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
click here to read article
Inquiring minds want to know what exactly it was that led the investigation to Boston.
You are naive.
And no I am not a conspiracy nut job. I have described real knowledge and experience with references to Hawaii government and social culture. I have given you an outside well-documented example in Morton-Thiokol.
You on the other hand assert speculative thought to improbable conspiracies asserting that they cannot exist and I gave an example to counter that.
You implied that eventually people would talk so that a lasting conspiracy would not be possible implying that the silence you hear is indicative that there is no conspiracy. That is circular reasoning based on a false premise. First, you are not informed. People in Hawaii government have been talking. One example: http://www.drudge.com/news/154482/hawaii-official-signs-affidavit-no-obama
You had no response to my informing you of Zullo’s findings with respect to Hawaii newspaper birth announcements.
You had no response to my informing you of a news blackout.
In sum, you see, hear, speak no evil and insinuate those that are suspicious are ‘conspiracy nutjobs’.
Do I believe the Kenyan was born in Kenya? No. Do I believe the Muslim was born in the USA? No. Do I believe he was born on Earth? No. Say what? I say I don’t ‘believe’ anything at this point. Why do I call him Kenyan? Well, sometimes I call him OBullsh*t. Because I don’t like the community organizer and his demrat Chicago ghetto mob.
No, I am a believe in logic and high probability factoids. For example, does this finding in a Boston archive of an INS notation that there was a Kenyan infant issued a COAC, does it prove the Kenyan was this infant? No. Then what value does it have? It has value in the contrapositive. If the archive had shown there was no Kenyan infant born to a US citizen brought to the USA at the time of Obama’s birth, the ‘Birthers’ would be severely setback. But the finding shows there was such an infant. Therefore, the Birther case is strengthened because it can’t be knocked out by the contrapositive.
Whereas Obama’s evidence is forged, the Birther evidence is not. IF the Birther evidence were shown to be forged, then THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT WOULD BE TRULY SETBACK. But so far the only response to Birthers is from Obama shills spouting they are all conspiracy whack jobs. You seem to have an affinity with them.
On the other hand if this archive had revealed no such infant traveling from Kenya, would the ‘Birthers’ have reported it, ended their investigation, packed up and gone back home? Well the archive didn’t return a negative so it’s impossible to say.
If Obama shills have attempted a Dan Rather type hit-job on Birthers, they haven’t been successful as the Birthers appear smart enough not to believe everything that surfaces until they have had an expert review.
Thus far, the Birthers are racking up points whereas the Obam-Shills are spinning their heads while farting out their mouths.
All this is making a lot more sense now. Stanley Ann could have given birth in May or June then have traveled a little more comfortably to Seattle to go to school Aug 19th.
Were there any other non-citizen or citizens listed as accompanying this minor?
Wouldn’t a non citizen be listed with, but a citizen not listed?
Your observations about conspiracy are spot on....sometimes it is useful however, to distinguish between “conspiracy” and “confluence of interest”.
With the latter...a multiplicity of interests so benefit from the general “trend” that no significant opposition can be organized. In this case the net accrual of power to DC can buy a lot of “lack of interest” in disturbing the status quo.
Obama has been the best thing for DC since the New Deal. For those still believing in a two-party system which represents the interests of the various 50 United States on Capitol Hill...it is hard to see this.
For those who finally can admit that the two-parties entangled in Federal Gov’mt are DC and Flyover Country, this situation of convenient silence or ignoring the facts at hand, and even deliberately denying “standing” to question things at hand in Federal Courts is more understandable.
They do unravel.
That doesn’t help when the ground is so rotten that the conspiracy is permeating everything.
Now. H.W.Busch designating Bill C as like to his son. What does that tell you?
Did Madelyn Dunham and or Stanley Armour accompany her daughter on this trip? Methinks its possible...
Nothing Gov. Pothead says should ever be believed. Remember, 1) he's the only one on the planet who claims Ann and Sr. were ever seen together, 2) that he was there (wherever "there" was it certainly wasn't with Granny Sarah who claims the same) when the bouncing bundle of joy was born and 3) he also said at first that there was no BC but then flip flopped with it might have been written somewhere in the archive building (which shouldn't house BCs).
“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
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.