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

The Daily Pen ^ | Friday, March 23, 2012 | Dan Crosby

[edge919]

Either. I seem to recall a story where SAD told one of her friends she had been on a ship prior to her arrival in Seattle in August 1961. The INS report in the Daily Pen blog includes passenger arrival statistics from both sea and air.

[Ronin]

Interesting, but hardly a smoking gun. Totally circumstantial.

[Ronin]

I don’t think it does. It’s interesting circumstantial evidence, but nothing more.

[MestaMachine]

Where was bob’s social security number from? Wasn’t that from Boston too? Curious that this would be found in Boston. Coincidence without end.

[presently no screen name]

social security number from? Wasn’t that from Boston too?

I believe it was Connecticut. Right below MA.

[Vendome]

Slug bug....

[MestaMachine]

Thank you. There is so much to try and remember.

[edge919]

Generally, the same is true for anything that “proves” Obama was born in Hawaii. His alleged birth certificates have never been legally verified, so the only evidence showing him to be born in Hawaii is circumstantial.

This finding corroborates the possibility that Obama could be the person for whom the certificate of citizenship was issued to. Like everything else in regards to Obama, the specific records are missing. But let’s not forget about the state department’s passport records that were breached in March 2008. Incidentally, that timeframe coincides with the timestamp on the factlack dot org photos and the date on the alleged Obama COLB.

[presently no screen name]

I know. Boston (TeaParty) had this info archived. LOL!!

[nathanbedford]

As I thought, nothing here which explicitly connects these documents to Obama. Therefore the ringing assertions on this thread are perhaps premature.

Seems to me that there is enough here to justify further research in an attempt to connect this document somehow to Obama. As of now we have virtually nothing.

To slightly change the subject, I am confused about the assertions in the article which seemed to be internally inconsistent:

"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. " (emphasis supplied)

It is my understanding that citizenship for Barack Obama was not and could not have been automatic because under the statute obtaining at the time, he could not be an automatic citizen by virtue of birth to only one American parent when that parent could not have resided the requisite amount of time prior to the birth in the United States. Since Ann Dunham was only 18 she could not have resided in the United States a sufficient time in order to qualify her child if born abroad on August 4, 1961.

The quoted portion above says this about the document in question:

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

It seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. What is a "citizen alien?"

This document seems to suggest that it reflects the beginning of a bureaucratic process under which an infant is awarded United States citizenship (not natural born citizenship, of course) at the conclusion of the process. I do not know what the process entails but I assume that it requires submission of documentation etc. That would seem to indicate that a certificate of citizenship for Barack Obama would not have necessarily come from Hawaii in the form of a birth certificate but from the federal government in the form of a citizenship certificate.

Is this true?

I recall posting some time ago that under the Hawaiian statute certificates concerning birth might well have been issued on the affirmation, virtually unsupported by any documentation, of a parent or grandparent of live birth at home. This would have been a way around a tedious and time-consuming process with the State Department by which Obama's mother or grandmother could have caused United States citizenship to be conferred on her child or grandchild born abroad.

If she did not go that route but obtained a Hawaiian birth certificate based on this document, the Hawaiian records, if they remained intact, would show a foreign birth. But a foreign birth is contrary to the express representations made by the Hawaiian officials in two separate press releases about the provenance of Obama's birth. We would then have to believe they are lying which is certainly possible but improbable.

If there is an inconsistency between the Hawaiian birth certificate and the data on this document such as place of birth, it would suggest that this document was not used in Hawaii but simply went into limbo. if that is actually what happened, Obama is not a citizen at all, much less a natural born citizen.

I'm not sure how this advances the cause except to note, as I have, that it warrants further investigation.

[JSteff]

Dreadfully incompetent presentation for that reason.

Exactly what O and his handlers have counted on in all their planning. This whole thing, if it is as many hope, can only be kept in play by a willing MSM and brain dead are nothing public.

Even Fox is not going to support the exposure of this info, and NONE of the talking heads on Fox will risk their jobs.

This is probably just a decoy anyway.... designed to throw the right off... again.

Another attempt designed and planned to get his detractors crying wolf again. They wanted to make everyone so sick of the "wolf" warning that it eventually be ignored even more.
When the real thing is found it will be ignored too. Bill Clinton was a master at this false warning ruses. Therefore he got away with ALL of it and is now a revered former president living with the percs FOR LIFE on our dime.

O may be a master at it, but only history will tell. Now it appears he will live off us for life too.

[LyinLibs]

This feels like another decoy. Reminds me of the infamous “Kenyan birth certificate” that some jackass forged in his apartment.

However, I’m convinced that Omoslem is 100% full of crap and needs to be exposed and removed from office.

Example: INS microfilm is missing from the National Archives for the WEEK Omoslem was allegedly “born.” Also known as the week his mother probably flew back into the USA.

[El Kabong1]

That still doesn’t account for the Hawaiian birth certificate - long form or short form - nor the birth notice in the Honolulu newspaper at the time.

[edge919]

But a foreign birth is contrary to the express representations made by the Hawaiian officials in two separate press releases about the provenance of Obama's birth. We would then have to believe they are lying which is certainly possible but improbable.

These press releases contained parsed statements. There's nothing conclusive within them about Obama being born in Hawaii. The July 27, 2009 statement said:

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 Barack 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.”

Fukino's October 2008 statement said she had personally verified Obama's original birth certificate was on file. The July statement changes the verbiage to "vital records" (note that this is a plural form), so she's not necessarily talking about the provenance of the birth certificate. The "vital records" could be the Hawaii 50th anniversary of statehood declaration, or a letter from Obama requesting his birth records ... anything. If Obama's COLB was genuine, there should be no other vital records on file. So whatever documents these are, they call into question the authenticity of the COLB, and Fukino only says that these records "verify" (which can mean nothing more than "claim") Obama was born in Hawaii. Again, she switched the verbiage from her 2008 statement, and she went from saying she personally verified something to saying she saw some unspecified records that verify something.

Now, let's look at Loretta Fuddy's statement from April 2011.

"I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai‘i."

Notice how she says "original records" and then the "certified copies" of something that were provided to the President, that "further" prove he was born in Hawaii. Well, nothing legal was ever shown by the state of Hawaii to prove he was born there in the first place, so how could an unspecified record prove anything further?? It's a meaningless statement. She doesn't say his original birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii. Technically, there's no lie in either of these statements because there may be some "original records" that "verify" (claim) that Obama was born in Hawaii, but as written, these "original records" are not certified copies of an original birth certificate that lists a Hawaiian birth.

Also, let's consider that Obama did have a foreign birth, but under the Hawaiian territorial law, his parent could apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. There may be records that indicate the birth abroad, but other records that have the birth listed as occurring locally as fits within the law. Then it becomes clear as to why these statements from the directors of health use different terminology and purposely vague language.

[edge919]

Neither the long form or short form were ever legally confirmed as genuine. A jpg and a PDF mean nothing. The birth notice in the Honolulu paper doesn’t list a place of birth, so it proves nothing, and it doesn’t not preclude the child from having been born outside of Hawaii.

[cynwoody]

I see a nothing but pixelated, miniscule, illegible jpgs on this article.

Agreed.

Too long; didn't read; pix too small!

[nathanbedford]

The "vital records" could be the Hawaii 50th anniversary of statehood declaration, or a letter from Obama requesting his birth records ... anything.

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

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.

It stretches credulity think we are going to convince anybody that these people are relying on this kind of verbiage in a conspiracy which is not unraveled to commit the greatest hoax in American history.

For the record, here is my post from a couple years ago to this effect and it seems the only area of disagreement we have is whether Dr. Fukimo could have truthfully uttered her statements if she had seen the document the present thread is discussing:

I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averring that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.

More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.

Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.

While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.

I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.

[chuckles]

Ping for proof later to people that make fun of me. Makes it easier to find.

[Salamander]