Reconstructive surgery? Plastic ear, LOL!?
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."
Reconstructive surgery? Plastic ear, LOL!?
There you go again, mentioning FReepers behind their backs. YOU MUST BE the RUDEST PERSON ON FR!
Per the link I gave you, each step removed from the original is one more step away from it being accurate and tamper proof:
1) The original certificate is the primary source, but even so, there could be errors in the date or name spellings, etc.
2) If they xeroxed the certificate or typed it onto another form for the marriage book, that could lead to typos or smudged xeroxing.
3) Then it was handwritten in the original index which could involve further mistakes or sloppy writing or page numbers switched with another certificate the clerk was entering.
4) A hair or bug or dust or whatever could obscure something when it was microfilmed. Or it could have been picture-snapped twice or out of order or completely skipped over. Or the focus blurred. Or the ink was too faint, etc.
5) Then, I promise you, the microfilmed index was what was used to type it into digital form. So, between the dust, hairs, sloppy writing, skipped documents, typos, etc. can you see how mangled the record becomes?
Not to mention the big volumes and the index books have loose pages which can be added to or subtracted. The exception would be the very old big volumes had the pages sewn into the spine and those didn't have a separate index. The problem is that tampering would be so easy - just unscrew the posts and slip in whatever forged page you wanted in a matter of 20 seconds. It'd be a tie between Sandypants folding papers and stuffing his socks and how long switching out these pages.
Also, if when Stanley Ann filed for divorce her lawyer had to enter a delayed marriage certificate, that wouldn't appear on the digital index because that index is a condensed form of what was in the original index (i.e. no volume/page number and there would be a grooms’ section and a brides’ maiden name section so you could cross reference). If there was a delayed filing, it would be at the back of those sections because, obviously, it would have been entered late. Same with any amendments/adoption/name change/etc. with the long form birth certificate. Since all we have is the digital index, we don't have any way to determine all those other red flags. And just how easy is it to hack into the HDOH to hit delete and type in Obama/Dunham, uh huh. IOW, we ain't got jack.
Ok, got that verified.
He probably didn’t even have to fill out an application. ;-)
Why don’t you pull out your passport and look at it?
I have mine in my hand. On mine, it says under endorsements, “SEE PAGE 27”. My passport has been extended and contains 52 pages—I just counted.
I forgot to add: yes, the “SEE PAGE 51” bit is indeed referring to that page in the passport. Fifty pages may sound like a lot, but it’s really not when it comes to passports.
The truth is that there will never be 100 per cent certainty with any document, especially as it relates to Obama. This given the case, the entirety of the document including the contents of the cells becomes exceedingly relevant. Additionally, you cannot throw at an entire document because of one alleged error.
It got me really pissed off when people were talking about the Lucas Smith BC that people would go on endless tirades about the correct spelling and legal status of Mombasa and the hospital there. You have to look at the entirety of the document rather than throwing it out because you think that you know, for sure, that the legal status of the Coastal Protectorate of Kenya was different than in that document.
So let's ask some basic questions:
Does it appear that the hospital existed at the time of birth?
Does the street address of the hospital correspond to public records?
How does the time of birth compare with other documents?
Do the signatories exist? Did they have the official capacity revealed in the document at the time the document was generated? Were they acquainted with the parties? -- Lucas hit a home run when he showed that the birth doctor was a personal friend of the Obama family.
Etc., etc.
What we have is a whole lot of evidentiary fragments, each with a different level of uncertainty about them. How does that level of uncertainty change when you apply the results outlined above? How many documents corroborate your belief?
In terms of the Obama/Dunham marriage, there are several documents that point to the same wedding date. There is the printed marriage indexes with the Hawaii DOH. There is the divorce decree in 1964. There is the reports from Harvard contained in the Obama Customs/Passport file. In fact, every mention of the marriage uses the same date. Am I 100 per cent certain that the date/existence of the marriage is correct? Certainly not. But, on the other hand, no one has presented any document, official or otherwise) that claims a different date, nor is there any specific document which claims they weren't married. Bottom line: There is a significant likelihood, corroborated by several different documents that they were, indeed, married.
That's all we have to deal with here is likelihoods. But certain documents can be highly revealing. The UW transcript, which exists in two different forms and had been provided to several requesters upon asking, links the "Anna Obama" street address in Seattle, her freshman UH transcript, and her (Mercer Island) high school transcript. Here we have four separate, unique characteristics of Stanley Ann that are all linked into one document.
When such evidence is examined forensically, it becomes indubitable that there was one Stanley Ann (often known as Annn -- see the Obamafile) who, for whatever reason, ended up in Seattle after Obama Jr's birth. And then, when you look at different statements from friends and baby sitters, you will see that, despite their various inconsistencies, they support the idea of the Seattle Anna Obama. I know people have made many complaints about such statements, but certain aspects of the stories (e.g., Stanley Ann's inability to change diapers) are quite distinct, memorable, and hard to invent on the fly.
We know that many of the people herein named have been instructed to avoid speaking to anyone, especially birthers, about her time in Seattle. There are stories that she told a gripping tale of being unable to get on a plane out of Hawaii. There are the missionaries in Kenya that remember her plight. THERE ARE THE BOGUS INVENTION OF OBAMA RECORDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE COMPLETE FABRICATIONS BY "THE ENEMY."
Absolutely nothing will ever be known with 100 per cent certainty. You have to look at the entirety of the evidence, not just official documents, to make a correct determination. You need to apply Occam's Razor: What is the most economical hypothesis that supports the entire range of evidence surrounding the question at hand, like the Seattle Anna Obama story.
I know I am using a scientific method and can give you specific citations to that fact. I am not going to claim that I have "the answer," but I will claim that my methods are sound, reasonable and basically match up with the concept of "evidence" in a court proceeding.
What's your methodology? What records have you ignored? Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just saying that you don't like where the evidence leads you? Have you incorporated the entire range of documents, from "official" documents, to corroborating documents, to confounding documents, to recollections of conversations, to hearsay that you picked up on one random website that has been repeated a half doze times, always without attribution or supporting evidence?
It is only by analyzing the totality of all evidence that you can even begin to make a reasoned hypothesis, especially given that we have seen forged documents, missing documents, photoshopped pictures, and that great work of fiction, "Dreams." I have laid out my methodology, what's yours?
btw, that scar looks like it almost killed him, have you ever wondered why Ayres wrote in ‘Dreams’ that zero was mistaken for ‘David’ in the street in Nairobi?
And zero explains that no, he’s not ‘David’ - ‘David’ was killed in a motor-cycle accident? Now remember, we are supposed to accept that zero’s first trip to Kenya was in 1986...but the death of ‘David’ is variously shown as 1984 and 1987:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/7368/recalling-jack-kemps-cameo-dreams-my-father
“...A bit of digging reveals that it is pretty tough to find when Obama’s half-brother David Ndesandjo died; some sites put it at 1987...”
http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/Barack-H-Obama-Sr.html
Photo: David Opiyo Obama (1968-1984), son of Barack H. Obama and baby brother of Abon’go Malik Obama.
And if that 1983 date is correct for the first trip to Kenya, then ‘David’ would still have been alive...if there was a ‘David’... which I very much doubt.
Well! Both Obama, I assume. Can you/we approximate what years these photos were taken? Those ears don’t belong on the same head. Can you post the full photos, as well as the ear photos?
I didn’t create that composite, like so many other images in my collection, I picked that one up from a website...because I thought it was interesting. I do have a number of others, though not as spectacular...scroll through:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/385/260/Arrest_Obama_Hes_a_fraud_and_no_Commander_in_Chief.html
GOOGLE ‘OBAMA SCARS’
Can’t get that link to work, but if they are both photos of Obama...those ears don’t belong on the same head.
For comparison, image from during the campaign...
thanks; posted before I saw your latest post. This deserves a thread of its own. Body-double? Those ears do not belong on the same head.
I believe the substitution took place when Zero was around 3. Dark boy - aka Roman Obama (not Roman at that time, the original BHO) is in the photo with Ruth and Obama standing, dark boy standing by Ruth, she’s holding Mark.
Zero went to HI (this is what I think happened) around age 3-ish, and Stanley was basically hired to take care of him, thus the fake “divorce” to give her custody.
A little fear doesn’t make people rabid. Unless they have a big fat vested interest in the truth remaining unknown.
Reconstructive surgery IMO. See previous comments (’motorcycle accident’?) upthread. There has been a Post about it on FR, I’ll see if I can find it.
Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists
Daily Mail UK ^ | 6th April 2011
Posted on 04/08/2011 8:05:31 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2701672/posts
Mystery scars on Obama’s head prompt another question from conspiracy theorists
Daily Mail UK ^ | 6th April 2011
Posted on 04/08/2011 8:05:31 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2701672/posts
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.