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."
They’re talking behind your back again...
Same place he got that scar on the side of his head; From a Bank Robbery in New York. Had to go to Pakistan to lie low for awhile. :)
Fred has shown no ability to update his theories when faced high quality evidence, with known provenance, which flatly contradicts many of his preposterous assertions. He doesn't listen to me, so I never write to him
I never said you lied. What I said was that you failed to repudiate obviously questionable scenarios presented here on Free Republic and, for that, I give you zero credibility.
I’m done with you. You’re a jerk!
Throwing poo like a monkey is what I call it. Wanting to distract and disrupt in a nasty way is what I call it.
Less than zero, it’s into negative territory.
He’s a hard core, passive-aggressive liberal. It’s what they do.
Went from Seattle to the People’s Republic of Cambridge. Can’t speak highly enough about the place.
Claims he’s a conservative, but if he was he’d be the only one over there and he’d have no one to talk to on the loony side of the Charles River.
No conservative would live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, even if the rent was free.
I am very familiar with the “I’m the smartest person in the room and you yokels had better listen to me because I Know All and you know nothing, because you’re you, and I’m the Great Me”.
Liberals are very often like that, most of the ones I’ve met, and I’ve known some quite well. In the past, thankfully.
How mature! You wan't win your argument, so you have to resort to name calling. I'm sure that fits right into Team Obama's plans.
Quite the contrary to your assertion about my "lies", everything I have said today is factually true, with the one exception that, while Rondeau was the author of the story, she was not the researcher. This does not detract from my statement that the Post and Email is a reputable source which seeks high quality authors and tries to fact check all its articles, as a good publication should. I have tried my best to avoid personalizations, though this will undoubtedly occur when discussing such a heated topic as this.
You are obviously incapable of applying reason to any discussion you have had today. I have read The Obama File, The Post and Email, and probably a dozen other web sites. I am solely interested in determining the facts. It really doesn't matter to me whether there ever was an Obama marriage -- what does count is that there are numerous sources with a wide range of credibility which support this hypothesis.
If,as you say, you only want to rely on source documents, you are excluding a wide variety of evidence which would be potentially admissible in a court of law. I think that admissibility is a relatively good standard for the purposes of Free Republic. We know, for certain, that many source documents have been forged or have been removed or hidden from the public record, so relying only on sources with questionable provenances won't get you far.
As I mentioned earlier, I am proposing a scientific standard: Take all evidence, use Baye's theoretic techniques to help determine the probative value of each hypothesis, and use Occam's razor to select the most economical explanation, or set of explanations if we aren't able to narrow it down to a single explanation. There is nothing that I am saying that differs from my desire to find the truth.
Alternate approaches, of which there are a few on FR, do not have a sound basis and should be vehemently disowned by the community. It is the failure to criticize poppycock theories which is what makes Team Obama happy What they are totally afraid of are people who logically sort through the evidence and make reasoned guesses as to the truth, since such a path could easily lead one to attribute a positive probability to a Kenyan birth, for example.
The recurring theme many “birthers” keep missing: why would a faked BC amount to legal proof of ineligibility per paternal British citizenship?
Considering how often nuances of truth are derided as “forgery!” due to rank ignorance, I’m not surprised.
All Birth Certificate theories are irrelevant any way; he is not a natural Born citizen regardless of his place of birth. That is based on all four of the Court cases that addressed the definition of Natural Born.
Of course the clowns will perpetually disagree, and dissemble, and try to deceive.
According to the Post and Email article, the researcher (FR’s own Ladysforest?) did get access to the marriage indexes and saw two entries for Stanley Ann, one for her marriage to Obama and the other for her marriage to Soetoro. Maybe you should ask her for the photos which she claimed she took?
You could well be right, but I am getting more doubtful as each day passes that there will ever be such a challenge. First of all, every court seems very successful in claiming a lack of standing, which makes one wonder what it would take to get standing. Also, Freeper X and others have pointed out that an argument can be made that the 14th Amendment changed everything. I also think that there are some tuggings of the heart, such as why shouldn't the child of a soldier stationed overseas in the service of his country not be a Natural Born Citizen?
The Supreme Court has had a lot of chances to take this up, and we're now in the third year of his presidency, so I definitely see a lot of reluctance on their part. Do we even know for sure whether Spiro Agnew was an NBC?
However, if Obama is discovered to have been born in Kenya, that is a slam dunk. Orly Taitz has been given the power of subpoena against the Hawaii DOH and it's departmental head. I have heard that Hawaii is fighting it though the document indicates that the deposition is supposed to take place ~ June 25th. We can only hope that she gets the deposition and that she is able to prove Obama was born in Kenya. It is well known that none of the hospitals in Hawaii have any record of his birth.
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.