INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!

IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.

NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.

These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr.

Also supported by this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s which was used in at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/99/mode/1up

According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.

http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/14/mode/1up

- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody)

As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. The only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence after August 1961 is a transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961.

The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Derived Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.

The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of the same number of students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and former Kenyan Prime Minister, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.

Of the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.

A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.

Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.

Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.

According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.

"Anything" except the State Department records which show that he was born in Kenya-which is my point.

Sorry, but that's not inherently true. The statements only make an affirmative, but vague declaration. There's nothing to indicate that they are comprehensively referencing ALL records that are on file and/or that the records all contain the same information. Remember, I said they changed the verbiage. This means the actual birth certificate could say born in Kenya, while the "vital records" and "original records" could claim birth in Hawaii.

How many people would have to be involved in a deception which can only be described as Clintonesque and maintain silence to this day? The people quoted by you, the governor who says he saw the records or whatever he says he saw,- there must be more.

We know that both Governor Lingle and Governor Abercrombie have lied. The latter said something was "written down" in the archives, except that the state archives contain no records newer than 75 years old. Unless Obama is a vampire, there's nothing written down in the state archives ... at least not an official birth record. As for how many other people are involved, it doesn't have to be very many at all; the directors of health and the attorney general. There are only a handful of people who have direct access to the inspection of these records, so no one else would need to be involved except by unwittingly repeating the false claims of these officials.

I quite agree with your post. I have taken the view since before 2006 that the presidency of George W Bush was destructive to the Republican party and especially the conservative cause. In support of this proposition I append to this post a portion of a vanity written as long ago as 2006 analyzing, "Why We Lost" that election and placing much of the blame squarely upon George W. Bush. I have in other posts explicitly criticized the Bushes for rehabilitating Bill Clinton and for failing to fight for the party when the issue at stake did not redound directly to the election of a Bush.

Here is a portion of that vanity. Please beware of the length of the rest of this post. There seems to be many FReepers who have short attention spans yet are otherwise incapable of exercising their remedy not to read it:

There are many subordinate reasons why this calamity [the election of 2006!] happened and it is necessary to identify them and assign weight to them so that the important ones can be addressed and corrected.

One such reason can be addressed and could have been corrected, or at least mitigated: It is quite normal for a political party in the sixth year of the presidency to lose the Senate and House seats. In some respects, it was to be expected that this would occur now. Clinton, however, was able to resist this historical trend but those were rather special circumstances.

Similarly, history shows the political parties, after 12 years in power, tend to become arrogant, cynical, and corrupt and that certainly has happened to the Republicans in spades. The voters have just cured the arrogance dimension of this equation but it remains to be seen if the corruption has been rooted out. The "values voters" will tell us in the next election if the Republicans have abandoned their cynicism.

Other reasons are less easily identifiable and more subjective in nature. One goes to the very essence of the character of George Bush. I've long published that he is not a movement conservative, in fact he is not a conservative at all but rather he is a patrician with loyalties to family, friends, and country. His politics are animated not by conservative ideology but by a noblisse oblige which, as a substitute for political philosophy, move him to act from loyalty and love of country. The result of this is that he does not weigh his words and actions against a coherent standard grounded in conservatism, but instinctively reacts to do what is right for family, friends, and country. Thus we get Harriet Meirs, pandering to the Clintons and Kennedys, prescription drug laws, campaign finance laws, runaway spending, and the war in Iraq. The conservative movement is left muddled and confused and the Republican Party undisciplined and leaderless. In these circumstances all manner of mischief is possible beginning with corruption and indiscipline in the ranks. To be effective, a president must be feared as well is loved. A President is more than just Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation, he is the titular head of his party and he must rule it. If Bush was willing to pander to the likes of Teddy Kennedy, what did Senator John McCain have to fear from him? Bush has utterly failed in his role as head wrangler of the Republican Party.

Other subjective reasons for the debacle involve Bush's personal character. He is essentially a nonconfrontational man who would rather operate through collegiality than through power. This is reinforced by his Christian belief and he will almost literally turn the other cheek. So, his loyalty to family and friends affects his appointments and produce mediocrities like Brown at FEMA and Ridge at Homeland Security and Harriet Meirs. It makes him shrink from prosecuting the crimes of his enemies even to the point of overlooking real security lapses committed by The New York Times. It makes it very difficult for Bush to discipline his troops and fire incompetent or disloyal subordinates. Instead he soothes them with the Medal of Freedom.

George Bush is a singularly inarticulate man. When he is not delivering a prepared speech, his sincerity and goodness of character come through, but his policies often die an agonizing death along with the syntax. The truth is that Bush has never been able, Ronald Reagan style, to articulate well the three or four fundamental issues which move the times in which we live. One need only cite the bootless efforts to reform Social Security as an example. His inability to tell America why we must fight in Iraq to win the greater worldwide war against terrorism, or how we are even going to win in Iraq, has been fatal to the Republicans' chances in this election. Of course, one can carry this Billy Budd characterization too far and it is easy to overemphasize its importance, but it is part of the general pattern which has led us to this pass. It is a very great pity that the bully pulpit has been squandered in the hands of a man so inarticulate. That the bully pulpit was wasted means that there are no great guiding principles for the country, for the party, for the administration, for Congress to follow, or for the voters to be inspired by. If the voters went into the booth confused about what the Republican Party stands for, the fault is primarily George Bush's.

There are structural problems for the Republicans as well. By the demographic breakdown of the Northeast and the ambitions of senators such as McCain, there was no coherent Republican policy in the Senate. It is in the nature of the Senate that wayward senators are difficult to bring to heel in any circumstance and Bush's inability properly to act as party leader has given Mavericks a green light to commit terrible damage to the Republicans' electoral posture. This demographic trend is destined to get worse and the self survival instincts of what is left of the Republican Party outside of the South will only become more acute and lead to more defections. Other senators, even when not motivated by personal ambition or demographic problems in blue states, felt free to engage in an extravaganza of corrupt spending to benefit their districts and soothe their contributors. There is a regrettable tendency to underemphasize the demographic handicap under which we conservatives struggle.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America.

This statement doesn't necessarily show that Fukino is making this conclusion, but that she saw a record on file that makes this claim. Also, her statement says "natural-born American citizen." Note, this doesn't say "natural-born U.S. citizen." An "American" citizen could be apply to a Canadian, Mexican, South American, etc. Also, by the 1790 naturalization act, which some people still think is operational; a person born abroad to citizen parents can be considered to be a natural-born citizen. Thus, Fukino's statement leaves open a variety of possibilities, not just the one you're making. And the bottom line: this is an out-of-court statement. It has no legal weight.

In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy.

Sorry, but this is a loaded and emotional declaration. These people may have just been trying to do a legal CYA in an attempt to dis-involve themselves from Obama's problem. They didn't have to be directly involved in a conspiracy, but on the contrary, tried to stay out of it.

One thing that should be noted is that both Fukino and Loretta Fuddy had and have the statutory authority to release any and all information and/or records. Fuddy said she made an exception to the department policy to give Obama's courier girl certified copies of the long-form, but she could have made a similar exception to release the long-form directly to the public. There's no reason for them to parse statements and to tap dance around their own laws, unless they are trying to hide something. While that may indicate deeper involvement, it still might be an attempt to avoid involvement.

That Hawaii government clerks and officials don’t talk is well-known to those familiar and experienced with Hawaii culture.

You just cited one who did. You attempt to distinguish it because he is a "former" government clerk, a distinction without meaning. My point remains that conspiracies unravel and your position, stated in absolute terms, is that they do not unravel in Hawaii. Your own citation belies your assertion.

When you are not contradicting yourself you are personally insulting me. For the record, I don't care about this argument,I care even less about your opinion on this issue, I am only responding because you persist in personal slights. Just stop and we can quit this pointless exchange.

We could then let events prove whether or not there is a conspiracy in Hawaii to commit the biggest election fraud in American history. If history proves me wrong I will admit that I was wrong, but not naïve. Will you admit that you were wrong, if not arrogant and insulting?

You do not have to wait for the verdict of history to admit that you were wrong about such a conspiracy unraveling, your own citation asserts that. Will you admit that you are wrong?

Better yet, why don't we stop this nonsense and wait to see what the facts reveal?

“To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy.”

I disagree with your claim that “...we have abandoned reason for conspiracy.” As Joe Arpaio said “What's wrong with conspiracy?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2858979/posts

"Arpaio: You know, I go back to Watergate. I wasn't involved, but I knew all the characters that were involved. Dick Kleindienst, former attorney general, we were very close when I was regional director. G. Gordon Liddy, he and I ran an operation under Nixon to intercept...actually crackin' down on the US-Mexican border, so I knew a lot about the Watergate. As I say I think this situation is probably ten times worse than Watergate if we ever get to the bottom of it. So, you know, being a law enforcement guy for fifty years I'm always suspicious, sometimes...many times. So you know there have been some deaths I believe connected with Watergate way back. But, you know, there's always conspiracy theories, but don't we...doesn't law enforcement work on conspiracies? Isn't that one way we hook people on conspiracies? So what's wrong with saying there could be a conspiracy?"

Reason is, in fact, what leads to a legitimate, rational theory of criminal conspiracy which in turn leads to “probable cause” threshold for indictment for committing a crime.

The moment that Joe Arpaio announced that his posse had gathered evidence to support a claim of probable cause that the LFBC was forged, Arpaio was inescapably claiming that the HI DOH was complicit if it can be proved that the HI DOH “authenticated” that forged LFBC.

The letter from Fuddy only said that she stood behind the copy of the BC that was given to Barry's lawyer...which is not necessarily the image that was “released” to the press, so Fuddy has a legal “out.” All the player have been provided an “out” including Barry whose attorney refused to even let him hold the LFBC on the day of the presser and said so on the WH transcript of the event.

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.