Frankly, I may have been a little hard on Charles Kerchner when I shredded his article on the Dunham passport FOIA documents, on Apuzzo’s blog. The documents are a little confusing, and it’s particularly easy to get things wrong if you are in a hurry. I read them wrong the first time, and I’m probably lucky I didn’t hit the Publish button too soon with some of my totally wrong early drafts. And of course I originally attributed the article to Mario Apuzzo, not seeing the fine print at the bottom.
Time has passed, and information has had time to clarify and organize itself, and now we have a heavily revised article by Kerchner to look at. The article still has allegations that the Department of State is hiding things, allegations that I think are completely unjustified. He says: “It required a federal lawsuit to even get them to release even these documents.” It is true that there was a federal lawsuit, but I do not see that the lawsuit forced the release of anything that wouldn’t have been released anyway. The things the government initially refused to release to Kerchner (personal information about a living person), they still did not release and things they initially agreed to release, they did.
Now that Kerchner has his documents and dates straight, he “pulls a birther” on us. By that I mean he abandons the evidence and starts appealing to some “it must have been” concept.
Specifically, Kerchner maintains that the passport issued to Stanley Ann Dunham in 1965 must have been a renewal of an earlier one.
Why I believe the July 19, 1965 issued passport was issued pursuant to a RENEWAL application filed in 1965 and was not the first passport that Stanley Ann Dunham had.
First of all, this is impossible. The law clearly states that passports are good for 3 years with a 2-year extension. We have the extension in the file, and it shows the extension valid through July 18, 1970. Subtracting 5 years from that, we know without any doubt that the original passport was issued on July 19, 1965, as is reiterated in at least three of the documents in the FOIA request. Kerchner is heading towards a mirage.
Kerchner ties his hope on a quirk in the record. In 1967, Stanley Ann requested an amendment to her passport to have it issued in her married name. Now she was married in March of 1965, 4 months before the July application. Kerchner says:
If she had applied for her first passport in the late spring or early summer of 1965 she would have had to legally apply for it in her married name….
But that is simply not true. A passport is customarily issued in the name associated with the identity and proof of citizenship documentation. While a passport may be issued with the surname of the spouse, it is not required. See 7 FAM 1352 APPENDIX C USE OF SPOUSE’S SURNAME.
The fact is that she had a passport issued on July 19, 1965, and the name requirement for an initial application and a renewal is the same, so this argument goes nowhere even if the conclusion weren’t impossible. The facts show that she had a passport issued to her 4 months after her marriage and that she amended it to show her married name in 1967. It expired in 1970 which means it could not have been originally issued before 1965.
Kerchner either didn’t read my article or failed to understand it, because he continues the later mistakes of his earlier article in saying that a passport was good for 5 years and could be renewed. In fact it was good only for 3 years and could be renewed for two additional years to a total of 5. This error invalidates much of the remainder of Kerchner’s discussion.
I still wonder why Stanely Ann gave 2 different marriage dates with a difference of exactly one year. Perhaps the one year tilting was necessary to hide the adoption of Obama by Lolo. Clearly, if Obama was 5 years old, He would definitely had become an Indonesian citizen and therefore lose his US citizenship (Not really; Obama could gotten his US citizenship back that age of majority but there is no indication that he did this.) There also the mystery of what “Soebarkah”.
Obama real name is becoming known with each passing day – Barack Adullah Hussein Obama AKA Bary Soetoro, Soebarkah
You’re starting to sound like Sven.
James, you are starting to get really silly.
Tilting?
Had become?
He would definitely had?
Obama real name?
Obama could gotten?’
There also of what?
Are you drunk, James? My five year old niece is more literate.
Stanley Ann’s passports may be only part of the picture. I do know that Ed Hale has made the claim of the existance of a document which he calls the “Port of Entry” doc. Ed claims that Stanely Ann entered the country (from Canada, I think) a couple of days after Obama’s alleged birth with a baby in toe. The document orginally was to be given Orly Taitz for the Barnett Case, but ultimately the idea was abandoned. Instead the document was given to Stephen Pidgeon and it remains a mystery of whatever happen to it. Ed Hale claimed he only saw the document for a brief time before giving it to Pidgeon. While Ed Hale makes a lot of claims and you can him with a grain of salt, Ed Hale still insists the document exists and that he gave it to Stephen Pidgeon.
That’s incorrect, and other than showing his intent to maintain his birth right citizenship, Obama would not have lost his US birthright citizenship.But there is no evidence of adoption, even Barack’s name remains “Obama” and Lolo returns to Indonesia in 1967. Since adoption would require approval from the Indonesian Negiri at the residence
,blockquote>(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child.
Also, the 1964 date is the date when Dunham’s divorce with Obama became final. There are two 3/15/1965 dates, and one 3/5/1965 date. Even the 3/15/1965 would meant that Obama was 3-4 years old.
Logic dictates otherwise.
One question: Why would Stanley Ann have applied for a passport in 1965? If indeed she had just gotten married, it would make sense. However, Obama’s memories show Lolo proposing in 1967.
Minor but interesting mystery.
“James, you are starting to get really silly.”
What do you mean “starting”?
.
Hey james, you were compared to a 5 yr old and came out on the losing side. Aren’t you embarrassed by that.
Either Obama’s memory of what happened when he was 3 1/2 years old is faulty or his knowledge of what happened then is faulty. When he wrote his book he clearly was under the impression that Lolo left for Indonesia shortly after the marriage, although the book doesn’t actually mention the wedding, only the proposal. And he does say that Lolo had been in their life for two years prior to the “proposal.” Perhaps Stanley Ann and Lolo got married on 3/15/65 but had reasons to keep it a secret until 1967? We just don’t know.
I was first considering possibilities on why the name change at the time, until I was tripped up with inconvenient research that made me erase my entire comment and start over. Of course, we are not Lolo or Stanley so we would not have the whole story, no matter what. However, what further confuses understanding, even for me, is that is difficult to determine which cultural practice is involved at the time. Islamic tradition holds that the wife retain her name (Qur’an, Al-Ahzab [33], verse 5), however western and secular practices apparently have taken some root. I am not even sure what Javanese tradition would follow.
On a trivial matter, I remember reading somewhere (though would have to look again to find it) elopement is somewhat common in Bali. Maybe they were channeling their inner Balinese in 1965.
You forgot ‘Steve’ (and Kal-el). After all this time how can you fail to understand the law so badly? There is NO WAY that President Obama could have lost his US citizenship due to adoption – Perkins v. Elg is very clear on that. You are suggesting a cover-up of something that by law couldn’t have happened – does that sound rational to you?
It’s too bad you weren’t paying attention back in ’08 when Obama’s campaign originally released his COLB. You would have known it then.
This passport story has birtherland abuzz, fueled by their lack of reading comprehension and their kindergarten level education, they are making this a major birther talking point. Just look at james’ inane comments for confirmation of this. It’s not WOW time in birtherland, Obama is still president, birthers are going nowhere. Sorry james.
Totally off-topic, but for a welcome respite from James & his ilk take a look at similar reasoning ability @ http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
I agree the document requires some reorganization before it becomes a consistent story.of course jumping to conclusions before the details have been flushed out is done at ones own risk.
Heh, James, check the following pages of this document which is the records of Lolo Soetoro.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35192432/Lolo-Soetoro-U-S-Records-Allen-v-DHS-State-and-Allen-v-USCIS-FOIA-Releases-Final-7-29-10
p. 30 In a letter to the State Dept Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in DC from the district manager from the INS in Honolulu, stamped Oct 6, 1967:
“The applicant’s United States citizen wife resides at University Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii with her 6 year old United States citizen son by a prior marriage.
“She has made application for a visa for herself and her son to travel to Indonesia.”
p.38 Memorandum to File Sep 14, 1967
“Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicant’s spouse’s child by a former marriage.
The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii Aug 4, 1961. he is considered the applicant’s step-child by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child’s mother.
“When he wrote his book he clearly was under the impression that Lolo left for Indonesia shortly after the marriage, although the book doesn’t actually mention the wedding, only the proposal. And he does say that Lolo had been in their life for two years prior to the “proposal.” Perhaps Stanley Ann and Lolo got married on 3/15/65 but had reasons to keep it a secret until 1967? We just don’t know.”
The Indonesian govt had requested his return from the State Dept in June 1965 when his educational grant expired and the State Dept denied his request to stay. Lolo went back to Indonesia in June 1966 when his visa expired. She stayed in Hawaii and finished her degree in Anthropology. By summer of 1967, he and Ann were requesting a waiver for him to return, but the State Dept denied the request and thus by Oct 1967, Ann was preparing to move with Barack to Indonesia and had requested visas.
Would the marriage of Ann & Lolo in Hawaii have given him “anchor” status in 1965 so he wouldn’t have to go back?
“Sef wrote:
Would the marriage of Ann & Lolo in Hawaii have given him “anchor” status in 1965 so he wouldn’t have to go back?”
Doc probably knows more about this but it must not have because they denied his request to stay, then they denied his request for a waiver after he’d gone back to Indonesia so that’s when Ann and Barack went to Indonesia in 1967. Lolo was a civilian employee of the Indonesian Army when he was sent to Hawaii on a student grant as part of an exchange program. When that grant expired and the Indonesian govt requested the State Dept to help in sending him home, they granted their request and denied Lolo’s request to stay. Marrying a US citizen while you’re here on a visa doesn’t give you the automatic right to stay.
Thanks for the info.
Hale has a history of running scams like that.
per·haps    /pÉ™rˈhæps/
–adverb
maybe; possibly: Perhaps the package will arrive today.
In short, once again, as always, you are wrong.
You are also lying about the President’s name. Didn’t your parents teach you better?
The Lolo Soetoro records which have been released make it clear that Obama’s book is considerably off base in regard to the chronology of events.
Lolo and Stanley Ann were indeed married on March 15, 1965 at Molokai. There is a copy of the marriage certificate in the Soetoro records.
Lolo left Hawaii for Indonesia on June 20, 1966, 15 months after the marriage.
Stanley Ann and Barack didn’t move to Indonesia until late in the year in 1967. This corresponds with Obama’s recollection that they endured “bone-chilling rains” during their three-day stopover in Japan. It also means that Obama was well past his sixth birthday when he first set foot in Indonesia (sorry about that, Sven).
I imagine that Stanley Ann applied for a passport in 1965 because she knew that it was likely that Lolo would have to return to Indonesia when his visa expired. Lolo had managed to get a one-year extension on his original visa. Thereafter they tried for months to get a hardship waiver to allow him to stay in the United States indefnitely, but his application was denied. She may have thought that she would be able to visit him from time to time. As it turned out, she was never able to afford to do so and she didn’t see him again for nearly 18 months.
Yes, a whole new chapter will have to be written 🙂
“with a baby in toe”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha [gasp] hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha [inhaler] hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
More proof that birthers are semi-literate.
semi?
Short version:
Someone with that kind of name couldn’t possibly be legitimately president of the good ol’ US of A. Why, it gives me vapors under my hood just thinkin’ of it..
Amen, bro.
I’m not sure what the immigration law was at that point, but the government memos make it clear that Lolo was in the U.S. pursuant to a program in which the U.S. promised Indonesia that the students participating in the program would be returned to Indonesia when their visas expired. It would seem from the memos that this trumped all other factors.
In the 80s this was known as a J-1 or J-2 visa. Most, but not all, included a 2-year non-residence requirement meaning that you had ti leave the US and couldn’t return for 2 years. But it really depended on the program you were under. For some programs, that requirement was waived.
She had a baby in her toe?
And it shall be named “Pinky.”
Well there you have it, proof that even if these idiots get what they want, they will always insist that they don’t have the right thing, the government is keeping something from them, or that there is still evidence they don’t have in the interest of holding on to their false premise that President Obama is not a citizen.
I think I have found the smoking gun birthers are after. If you read all those documents into a voice recorder in any order you choose and play the recording backwards, you can hear the words, “President Obama was born in Kenya.”
Isn’t there a hebrew song named He nay my toe… Misha I’m sorry about the bad spelling.
Don’t you have to watch the Wizard of Oz at the same time?
And the next line as we sang it in fifth grade Hebrew class . . . “Shove it up your gam y’achad!”
No. If you watch the Wizard of Oz at the same time, you will hear Satanic messages.
Of course! 🙂
It certainly helps. 🙂
Only if you watch it backwards while groovin’ to Pink Floyd.
Zardoz decodes the birther brainwave matrix.
Giant floating stone head for the win 🙂
In all seriousness, though, I think we can take James’ attempt to spin this around into a legitimate talking point, rather than a virtual depantsing, as a barometer of where the chattering class of Birthers are at this point in time. That would be DESPERATE, as opposed to FAIRLY HOPEFUL.