Skip to comments.INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!
Posted on 03/23/2012 10:58:19 PM PDT by Red Steel
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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Dunhams 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, Dunhams second husband. If Dunham had filed for a renewal of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960s 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 Obamas alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961.
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.
A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:
- 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 childs 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 childs 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 parents legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the childs 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 Dunhams 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 Obamas 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 Dunhams 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 years 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 infants 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 mothers 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 reports 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.
“Thank God for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the others...”
Exactly. We must not give up. The Constitution=rule of law. Executive orders=dictatorship.
No but another adult is a very likely candidate. See frmail
Thanks for the ping.
That comment makes you the overriding smartass here. I do not intend to be the victim of your drive-by post. If you don't have any actual facts or actual specifications by way of a bill of particulars to offer, spare us and shut the hell up.
Kindly stop ankle biting with a post which has no more to offer than this:
" You MUST be kidding."
If you got a point to make, make it otherwise grow up and stop the gratuitous insults. I have never objected to any post directed to me which is aimed at the substance but no one on this thread should have to put up with some snarky smartass shooting personal invective from the sidelines.
If it is shown that he is in fact the same individual, and is a foreign born person yet in the Presidency—yet ineligible for it, and refuses to relinquish the office still, then his orders, any orders or directives to the US military are de-facto Unconstitutional and null and void, correct?
Have lost so many files.....
“Conspiracies have a way of unraveling: People get drunk, egos get bruised, journals and diaries get written, people simply cannot keep secrets, pillow talk, memoranda turn up, some documents do not get shredded, one conspirator turns. As a matter of fact, many crimes get solved not by sleuthing by some guy bragging in a bar.”
True. But this operation could very well have just a handful of people involved. Much of the tampering could have occured in 2007 when no one was on alert. His vital records, INS, SS, etc. at that time would have been on public record where anyone could have stuffed them in their socks and no one would have been the wiser. If a record was hard to get hold of such as adoption, then stage an internal audit. Anything after that was successfully closed by Exec. Order. Gov. Pothead, Fukino, and the rest of the players in this would then be innocent pawns so there’d be not to spill or write in a diary. We know that Samoan Rep. Faleomavaega was his mop up man in Indonesia.
Just throwing this out there for no particular reason - Posted at 21:10 on 27 January, 2012 UTC
The American Samoa senator Seui Laau Sr. passed away last night at LBJ Medical Center at the age of 69.
These INS reports seem to exclude that. There were only three US citizens who came in from Kenya in the time frame, but two were with the Mboya airlift according to the caption below the photo of the page showing the 3 US citizens entering from Kenya.
“The previous years 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.”
If two of the three US citizens were on the Mboya airlift then that lease just US citizen slot...for Stanley Ann with baby Barry listed as an “alien” pending inspection and issuance of a COC???
“That comment makes you the overriding smartass here”
Guilty as charged.
“spare us and shut the hell up.”
The same could be said of your verbose posts.
Hostage’s post at #142 sums up much of what I think.
I would like to respond one more time to allegation that I am "naïve." I have considered the idea of a conspiracy and concluded against it for for many reasons. One of which is that the conspiracy would unravel because people talk. You cite the Drudge article which I believe appeared after a post which I published here a couple of years ago which purports to be exactly what I predicted, someone speaking out against the conspiracy.
Are you citing this Drudge article to support the fact that there is a conspiracy or to support your assertion that in Hawaii no one would talk? If there is a conspiracy, someone is in fact talking and your claim to special knowledge of the arcane world of Hawaii has been exploded by your own citation.
If I am naïve you are presumptuous of your own special knowledge.
I just found the following post which addresses my understanding of the issue some time ago and it presents an analysis why it was not necessary to have a conspiracy for the public officials in Hawaii to speak the way they did. Since that time Obama has released what he claims to be a legitimate birth certificate. Our discussion, of course, is only relevant if Obama's version is counterfeit. Beyond that, we have the document presented today which says that someone, perhaps Obama perhaps not, entered the US at the relevant time from Kenya. Did that document get into the Hawaii chain? I do not think it did unless there is blatant fraud committed by the Hawaiian officials and subsequently covered up by a conspiracy alleged in the Drudge article.
If there was such a conspiracy, it cannot hold for very long. Even the Mafia turns on itself time after time.
Herewith my posts from some time ago indicating my belief that it is logical if not probable that Hawaiian archives and the statements of the Hawaiian officials could be honestly made and yet consistent with a fraudulent application for birth document made by, for example, the grandparents. I submit this post to support the view that my analysis might be wrong but it is hardly naïve:
Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)
The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.
Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."
The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.
We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:
1) the birth certificate is "original."
2) the vital records contained "original" documents
3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate
4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.
The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.
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. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."
Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.
I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.
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
They lie. Hawaii government is very Democrat and corrupt.
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 lived in HI for years and it is totally believable. It is one of the most corrupt and Dem ruled states in the country.
You are breathing in the minutiae and sneezing out snot gobs of verbosity.
That Hawaii government clerks and officials don’t talk is well-known to those familiar and experienced with Hawaii culture.
You will notice the link referred to a ‘former’ government clerk signing an affidavit.
If you can’t pay attention to the details, why bother stroking your demands for attention?
I’ll say again you are naive to think that Hawaiian government persons will not clam up when it comes to the Brah.
And if you think they will slip an anonymous love note that says “Obullsh*t is a fraud”, it will hold no value at all and be inadmissible in court.
The legal affidavit by the ‘former’ Hawaiian government clerk has value in a court.
Now go ahead and defend your naivete by writing an epistle to this short retort.
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.
Are there any astrology enthusiasts on this board? I just don’t get the Leo vibe from this man. I know, it is notoriously difficult to guess someone’s sun sign. But sometimes it’s easier to eliminate signs. I just don’t feel the Leo. Gemini I would find more plausible. Perhaps some other signs, as well.
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.
I do not doubt the possibility of a conspiracy, I simply say it is not a likely scenario.
All of this must be considered in the context of public opinion and a court proceeding. The former has not been won with conspiracy theories so far and the latter has not been won for want of standing. Conspiracy theories do not help the latter either.
We both hold open the possibility that, assuming Obama's will last released certificate is a counterfeit, the Hawaii records can be the product of false representation rendering the president United States not only not a natural born citizen but not a citizen at all.
NS is that you behind that new funky name?
Add the adoption(s), sealed adoption, annulled adoption, grandparent guardianship, etc.and HI may not know what they DO have in their records.
Ever do geneology with multiple people given the same or similar names?...We’ve got one person given multiple names with multiple parents/guardians.
Maybe his book should have been titled “Dream I had a father”
Interesting coinkydinks in this brand new troll-like individual.
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?
Yes, if Obama was born abroad to a bigamist father, Ann’s citizenship would confer a citizenship on him, even though she was under 18. But this would be citizenship by statute. He would not be a natural-born citizen.
” Dreams of my Ghost-Writer”
We are who we're told we are. Most parent reinforce the good and help re channel the negative. For BO he literally had handlers, messed up parents, alcoholic grandparents, who friends and contacts molded BO into the person he is today. He is the child of dysfunction.
I couldn’t agree more.
Remember when "Murphy Brown" was banned from the WH and she thought it was the end of the world?
I disagree with your claim that “...we have abandoned reason for conspiracy.” As Joe Arpaio said “What's wrong with conspiracy?
"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.
SOOOO...Does Barry only know what he’s been told?
So much evidence mounting against BO. Pretty soon it will be too much to ignore. This latest bit is unbelievable.
While Arpaio is doing “Joe Friday” (Just the facts, Ma'am) and claiming that he is not accusing Barry at this time, it is pretty obvious that Barry has colluded in the orchestration of a criminal cover-up of his true birth location and the forgery of his identity documents.
It includes significant cover up by the military, judges, and press of a false conviction. The movie shows the judges refusal to enter into evidence anything of value to the defendant (like birthers) It was a real and dividing part of French history, not unlike what we are going through in the US today. One writer was instrumental in getting the truth out by publishing his accusations and being sued for libel. He lost but eventually won.
Anyone who looks into it will realize that yes, there can be unthinkable conspiracies by persons in power to prevent the truth from coming out. It snowballed and they got deeper and deeper into covering up an original falsehood.
I accuse the US Government (through some of its employees), Congress and the Media of either aiding and abetting the cover up of Obamas records or of being ridiculously incompetent, negligent, or just plain cowards for doing as they are told, turning a blind eye or doing nothing to clear up the controversy.
When is the last time the Media, Congress or Investigators with authority asked President Obama about his birth certificate(other than brave Sheriff Arpaio) his social security card, his draft registration, etc? Or have they? The non action indicates to me a silent conspiracy along with a real one.
Is it not evident that the big media refuses to cover the story and refuses to ask the President pertinent questions? Is that not a conspiracy to suppress evidence and information?
Hope this finds its way to Sheriff Joe.
Barry would not be a “Minor v. Happersett NBC” but only if MvH is upheld as applied to the facts and circumstances of Barry's birth.
Note that Barry's legal team have now moved way beyond MvH, WKA and Ankeny to the new standard articulated in Marguet v. Pillado (9th Cir. 2011) which says that Barry would be NBC regardless of where he was born on the planet as long as he is biologically related to a US citizen at birth.
See my FR vanity thread:
Edge919 already addressed part of your question and I can address part of the other.
I have a younger brother born in the Azores islands while my USAF dad was stationed there in the late ‘50’s. On our return to the USA, and enroute to his next duty station in NM, my parents (although my father was natural born, my mother was an immigrant citizen (making me not a natural born citizen since she became one three years after I was born)) had to stop at a US Consulate in Texas to have his (my brother’s) citizenship naturalized. Until the process was complete he was an alien citizen with the papers that went along with it. After the process completed he became a NATURALIZED US citizen, and only a NUSC.
The key question is, did the mother in this record actually complete the process? If the mother was like some anti-US types, she could have flaunted the process and, on arrival home, just said her child was born on the way home. After all, if her child was a new-born (even recently born can fool some folk) she could say it was born on the way HOME when she arrived at her destination.
So, he really was "The One" after all?
But if he were born in Kenya with a Kenyan father, surely he wouldn't be eligible for an automatic certificate of US citizenship.
If he were born overseas wouldn't he have to have two US citizen parents to be considered a US citizen from birth?
At any rate, there was probably at least one American couple living in Kenya whose child would more likely qualify as the "1" than Obama.
Dr. Edwin Vieira
An article: - http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321969/
There is no question that the government is fully capable of committing crimes and doing so for a variety of motivations. It seems to me that we would have to inquire what the motivations of the officials of Hawaii to further such a conspiracy might be. Certainly they would not be directly advanced politically nor would they be directly advanced financially in any way that is now known to us. They might, however, be subject to downside pressures on their jobs and associations. Most likely, their motivation, if it exists, would be a desire to support the first black president because they too are people of color mutually supporting each other in a very diverse state.
Yet, at some point we have to have actual evidence. We have to confirm it, that is prove, as an absolutely indispensable first step that the last certificate is in fact a counterfeit. If that is done I think a conspiracy would disintegrate because it will be exposed to the light of intense public scrutiny.
Recent history demonstrates with absolute clarity that this matter will only be moved forward by the presentation of the most compelling hard evidence. The resistance in the media, indeed the resistance on the part of Republican politicians, will only be overcome by hard evidence. I am mindful of Watergate in which the defense infrastructure which protected Nixon only came to an end with the revelations in the tapes. Even DNA proving perjury was not enough to get rid of Clinton.
How much more will it take to get rid of the historic first African-American president. Therefore, all of this talk about conspiracy and the document that was presented today showing some Kenyan came to America at a critical time, does not advance the matter toward a political solution very far at all. Equally, the courts are reluctant to touch this because they are wary of intruding into "political" questions so they dodge the matter by finding there is no standing.
Both the political and the legal frustrations will continue until hard evidence is produced and all the speculation about conspiracy theories will avail nothing.
Would the subsequent paperwork be automatic or would it require input from Obama' s mother to move the matter along. I tend to agree with your belief that she probably did not move the matter along, preferring instead to make an end run through Hawaii system not just for political reasons but because it was easier, cheaper, and quicker.Further, as I understand it,Barack Obama would not have been automatically entitled to citizenship so the Hawaii option would have been even more attractive.
As I understand it, according to today's revelation, Obama would have entered the country in Massachusetts and one would expect that at that airport some sort of paperwork would have been generated. What kind? In the normal course, what would've happened to it? If the files have been laundered by Obama's agents, would they know enough to go after this document?
I further assume that the provisional document generated in Massachusetts probably was not placed into the Hawaiian archive. My guess is that the grandparents generated a certificate of live birth on their own affidavit or application.
Does this make sense from your personal knowledge?
If a conspiracy occurred, it was 50 years ago when Obama's grandmother used her influence to get his vital records admitted. At the time, it would have been a minor event lost among the routine mundane affairs of a local bureaucracy. To those in the future who look back at it, it would appear at first glance to be in order. To those in the past, it would have been like fixing a parking ticket, nothing to brag about and easy to forget or minimize in thought.
Any conspiracy in the current would be from those who are familiar with the bureaucracy and the normal state of documents in the entirety, and who can then recognize anomolies such as the absence of related documents that should also be present. Theirs is a passive consipiracy, as they were not a part of the falsification of records, but they are silent about inconsistencies found in the records.
More like McCain's "That one!"
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.