IMMIGRATION OFFICERS DOUBTED OBAMA BIRTH STORY

WND EXCLUSIVE

INS was prepared to investigate marriage, paternity in 1961

Published: 5 hours ago

by JEROME R. CORSI Email | Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

NEW YORK – Immigration documents filed in 1961 cast doubt on whether Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was the president’s biological father and indicate federal officers were prepared to investigate whether the Kenyan was married to the president’s mother, Ann Dunham.

Aside from the image of a long-form birth certificate released by the White House April 27, 2011 – a document Sheriff Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation has found probable cause to believe is a forgery – what documentary evidence is there that Barack Obama was the biological father?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s next news conference on his probe of Obama’s eligibility is set for Tuesday, July 17. Sign up to watch it live-streamed for free on WND.

The recent biography of the president by Washington Post editor and author David Maraniss, “Barack Obama: The Story,” quotes concerns about Obama Sr.’s sexual promiscuity expressed by Immigration and Naturalization Service officers, but he dimisses them as racially motivated.

Maraniss, on pages 162-163, examines a 1961 INS memo that indicates Obama Sr. continued to have multiple girlfriends at the University of Hawaii after his supposed marriage, Feb. 2, 1961, in Maui to Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

In the memo, written by a Lyle H. Dahlin, Obama Sr.’s student adviser, a Mrs. McCabe, indicated Obama Sr. was “very intelligent” but had been a “playboy,” “running around with several girls” since he arrived. The adviser also noted he was married to an American, though he already had a wife in Kenya.

Maraniss writes regarding the memo: “There was a fine line between how Obama acted and the racial attitudes and expectations of those who were working with him, the unanswerable but valid question being whether the official concern was heightened because he was a black man interacting with white women.”

However, a close analysis of the INS documents in Obama Sr.’s immigration file makes clear Maraniss either misunderstood the true concerns of the INS or misrepresented them.

The primary concern of the INS, according to the memos, was not that Obama Sr. was sexually involved with white women, but that he might have engaged in a sham marriage to Dunham so he could remain in the U.S. or gain U.S. citizenship.

See the evidence about Barack Obama’s heritage, in “Dreams from My Real Father.”

The INS documents indicate authorized government immigration agents suspected the evidence for an Obama-Dunham marriage was thin, and doubts that the Kenyan was the biological father were substantial.

The Dahlin memo

In the first paragraph of the Dahlin memo, shown below as Exhibit 1 (click on photo to enlarge), the officer poses the question of whether Obama broke any laws if he married Dunham while he was still married to a Kenyan.

Exhibit 1: INS file by Lyle H. Dahlin. Click to enlarge.

Paragraph three articulates the next problem: If Obama was “running around with several girls” at the university, did Obama’s continued promiscuity suggest he was not married to Dunham or that it was a sham marriage?

Evidently, the best McCabe could get out of Obama was a less-than-credible promise that he would “try” to stay away from the girls.

The last two sentences of the third paragraph appear to be Obama’s rebuttal to an accusation of bigamy: He apparently explained to McCabe that he was divorced from his wife in Kenya because Kenya did not require anything more than a husband expressing to his wife a desire to terminate the marriage.

The fourth paragraph dismisses the bigamy concern, explaining Obama was in the United States not as an immigrant seeking U.S. citizenship but on a temporary student visa under which suspicion of polygamy was insufficient to support a deportation charge.

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

The last paragraph indicates that if Dunham, as a “U.S. citizen wife,” were to petition for Obama Sr. to receive permanent residence status as an immigrant on track to citizenship, the INS should conduct an investigation to make sure the alleged marriage was legitimate.

Contrary to Maraniss’ assertion, the INS officers didn’t appear to be concerned about the interracial nature of the Kenyan’s sexual activities at the university.

What was of concern was that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, and their marriage might have been arranged for immigration purposes.

Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1325(c), current immigration law specifies that any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws is subject to up to five years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.

In 1961, the INS, in investigating suspected marriages of convenience, would interview the two individuals separately and ask questions about the personal, often intimate, habits of the alleged mate.

Give the baby to the Salvation Army?

WND previously reported Boston Globe reporter Sally H. Jacobs had access to an INS file in which the memo seen in Exhibit 1 was displayed without redaction.

As seen in Exhibit 2, this version of the letter permits reading of part of the third paragraph.

Exhibit 2: Lyle H. Dahlin memo without redaction. Click to enlarge.

In the third sentence of the third paragraph, the Dahlin memo adds the detail that McCabe reported the Kenyan had gotten Dunham pregnant, a fact that would have been consistent with the marriage being legitimate.

Except, Dahlin adds, McCabe reported that the Kenyan and Dunham did not live together and Obama Sr. and Dunham were contemplating giving the baby away to the Salvation Army.

The facts suggest a sham marriage arranged for immigration purposes only: a supposedly married couple who do not live together, a “husband” with multiple girl friends on the side and a baby neither parent seems determined to raise.

INS suspicion of the marriage is further reinforced by the handwritten note at the end of the memo. Dahlin makes clear an apparent superior officer within the INS section agreed that the facts did not merit deportation for the Kenyan, a non-immigrant student in the USA on a temporary visa. But an investigation would be warranted if he sought to further extend his visa.

Dating the Dahlin memo

The only date on the Dahlin memo is the handwritten April 12, 1961, preceding the handwritten note at the bottom of the document. That date indicates the memo was written while Dunham was pregnant, less than four months before the baby’s birth.

The decision to give away the baby to the Salvation Army after Obama Sr. “got” Dunham pregnant must have caused the INS to wonder precisely what kind of relationship existed between the two.

The memo indicates Obama Sr. might have been testing the waters to see what impact claiming a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child would have on the INS. Officials would question whether he was the natural father or if he was merely the “stand-in” father, covering up an embarrassing situation.

If the Kenyan were actually the father and the marriage to Dunham legitimate, why not press the claim that the U.S. citizen wife and the U.S. citizen child established a basis for changing the Kenyan’s status with the INS from a non-immigrant student seeking only a temporary stay to an immigrant seeking permanent residence on the path to becoming a U.S. citizen?

But then, why would Obama Sr., as the biological father, want to give the baby to the Salvation Army if the marriage with Dunham were legitimate?

The Dahlin memo, written while Dunham was pregnant, raises the question of whether or not Obama married Dunham at all.

If the Kenyan merely wanted a sexual relationship with Dunham, why marry her?

There is no evidence he proposed marriage to any of his allegedly many girlfriends at the university, so what made Dunham different?

If he was not committed to living with Dunham and raising the baby, why bother getting married?

Pieced together, the available evidence supports the theory the Obama-Dunham marriage was a cover-up from the start, designed to designate Obama as the father, without any expectation the two would ever live as husband and wife or that he would help raise the baby.

The factual record is that Obama Sr. never used marriage to a U.S. citizen or the fathering of a child in the U.S. to bolster his immigration status, even though it could have enabled him to remain in the U.S. without having to apply for yearly extensions.

Dahlin may well have been instructed by superiors to communicate to Obama Sr. and to Dunham that an attempt to use the marriage and child as a reason to change the Kenyan’s immigration status would have led to a full-scale INS investigation.

Obama’s 1961 application to extend stay in U.S.

Further evidence that the marriage to Dunham was a sham is provided by a close examination of the next document to occur chronologically in Obama Sr.’s INS file – an alien student application to extend the time of a temporary stay in the U.S. and to request permission to accept employment. It was filed with the INS Aug. 31, 1961, as seen below in Exhibits 3 and 4.

Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.’s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 1. Click to enlarge.

Exhibit 3: Barack Obama Sr.’s INS application to extend stay and permit employment, Aug. 31, 1961, page 2. Click to enlarge.

The document notably was filled out in Honolulu some 28 days after the baby was born.

There is a six-and-a-half-month time period in which there is no record of Dunham’s whereabouts – from Jan. 31, 1961, when she concluded her first semester at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, until Sept. 25, 1961, when the University of Washington at Seattle documents she was enrolled for extension classes on campus.

Nothing in the Dahlin memo documents where Dunham was in April 1961, when it was written.

Interestingly, Obama Sr.’s temporary stay visa expired Aug. 9, 1961, some five days after the baby was born, as indicated by his answer to Box 13.

Clearly, Obama Sr. had to be concerned about the extension of his student visa in April 1961. It would have been convenient to have a U.S. citizen wife and a U.S. citizen child being newly born just as his student visa was expiring.

Yet, the application to extend the temporary stay provides more evidence the story of a U.S. citizen wife and child was not credible. In Box 2, Obama Sr. indicated he was living at 1482 Alencastre Street in Honolulu. However, Dunham was living at her parents home at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, the address listed in the birth announcements published in the Honolulu newspapers.

The INS would have regarded the fact the supposed parents did not live together as additional evidence the alleged marriage was a marriage of convenience arranged to commit immigration fraud.

Even more interesting, in the extension of Box 7, the Kenyan blacked out the first name he wrote for his wife, then penciled in “Ann S. Dunham, Honolulu, Hawaii.” Her named, however, was Stanley Ann Dunham, or S. Ann Dunham.

Then, in the space below Box 7, Obama Sr. did not list Barack Hussein Obama II as his son – an omission that is hard to understand if the child supposedly was born earlier that month.

The Woods memo

An additional document from Obama Sr.’s INS file is relevant: a handwritten memo dated Aug. 31, 1961, by William Wood, as seen in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5: Barack Obama Sr. INS File, Woods Memo, Aug. 31, 1961. Click to enlarge.

The memo’s use of the term “claims” suggests the information came from Obama Sr., possibly at an in-person meeting with an officer at the INS office when he filled out and filed his visa extension form.

The memo confirms Dunham was leaving Hawaii to attend school in Seattle, an additional factor the INS would have examined had an investigation been undertaken into the legitimacy of the marriage and the fatherhood of the child.

In the last paragraph, the memo notes the child was living with the mother at the home of the grandparents, while the Kenyan was living at the Alencastre Street address – facts that did not need to be seriously considered if the only relevant question in extending Obama Sr.’s visa was whether or not he was then a student in good standing.

Interesting, the note appended to the memo suggests the information the Kenyan provided raised serious questions about the wife and child that would need to be answered if he were applying for more than a temporary stay.

Given that the INS was not going to conduct an investigation, the Woods memo appears to document only what the Kenyan said and did not determine whether or not the claims were true.

While Obama Sr.’s INS files do not prove he was not the father of the future president, they provide ample documentation the officer was skeptical the Kenyan was legitimately married to Dunham and/or was the biological father of Barack Obama II.

By deciding to stay with the temporary student visa status, the Kenyan obviated the need for an INS investigation that might have uncovered in 1961 that the marriage was fraudulent and the biological father of the child was someone else.

//

BIOGRAPHER ADMITS: THERE WAS NO OBAMA FAMILY

 

FORGERY-GATE              Exclusive: Jack Cashill notes Maraniss book puts lie to O’s ‘improbable love’ claim

Published: 2 hours ago

by JACK CASHILL Email | Archive

Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue. His latest book is the blockbuster “Deconstructing Obama.”

 

In all the talk about David Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,” the chattering classes seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’ revelations, namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is “received myth, not the truth.”

“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural romance shaped his persona and his campaigns.

At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Obama leaped into the story in the very first sentence. “Four years ago,” he began, “I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”

As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to nothing. “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.”

Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”

Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair together during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to credible.

“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was pure lie, no other word for it.

A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.” Another lie.

Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier that he has proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not. Abercrombie was too important. Without Abercrombie, there is no contemporary witness to any kind of relationship. Maraniss, however, knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his claim to having seen the baby with his parents.

Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life, Maraniss’ shovel comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961 wedding. He footnotes his comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.”

There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.

As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.

Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss is totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to the August birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.

According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements, the young family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s parents lived. Obama Sr. clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived there without him.

Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior Dunhams shared the house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.”

And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has known for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland. …”

“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is missing from the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left home when he was 2.

What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of the 2008 election.

He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow the whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected president.

The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama bio. The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s mother. The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s father, and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in her 2012 book on the whole extended family.

Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the fraud in his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As D’Souza explains, Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as the vehicle through which the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s first convert” to anti-colonialism.

D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer Michael Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in his book, “What Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the conservative blogosphere by 2009.

What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a journalistic scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself has played a part.

LAW PROF: FOX ANCHOR WRONG ON ELIGIBILITY!

Network host makes ‘common error’ about ‘natural born citizenship’

Published: 1 day ago

by BOB UNRUH Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.

Attorney Herb Titus, who has taught constitutional law for nearly 30 years and was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., is offering a correction to Fox News anchor Bret Baier’s explanation of “natural born citizen.”

The issue arose this week when Baier posted online his explanation of “natural born citizen” and said that the issue is resolved by federal law. He pointed to 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401, contending all that is required is for the mother to be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of these years after the age of 14.

The question arose in the context of concerns he was observing regarding the eligibility of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was born before his parents were citizens of the U.S.

Baier asserted that people born in the U.S., born outside the U.S. to parents who are both citizens or born outside the U.S. to one parent who is a U.S. citizen are “all natural born U.S. citizens.”

Titus’ takes Baier to task.

“Bret Baier commits a common error,” he wrote in the response posted online at the Article 2 Superpac. “He assumes that ‘natural born citizen’ means the same thing as ‘citizen by birth.’ They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom they were born.”

He continued, “Under Mr. Baier’s view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baier claims they are, then by statute Congress can take away their natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the Constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baier, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one’s citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”

The issue has been in the news since Barack Obama campaigned for president in 2008. Questions about his eligibility have yet to be resolved, as he’s continued to conceal many personal documents.

The birth documentation from Hawaii that Obama released from the White House last year has been described as a probable forgery by the investigators of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

And if it’s not fraudulent, there are critics who say it proves his ineligibility, as it lists Barack Obama Sr. as the father, who never was a U.S. citizen.

Titus argues the father’s citizenship is important.

“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why ‘natural born citizenship’ is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be ‘natural born’ citizen of that state,” he explained.

Earlier, when Baier’s statement first was posted, Harvard-educated Jerome Corsi, author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?,” said Baier wasn’t quite on track.

“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”

Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.

“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.

See all of those who have made statements about Obama’s eligibility, in The BIG LIST.

Baier, who took over the time slot from Brit Hume in January 2009, previously was the network’s chief White House correspondent. Prior to that he was national security correspondent, reporting on defense, military and intelligence community issues. He has reported from Iraq 12 times and from Afghanistan 13 times.

He said he posted the information because of the questions being raised about whether Rubio and Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal qualify as “natural born citizens.”

“This is obviously getting a lot of attention … so we think we should do a full piece on the show about it … and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars … and legal experts to discuss this,” he wrote.

“There obviously is a lot of confusion.”

He said, “The brouhaha over President Obama’s birth certificate – has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship.”

Corsi agreed.

“To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.

Join the billboard campaign that seeks the answer to “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?”

“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”

He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”

As to Obama’s documentation, Arpaio assembled a Cold Case Posse of professional law enforcement investigators who looked into the birth certificate information Obama posted online from the White House.

Their conclusion: There is probable cause that there was forgery in the creation of the document and fraud in its presentation to the public.

There are many who believe that even if Obama was born in Hawaii he wouldn’t be a “natural born citizen,” as the father listed on his birth documentation never was a U.S. citizen. Barack Obama Sr. left Stanley Ann Dunham to go to graduate school, then returned to Kenya where he served as a government official and married additional wives.

Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation after six months investigating Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in “A Question of Eligibility,” co-authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo.

Although Rubio’s name is mentioned more than any other as a potential GOP vice presidential candidate, a document found in the National Archives raises questions about whether the popular U.S. senator is qualified constitutionally to serve as president or vice president.

The Petition for Naturalization on behalf of Mario Rubio, the senator’s Cuban father, has been retrieved from the National Archives and posted online by the PixelPatriot website, confirming that Marco Rubio was about 4 years old when his parents became U.S. citizens. Mario Rubio was naturalized as an American citizen in 1975, based on the Sept. 9, 1975, date on the petition; Marco Rubio was born in 1971.

Titus also has made a video explaining the issue:

Concerns over the loyalties of the commander-in-chief were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington.

Wrote Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

In fact, Congress in 1790 defined “natural born citizen” as a child born of two American citizens, but the law containing the definition was repealed several years later.

“The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father’s citizenship was a loyalty issue.

Explains Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Also, in 2008, when the U.S. Senate resolved that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, stated that McCain – born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 – “is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

The Article II Superpac posted an analysis arguing that the parents of a “natural born citizen” must be citizens at the time of his or her birth. The organization noted that Supreme Court rulings suggest the term applies only to those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WND, also has argued that the definition of “natural born citizen” excludes Rubio.

“Rubio is, quite simply, not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the accepted legal, English-language standard as it has been known throughout American history. He was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents,” he wrote.

“I know this is not a popular notion among Republicans, just as it wasn’t among Democrats when challenges were made to Obama. However, the Constitution should always trump political expediency.

“This is not a ‘technicality,’ as some might suggest. If we don’t adhere to the Constitution on matters as significant as presidential eligibility, then the Constitution ceases to be a meaningful document for guiding our nation. Indeed, it becomes the kind of ‘living document’ that many liberals have claimed it should be – ever-changing to new circumstances,” he said.

IMMIGRATION RECORDS MISSING FOR WEEK OF OBAMA’S BIRTH

Arpaio’s team probing possibility president born abroad

Published: 2 hours ago

by JEROME R. CORSIEmail | Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”More 

After months of searching, investigators commissioned by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio to examine Barack Obama’s eligibility for office found Immigration and Naturalization Service travel records for foreign flights into Hawaii in 1961, only to discover that records for the week of Obama’s birth were missing.

Investigators were searching to determine if Barack Obama might have been born in a foreign country and returned to Honolulu in or around August 1961 with his mother, Ann Dunham.

 Arpaio’s team looked at databases in the National Archives and Records Administration with microfilm of INS passenger records for foreign flights arriving in Honolulu and New York City.

If Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he and the Hawaii Department of Health have been insisting, there should be INS passenger cards that the new mother filled out for herself and her infant son upon arrival in Honolulu from a Pacific Rim city or arrival in New York City from across the Atlantic.

Arpaio launched the investigation after being presented with a petition signed by 250 members of the Surprise Tea Party in Surprise, Ariz. He authorized a volunteer Cold Case Posse of former law enforcement officers and detectives in October 2011 to examine the authenticity of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and to determine Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Before he was first elected Maricopa County sheriff in 1993, Arpaio spent 25 years with the Drug Enforcement Administration, including service as DEA regional director in Mexico City and special agent in charge in Phoenix. He is running for re-election to his sixth term as Maricopa County sheriff.

As WND reported, Arpaio’s team found probable cause that the document presented one year ago as Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. WND reported yesterday that Arpaio asked Selective Service Director Lawrence Romo in a letter to produce original documentation of Obama’s Selective Service registration, noting his team’s finding that there is probable cause that it, too, was forged.

Microfilm examined

After INS passenger records for foreign flights entering the U.S. through Hawaii in a database identified as “A3573″ were found, Arpaio’s investigators found a second database, designated as “A3998,” with comparable INS records for foreign flights arriving at New York City’s Idlewild Airport.

One complication was that the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, held only the original microfilm records for INS 1961 airline passenger record. Since the original microfilm records were often the only existing copies of the passenger manifests, NARA would not permit them to be viewed by researchers. The intent was to protect the originals from being scratched or damaged, especially by placing them on a microfilm reel or copier.

Finally, NARA agreed to produce microfilm copies of 24 reels of records for the time period from July 1961 through September 1961.

Subsequently, 28 microfilm reels from A3998 records of INS passenger cards for foreign flights arriving at New York’s Idlewild Airport in August 1961 were copied by NARA and made available for examination at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation.

To date, researchers are waiting for the additional 1961 records for both datasets to be copied by NARA and made available for inspection at the National Archives.

Obama birth-week records missing

Investigators examining the microfilm records found only one week of INS passenger cards to be completely missing in all the records so far examined.

In some sequences of cards, the records were blurred or overlapped each other, obscuring the data.

Specifically, in Record Group A 3573, data records for Aug. 2, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961, appear to be completely missing, as if the records were removed from the database prior to the microfilm recording.

Exhibit A shows NARA Record Group A3573, Reel 184, for INS passenger records on foreign flights into Honolulu from July 28, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.

Exhibit A: INS cards, Honolulu, July 28 to Aug. 7, 1961

Exhibit B shows NARA Record Group A3573, Reel 185, INS passenger records on foreign flights into Honolulu from Aug. 8 through Aug. 12, 1961.

Exhibit B: INS cards, Honolulu, Aug. 8 – Aug. 12, 1961

Remarkably, all INS records for the week of Obama’s birth, Aug. 1 through Aug. 7, 1961, were missing from the end of Reel 184 and were not discovered anywhere on Reel 185 or any other microfilm reel in the record group.

Exhibit C is a Photostat printout of what the end of Reel 184 looks like.

While the printout is only partial, what can be observed is one of the two or three INS cards in the records from Aug. 1, 1961. The reel ends with about 10 inches of white blurs and black space, without any other records from Aug. 1 to Aug. 7, 1961, despite the written documentation to the contrary on the microfilm reel’s box.
Exhibit C: INS cards, Reel 184, end of reel

NARA explains

In a series of emails beginning Nov. 21, 2011, investigators notified NARA archive reference specialists of the missing dates. NARA specialists in Washington, D.C., checked with the NARA employees in College Park, Md., who had made the duplicate microfilm reels for public inspection.

College Park NARA officials found the INS passenger records in Record Group A3573, Reels 184 and 185, were also missing in the original microfilm reels. No INS original paper documents could be found for 1961.

At the request of investigators, NARA archivists documented the missing records in a two-page letter. The first page of the letter can be viewed here and the second page here.

In the Feb. 6 letter, Brenda Beasley Kepley, chief of NARA’s Archives 1 Processing Section, acknowledged that passenger records for Record Group A3573, Rolls 184 and 185, covering the period July 28 through Aug. 12, 1961, had been filmed by the INS in August 1961, and the original paper records were not retained.

Kepley acknowledged that the records for the period Aug. 2 through Aug. 7, 1961, were missing. She argued that the missing data was due to poor quality control that allowed multiple cards to be fed through a document feeder and become bunched together, obscuring the images underneath.

“Apparently no quality control was done at the time of filming to check for these errors,” Kepley wrote. “Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether or not images of cards for the period August 2 through August 7 exist on Roll 184. If they do, they are unreadable.”

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office ordered and obtained duplicate microfilm of Rolls 184 and 185 to be placed into evidence.

Investigators examining both microfilm rolls determined that the 10 inches of microfilm filled by white blurs and blank space would have been a fraction of the microfilm inches needed had records been intact for all foreign flights arriving in Honolulu Aug. 2 through Aug. 7, 1961.

While a few bunched records are observed at the end of Reel 184, investigators did not find evidence of the volume of INS passenger record cards that would have been present had the records been microfilmed.

The bunching up of several hundred INS passenger card records for the dozens of flights arriving in Hawaii Aug. 2 through Aug. 7, 1961 would have constituted a major collapse in the document feeding mechanism that could not possibly have gone unnoticed by the microfilm technicians making the archive record from the physical paper copies.

MCSO investigators concluded that the NARA explanation of bunched up and overlapping records caused by a defective document feeder was not a credible explanation for what was observed on the two microfilm reels.

Reel 185 begins with Aug. 8, 1961, with minimal and expected blank lead microfilm and with no trace of bunched or overlapping records from previous dates.

Instead, MCSO investigators have concluded that the INS passenger records for the dates Aug. 2 – Aug. 7, 1961 are missing from NARA Record Group A3575 for reasons that remain unexplained.

MCSO investigators are currently waiting for NARA to duplicate the remaining 1961 INS passenger cards in both record groups for subsequent inspection at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Barack Obama VIOLATED A Court Order And “Boycotted” His Eligibility Hearing In Georgia!

Proving, Yet Again, That He Believes That He Is Above The Law, Barack Obama VIOLATED A Court Order And “Boycotted” His Eligibility Hearing In Georgia!      And just in case you’re thinking that he was be too busy performing his presidential duties to comply with a court order, think again. Instead, he campaigned in Las Vegas, Nevada.It’s an outrage. The man who has played over 73 rounds of golf, hits the campaign trail endlessly and has taken scores of lavish tax-payer funded vacations, simply can’t be bothered to comply with a court order and prove that he is indeed eligible to hold and seek the office that so many believe he has usurped. And while Team Obama would like you to believe that challenges to his eligibility are no big deal, they are extremely worried. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Orly Taitz stated:“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. … a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals.” Ask yourself the following question: What would happen to you if you violated a court order and refused to show up at a hearing? The answer should be obvious. You’d do jail time! Far too many believe that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed the Great Usurper and has perpetrated the greatest fraud of all time on the American people. But there’s only one thing worse than committing a great fraud; and that’s knowing that you can commit fraud with impunity. And Barack Hussein Obama KNOWS IT and he must be stopped! In essence, Barack Hussein Obama is saying: To hell with the law… the courts… and the Congress… I AM THE LAW. That attitude does not simply make Barack Obama a dangerous man, it makes him the first American dictator. And that’s why, no matter what may happen on Thursday, we must take action! Put Congress On Notice: Demand That Obama Prove That He Is Eligible To Hold The Office He Usurped Or Demand That He Take Himself Off The Ballot In All 50 States!      They thought they could get away with it. The elites in Washington and the media hoped and prayed that this issue would go away. They must have been thinking: Surely, with an election close at hand, these pesky “birthers” will finally give up, go away, and let the man who never proved he was eligible to run for the office of President of the United States in the first place attempt to usurp the office a second time. But that’s not going to happen. We can’t let it happen.  A number of eligibility cases are still pending and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona is moving full-steam ahead. This issue is not going away, IT’S FINALLY BUILDING UP STEAM! And now that a judge in Georgia FINALLY had the guts NOT to dismiss a case demanding that Barack Hussein Obama prove he is eligible to run for President, our cause has new life. When Judge Michael Malihi initially denied Obama’s motion to dismiss the case, Attorney Orly Taitz exclaimed: “Thank you God! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battles, for the first time a judge has ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment.” And now that our cause has new life, we must strike. We need an avalanche of faxes. We must demand that they make Barack Hussein Obama PROVE that he is eligible to run for President of the United States or STRIKE HIS NAME FROM THE BALLOT.   “I Can Now Depose Obama And Everyone Else Involved Without Any Impediment.”      Taitz’s statement bears repeating because, up until now, judges have played hot potato with the eligibility issue. AlthoughTeam Obama has falsely stated that judges have ruled in Obama’s favor on the eligibility issue, the TRUTH is that in every single instance, Team Obama filed motions to dismiss these cases on purely procedural grounds and judges have gone along with them and simply used these motions as an excuse to avoid even hearing these cases in the first place. They ALL simply refused to hear the cases.  Far too many lacked the courage to be forever known as the judge who forced the Great Usurper to come clean.  But Judge Malihi (at least for now) drew a line in the sand. He obvious understands that no man is above the law and ruled: “The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the ‘Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.’”  But that’s not all. Judge Malihi also ruled: “The Georgia Election Code (the ‘Code’) mandates that ‘[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.’ … Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.” In plain English, Malihi DROPPED A HUGE BOMB. He VALIDATED that public officials can’t hide behind pathetic excuses. They simply can’t “rubber stamp” candidate certifications. They have a SOLEMN DUTY to ensure that candidates that appear on the ballot PROVE they are constitutionally eligible to seek office and they have a SOLEMN DUTY to CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF ANY CANDIDATE seeking office. No matter what happens in Georgia, Malihi’s ruling is a HUGE VICTORY.  And it is vitally important that our elected officials know that you know it as well… and that you will be watching them! The Media Is Desperately Trying To Keep This Story Under Wraps.      Make no mistake, there is a media blackout on this story. You’d think the leftist Barons of Bilge of the Mainstream Media would jump at the chance to report this ground-breaking story so that can twist it and cast more aspersions and heap more character assassinations at Taitz… but they’re not reporting it because they know that there’s no way to twist and distort what is going on. Malihi’s ruling is wonderful news… PERIOD! According to a number of published reports, Taitz is asking the court to demand that Obama produce:   Any and all certified birth records including a long form birth certificate.    Certified school/university registration records. Certified immigration/naturalization records.    Certified passport records and;   Redacted certified Social Security card applications for each of the aliases and other legal names used by Barack Obama, including but not limited to his legal surname when adopted by step-father Lolo Soetoro.       Requests for these documents should not be diminished because, quite frankly, “highly doctored replicas” of a long-form birth certificate do not prove that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii… birth announcements published in a Hawaii newspaper do not prove that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii… and derisive comments from liberals in the media most certainly do not prove Obama was born in Hawaii. And moreover, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the courts must still settle the issue, once and for all, as to whether a child born to a resident alien and a 19 year-old American citizen is a “natural born citizen.” As litigant Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, “Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States.” These questions must be answered and as long as those questions remain unanswered, we are in a Constitutional Crisis. The time to stand up and save our Republic is now. Do not allow your voice to go unheard!

Judge Rules Obama Must Prove Presidential Eligibility In Georgia Courtroom On Thursday

JANUARY 23, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK

For those who have waited 3 years for a judge to finally rule that Barack Hussein Obama must prove that he is legally and Constitutionally qualified to run for or serve as President of the United States, the day may have come at last.

For on Friday, Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi ruled that subpoenas demanding the presence of Barack Obama in his Georgia courtroom on January 26^th along with the original form of his Hawaii birth certificate and information on his myriad Social Security numbers will remain in force.

Obama ‘s attorney Michael Jablonski had filed a motion to quash those subpoenas, arguing if Obama were made to answer questions before the court it would “…[require] him to interrupt duties as President of the United States…”  (1)

It was also Obama’s claim that “presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates.” (1)

Well Judge Malihi did not agree with Obama’s arguments that the laws of the State of Georgia were somehow irrelevant to the process, or that his presence in the court would materially interfere with his ability to discharge the duties of his office.

In his decision to allow the subpoenas to remain in force, Malihi wrote, “…Defendant (Obama) has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that testimony…is irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’ ” (2)

In short, as Judge Malihi so eloquently put it, “”Defendants motion to quash is denied.” (2)

The process before Judge Mahili began when a number of Georgia residents filed 3 separate lawsuits demanding that Barack Obama provide evidence of having met State of Georgia election law requirements before being placed on the ballot.  Malihi agreed with the plaintiffs, quoting in his ruling Georgia law which states “…every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

In that ruling, Mahili stated “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)

Though Obama has managed to ooze his way out of legal responsibilities and requirements in the past, this time it really might be a bit thick for the acting president. Even the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to weigh in, giving vent to a typically childish attack of spleen in its “Hatewatch” column no less, where it snivels  “…Malihi’s decision has been heralded far and wide as a defining moment for those who have hounded Obama about his lineage.” (4)

Apparently demands that Barack Hussein Obama actually abide by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States make for a clear case of “hounding” to an organization known to file suit at the drop of a conservative hat.

Here’s hoping Judge Malihi’s courtroom turns liberal petulance to leftist rage on January 26^th. For Malihi’s ruling that day will determine whether or not Barack Hussein Obama may be certified by the Democrat Party to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. And as the Liberty Legal Foundation explains it, “without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.” (5)

To read more use these links:  To read more use these links:

(1)  http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-v-Obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas.pdf

(2) http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf

(3) http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/

(4) http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/01/18/georgia-court-to-hear-arguments-on-obamas-eligibility-for-primary-ballot/

(5) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/