which can be subjected to legal authentication under the Federal Rules of Evidence should there ever be legal discovery.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I see not only the facial features but the personality of the adult, Mark, in the pictures of the boy he claims to be himself, the so-called “dark boy” (who really isn't that dark when the picture is not overexposed).
“So, I asked what facial features are now different in this second photo, because I certainly don’t see a difference in any features. Not much could of changed in what was likely less than a minute or two.”
What changed was the overexposure in the earlier photo to the more authentic exposure in the new photo making the relatively light adult Mark possible, IMO, compared to the previous “dark boy” image. I did not say the features of Mark changed. To me, the expression of the “dark boy” looks very much like the adult Mark, if you take away the artificially darkened complexion.
It is obvious to me that the so-called “dark boy” photos, both the family shot and one of the ones with the two boys (not the most recently found one) were overexposed.
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.