More is not necessarily better
Central to the conspiracy theories and crank beliefs about President Barack Obama is the claim that he was born, not in Hawaii as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, but rather in Mombasa, Kenya. Despite the extreme implausibility of the Obamas traveling to Kenya for the birth of their son, and the wealth of official documentation proving the President was born in Honolulu, theories of a Kenyan birth persist to this day.
In January of 2009 I resolved to find even more proof that Barack Obama was not born in Kenya, evidence beyond the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth available at the time, and in addition to the newspaper birth reports from the Health Bureau. I reasoned that if President Obama had been born in Kenya, his mother must have been there with him at the time, and travel to a foreign country requires a passport. No passport, no travel to Kenya. To answer the passport question, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Department of State on January 27, 2009, asking for records of any passports issued to Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama or Soetoro).
I did not imagine back in 2009 that this simple FOIA request would still be kicking around 32 months later, but it is. In the interim I have written several articles about the request and its frustrating ups and downs. Things were complicated by the fact that routine passport applications for records in the time period of interest were destroyed in the 1980’s to reduce record storage costs.
When I got my initial FOIA response in November of 2010, I received application documents (the same set released to Christopher Strunk who sued to get the same material). The earliest document was a 1967 renewal of passport F777788 issued two years earlier in July 19, 1965 (the application for which was presumably destroyed). I had asked for passport issuance records, not applications and so I filed an appeal with the Department of State, providing documentation that microfilm copies of issuance cards also exist for the time period of interest. That appeal was filed in December of 2010. The FOIA statute requires responses to appeals with 20 days. I received an answer today – you do the math.
The response is no less than bizarre in my estimation than how long it took to receive it. They returned one additional document, an issuance card associated with the 1967 passport renewal application previously released. Before you read what they replied, let me present you with two questions and ask you to seek the answers in the Department of State response.
- Did the Department of State send me all the passport issuance records they found in response to my appeal?
- If Stanley Ann Dunham did renew a passport issued in 1965, where is her passport issuance card from 1965?
Following is exactly what the response said, with comments by me interspersed:
We have completed an exhaustive search for passport card records responsive to your request.
My original FOIA request was for “Passport issuance records (only) for Stanley Ann Dunham (b 11/29/1942) DECEASED aka Stanley Ann D. Obama aka Stanley Ann D. Soetoro.” The Department of State replied, then, that they should have found any passport issuance records for Stanley Ann Dunham. So far so good.
The search resulted in the retrieval of this additional record, an index card for the 1967 passport amendment that is responsive to your request.
This says that the record they provided was responsive, but it doesn’t clearly say that this is the only responsive record they found. Normally, FOIA responses state the number of responsive documents found and the number that could be released. Suspicion that something was withheld is underscored by what follows:
This is the only card found for any of the Dunham and Soetoro passport records released to you.
They are saying that that this card is the only card that matches what was previously released, not that is the only card that is responsive. Government documents indicate that the issuance cards prior to 1967 were microfilmed, and while the original response explained the absence of the 1965 application, there is no explanation for the absence for the 1965 issuance card. The wording of the letter is consistent with their finding a 1965 card and withholding it. It is also consistent with them finding an earlier card – and therein lies the problem with getting anything useful from the FOIA response.
I phoned the State Department Office of Information Programs and Services Appeals Officer who said that perhaps the letter was poorly worded but that she would look into it and get back to me by Friday (the person she needed to talk to was not in today).
Other articles about my FOIA:
Does this mean someone whould have to file a FOIA request specifically for the issue card to the 1965 passport for Stanley Ann Dunham?
I think not. I suspect misconduct.
Would the issue card from 1965 list the President as being on the passport?
So now you are becoming a conspiracy theorist?
Isn’t ineptitude an equally plausible explanation?
No, I accept incompetence as a being the likely explanation.
My question concerns the following, if the President’s name is on the 1965 index card, how can they release it without releasing private information about a live person? If they redacted his name from the card, wouldn’t that be an admission that his name is on the card? If they admit they have the card but privacy information prevents them from releasing it, isn’t that an admission that his name is on the card?
Probably, but in that case they should say they have a document and then claim that they can’t release it, or that they have to redact portions of it.
I do not think so. First, I would mention that the Department of Homeland Security was found to be delaying FOIA’s for political reasons. It was a big scandal a year or two back.
Second, there is an entire section at the DoS dedicated to looking for passport FOIA information. One must presume that they know what they are doing and know what kinds of records they have. Based on phone conversations I had with them prior to the initial response, I know that the request had gone to the passport section twice and to “legal” twice even though they refused to offer any explanation of what legal issue might have been involved.
Finally, on one of my calls to the FOIA hotline, the agent said that he did not understand why it was taking so long (this was about 10 months in) that passport requests were usually handled much more quickly. Then after a pause he said “Ohhhhh” and then he promised that someone would get back to me, which they never did.
Finally, once I filed an appeal, one would reasonably expect that care would be taken not to screw it up a second time.
No, I have a really hard time finding incompetence a plausible explanation.
After my conversation with the appeals officer today (the first time I have been allowed to talk to anyone who knew anything), we should know in short order whether incompetence can be ruled out.
When you look at the first part of Jonathan Polbin’s signature, it looks suspiciously like the “a” in Alvin’s signature, complete with a dot for an eye (but no smiley mouth- too obvious, perhaps?)
Did the letter have a Hawaii postmark?
All kidding aside, Doc C, What is your suspected misconduct hiding? Lay out your theory.
His name was not redacted on one of the Strunk (and Dr. Conspiracy) FOIA documents.
I would point out that the applications already released have the President’s name on them (crossed out). I do not think that saying they can’t release the document (not stating a reason) is an admission that the President’s name is on it. I would be satisfied just to have the dates on any unreleased documents.
Early in the process I anticipated this contingency, and I asked them if I could speak to someone about amending my request to address any privacy concerns they might have. No one returned my calls.
Where’s the picture of the 1967 issuance card, melon head?
Click the above link then scroll to page three. Chuckle head
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64744734/COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED-Stenographic-Transcript-record-of-the-8-22-11-Hearing-of-NYSSC-Kings-Index-6500-2011
Is there an abridged version of this dreck?
It’s an interesting coincidence. I was just reading last night in a book about President Madison that the New York delegation walked out of the Constitutional Convention. Now that same bit of information is found in the transcript of Strunk’s hearing. It’s on page 24 for anyone interested.
Strunk casts the New York walk-out as a disagreement over the citizenship of the members of Congress. I had understood that it was because of how members of Congress were apportioned to the states.
Of course Strunk and I had very similar FOIA requests to the US Department of State, and he and I received the same documents with virtually identical cover letters. And just today I received a response to my appeal in that FOIA.
As Mr. Strunk says in the transcript:
“It’s the connection that counts.”
I would say that some connections count and some do not.
Once I got past the part about who represents whom, I found the transcript quite entertaining. The judge is way cool.
You cannot tell from the photo of me here on the web site, but I am mostly bald, and the moniker “melon head” is an apt one. The link to the document is in the article, albeit not labeled as plainly as needed for you pick it up.
I repeat it here for your convenience:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/State_FOIA_200901145.pdf
I have always thought that the best way to get results out of government agencies that can misunderstand complex questions is to ask the simplest possible question. And in this case, I think it would have been to ask for the date on which the first file for Stanley was created. She could not have a passport before the first file was created. The first file would include the application for the first passport, even though the application was scrapped. The first file would have been created to include the first application.
What do you think?
Is this quote from Robert Yates to Governor Clinton there:
““We don’t want any part of what’s going on down there because we’ve got too much at stake,” ?
Robert Yates and John Lansing wrote a letter to Gov. Clinton explaining their objections to the Constitution. They had gone to the Convention with the understanding that it would only amend the Articles of Confederation,
“Our powers were explicit, and confined to the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting such alterations and provisions therein as should render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.”
But they found out the Convention was creating a new Constitution. They were strongly opposed to a central government because it would steal the sovernty of the states
“we entertained an opinion that a general government, however guarded by declarations of rights, or cautionary provisions, must unavoidably, in a short time, be productive of the destruction of the civil liberty of such citizens who could be effectually coerced by it”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1905&chapter=112206&layout=html&Itemid=27
Can you request any passport issuance cards prior to 1965 for Stanley Ann Soetoro?
I love this bit:
How about asking for any and all documents related to passport number F777788, issued on July 19, 1965.
Wow….Strunk really isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed is he? He starts of the comedy by claiming the transcript to be copyright protected. Now, of course, even ignoring the painfully obvious fact that court documents cannot be copyrighted, how exactly does this rocket scientist come to the conclusion that he would then have any claim to such copyright. It’s not his work, it is arguably the work of the transcriber. And to the extent that he thinks he can claim it as his work by participating in the hearing, there’s a laundry list of lawyers, and a judge that also participated in the hearing. But why would anyone be surprised that a birther doesn’t have the first clue about the law.
Then he starts things off by objecting to a pro hac motion? Wow. I don’t think in all my years of experience I have ever seen anyone object to a pro hac motion. Just unreal (even the judge seemed surprised).
And then the real fun begins. When the judge challenges him on any of his paranoid conspiracy theories, he responds with “it’s a matter of public record.” Things that are a matter of “public record according to Strunk: President Obama is a radical Suni Muslim having spoken Arabic and “practiced the most stringent rigors of attendance in the Mosque” (whatever that means); and that the Vatican is behind everything (as in every nutty conspiracy in general, but something involving Cindy McCain and beer specifically). And then he just babbled on, and on, and on, about nothing in particular it seemed, but somehow it all came back to the Vatican. Amazing how much a judge will let a nut babble when he’s trying to make the guy feel like the court is even entertaining even the slightest possiblity of ruling for him. It really surprises me how much patience a judge has when dealing with clueless conspiracy theory pro se nutters.
That might do the trick. I agree with Ellen that the broader the request, the more likely it is that the answers will be unsatisfactory.
The only germane issue is whether Stanley Ann Dunham aka Stanley Ann Obama had a passport prior to August 4, 1961. I would suggest limiting the request to all records of passports issued to her under either name prior to August 4, 1961. Most likely the response would be that no such records exist.
I agree with that. If you got any documents for passport F777788, they should indicate if it was a renewal or a first time application. So there might enough information to either file addtional FOIAs request or it might setle the issue.
Re: “How about asking for any and all documents related to passport number F777788, issued on July 19, 1965?”
No because that might be her second passport. And the trick is not to ask any complex questions or questions that include technical data, such as the number of the passport.
I still believe, though I’d love to hear comments, that a US passport cannot have been issued for Obama’s mother before the very first passport file for her was established. The date that that file was established would show the date of her first application for a passport.
So, if you ask for the DATE on which the first passport file for Stanley was issued, that should answer the question.
To be on the safe side, just in case I am wrong, you could ask for both the date of the first file and a copy of the first document in the file in chronological order, whatever that document is. That is likely to be the application for the passport, but it could have been deleted in the space-saving move. In which case, the date of the file’s being established would be sufficient to show the date of the first application.
In addition to asking for the date of the first file, you might want to ask them to photocopy any place on the file that shows when it was established.
By the way, although the first FOI request took years, a second one might not take so long–since they are probably aware of the first delay and might want to show an improvement.
I don’t believe you can ask them questions. All you can do is request records.
Re: “I don’t believe you can ask them questions. All you can do is request records.”
You are probably right. I forgot. so the solution is to ask for a photocopy of any place on or in the file or attached to the file that shows the date that the file was created.
I’m late to this party, so sorry if this is already covered…
Is it possible that she had a passport issued while she was a minor that would have still been good when she was 18? If so, would the record of that be under her parents names?
Good point, cryptical!
Also, BHO Sr. was a British Protected Person (BPP) at the time of his marriage to Stanley Ann and BHO Jr.s birth.
As a BPP, BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann (married to a BPP) were entitled to obtain a British Passport before BHO Jr.s birth.
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am

that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child

by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
I appreciate your hard hard work in uncovering such facts but has anyone ever considered that Dunham could have traveled to Africa on Obama Sr.’s passport or had even rec’d a one time Aftican (Kenyan) passport to travel there and then return to the US?
Doc C. is being called a “Birther” on freerepublic.com where his “More Dunham Passports” thread has made an appearance.
I suppose it’s too much to hope for someone to call me “objective.”
Great. Now you have to show that is somehow relevant to Obama’s citizenship. Clearly you are simply going to repeat the same unproven assertions over and over and over like all birthers.
Even if that were possible, why would she want to go to Kenya when 1) she was pretty far along in her pregnancy to the point that taking such a trip would have most likely posed some pretty serious health risks, 2) she only knew one person (Barack Obama Sr.) who was from there, 3) there’s little, if no evidence that Barack Obama Sr. went back to Kenya while his wife was pregnant, 4) it would have been extremely expensive to take such a trip (bear in mind that neither was from a wealthy family, and 5) Stanley Ann Dunham’s entire life was here in the United States?
It’s possible that she could have gone but again, why would she? It doesn’t make any sense.
In the 60’s passports expired sooner then they do today. I could be wrong but I believe the max limit on a passport was 5 years. Which would mean she had to have gotten a passport in 1960, so most likely it would be in her own name.
Ignore Todd’s stuff, he just makes stuff up. Eventually he’ll tells about how President Obama was a stateless person sent to Hawaii as a refugee by his mother, picked up by the Catholic Charities of Connecticut (yeah, I know ridiculous). But that’s Todd, also know as Sven.
There is also evidence that Obama Sr. was enrolled in a summer course at Univ. of Hawaii and the end of the summer term was August 4th, 1961. It is not likely she went by herself.
birfers will take whatever crumbs they can find and use it to turn one-time heroes into instant villains, and villains into heroes, at the drop of a pin. on the same thread doc is also being called a liar and a fraud, by veteran vattel-corpse-humper “bushpilot1” of all people. meanwhile “seizethecarp” wonders whether “even [doc] has become tired of carrying obama’s water.”
nothing new of course, but maybe we’ll see some fur fly …
Like vermin.
Hey, Dr. Conspiracy!
Welcome aboard the Birther bus.
The more you look for Barack Obama’s, Stanley Ann’s and the alleged father’s source documents the more stonewalls you’ll run into.
Now, why do you think that is?
That’s an awfully short bus.
I was reading the comments at the above Freep thread and a link was presented by a commenter.* It concerns a conspiracy theory alleged by a witness in the Underwear Bomber case, who explains it this way:
“The U.S. Government needed a terrorist attack to implement body scanners, increase the presence of TSA everywhere, continue the justification for two fraudulent wars (no terrorist attacks from 2001-2009) and renew the Patriot Act(up for renewal February 2010).”
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2011/09/proof-underwear-bombers-passport-photo.html
*Obfuscation is rampant everywhere records are kept in the
U S government….Seems our government is also in the business of forging passports for the Underwear Bomber. Lori and Kurt Haskell are both Michigan attorneys who were on Flight 253 and their eyewitness accounts that are credible should be considered helpful to the case but have been a source of frustration for the US Government. This link is to Lori and Kurt Haskell’s latest blog post about the forged passport for Umar
Is there such a thing or are you just speculating into the blue?
And why has no birther tried to acquire such information from the Kenyan government? Remember that, although no problem in doublethink birtherverse, in the real world the coexistence of “Kenya is part of the conspiracy” and “Kenya claims Obama born there” do not go together well.
Ah, just cut “the coexistence of” from my last sentence. My English melts beyond 26° Celsius…
This is a best line in the article you linked:
“The possibility of an 18 year old having a receding hairline is remote at best.”
Before I consider that, someone would have to show me that such a think is even remotely possible. I am aware of no country that permits an adult to travel on the passport of another, or any country that will grant a passport to a non-citizen, or of the existence of a “one time” passport. So until you can show that any of the above are remotely possible, it would be a waste of everyone’s time to consider it, as as far as we know, it’s all a wild fanatsy. The burden is on you to show that these things exist.
Nope, you’re on board 100%, had enough of President Obama and want that Kenyan/Muslin hater of America out of YOUR White House!!!!
I think we can rule both of these out. People don’t travel on other people’s passports, except in the case of a family passport when they are listed on them. Stanley Ann could have applied to be on Obama Sr.’s passport, but if I remember my reading on this topic, it would have required her to renounce US Citizenship. That’s ruled out because she had a US passport shortly afterwards. As for the Kenyan passport, that’s impossible because Kenya wasn’t a country in 1961. Kenyans had UK passports.
Certainly if I ever succeed in proving that she didn’t have a US passport in 1961, the birthers will take the route you suggest to deny that it means anything.
I guess I better get my Obama 2012 bumper sticker put on ASAP.
To borrow from Peter Ustinov…you set yourself extremely low standards of achievement in the learning process and then singularly fail to live up to them.
Get this clear. No foreigner marrying a citizen of a British Protectorate becomes entitled to a British passport via the marriage, not in 1961, not ever.
I’d lower the deductible on my comprehesive auto insurance if I were you.
Statutory British Protected Person
by marriage
Before 1 January 1983 the wife or widow of a BPP could apply to be registered as a BPP herself if:
she has never become a citizen of the newly formed independent state,
her husband was a BPP on the application date, or would have been, if alive on that date,
she has not acquired any other nationality (including British citizenship, British Overseas Territories citizenship or British Overseas citizenship) since 16 August 1978.
————————————————————————————————————-
What does the passport of a BPP look like? I’m glad you asked.
http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/en/4346/docHome.html
————————————————————————————————————-
CONFIRMED: We can’t see SAD Obama’s pre-1967 passport issuance card because she had a BPP passport which she used to travel to Kenya to give birth.
CONFIRMED: You’re a loony toons, wack job birther who grows more demented as time goes by……
Hahahahaha – Sven/Todd/covert informant
Your rants are getting more delusional. They didn’t buy it at freerepublic or at ORYR or even at Orly Taitz’s site. Stop and think about that for a second. Those are sites that buy into every single rumor and outlandish theory about President Obama and even they think your nuts. Time to come up with something new.
From a Doc C post at freerepublic.com: “Plus, I’m a Christian and Jesus taught us to avoid lawsuits.”
I nominate this “gold coin” for Quote of the Day!
The good news is that the state of Hawaii is a relevant, credible authority.
They have confirmed the President’s birth in the state of Hawaii making him a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
And the news gets even better! Check this out:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Do you realize what this means? Do you? Do you really?
I don’t think you do. In fact, I’m absolutely sure you don’t have a friggin’ clue.
Firstly, what relevance do you think descriptions of ‘by marriage” BPP acquisition rights for the “post-independence” period of fomer BP Territories can possibly have to a woman said to have been travelling to Kenya “pre-independence”?
Secondly, send me a bottle of the stuff you drink!
The fact that you reference 1967 and 1983 dates proves that this was NOT the law in 1961 when it might have been of relevance. Unless you can come up with something for 1961 you have show nothing.
Inevitable, I suppose, but surprising anyway. Birthers are getting a sense that eventually it will be shown that Obama’s mother did not have a US passport in 1961. So they have prepared their backup position, which is that Obama’s mother traveled on a British (BPP) passport.
But, if that were true, there would be a record of the British (BPP) passport, and–since there were very few of them issued in 1961, and especially to wives of Kenyan-born BPPs in Hawaii–it would have been found YEARS ago.
The fall back position for this is that birthers will claim that Britain (like Kenya, and Indonesia, and the officials in Hawaii, and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspaper) are all part of the conspiracy.
c/1967/1978/
He took it straight off Wikipedia.
He totally ignored the info under the first relevant heading “Pre-Independence” which explained the that the assorted ways to acquire BPP status “pre-independence” of British Protected Territories, via marriage to a BPP not being one of those ways.
He then deleted the next heading which was “Post-Independence” which set out the ways in which someone who wasn’t already a BPP can acquire that status in the “post-independence” period. He then reproduced the marriage bit completely out of context.
It is entirely irrelevant to the situation of SDA who quite clearly could not possibly have legally acquired BPP status prior to the birth of Obama via marriage to BHO Sr.
As it happens she couldn’t have acquired it at any post-independence stage either for several reasons but obviously there is no point in going into that. No woman born in USA could possibly get BPP status in 1961 via marriage to BHO Sr
I am choosing to believe that Sven/Todd did this little pre/post independence “now you see it now you don’t” move in a premeditatively disngenuous way . Others may choose to believe he is simply thick as mince. Either way the bottom line is that it’s all inconsequential bull as usual.
Should read……”which explained the assorted ways”…….
In 1961, BHO Sr. was BPP and he married SAD Obama. Kenya became independent of British Protection in 1963.
So, in 1961, SAD Obama obtained her BPP passport because of her marriage to a BPP by application to the British Consulate.
In conclusion, we’ve confirmed SAD Obama used her BPP Passport to travel to the British Protectorate of Zanzibar (Kenya) to give birth in 1961.
Does any evidence of your claims exist outside your head?
Of course they are. They want their colonies back, don’t you know.
Evidence of Obama’s BPP status please.
Evidence of SAD’s BPP passport please. Nevermind, don’t bother. It was legally impossible.
Evidence of said confirmation, please. Who is ‘we’?
Oh good, they approved my comment.
Here is a new site being promoted by Mario and ORYR
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/
It is insane.
I sincerely appreciate and respect objectivity.
I sincerely appreciate and respect those who seek the truth.
It’s amazing the run-around you’re getting, isn’t it? Especially from an administration that promised:
You owe me three weeks in Tahiti to recover after skimming that.
I warned you that it was insane.
All that requires is for it to achieve being more open than prior administrations. There has been some progress over the last admistration, though not as much as many had hoped. But the overall record is clearly more “open” than prior adminstrations, so what you have today is better than it was before he took office, in general.
So, you can make a generic complaint that overall, government transparency is lacking…but then again, it always has. Has it moved forward and become slightly MORE transparent under Obama – yes. Do people want more progress than what has been achieved or is in the works – yes. Simple as that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/transparency/
todd, have you actually looked into the logistics of travelling to zanzibar from the united states in 1961?
research it, and then take into account that there would be a woman in the latter stages of pregnancy making the journey.
or are we talking this way..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac&list=PL27D06720A4C4B31D&index=6
Yet more signs of Birfoon derangement……..so sad, so pathetic.
The true fun however is that The Putz is furiously circle-jerking this, which basically states the Presidents father is Malcom X……
Now, this kinda causes Mario to have a major brain fart as this would then mean the President is, well a real honest to DoG De-Vatellist approved NBC……..
Or IS HE…..
In contortions that put the artistes of Cirque De Soleil to shame this is what Putzie has to say………..
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=7465911241460456477
And this is the BEST lawyer the Birfoons have in their diminutive arsenal………………
If Glenn Greenwald is to be believed, I’m not sure this is actually correct.
But no matter how despicable one might find some of your present government and/or President’s policies, it has nothing to do with Obama’s legitimacy, and further their opponents are truly freaks and monsters.
SAD Obama left Hawai`i for BP Zanzibar (Kenya) in March, 1961, 6 months before giving birth.
You have certainly done no such thing. Applying your standards, I have confirmed that you are a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan and a secret pedophile in three states. Please disprove.
Since none of us really believe Meretricious Mario to be the kind of gibbering madman who spied Yog Sothoth in the Men’s Toilets at Grand Central, the only possible examination, as Sherlock Holmes would say, is that he is being PAID (and from Mario’s b.g., likely HANDSOMELY paid) to spout such gibberish.
ding ding ding.
I think we have a winner, folks.
Let me say that if I was a ob lawyer, for example, and I was accused of being a mob lawyer, I would still deny it vehemently.
I find it mighty odd that the notoriously thin-skinned Mario, who’s posted replied here to the slightest of statements impugning his “theories”, never EVER replied — he even vamoosed — when I raised the subject, several times and point blank, of WHO was paying him.
He could have easily ridiculed me, denied my rather obvious insinuations with a twirl of his virtual cape, but no: complete silence or flight.
Don’t tell me Mario isn’t someone’s sock puppet.
Because you say so? You’re a joke, Sven. Orly mocks you too.
Yes, but it would also make him a liar (birther lore assumes he knew of said fact). Either way, birthers “win”. Because they’re not really about NBC definitions or who is whose father, only about something, anything, that would remove Obama from office, ideally at once, at worst in the 2012 elections.
So has Mario created a new category – Jus ortus
To my knowledge, Obama hasn’t done anything which compares to Dick Cheney’s “energy summit” fpr which he refused to even release the names of the people who attended, much less what was discussed.
Transparency is relative, as well as being in the eyes of the beholder. It isn’t realistic to expect that all negotiations on legislation be held in the open. It doesn’t work that way, and never has.
Glenn Greenwald is just an opinion columnist and blogger…and sometimes quite a whiny handwringing one at that.
Lupin, actually go to the link I provided, which is the non-partisan Politifact. Its entire purpose is to measure & fact-check political statements by politicians here on both sides.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/transparency/
Orly becomes angry with anyone who doesn’t support her personal narrative. She’ll call people names. She’ll demand others follow her lead and to dismiss or ignore the target of her anger.
Does this sound like anyone you know?
An excellent tally and reasonably impressive, indeed.
In any event, as I pointed out, so-called “transparency” has nothing to do with Obama’s legitimacy. It is a cheap and arguably inaccurate shot by his opponents, who (unlike Greenwald) never raised the issue during the past administration.
On the subject of Greenwald, I had a couple of very vituperative exchanges of emails with him in the past and I think that he is a bit of an *ssh*le, but I have enormous respect for his writings, and I often (but not always, obviously) agree with him.
Yes. Mario Apuzzo.
Well, we tend to dismiss or ignore anyone who makes assertions of fact without evidence. Does that sound like anyone you know?
Sure does. It sounds like many birthers including Apuzzo, Kreep, Rondeau, Berg, Sellin, Vandemoer, Corsi, Farah, L. Smith, Trump, Fitzpatrick, Cherry, Donofrio, the Hemenway family, Martin, Pidgeon, Polland, Swensson, Sewell, Wells, Charlton, Hale, Drake, Manning, Daneman and many. many more.
Todd_Landrum: SAD Obama left Hawai`i for BP Zanzibar (Kenya) in March, 1961, 6 months before giving birth.
Does spreading complete, unsubstantiated steaming piles of crap on a daily basis sound like an angry lunatic desperate for validation and relevancy?
Of course it does.
Sven can’t even count. March, 1961 was 5 months before Stanley Ann gave birth, not 6 months.
Arithmetic lesson for Sven: 8-3=5
The Hawai`i COLB is a complete fabrication, yet you cling to the false information posted on the it. Why is that?
Why was a certified copy of Obama’s BC removed from the Obama divorce record after the record had been closed by Court order? Did the Obama divorce BC provide information contrary to the narrative published by the records administrator in HI DoH?
Was Obama born on the 4th of July in Mombasa, Kenya? If so, then SAD Obama left Hawai`i in March, 1961 and gave birth 4 months later.
Oh no! I can’t fit truth to your false premise.
How Alinsky of you.
The state of Hawaii back by the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution and every relevant authority across the U.S. says you’re full of crap.
I will always choose to trust the state of Hawaii over any anonymous, lying lunatic with possibly serious emotional and mental issues.
Is it really a choice?
First it was 6 months later, now it’s 4 months later.
No surprise there. It’s a well-known fact that serial liars have trouble keeping their stories straight.
It has been proven that Obama Sr. was in class for the summer term through August, 1961.
So according to you Stanley Ann went to Kenya by herself.
Time for you to regroup and invent a new story.
Funny, but the DOH disagrees with you.
It wasn’t and no.
No. Therefore your 2nd part is neither true nor relevant.
Sadly, you obviously have no clue as to what truth is. You merely live in your own mind of mad delusions.
SInce the Hawai’i COLB is issued by the official record keeping authority, it is by definition, definitive. The information on it is correct, and has the advantage of contemporary published verification (the newspaper notices). Casting doubt on the veracity of the Hawai’ian vital statistics records equally calls into doubt the vital statistics of every State in the Union. If the Hawai’i DoH cannot be trusted to produce a correct COLB and the Hawai’ian professional archivists cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed, and the authority that is charged with producing valid COLB’s have to resort to cutting and pasting from unrelated documents in order to produce false COLB’s, then why are you so interested in inspecting their archival records? What could they possibly have that you would believe?
What court order ‘closed’ the record? Just the normal end of case disposition that put the record under the normal privacy protection laws? If the record is ‘closed’ how do you know whether or not there was ever a certified copy of Obama’s BC in it? Why would there be a certified copy of the BC in the divorce record instead of just a photocopy of the BC (if even that was necessary). How do you know it isn’t there now? What interest do you have in yet another certified copy of the BC if you don’t trust any other certified copy from Hawai’i?
No.
Interesting concept. I take it that you and Lucas Smith are working on New and Improved POSFKBC?
Oh no! You have no sensible way to express your personal dislike of the President.
How Joe McCarthy of you.
“How Alinsky of you.”
Everything I know about Alinsky, I learned from Birthers.
Which means what i know is probably a lie.
A couple of Questions;
1. Does Kenya have passport records you can obtain, from 1955 to 1962? for his father.
2. For his mother; what high school? any year books? any class trips? where? She would have been 17 when her parents got to Hawaii. (November 29, 1942)
3. When and what years did she go to college? were there any class trips? where? after all she was an American anthropologist who specialized in economic anthropology and rural development. Why wouldn’t she go to Kenya?
4. So if Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a high ranking political figure than why couldn’t he use a government plane to travel and send one to pick up mommy and fly her to Kenya. look at African travel records to do a real job? I could make the connection with all this information!
In 1961, Barack Obama Sr. was a college student. He had no government office and was nobody special.
US Immigration records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act available on this site show that Barack Obama Sr. did not travel outside the United States during this period.
See: https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/born-in-africa-myth-crushed-under-weight-of-complexity/
Thank you for your inquiry.
Wikipedia has a yearbook photo of Dunham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
From her high school in Washington State.