Someone is posting lies and talking behind your back.
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."
Rondeau saw listings on Maui? Or that mentioned Maui?
******
Another strange item: Barack senior does not seem to know his wife's name, because he wrote "Ann S. Dunham" when he should have written "Stanley Ann Dunham". That is, why Barack senior would put the "S" for "Stanley" in the middle of his wife's name instead at the beginning is strange to me.
Also, his address on the form dated Aug. 31, 1961 is different from the address on Obama's long birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011.
My point is this about the address: Either Barack senior and Obama's mother moved to the address on the form just days after Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, or Barack senior kept paying on his apartment at his old address while living with Obama's mother at the address on Obama's long form birth certificate, or, worse, Barack senior never lived with Obama's mother as husband and wife, and that is the reason why his address on the form is different from the address on Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama released on April 27, 2011.
I think that is called "circular reasoning". Since it is patently obvious that Zero and his handlers/enablers/string pullers are a criminal gang who have falsified all kinds of documents, just because a few things are consistent you take that as evidence of fact? I take it as evidence that they coordinated some dates! There is a lot more stuff that seems to hang together, sort of, in the myth. You take that as evidence of truth too?
Should have added:
There is a lot more stuff that seems to hang together, sort of, in the myth.* You take that as evidence of truth too?
*If taken at face value without any digging for back up info that often proves the face value “story” wrong.
I don't think you are correct. You are stating an opinion as though it's a done deal. Tons of people do know what the truth is. I am sure it will come out eventually. Also you said:
So if it's a choice between total ignorance and assigning some degree of truthfulness to an eyewitness report,
Again, and Beckwith can correct me, it's not Rondeau who is not trustworthy, it's what she was looking at. Kind of like witnesses at an accident scene - they know they saw something, but often what they saw had a different reality than what they think it was. Beckwith isn't saying Rondeau is lying, but the so-called documentation is fake.
I am well-aware of your site and signed up as a paying member. However, when I discovered that all "new" material was available to all readers, I rescinded my membership.
If you think Team Obama wants anyone to apply intelligence and reasoning to the birth certificate and related issues, you are quite wrong. They want people to blindly accept what is said and what documents which they have provided, including the COLB and the latest BC.
Intelligence, rather than obstinacy will get you to the most likely answer. One key area to be aware of is when multiple different documents of different provenances corroborate each other. For example, all BCs and related documents agree on the date and time of Obama's birth, even though they differ as to the location of birth. There are two possibilities: 1) They reflect the actual circumstances of his birth or 2) They are all copied from the same underlying document. My money is on the first hypothesis.
Similarly, a large number of accounts agree with the date and place of the wedding. Are we not to apply sound reason to this unlikely coincidence, also?
There is no reason why belief in the existence of the Obama marriage would help the Obama team in the least. In fact, as we know, in "Dreams," Obama's voice (Bill Ayers?) says that he is not certain that they were ever married. Michelle O has made similar statements.
What is important is to have a commitment to discovering the truth by the analysis of evidence and the application of sound reasoning. To do this, one needs to examine a wide range material, some of it original documents, some of it statements from trusted individuals, and some of it just plain hearsay. Then, when the facts disagree (which seems to happen all too often) you must come up with the best possible answer.
One thing I find galling is the widespread reference to Obama-related pictures. As we have discovered, the working assumption should be that the imaged are photoshopped. If, as in the case of some people on this board, you rely on photos of unknown provenance rather then a University of Washington transcript which has been acquired, in exact duplicate, in a demonstrated fashion all from the same source, you have real problems and truly serve the needs of Team Obama and make us look like fools.
I have no stake in whether they were truly married or not. I have a stake in finding the right answer. Until I see you reject some of the poppycock theories about switched babies, Stanley Ann as a nanny, changes to the well-documented timeline of Obama Sr's arrival and departure to the US, and one random quote about Anna Toots from that great work of fiction, "Dreams," you have zero credibility with me.
Sharon is not the source of that listing. If she has found a marriage certificate then why hasn’t she published it?
So let’s look at a totally different set of documents, Obama Sr’s passport file. In the memo from Harvard University, he acknowledges his marriage to Stanley Ann (and also, his Kenyan marriage?) and that she is studying in Washington state, though they confuse Washington State University with the University of Washington.
How could this treasure trove of authentic documents from an entirely independent information source be in agreement with all these other documents I have cited? Maybe it could be that it was true; there is no other economical reason to believe otherwise.
In terms of Sharon Rondeau, she has established credentials and works fore a paper, The Post and Email, which strives for accuracy on the confusing issue of the Obama birth narrative. Let me know when you or Fred Nerks get published to an authoritative source which edits and fact checks its submissions.
He also acknowledges a marriage to a woman in the Phillipines.
That would be 100 per cent incorrect:
"I actually captured an image of the page on which Mr. Obama’s name appears. In regard to the other indexes, I looked at the 1960-65 marriage index by groom and confirmed that Obama Sr. was listed there as a groom and Stanley Ann as the bride to confirm that there was a record that he was married to Stanley Ann. I also wanted to see if there was a record for Ann and Lolo, and I looked at the 1966-1970 groom marriage index, and it wasn’t in there, but I didn’t look for it in the 1960-65 groom marriage index. I also reviewed the bride index for 1960-65, and there were actually two entries in that one for Ann for both marriages.
Personally, if you don't think the researchers who post here have any credibility, that means less than nothing to me. Just since you pinged me I'm putting my .02 in. For the record, the research and comments I read from Beckwith, Brown Deer, Fred Nerks - to name a few - has a lot more credibility than your comments. You talk as though you "know" certain things are true, and that certain things are not true, just "because". Your reasoning amounts to your opinion - nothing more and nothing less. You seem to think that your opinion is much more weighty than others', and anything they find in support of their positions is worthless to you. Your perjorative words of scorn and derision display an attitude that is haughty, arrogant and not conducive to truth finding. And such superiority is based not on any factual evidence you've brought to the disucssion, but based on "everyone should believe what I say and not what others say, solely because I say it".
I have never posted any comment questioning anything Ms. Rondeau has said she has seen, or has written. As a matter of fact, I don't ever remember posting anything about Ms. Rondeau.
We just have another new poster that believes the crap running through his head is somehow connected to reality.
There are 8 gazillion posts on this forum that beat the same dead horses.
My position is, for those with limited reading comprehension, the only reliable documents are original, source documents.
Those of you that have a problem with my position can save themselves, and me, a lot of time and aggravation by discussing the false, forged, counterfeit, bogus, and ad hoc documents with others.
http://www:TheObamaFile.com
I did not know that was your blog. You have compiled just about the most awesomest collection of Obama information i've ever seen. Many searches that I do looking for specific Obama related info leads back to your blog. I have to say "Thank You, and Well done."
Okay, then why don't you directly come out and say that Fred Nerks' stories meet none of these criteria?
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.