Main Menu

Strunk FOIA results for Obama’s mother

Stanley Ann Dunham

The FOIA results of Christopher Strunk’s Freedom of Information Act request for passport applications of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s mother, were released July 29. A copy of the results appear at the end of this article.

Strunk asked for the “passport applications” of Dunham along with other information specifically about Barack Obama. That latter information is not available under FOIA according to regulation. Strunk sued the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. (See my article: “What does Strunk know and when did he know it?”)

Now we have a series of documents that are not as helpful as one might hope. The earliest application in the file is a passport renewal from 1968 that references a passport issued in 1965 (prior to Obama’s trip to Indonesia to live with her new husband). However, the Department of State does not have the 1965 document (presumably destroyed in the 1970s when old records were cleared out). So from this material we cannot definitively say that Stanley Ann Dunham’s first passport was in 1965.

There are two things of interest in the 1970 application. First, there is a signed statement by Dunham that she had not naturalized in any other country (addressing the myth that she became an Indonesian citizen) and second she listed her child named “Barack Hussein Obama”, not “Soetoro”.

A curiosity is that after Barack’s name is the word “(Soebarkah)”. No satisfactory theory has been presented to explain this word.

Readers here may know that I submitted my own passport FOIA for Dunham in January of 2009, two months after Strunk. My request differs from that of Strunk in that he asked for “passport applications” and I asked for “passports issued.” While the application records from 1965 (and earlier) were presumably destroyed, the Department of State says that they have passport records since 1925. I still hope, therefore, that my FOIA will conclusively show that Stanley Ann Dunham either had or did not have a passport before 1965. [Update: My FOIA did not find any earlier record of a passport issued to Stanley Ann Dunham, nor did it find a record of the 1965 passport.]

The Strunk FOIA documents were first reported to be on the Orly Taitz web site, and subsequently  found on Scribd uploaded by Mario Apuzzo. Read the documents following:

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-1… by puzo1

166 Responses to Strunk FOIA results for Obama’s mother

  1. avatar
    Dave July 31, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Taitz has just posted Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport application, which somebody got through a FOIA request. How’s your FOIA request coming along?

  2. avatar
    misha July 31, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Dave: Taitz has just posted Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport application, which somebody got through a FOIA request. How’s your FOIA request coming along?

    I know it’s dangerous, but could you give the link? My anti-virus is up to date.

  3. avatar
    Jules July 31, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    misha:
    I know it’s dangerous, but could you give the link? My anti-virus is up to date.

    The URL is [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10 substituted safe Scribd link, Doc]

    I have just looked at the PDFs. They do not appear to contain anything out of the ordinary. Not surprisingly, there is no Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

  4. avatar
    misha July 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Jules: I have just looked at the PDFs. They do not appear to contain anything out of the ordinary. Not surprisingly, there is no Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

    I looked at them, and saved them. Am I correct in reading that she did not have a passport until 1965, four years after her son was born?

  5. avatar
    SluggoJD July 31, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    misha:
    I looked at them, and saved them. Am I correct in reading that she did not have a passport until 1965, four years after her son was born?

    You mean she was secretly smuggled in to Kenya, because she didn’t have a passport, just to give birth to Obama, so that they could then craft an elaborate ruse to make it look like he was born in Hawaii, so that he could then grow up as a Muslim, a Nazi, a Commie, a Socialist, and eventually become the most dangerous threat to America in over 200 years by becoming a Manchurian President????

    OMG, OMG, OMG, Red Alert Warning to all Patriotic Americans!!!!!!

    heh

  6. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Some interesting notes:

    in the first 4 pages of the FOIA release, page 4 shows Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) crossed out as “amend to exclude/include children”. This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted. However what does the annotation mean? A nick name?

    Nor is there any evidence that Dunham became an Indonesian citizen.

    So far it lays to rest some myths and raises one interesting question: Who/what is Soebarkah(sp)?

  7. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    Soebarkah: My guess

    Soe + Barack – the prefix soe in Indonesian appears to mean ‘good’ Barkah means “rain/life giving monsoon in Sanskrit”

    Just speculating. Any references in Barack’s books?

  8. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    misha: I looked at them, and saved them. Am I correct in reading that she did not have a passport until 1965, four years after her son was born?

    The last reference is to a passport in 1965, however I believe the letter states that they were unable to find this and thus unable to determine earlier passports. These files were destroyed.

  9. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 31, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    From the document it appears that she had a passport issued in 1965 and applied for a renewal/extension in 1968 while in Indonesia— and that passport was renewed/extended to 1970 – – so I guess that the duration of a passport issued in the 1960’s was much shorter than it is today.

    She did sign a statement on subsequent passport applications indicating that she had never relinquished her US citizenship.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Dave: Taitz has just posted Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport application, which somebody got through a FOIA request. How’s your FOIA request coming along?

    Still waiting, but I guess it will be soon. I’m very disappointed that Orly got to publish first.

  11. avatar
    WhoDaFlockIsSoebarkah July 31, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Jules: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12736

    United States Department of State
    July 29, 2010

    “”We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.

    Passport records typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United States citizenship.”.”

    They admit to destroying passport applications. And they admit it on the page containing truncated information about an amendment with Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) named.

    Guilty!

  12. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    The passport records are a response to Christopher Strunk’s FOIA request of 11/22/08. I don’t recall the date of Doc’s request.

    The records can safely be viewed here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

    A few observations:

    1. She married Lolo Soetoro on 3/15/65 and her passport F777788 was issued on 7/19/65. This makes perfect sense, since they obviously contemplated at least visiting Lolo’s home country, ever if they had not yet decided that they would eventually move there.

    2. She renewed her passport in 1968, which extended it through 7/8/70. It appears that when she decided to return to Hawaii in the fall of 1971 she realized that her passport had expired, so she applied for an exception under CFR 53.1 so she could enter the U.S without a passport. The exception was granted by an immigration officer in Honolulu and it specifically states “identify and citizenship established.” She then applied for a new passport in Hawaii on 1/4/72 and it looks like it was issued the same day. She then had passports issued to her in June, 1976, April, 1981 and April, 1986. The passport records pretty well demolish the theory that she ever lost or renounced her U.S. citizenship.

    3. The one discrepancy that I see is that on her 4/27/81 application she lists that date of her marriage to Lolo as 3/5/64. However, I don’t see any significance to this, although it wouldn’t surprise me if some birthers try to make it an issue.

  13. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    I posted most of this in this in the open thread topic but it should go here.

    A few observations:

    1. She married Lolo Soetoro on 3/15/65 and her passport F777788 was issued on 7/19/65. This makes perfect sense, since they obviously contemplated at least visiting Lolo’s home country, ever if they had not yet decided that they would eventually move there.

    2. She renewed her passport in 1968, which extended it through 7/8/70. It appears that when she decided to return to Hawaii in the fall of 1971 she realized that her passport had expired, so she applied for an exception under CFR 53.1 so she could enter the U.S without a passport. The exception was granted by an immigration officer in Honolulu and it specifically states “identify and citizenship established.” She then applied for a new passport in Hawaii on 1/4/72 and it looks like it was issued the same day. She then had passports issued to her in June, 1976, April, 1981 and April, 1986. The passport records pretty well demolish the theory that she ever lost or renounced her U.S. citizenship.

    3. The one discrepancy that I see is that on her 4/27/81 application she lists the date of her marriage to Lolo as 3/5/64. However, I don’t see any significance to this, although it wouldn’t surprise me if some birthers try to make it an issue.

  14. avatar
    Mary Brown July 31, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    If applications were destroyed in the 80’s then one would have to believe in a very pervasive conspiracy that went back at least to the Reagan administration. Does anyone believe that?

  15. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    NbC: Soebarkah: My guessSoe + Barack – the prefix soe in Indonesian appears to mean ‘good’ Barkah means “rain/life giving monsoon in Sanskrit”Just speculating. Any references in Barack’s books?

    It may have been an Indonesian nickname. I found a listing for an Indonesian named “Soebarkah Barkah” on Facebook.

  16. avatar
    mimi July 31, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    NbC: Some interesting notes:in the first 4 pages of the FOIA release, page 4 shows Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) crossed out as “amend to exclude/include children”. This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted. However what does the annotation mean? A nick name?Nor is there any evidence that Dunham became an Indonesian citizen.So far it lays to rest some myths and raises one interesting question: Who/what is Soebarkah(sp)?

    .

    From PJ’s (I don’t think they’ll mind):

    Adelante: “I thought it might even be a passport clerk or a reference of some kind.”

    interestedbystander: “I agree – I presumed it was the name of the official amending the form by crossing out Obama’s name.”

    Tolland: “Remember that many or most Indonesians do not use “last names” or “surnames.” They use only one name, as in Sukarno (born Kusno Sosrodihardjo). Lolo Soetoro was a bit of an exception. His father was simply named Martodihardjo.”

    Sounds reasonable to me.

  17. avatar
    Jules July 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Rickey: The one discrepancy that I see is that on her 4/27/81 application she lists the date of her marriage to Lolo as 3/5/64. However, I don’t see any significance to this, although it wouldn’t surprise me if some birthers try to make it an issue.

    She may well have mistakenly listed the date of her divorce from her first husband as the date of her second marriage.

    I haven’t seen the exact date of her divorce, but I have read that she filed sometime in January 1964 and that Barack Obama Sr did not contest the divorce; thus, it’s conceivable that a decree absolute was issued within a couple months. Someone with more knowledge about Hawaii family law can comment if such a time frame is reasonable.

  18. avatar
    Gorefan July 31, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Rickey: A few observations

    What is the application for an amendment? It appears to be date 1967 and a change to married name. So what was name on the 1965 passport?

  19. avatar
    mljucmj July 31, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Sad that in this day and age of identity theft the social security numbers and dates of birth were not redacted.

  20. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    Gorefan:
    What is the application for an amendment?It appears to be date 1967 and a change to married name. So what was name on the 1965 passport?

    As far as I can tell unknown. Since she had divorced Obama in 1964, I venture to guess Stanley Ann Dunham which then became Stanley Ann Soetoro, and then Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro back to Stanley Ann Dunham.

  21. avatar
    Jules July 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    mljucmj: Sad that in this day and age of identity theft the social security numbers and dates of birth were not redacted.

    The protections are always lower for dead people. It is only because Stanley Ann Dunham is dead that it is possible for her records to be released under FOIA.

    Stealing Stanley Ann Dunham’s identity would be rather counterproductive, considering that she must now be listed as deceased in all Social Security and credit databases. Someone applying for her account would surely be denied and investigated for fraud.

  22. avatar
    BatGuano July 31, 2010 at 6:52 pm #

    Rickey: and her passport F777788 was issued on 7/19/65.

    so stanley ann did NOT have a passport before 1965 ? correct ?

  23. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Gorefan:
    What is the application for an amendment?It appears to be date 1967 and a change to married name. So what was name on the 1965 passport?

    Presumably it was either Stanley Ann Dunham or Stanley Ann Obama. We may learn the answer to that when Doc receives the response to his FOIA request. The documents which Strunk received do not say what name was on her 1965 passport. If I had to guess, it probably was Stanley Ann Dunham, but what difference does it make?

  24. avatar
    misha July 31, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    BatGuano: so stanley ann did NOT have a passport before 1965 ? correct ?

    That’s why I surmise. Anyone?

  25. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    mljucmj: Sad that in this day and age of identity theft the social security numbers and dates of birth were not redacted.

    The Social Security Numbers and dates of birth of deceased people are public records and can be found by anyone by checking the Social Security Death Index.

  26. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    NbC: As far as I can tell unknown. Since she had divorced Obama in 1964, I venture to guess Stanley Ann Dunham which then became Stanley Ann Soetoro, and then Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro back to Stanley Ann Dunham.

    On Mario’s site, not surprisingly, Kerchner is say it is proof that she had a BC in 1960/1961 My guess is these documents are all that will ever be released, because it’s all they have. And they are not definititive enough to resolve anything.

  27. avatar
    BatGuano July 31, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    misha: Anyone?

    sven ?

  28. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    NbC:
    As far as I can tell unknown. Since she had divorced Obama in 1964, I venture to guess Stanley Ann Dunham which then became Stanley Ann Soetoro, and then Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro back to Stanley Ann Dunham.

    Agreed. I don’t believe that there is any record of her using the name Stanley Ann Obama, and she may not have decided to take the name Soetoro until they were preparing to move to Indonesia in 1967 – hence the need to have her name changed on her passport.

  29. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    gorefan:
    On Mario’s site, not surprisingly, Kerchner is say it is proof that she had a BC in 1960/1961My guess is these documents are all that will ever be released, because it’s all they have.And they are not definititive enough to resolve anything.

    Except that they put to rest any questions about her citizenship.

    If the 1965 passport was a renewal, it means that her previous passport most likely was issued in the summer of 1960, when she was 17. That certainly is possible, although there is nothing in her history which would suggest that she was contemplating international travel before she became involved with Obama’s father.

  30. avatar
    mimi July 31, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Kerchner posted at Putz Place. It’s a conspiracy.

  31. avatar
    mimi July 31, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    I forgot to give link.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama.html

  32. avatar
    BatGuano July 31, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    misha:
    That’s why I surmise. Anyone?

    oops. didn’t see the new article/thread.

  33. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    BatGuano:
    so stanley ann did NOT have a passport before 1965 ? correct ?

    We can’t say that for certain without seeing her application for the 1965 passport. If the 1965 passport was a renewal, the prior passport most likely would have been issued in the summer of 1960, when she was 17. That’s possible, although there is nothing in her history to suggest that she was planning for international travel when she was 17.

  34. avatar
    LMK July 31, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    mljucmj: Sad that in this day and age of identity theft the social security numbers and dates of birth were not redacted.

    LMK channels Orly: “Stanley Ann’s SS# is just as fraudulent as Obama’s from 1891. No need to redact!”

    Oh, my head! Trying to channel Orly is bad for the brain!

  35. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    In October, 1971, she got held up returning to Hawaii. In January, 1972, she applies for passport to return to Indonesia. Was this when she brought her son back to live with grandma?

  36. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 31, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Rickey: . If the 1965 passport was a renewal, the prior passport most likely would have been issued in the summer of 1960, when she was 17.

    No, that’s assuming a passport would be good for 5 years – which is true of a passport issued to minors today, but apparently not in the 60’s. The paperwork shows that in 1968 she had to apply for an extension of a passport previously issued in 1965 — so it must be that passports were good for only 3 years back in the 60’s. (I didn’t get my first passport until 1970 — so I don’t know what the law was prior to that time).

    That doesn’t preclude a passport being issued in 1960 — but it’s equally possible that a 1965 renewal (if it was a renewal) could be for a passport issued in 1962.

  37. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Rickey: but what difference does it make?

    To me no difference, but it will just fuel the birthers.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    NbC: Some interesting notes:in the first 4 pages of the FOIA release, page 4 shows Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) crossed out as “amend to exclude/include children”. This should lay to rest the idea that Barack had been adopted. However what does the annotation mean? A nick name?Nor is there any evidence that Dunham became an Indonesian citizen.So far it lays to rest some myths and raises one interesting question: Who/what is Soebarkah(sp)?

    Soebarkah appears to be a common surname on FaceBook; I counted 65 entries. The ones I checked were Indonesian.

  39. avatar
    Sef July 31, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    mimi: I forgot to give link.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama.html

    The mind of a birther is a wondrous thing.

  40. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 31, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    I found the revision history for passport laws and posted it over here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/the-occasional-open-thread-2/#comment-59456

    Basically, from 1959-1968, a passport was good for 3 years but could be renewed for an additional 2 years.

    We don’t have any history on Stanley Ann prior to 1965. If she had obtained a passport in 1961, it would have expired before 1965, unless renewed in the interim — so the existence of a 1965 passport doesn’t tell us anything about the existence or absence of previous passports.

  41. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    gorefan: In October, 1971, she got held up returning to Hawaii.In January, 1972, she applies for passport to return to Indonesia.Was this when she brought her son back to live with grandma?

    According to “Dreams From My Father,” Obama flew unaccompanied to Honolulu in 1971 and his mother arrived “shortly after my own arrival.”

  42. avatar
    mimi July 31, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Sef:
    The mind of a birther is a wondrous thing.

    Sef:
    The mind of a birther is a wondrous thing.

    You’re jumping to wrong conclusion. i.e., check my prior posts before insulting me.

  43. avatar
    mimi July 31, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    oh, I think I may have jumped to conclusion. If so, sorry. 🙂 It’s been a rough week.

  44. avatar
    Gorefan July 31, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    The 1968 renewal application was probably signed by this guy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_F._LaPorta

  45. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    Expelliarmus: I found the revision history for passport laws and posted it over here:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/the-occasional-open-thread-2/#comment-59456Basically, from 1959-1968, a passport was good for 3 years but could be renewed for an additional 2 years.
    We don’t have any history on Stanley Ann prior to 1965.If she had obtained a passport in 1961, it would have expired before 1965, unless renewed in the interim — so the existence of a 1965 passport doesn’t tell us anything about the existence or absence of previous passports.

    Thanks for getting that clarified. So we know that she obtained a passport in July, 1965; in 1968, while living in Indonesia, she applied to have it renewed for two years, and that was granted. Her passport then lapsed, and she had not gotten a new passport when she broke up with Lolo and decided to go back to Hawaii in October, 1971. She was allowed to return to Hawaii without a passport after immigration verified her identify and citizenship, and she applied for and was issued a new passport in January, 1972. She subsequently renewed her passport every five years until her death.

    She could have gotten a passport in 1960 and then had it renewed for two years in 1963, which would have carried her through to 1965. Or the 1965 passport could have been her first passport. We just don’t know based upon what has been produced to date.

  46. avatar
    Sef July 31, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    mimi: You’re jumping to wrong conclusion.i.e., check my prior posts before insulting me.

    I’m sorry if you inferred that I meant this for you. I thought the link would have been obvious that it was meant for Mario, er l.

  47. avatar
    Sef July 31, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    er I => et al.

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 31, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    I can’t wait to see the conspiracy the birthers concoct surrounding ‘Soebarkah’! 😉

  49. avatar
    AnotherBird July 31, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    gorefan:
    To me no difference, but it will just fuel the birthers.

    Gorefan wake me up when something exciting happens. Birthers aren’t the brightest.

    Even without the previous passport there is nothing. This is a document for the renewal of a passport issued on July 19, 1965. She applied to renew it in August 13, 1968. The renewal of the passport was granted to July 18, 1970. The conclusion that everyone has that the past was good only for 3 years seems realistic. However, I would add that renewals were limited to 2 years.

    The second page of the application is only for amendment to the passport being renewed. Neither of her husbands would be included or need to be included in the amendments as it is pretty obvious.

  50. avatar
    AnotherBird July 31, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    Expelliarmus: I found the revision history for passport laws and posted it over here:http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/the-occasional-open-thread-2/#comment-59456Basically, from 1959-1968, a passport was good for 3 years but could be renewed for an additional 2 years.
    We don’t have any history on Stanley Ann prior to 1965.If she had obtained a passport in 1961, it would have expired before 1965, unless renewed in the interim — so the existence of a 1965 passport doesn’t tell us anything about the existence or absence of previous passports.

    If she obtained a passport in 1961 it would have expired in 1964, and could have been renewed to 1966. There is absolutely nothing to support the birther disillusion. Anyways, prepare the the crazy birther math.

  51. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    Rickey: According to “Dreams From My Father,” Obama flew unaccompanied to Honolulu in 1971 and his mother arrived “shortly after my own arrival.”

    Thanks

  52. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    If anyone is wondering what Christopher Strunk looks like, there is a 2008 interview with him on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF27VLWbppA

    The address on his correspondence is a mail drop, by the way.

  53. avatar
    Joeymac July 31, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    Expelliarmus: From the document it appears that she had a passport issued in 1965 and applied for a renewal/extension in 1968 while in Indonesia— and that passport was renewed/extended to 1970 – – so I guess that the duration of a passport issued in the 1960′s was much shorter than it is today.
    She did sign a statement on subsequent passport applications indicating that she had never relinquished her US citizenship.

    My first passport was issued in 1968 and it is my recollection that it was good for five years and could be renewal upon expiration.

  54. avatar
    AnotherBird July 31, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    Joeymac:
    My first passport was issued in 1968 and it is my recollection that it was good for five years and could be renewal upon expiration.

    A passport that was issued in 1965 was renewed to 1970 in 1968. Conclusion passports issued in 1965 were good for only 3 years.

    Please refer to an earlier comment by Expelliarmus

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/the-occasional-open-thread-2/#comment-59456

  55. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    Joeymac:
    My first passport was issued in 1968 and it is my recollection that it was good for five years and could be renewal upon expiration.

    Of course, the meaning of “renewing” a passport has changed. When Stanley Ann renewed her passport in 1968, it merely extended her existing passport for two years.

    Nowadays when we “renew” a passport, we get a new passport. Renewing is simply obtaining a new passport by mail without having to appear in person with a birth certificate, etc. When the new passport is issued, the old one is returned with holes punched through the scan bar.

  56. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 31, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    I just read Kercher’s post on Mario’s blog – man he’s out of the gate fast! He seems to be under the impression that the first record is a 1965 renewal of a 1960 (and why did she need a passport in 1960? Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!) instead of a ’68 renewal of a ’65 passport (which doesn’t play nearly as well for the birthers…). And he refers to ‘(Soebarkah)’ as: “Another mysterious new tidbit to research.” I’m thinking that it’s better that your FOIA request didn’t come through first – the brithers are already concocting stories which would be undermined if the information you receive is what you expect. It’s much more illustrative (and damning) of the birthers process if they are force to change their conspiracy theories in the face of pesky facts.

  57. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 31, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    I almost forgot to mention the big birther find – Dr. Dunham has apparently referred to the date and place of her marriage as 3/15/65 on Molokai in 1965 and as 3/5/64 on Maui in 1981. This is clearly absolute proof – I have no idea what it’s proof of, but I’m confident that it will be proof of something to the birthers…

  58. avatar
    James July 31, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro? Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I can’t wait to see the conspiracy the birthers concoct surrounding Soebarkah’!

    Does everybody agree that the handwriting in “Soebarkah” is the same as the rest of the application?

  60. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 31, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    James: Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro?Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

    Wow – almost 10 hours. That took a lot longer than I would have thought…

    James,

    Do you have any theory as to the discrepancy that is more likely that a simple mistake? (Hell, I managed to forget the date of my wedding while I was still married…) And what is your grand conspiracy theory involving this information that required it to be covered up or obfuscated?

  61. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    misha:
    That’s why I surmise. Anyone?

    Nope, that is not what it shows. If she had a passport before 1965, it would be one granted around 1960 and renewed in 1963, as her 1965 could not have been a renewal.

  62. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Does everybody agree that the handwriting in “Soebarkah” is the same as the rest of the application?

    It is tough to determine with printed letters, but to me, it looks more precise then rest of the application, but that may be due to size of the square she was writing in.

  63. avatar
    NbC July 31, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    James: Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro? Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

    Nope, it show the start of a conspiracy to get a muslim marxist, socialist, arab-loving, america hating to run for president and be actually elected… Geez…

  64. avatar
    gorefan July 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    James: Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro? Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

    The one with the date of March 5, 1964 is typewritten. Did she type it or did some else type it. The section on the top right corner of page one is also typed. This suggests the form was typed by someone in the American Consulate. I guess they made a typo.

  65. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 31, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I just read Kercher’s post on Mario’s blog – man he’s out of the gate fast! He seems to be under the impression that the first record is a 1965 renewal of a 1960 (and why did she need a passport in 1960? Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!) instead of a ’68 renewal of a ’65 passport

    Yeah, I found it rather amusing that he is too stupid to be able to read the date on the application.

  66. avatar
    Ellid July 31, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Rickey:
    We can’t say that for certain without seeing her application for the 1965 passport. If the 1965 passport was a renewal, the prior passport most likely would have been issued in the summer of 1960, when she was 17. That’s possible, although there is nothing in her history to suggest that she was planning for international travel when she was 17.

    Nope, passports back then were only good for three years, as Doc C points out in another thread. That means that even if the 1965 passport was a renewal, the original would have been issued in 1962, or a year after her son’s birth.

    Sorry.

  67. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    James: Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro?Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

    Within the information provided there aren’t two places or dates of marriage.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    gorefan: It is tough to determine with printed letters, but to me, it looks more precise then rest of the application, but that may be due to size of the square she was writing in.

    Look at the second letter “a” in “Soebarkah” and compare to the “a” in “Indonesia” on the previous page. Also the “r” compared to the one in “Djakarta”. Looks the same.

  69. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 12:26 am #

    Expelliarmus:
    Yeah, I found it rather amusing that he is too stupid to be able to read the date on the application.

    It is birther blindness. They always miss the obvious information.

  70. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    AnotherBird:
    Within the information provided there aren’t two places or dates of marriage.

    So, a person after a divorce forgets the place that she got married, or she may not want to remember. It was only 8 months after getting divorced.

    Page 7 (P3) — Married March 15, 1965 (written 3/15/65)
    Page 10 (P4) — Married March 15, 1965. — Still married.
    Page 11 (P5) — Married March 5, 1964 — Divorced.

    It surprises that birthers are flipping out that she is lost 5 inches in height.

    It is most likely an error.

  71. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 1, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Does everybody agree that the handwriting in “Soebarkah” is the same as the rest of the application?

    No, the president’s name is written in all caps (with a larger ‘B’ and ‘H’) and the only letter in common between the two (the ‘S’) looks different to me. I’m no Ron Polarik (has he claimed to be a handwriting expert yet?), but that’s what it looks like to me.

  72. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Ellid:
    Nope, passports back then were only good for three years, as Doc C points out in another thread.That means that even if the 1965 passport was a renewal, the original would have been issued in 1962, or a year after her son’s birth.Sorry.

    Not necessarily. She could have applied for a passport in 1960 and then had that passport renewed for two years in 1963. If she did that, she would have needed to get a new passport in 1965.

    Of course, this is mere speculation because so far there is no evidence that she had a passport prior to 1965.

  73. avatar
    Gorefan August 1, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Also the “r” compared to the one in “Djakarta”. Looks the same.

    There are quite a few r’s on the first page and you are right they look the same as the r in Soebarkah, very square with a pronounced down stroke at the end. Also the h looks like a drawing of a chair, no rounded hump. same on page one in both her’s and her father’s name. So I would guess she wrote it, so it cannot be a misspelling since she knows how to spell her name. Maybe it was a nickname. Or the name of his favorite toy. Has anyone checked to see if it is Indonesian for “Rosebud”.

  74. avatar
    Georgetown August 1, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    Well this might be worth looking into:

    Page 6

    Actions Taken

    Identity Established
    Exception 22 CFR 53.2(h)

    (h) When specifically authorized by
    the Secretary of State through appropriate
    official channels to depart from
    or enter the United States, as defined
    in § 50.1 of this chapter. The fee for a
    waiver of the passport requirement
    under this section shall be collected in
    the amount prescribed in the Schedule
    of Fees for Consular Services

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr53.2.pdf

  75. avatar
    Plutodog August 1, 2010 at 2:14 am #

    Typo alert — That’s 22 CFR — Code of Federal Regulations, not CRF.

  76. avatar
    Plutodog August 1, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    What was Dunham going to the Philippines for? I don’t recall seeing that in their history.

  77. avatar
    misha August 1, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    Gorefan: Has anyone checked to see if it is Indonesian for “Rosebud”.

    Has anyone checked to see if it is Indonesian for “Citizen Kane,” or William Randolf Hearst?

  78. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 2:36 am #

    according to past & current US State Dept rules, passport records are to retained for 100 years, then archived at the National Archives:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdf

    page 5

    thus there has been NO purging of any files per US State Dept. There is NO history of any directive as far as I can find. I would be most interested if anyone here could find a 1970’s / 1980’s directive (when the cold war was still very much a threat) that may have eluded me.

  79. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 1, 2010 at 3:02 am #

    The document you cite is from 2008 and references maintenance of digital images; it reflects rules implements once the project of scanning all records had been completed.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the maintenance of paper records in the 1980’s or previously.

  80. avatar
    WhoDaFlockIsSoebarkah August 1, 2010 at 3:05 am #

    patlin: according to past & current US State Dept rules, passport records are to retained for 100 years, then archived at the National Archives:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdfpage 5thus there has been NO purging of any files per US State Dept. There is NO history of any directive as far as I can find. I would be most interested if anyone here could find a 1970′s / 1980′s directive (when the cold war was still very much a threat) that may have eluded me.

    Not to mention the fact Stanley was in her mid-40s in the 1980s and actively traveling internationally during the 80s. It’s ridiculous to think her original passport application from 20 years prior would be destroyed.

  81. avatar
    Plutodog August 1, 2010 at 3:12 am #

    WhoDaFlockIsSoebarkah:
    Not to mention the fact Stanley was in her mid-40s in the 1980s and actively traveling internationally during the 80s. It’s ridiculous to think her original passport application from 20 years prior would be destroyed.

    Somebody doesn’t know much about how silly bureaucracy can be, do they?

  82. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 3:31 am #

    Expelliarmus: The document you cite is from 2008 and references maintenance of digital images; it reflects rules implements once the project of scanning all records had been completed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the maintenance of paper records in the 1980′s or previously.

    Since 1978, the State Department has been microfilming passport applications. Even when they are on microfilm, original papers are kept for 20 years. The microfilm is kept for 100 years.

  83. avatar
    mimi August 1, 2010 at 3:35 am #

    James: Why does Stanely Ann Dunham have 2 different dates and locations of marriage to Lolo Soeotoro?Let me guess, it’s an innocent mistake.

    The Butterfly Lady over at PJ’s says:

    “March 5, 1964 is the date of the Decree of Divorce entered by the Hon. Samuel P. King in the matter of Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama, No. 57972.

    But, of course, the birthers will never think to check that.”

    I didn’t check. But, I’ve never known Butterfly to be wrong.

  84. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 4:15 am #

    mimi: The Butterfly Lady over at PJ’s says:“March 5, 1964 is the date of the Decree of Divorce entered by the Hon. Samuel P. King in the matter of Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama, No. 57972.But, of course, the birthers will never think to check that.”I didn’t check. But, I’ve never known Butterfly to be wrong.

    Interesting take on claiming the date of the hearing is the actual date of the decree. The petition was heard on March 5, 1964, the decree & order was not signed until the 20th (the actual date of the divorce finalization) but what is even more inconceivable is that a woman would put down the date of her divorce from her 1st husband as the date of her marriage to the 2nd husband. I wasn’t born yesterday & I have been married 2x & unless a person was a complete idiot or insane, they would never mistake the 2 dates. The box marked on the 1981 passport app states: I was last married on_______. Then she lists the husband as Lolo Soetoro and also changes the date of his birth. She states he is now a year younger (1935 or 1936, which is it?). Was she that much of an airhead that she couldn’t even remember the correct date of her marriage to the guy she just divorced or when his birth was?

  85. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 1, 2010 at 4:43 am #

    patlin: Since 1978, the State Department has been microfilming passport applications. Even when they are on microfilm, original papers are kept for 20 years. The microfilm is kept for 100 years

    And obviously the records of passport applications from 1965 and prior years are before 1978.

  86. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 5:16 am #

    patlin:
    … Was she that much of an airhead that she couldn’t even remember the correct date of her marriage to the guy she just divorced or when his birth was?

    No, she just didn’t care anymore. That is why the call it breaking up.

  87. avatar
    thorswitch August 1, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    This still isn’t anything conclusive, but what I noticed is that the documents from 1968 through 1972 *all* refer to her passport as #777788, and state that the passport was originally issued in 1965., and all of the 68-72 documents show that they are renewals of #77788. Then, in 1976, her passport number is listed as #Z2433100, with the documents after that date showing that the passport was initially issues in 1976 and that they are renewals of #Z2433100.

    It’s kind of odd because in 1971, she was granted the exception of having to present a passport to return to the US, then renewed it in 1972 – and the pink page in the documents above are dated from 1972 and show the #777788 passport number, but then there’s another pair of pages *also* from 1972 showing her being issued the *new* passport #Z2433100, and I’m not sure why that would be.

    In any event, based on what we see here, the 1965 passport would have been her initial passport, unless she had one prior to that which had been lapsed long enough that she had to be assigned a new number.

    If anyone knows enough about passports and passport numbers can tell if this is of any importance or not, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

  88. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    thorswitch: This still isn’t anything conclusive, but what I noticed is that the documents from 1968 through 1972 *all* refer to her passport as #777788, and state that the passport was originally issued in 1965., and all of the 68-72 documents show that they are renewals of #77788.Then, in 1976, her passport number is listed as #Z2433100, with the documents after that date showing that the passport was initially issues in 1976 and that they are renewals of #Z2433100.

    It’s kind of odd because in 1971, she was granted the exception of having to present a passport to return to the US, then renewed it in 1972 – and the pink page in the documents above are dated from 1972 and show the #777788 passport number, but then there’s another pair of pages *also* from 1972 showing her being issued the *new* passport #Z2433100, and I’m not sure why that would be.

    In any event, based on what we see here, the 1965 passport would have been her initial passport, unless she had one prior to that which had been lapsed long enough that she had to be assigned a new number. If anyone knows enough about passports and passport numbers can tell if this is of any importance or not, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

    From what I have been able to determine is that each passport is given a new number. So, the passport issued in 1972 would have a different number.

    Her initial passport, based on what has been released, is F777788. This passport was renewed for 2 years. (P1)

    Her next passport, that was issued in 1972, was C030047. (P2)

    Her third passport, that was issued in 1976, was Z2433100 (P4)

    Her fourth passport, which was issued in 1981, was Z3037221 (P5)

    Her fifth passport, was issued 1986, but the number is unknown. (P6)

    There really isn’t anything odd about her being issued an exception in 1971, since F777788 expired in 1970. The laws allowed this. Any adventurous person can search on the text of the law, under “Title 22 of The Code of Federal Regulation, Section 53.1” and “Section 53.2(h).”

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    Slartibartfast: I’m no Ron Polarik (has he claimed to be a handwriting expert yet?)

    Actually he has claimed to be a “handwriting analyst”.

    As a handwriting analyst, I can say with some certainty, that two people wrote on this record book.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2061455/posts?q=1&;page=201#220

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 1, 2010 at 9:01 am #

    AnotherBird: It surprises that birthers are flipping out that she is lost 5 inches in height.

    The quality of official records is variable, or in the words of Forrest Gump, “**IT HAPPENS”. To a conspiracy theorist, on the other hand, there are no random accidents.

  91. avatar
    ellid August 1, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    patlin:
    Interesting take on claiming the date of the hearing is the actual date of the decree. The petition was heard on March 5, 1964, the decree & order was not signed until the 20th (the actual date of the divorce finalization) but what is even more inconceivable is that a woman would put down the date of her divorce from her 1st husband as the date of her marriage to the 2nd husband. I wasn’t born yesterday & I have been married 2x & unless a person was a complete idiot or insane, they would never mistake the 2 dates. The box marked on the 1981 passport app states: I was last married on_______. Then she lists the husband as Lolo Soetoro and also changes the date of his birth. She states he is now a year younger (1935 or 1936, which is it?). Was she that much of an airhead that she couldn’t even remember the correct date of her marriage to the guy she just divorced or when his birth was?

    I was divorced six years ago and neither know nor especially give a gold plated crap about the date of either the hearing or the decree nisi. Thank you for calling me a complete idiot; I’ve been a partial idiot for most of my life and it’s nice to know that forgetting the date of my divorce hearing elevates me to the next level.

  92. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 11:11 am #

    ellid:
    I was divorced six years ago and neither know nor especially give a gold plated crap about the date of either the hearing or the decree nisi.Thank you for calling me a complete idiot; I’ve been a partial idiot for most of my life and it’s nice to know that forgetting the date of my divorce hearing elevates me to the next level.

    Ellid, sorry but some people think of idiotic things. These birthers want equate the memories of getting married to those of getting divorced. People generally forget days from previous relationship, it is part of moving on. I will never understand the alternate realities birther people think of.

  93. avatar
    mimi August 1, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    patlin:
    Interesting take on claiming the date of the hearing is the actual date of the decree. The petition was heard on March 5, 1964, the decree & order was not signed until the 20th (the actual date of the divorce finalization) but what is even more inconceivable is that a woman would put down the date of her divorce from her 1st husband as the date of her marriage to the 2nd husband. I wasn’t born yesterday & I have been married 2x & unless a person was a complete idiot or insane, they would never mistake the 2 dates. The box marked on the 1981 passport app states: I was last married on_______. Then she lists the husband as Lolo Soetoro and also changes the date of his birth. She states he is now a year younger (1935 or 1936, which is it?). Was she that much of an airhead that she couldn’t even remember the correct date of her marriage to the guy she just divorced or when his birth was?

    Yeah. It’s so much more sane to believe what?

    The date matches. It matches the date of her divorce. See page 13:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11

    Interesting take that birthers will find a conspiracy in everything.

  94. avatar
    Majority Will August 1, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    mimi:
    Yeah. It’s so much more sane to believe what?The date matches.It matches the date of her divorce.See page 13:http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11Interesting take that birthers will find a conspiracy in everything.

    Birthers are blinded by hatred.

  95. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    P5: 1964-date of Obama-Dunham divorce; Maui – the purported place of the Obama-Dunham marriage; husband listed with that information – Lolo Soetoro

    just makes one shake one’s head and wonder what she was smoking at the time or was she just this dumb. My money is on neither.

  96. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    thorswitch: If anyone knows enough about passports and passport numbers can tell if this is of any importance or not, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

    Nothing out of the ordinary there. My current passport has a different number than my prior passport.

  97. avatar
    AnotherBird August 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    patlin: P5: 1964-date of Obama-Dunham divorce; Maui – the purported place of the Obama-Dunham marriage; husband listed with that information – Lolo Soetorojust makes one shake one’s head and wonder what she was smoking at the time or was she just this dumb. My money is on neither.

    1964 is the date of the marriage the Dunham-Soetoro marriage. Which is an error and should be 1965.

    There is an ‘x’ in a box next to words that read “I was last married on” followed what reads as “March 5, 1964.” The date “March 5, 1964” is an error and should have been “March 15, 1965.”

    There is another ‘x’ in a box next to words that read “Divorce on” followed with “Aug. 28, 1990.” This is the Dunham-Soetoro divorce.

    See errors actually do occur.

  98. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    patlin:
    Interesting take on claiming the date of the hearing is the actual date of the decree.

    Actually, not particularly interesting.

    It was an uncontested divorce, so when she left the courthouse on March 5 she knew that the divorce was being granted. So it’s not surprising that she considered March 5 to be the divorce date, notwithstanding the fact that the formal decree wasn’t signed until fifteen days later.

  99. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Actually he has claimed to be a “handwriting analyst”.

    I analyze handwriting all the time, too. I’ve never had any training in it, but that doesn’t stop me from analyzing. That’s the one thing I have in common with Polland/Polarik.

  100. avatar
    Sef August 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    AnotherBird:
    1964 is the date of the marriage the Dunham-Soetoro marriage. Which is an error and should be 1965.There is an ‘x’ in a box next to words that read “I was last married on” followed what reads as “March 5, 1964.” The date “March 5, 1964‘ is an error and should have been “March 15, 1965.”There is another ‘x’ in a box next to words that read “Divorce on” followed with “Aug. 28, 1990.” This is the Dunham-Soetoro divorce.See errors actually do occur.

    Anyone who has done any genealogy knows that there are errors & inconsistencies in official records. I know, for instance, of a case where a person’s birth was registered on 2 consecutive days in the official record.

  101. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 4:25 pm #

    Rickey: Actually, not particularly interesting.It was an uncontested divorce, so when she left the courthouse on March 5 she knew that the divorce was being granted. So it’s not surprising that she considered March 5 to be the divorce date, notwithstanding the fact that the formal decree wasn’t signed until fifteen days later.

    still makes no difference, she was NOT authorized to remarry until the judge signed the decree on the 20th. the pertinent question is still, why did she put down the date of her divorce hearing & then refer to the location of her 1st marriage? wouldn’t that consitute fraud? why, of course it would and it fits in with all the other fraudulant docs from this commie family.

  102. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Plutodog: What was Dunham going to the Philippines for?I don’t recall seeing that in their history.

    It was 1986 and she was only going to be there for a week. It apparently had nothing to do with Obama, as he was working in Chicago at the time.

  103. avatar
    NbC August 1, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    mimi: I didn’t check. But, I’ve never known Butterfly to be wrong.

    She is right of course

  104. avatar
    NbC August 1, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    thorswitch: It’s kind of odd because in 1971, she was granted the exception of having to present a passport to return to the US, then renewed it in 1972 – and the pink page in the documents above are dated from 1972 and show the #777788 passport number, but then there’s another pair of pages *also* from 1972 showing her being issued the *new* passport #Z2433100, and I’m not sure why that would be.

    The exemption was granted because she traveled on an expired passport, she applied for a new passport early january 1972 to allow her to travel back to Indonesia. This was the Christmas where Barack Sr returned and meet his son after almost 10 years. His mother had joined them 2 weeks before. (Combine the Dreams from my father with the records presented here)..

    I am doing my best unraveling the history on my site

  105. avatar
    NbC August 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    patlin: still makes no difference, she was NOT authorized to remarry until the judge signed the decree on the 20th. the pertinent question is still, why did she put down the date of her divorce hearing & then refer to the location of her 1st marriage? wouldn’t that consitute fraud? why, of course it would and it fits in with all the other fraudulant docs from this commie family.

    Hahaha, you’re funny…

    At best a minor error with no impact or relevance…

  106. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    patlin:
    still makes no difference, she was NOT authorized to remarry until the judge signed the decree on the 20th.

    Which would have been significant if she had been planning to get married during that fifteen-day period. Since she wasn’t planning to get married during that time, the date on which the decree was signed would have been of no particular significance to her.

    wouldn’t that consitute fraud?

    You don’t know much about the law, do you? Application form 178 didn’t even require that the location of the marriage be listed. And in fact, it wasn’t typed on the application – someone wrote “Maui, Hawaii” in hand on the application. We don’t know who wrote it. Regardless, it couldn’t possibly constitute fraud because the information wasn’t required and was irrelevant to the issuance of a passport.

  107. avatar
    patlin August 1, 2010 at 5:15 pm #

    LOL, go ahead and continue to live in your dream world or should I say Obama’s dream world of his fathers. These records only prove 1 think and that is that the Dunham family is nacissistic & they are perpetual liars.Bogus info on federal docs = fraud, just as Obama’s Connecticut SS# that is on his bogus selective service record=fraud. You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

  108. avatar
    NbC August 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    patlin: LOL, go ahead and continue to live in your dream world or shouldI say Obama’s dream world of his fathers. These records only prove 1 think and that is that the Dunham family is nacissistic & they are perpetual liars.Bogus info on federal docs = fraud, just as Obama’s Connecticut SS# that is on his bogus selective service record=fraud. You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    You’re hilarious. You have made up your mind.

    PS: there is NO evidence of any SS# fraud or Selective Service record fraud.

    You appear to be blinded by your foolish beliefs that Obama is a commie. Trust me, he is not even much of a socialist. At best a social democrat.

    But knowledge, reason and logic, as well as fact should never be a barrier to ignorance I guess.

    Whatever you want to believe, if it makes you more comfortable. I have no problem with that other than that I will point out the factual, and logical errors in your ‘reasonings’.
    Fair enough?

  109. avatar
    Rickey August 1, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    patlin:These records only prove 1 think

    Really? How does one go about proving a think?

  110. avatar
    Northland10 August 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    patlin: You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    Question 1: What evidence do you have that these “commies” put out lies?
    Answer: These files (BC, Birth Announcements, Passport Applications) are full of lies.
    Question 2: What evidence do you have that these files state lies?
    Answer: You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    And back to question 1.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) August 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    patlin: LOL, go ahead and continue to live in your dream world or shouldI say Obama’s dream world of his fathers. These records only prove 1 think and that is that the Dunham family is nacissistic & they are perpetual liars.Bogus info on federal docs = fraud, just as Obama’s Connecticut SS# that is on his bogus selective service record=fraud. You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    Pretty ironic considering how easily you slander the dead. The Connecticut SSN has been explained over and over. SSN is a federal entity at the time Connecticut served as a hub. Commies? Where are you getting that they are commies from?

  112. avatar
    Northland10 August 1, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    patlin: Bogus info on federal docs = fraud

    My “day” job involves, among many other things, to look at many forms sent in by constituents. No matter how well educated the group of business professionals are, they seem eternally incapable of filling out a simple form. Missing parts of an address, required fields left blank, using today’s date in the birth date (or at least the current year), and a host of other omissions and errors. Yes, we have to develop the art of reading their minds. Are the birthers saying that all of these people are committing fraud?

    I suppose I should yearn to live in their world where every form is filled out correctly and every bit of data entry is 100% accurate. Instead, I am destined to a world where I spend my time attempting to reach that ever elusive holy grail of “Data Quality.” Ah well, if all the forms were accurate and all the data entry correct, I would have to find another job.

  113. avatar
    Sef August 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    patlin: Bogus info on federal docs = fraud

    What about bogus info posted on blogs, or on TV, or on radio, or filed in court documents? Especially to people who are very malleable (or maybe even brittle). Especially when the intent is to deceive & have people send money.

  114. avatar
    misha August 1, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    patlin: You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    I am a communist. Thank you comrade: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-am-communist.html

  115. avatar
    Black Lion August 1, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Some more humor from our buddy Kerchner…

    cfkerchner said…
    A tipster just sent me this. They said that in this linked to government regulation that passport files and records must be retained for 100 years. Here is the link so we all can read it together. If so, then that FOIA letter misstated the law on records retention for passport files. Possibly someone sanitized Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro’s passport file via a “break in” like was done to Obama’s file that subsequently resulted in someone involved with that passport-gate caper being shot and that crime never solved. Maybe that contract worker got to Stanly Ann’s file and did the dirty deed of sanitizing it of early damaging records before he attempted to crack into Obama’s file.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdf

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

    July 31, 2010 10:34 PM

  116. avatar
    thorswitch August 2, 2010 at 5:36 am #

    patlin: thors

    Um, I take it you’re unaware that the databased that the so-called Social Security information comes from carry disclaimers stating that the information they have may not be accurate and warn against relying on it as a sole source of information? Beyond that, even Neal Sankey has said that as a professional, he CANNOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS about Obama or his Social Security Number from the information he obtained from those databases. Unfortunately, Orly hasn’t bothered doing ANY research beyond the lists she was given from the databases, meaning that anything she says about Obama and his Social Security Number is based SOLELY on information from unreliable databases given to her by a private investigator who says he can’t draw any conclusions from the information he gave her.

    In other words, it’s a bunch of worthless, useless crap that doesn’t tell us a THING about Obama, AT ALL. It’s completely meaningless!

  117. avatar
    NbC August 2, 2010 at 6:05 am #

    NbC:
    You’re hilarious. You have made up your mind.PS: there is NO evidence of any SS# fraud or Selective Service record fraud.You appear to be blinded by your foolish beliefs that Obama is a commie. Trust me, he is not even much of a socialist. At best a social democrat.But knowledge, reason and logic, as well as fact should never be a barrier to ignorance I guess.Whatever you want to believe, if it makes you more comfortable. I have no problem with that other than that I will point out the factual, and logical errors in your reasonings’.
    Fair enough?

    Where did patlin go?..

  118. avatar
    Plutodog August 2, 2010 at 6:21 am #

    Patlin who??? B^)

  119. avatar
    Lupin August 2, 2010 at 6:43 am #

    patlin: You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    Which commies would that be? The Crimson Dynamo or the Radioactive Man?

  120. avatar
    truther August 2, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    Question. Why all the hatred? Why is anyone who has not seen a long form BC considered a racist or worse? Why call us ignorant? Don’t you think SOMETHING is weird? We have seen none of his bonerfifides. Why shpould anyone just accept blindly that he is who says he is? No back up. Please do not insult me with pointing to the bs colb. If it is true why not release the long form??????
    Please stop the name calling and open your mind to the idea that NONE of can possibly know the truth with what we have been suplied with to base an intelligent opinion. I really don’t like the name calling and insanity just because we don’t know the truth. Why not unite and come to a truthful answer once and for all? OK maybe you are right I may be crazy!

  121. avatar
    NbC August 2, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    Please stop the name calling and open your mind to the idea that NONE of can possibly know the truth with what we have been suplied with to base an intelligent opinion. I really don’t like the name calling and insanity just because we don’t know the truth. Why not unite and come to a truthful answer once and for all? OK maybe you are right I may be crazy!

    Why the need to see a long form and ignore the facts provided on the COLB that show our President born on US soil? And ignorance is not just determined by just requesting to see a form that is no longer available…

    Such as your claim that we have seen none of his “bonerfifides” (sic). I assume you mean to say bonafides and contrary to your claim we have seen all we need to see to determine President Obama’s eligibility.

    So there is your truthful answer but I am not sure if you like it.

  122. avatar
    G August 2, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    truther: Question. Why all the hatred?

    Because we have lost patience with all the insincere lies and hateful propaganda by you birthers over the past 2 years. You have no actual evidence to back up any of your crazy speculative claims and all evidence that exists overwhelmingly contradicts you. You would think by now that 0-71 in the courts might sink into you folks that you’re doing something wrong. Give it up already.

    truther:
    Why is anyone who has not seen a long form BC considered a racist or worse?

    Trying to play the race card, eh? The only ones who are called racists are those who make racist statements. If you do so, you will be called out on such and deservedly so. For now, all you’ve done is try to race bait as part of your pathetic attempt at concern trolling.

    There is a simple term for those who keep clamoring for the “long form” nonsense – Birther.

    truther:
    Why call us ignorant?

    Because you come across ignorant by making ignorant statements. Show some self-respect for once. You are accountable for your own words and deeds. Therefore, if you act ignorant, you deserve to be treated as such and you only have yourself to blame.

    truther:
    Don’t you think SOMETHING is weird?

    NO.

    Wait – let me amend that. I think the mindset of birthers is very, very weird, as it defies all logic and reality.

    truther:
    We have seen none of his bonerfifides. Why shpould anyone just accept blindly that he is who says he is? No back up. Please do not insult me with pointing to the bs colb.

    FALSE. The COLB he released is the official document that the state of HI provides. It has the seal & signature from the state on it, making it prima facie evidence.

    The HI DOH repeatedly backs it up, as does the GOP HI governor.

    There are 2 separate contemporary birth announcements in local HI newspapers from the time of his birth that back it up.

    Even the latest FOIA request for his step-father’s (Lolo Soetoro) records provides a document showing that the government looked into his birth status decades ago and concluded that he was born in HI.

    There is no actual credible evidence that in any way contradicts any of this. Everything credible and official all supports the very same conclusion – born in Honolulu, HI.

    Therefore, you have to be completely daft or over-the-top conspiracy loony to imagine otherwise.

    You only insult yourself with your silly rant that comes off utterly detached from reality.

    And “bonerfifides”…LOL. Really? What kind of word is that… I could say something more…but I’m not going to go there..

    truther:
    If it is true why not release the long form??????

    WHY???

    The state of HI doesn’t provide this “long form” you speak of any more. Hasn’t for well over a decade. Sorry, the COLB is all you get from them.

    And why would such even matter? The COLB clearly states the ONLY relevant point of information – place of birth within a US state. Therefore NBC. It quite clearly states his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI.

    The fields of info provided on the COLB come from the same data as any “long form”. The only difference is such a “long form” would contain additional other fields of data. But there would be no difference at all in the ONLY relevant point of information – place of birth within a US state between the COLB and this “long form” you so claim to desire. Therefore it would clearly ALSO state his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI. End of Story. Since we already have that info, any talk of needing to see some “long form” is pure smoke-and-mirrors nonsense.

    truther:
    Please stop the name calling and open your mind to the idea that NONE of can possibly know the truth with what we have been suplied with to base an intelligent opinion.

    If you have been subject to name calling, then maybe you should self-examine why people are making fun of you. Do you think maybe, just maybe it is because you say things that aren’t supported by any facts or evidence?

    Act like a fool and you deserve to be treated as one. It is that simple.

    When and if you ever come across with an intelligent opinion, you will be treated accordingly. Until then, I have seen nothing from you that deserves to be treated seriously.

    truther:
    I really don’t like the name calling and insanity just because we don’t know the truth.

    Who is this *we* you speak of??? You mean your small group of fellow Birthers?

    You have no actual desire for “truth” and I don’t even think you understand what that word means. To you folks “truth” is only what supports your pre-conceived notions and you have an immature hissy-fit when reality doesn’t match up with your pre-drawn conclusions.

    All you have are a set of fictional beliefs that you cling to that have no connection to actual truth, whatsoever at all.

    We don’t take Flat Earthers, Truthers, or Moon Landing deniers seriously either. You are free to believe and spout any nonsense you want. Just don’t whine when others think you are nothing but a conspiracy nut.

    truther:
    Why not unite and come to a truthful answer once and for all?

    Yes, when will you folks give it up and admit that you there is no actual evidence that contradicts that he was born anywhere other than Honolulu, HI and that all your baseless speculative fantasies are nothing but tilting at windmills, because, for whatever reason, on some personal level, you have extreme difficulty accepting that he was elected president and just desperately wish that you could magically make it all go away.

    truther:
    OK maybe you are right I may be crazy!

    You just might be. At least you do a good job acting as such and coming across that way.

  123. avatar
    Majority Will August 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    truther: Please do not insult me with pointing to the bs colb.

    Question. Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution? Your inability to understand the truth is entirely your problem.

  124. avatar
    NbC August 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Question. Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution? Your inability to understand the truth is entirely your problem.

    The bs colb is a prima facie legal document. Do you not believe in state rights?

  125. avatar
    Majority Will August 2, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    NbC:
    The bs colb is a prima facie legal document. Do you not believe in state rights?

    You might have misunderstood my reply to the birther “truther.” Of course, a COLB from any U.S. state is a valid, legal document proving birth in that state. The “b.s.” statement was a pathetic, insulting remark from a birther. Be careful where you point those replies!

    And of course I believe in states’ rights.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    . . as well as . . .

    “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.”

  126. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) August 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    truther: Question. Why all the hatred? Why is anyone who has not seen a long form BC considered a racist or worse? Why call us ignorant? Don’t you think SOMETHING is weird? We have seen none of his bonerfifides. Why shpould anyone just accept blindly that he is who says he is? No back up. Please do not insult me with pointing to the bs colb. If it is true why not release the long form??????Please stop the name calling and open your mind to the idea that NONE of can possibly know the truth with what we have been suplied with to base an intelligent opinion. I really don’t like the name calling and insanity just because we don’t know the truth. Why not unite and come to a truthful answer once and for all? OK maybe you are right I may be crazy!

    Rational people don’t suffer fools gladly. Why weren’t you asking for a long form BC from any other president? Obama has shown more about his origins than any previous president. So yeah there is a reason why birthers are called ignorant or racist. Yeah something is weird and it is that even after being shown proof you birthers continue going on and on making up conspiracy theories. That’s not normal, that’s not rational but the workings of a troubled mind. COLBs are not BS they are the certified document that States create to signify birth. When you request your birth certificate a COLB is most likely the form that you are given. As for his “bonerfifides”, I have no desire to see the president naked, maybe you want him to show you but I sure don’t. Yeah you are crazy, thanks for admitting it. It takes a really closed mind to continue asking for more proof after seeing proof.

  127. avatar
    NbC August 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Majority Will: And of course I believe in states’ rights.

    I was not responding to you but rather “truther” sorry for the confusion

  128. avatar
    Rickey August 2, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    patlin:There is NO history of any directive as far as I can find. I would be most interested if anyone here could find a 1970′s / 1980′s directive (when the cold war was still very much a threat) that may have eluded me.

    It did elude you. It is right here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35234788/STRUNK-v-U-S-DOS-et-al-FOIA-37-2-2-Declaration-of-Alex-Galovich-Gov-uscourts-dcd-134568-37-2-PDF-Adobe-Acrobat-Pro-Extended

    Scroll down to the last three pages. A February, 1985 message from the State Department says that a purge of non-essential records, including passport applications for native born citizens, up to an including the year 1965 was underway. Since Stanley Ann’s 1965 passport application was a routine application by a native born citizen, it was destroyed 25 years ago.

  129. avatar
    Majority Will August 2, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    NbC:
    I was not responding to you but rather “truther” sorry for the confusion

    No problem.

  130. avatar
    truther August 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    wow. i sure have been called some names here. Sorry I did not come here to cause any friction. I would like to know waht was meant by the statement that we have seen more of this CIC ‘ s history than any other.

    Seriously, I am interested in what history is available.

    I am me, not whoever you want to think i am. I am looking for truth. I am trying to look at all ideas. Can we commuicate?

  131. avatar
    misha August 2, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    truther: Can we commuicate?

    Absolutely. Start with this Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here!

  132. avatar
    Majority Will August 2, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    truther: Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution?

    Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution?

  133. avatar
    G August 2, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    truther: wow. i sure have been called some names here. Sorry I did not come here to cause any friction. I would like to know waht was meant by the statement that we have seen more of this CIC ‘s history than any other.
    Seriously, I am interested in what history is available.I am me, not whoever you want to think i am. I am looking for truth. I am trying to look at all ideas. Can we commuicate?

    We can communicate if you can start to actually read what has been written, since this has already been answered for you. Let’s recap:

    G: ALSE. The COLB he released is the official document that the state of HI provides. It has the seal & signature from the state on it, making it prima facie evidence.

    The HI DOH repeatedly backs it up, as does the GOP HI governor.

    There are 2 separate contemporary birth announcements in local HI newspapers from the time of his birth that back it up.

    Even the latest FOIA request for his step-father’s (Lolo Soetoro) records provides a document showing that the government looked into his birth status decades ago and concluded that he was born in HI.

    There is no actual credible evidence that in any way contradicts any of this. Everything credible and official all supports the very same conclusion – born in Honolulu, HI.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Why weren’t you asking for a long form BC from any other president? Obama has shown more about his origins than any previous president. So yeah there is a reason why birthers are called ignorant or racist. Yeah something is weird and it is that even after being shown proof you birthers continue going on and on making up conspiracy theories. That’s not normal, that’s not rational but the workings of a troubled mind. COLBs are not BS they are the certified document that States create to signify birth. When you request your birth certificate a COLB is most likely the form that you are given.

    So there, you’ve been clearly given several examples of actual evidence we have of where he was born. I will also reiterate that there is no actual credible evidence of anything that contradicts this.

    Show me any other president on whom we’ve got this much information or where there has ever been such an inquiry. There hasn’t. No other president posted his birth certificate publicly while campaigning. No other president has been questioned on his origins to such an extent. And what other candidate had two – not one but two autobiographies published and as best sellers before he was elected? Can’t name one, can you. Nor has there ever been as much media coverage of any election as there was for the 2008 election – mostly due to advances in 24×7 media and a longer than normal campaign cycle. So the only people who can claim he was some “unknown” quantity are those that willfully chose to ignore the process and everything that was incessently being covered about him and his background.

  134. avatar
    Majority Will August 2, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    truther: wow. i sure have been called some names here. Sorry I did not come here to cause any friction. I would like to know waht was meant by the statement that we have seen more of this CIC ‘s history than any other.
    Seriously, I am interested in what history is available.I am me, not whoever you want to think i am. I am looking for truth. I am trying to look at all ideas. Can we commuicate?

    Let’s try that again.

    Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution?

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

    News Release

    LINDA LINGLE
    GOVERNOR
    _______________________________________________________________________

    CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
    DIRECTOR
    Phone: (808) xxx-xxxx
    Fax: (808) xxx-xxxx
    _______________________________________________________________________

    For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063

    STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
    records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
    was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
    or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    ###

  135. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) August 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    truther: wow. i sure have been called some names here. Sorry I did not come here to cause any friction. I would like to know waht was meant by the statement that we have seen more of this CIC ‘s history than any other. Seriously, I am interested in what history is available.I am me, not whoever you want to think i am. I am looking for truth. I am trying to look at all ideas. Can we commuicate?

    Okay lets start with you wanting to know about my statement. Tell me how many presidents released their birth certificate online or to the public before or during their presidency? How many presidents did you require the same information from?

  136. avatar
    Gorefan August 2, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    truther: Seriously, I am interested in what history is available.

    What history is available for any of the previous Presidents? Almost all of their histories are based on what they or their families told us. No other President while in office produced a copy of a birth certificate, school records, DNA sample or any of the nonsense requisted of President Obama. Really, how necessary is that birthers see his kindergarten records?

    Ronald Reagan’s BC is on display at his Presidential Library, but it was signed by the doctor and state registrar in 1942, when he was 31 years old. So does that mean he was ineligible to be President?

    The fact is simple. There is nothing on the long form BC, that will have any impact on the President’s eligiblity. So why is it so necessary for him to produce it?

  137. avatar
    Rickey August 2, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    truther: Sorry I did not come here to cause any friction.

    Maybe you shouldn’t have started out by referring to the “bs” COLB. That sounds like someone who has already made up his or her mind, not someone looking for the truth.

    That said, here is the truth:

    While investigating Lolo Soetoro’s application for a hardship exemption, the U.S. government in 1967 determined that Barack Obama was the son of Stanley Ann Dunham, that he was born in Honolulu on August 4. 1961, and that he was a United States citizen.

    What else to you need to know?

  138. avatar
    Ellid August 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    patlin: LOL, go ahead and continue to live in your dream world or shouldI say Obama’s dream world of his fathers. These records only prove 1 think and that is that the Dunham family is nacissistic & they are perpetual liars.Bogus info on federal docs = fraud, just as Obama’s Connecticut SS# that is on his bogus selective service record=fraud. You can believe nothing these commies put out as fact.

    Kindly go back to Nixonland and leave the grown-ups alone, okay? Thanks!

  139. avatar
    AnotherBird August 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    truther: I am looking for truth.

    Then stop rejecting the facts.

  140. avatar
    truther August 3, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    Joh Mc Cains eligibility was questioned. He provided a Long Form BC. If Barrack Obama was baracks father than explain to me how a child can be a NATURAL BORN, not Native born citizen. He tells us that in his book. There are just too many unanswered questions backed by any substantial truth to patently sayy ,”yes all is well.” I don’t understand why you don’t think he should not release. Geez we knew bush was in the lower part of his class, mistakes he made. Mc Cains record. Clintons past and grades, Nixons etc. We know nothing about Barack. NOTHING. The only school record that is available is the onefrom Idonesia. I mean , if there is no reason to not to share history, why seal it?
    I also dont buy that he can not get a long form BC from HA. I think it was recently they sstopped providing them. I ordered mine and recieved a COLB, but I can ask for the long form, pay $15.00 and get it. I am sure the Pres Of The US could get a copy of his. It would shut alot of people up! and help us trust him.

  141. avatar
    NbC August 3, 2010 at 1:35 am #

    Joh Mc Cains eligibility was questioned. He provided a Long Form BC.

    No he did not. The form, which appeared to be a fake was in fact provided by an outside party.

    If you first would get your facts straight…

  142. avatar
    G August 3, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    truther:
    Joh Mc Cains eligibility was questioned. He provided a Long Form BC.

    Then where is it? There is no public version of McCain’s actual “long form BC” available for public consumption.

    The only real evidence we have of such was a single reporter’s article stating that McCain personally showed that reporter his BC. That is it.

    There were some fraudulent ones floating around the internet, which have been long-debunked, but that’s it.

    So, you’re already spouting false and wrong information in your very first sentence.

    Here’s some reading for you to educate yourself before making more erroneous statements, as this has all been covered here in great detail:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/

    truther:
    If Barrack Obama was baracks father than explain to me how a child can be a NATURAL BORN,not Native born citizen.

    Simple. It is called born on US soil (jus soli). That is all that is required in this scenario. Honolulu, HI completely satisfies that. End of story.

    Haven’t you ever heard of the whole “anchor baby” debate? Why do you think that is such a hot topic right now? Because anyone born on US soil (with a few explicit exceptions for diplomats, heads of state..) is US NBC. Simple as that.

    truther:
    He tells us that in his book. There are just too many unanswered questions backed by any substantial truth to patently sayy ,”yes all is well.”I don’t understand why you don’t think he should not release.

    The only people I know that feel that there are “unanswered questions” are those that are desperately grasping at straws to have an excuse to “pretend” that he’s not really the President.

    The rest of us…not so much. The actual evidence out there is fairly consistent.

    truther:
    Geez we knew bush was in the lower part of his class, mistakes he made. Mc Cains record. Clintons past and grades, Nixons etc.

    Please provide links to these actual documents to back up your claims, including evidence that this info was released prior to or during their presidency.

    truther:
    We know nothing about Barack. NOTHING.

    How do you expect to be taken seriously with such over-the-top ridiculous hyperbole?

    Nothing? Really??? Do you live in a cave without electricity? Were you born yesterday?

    Seriously, you have to be intentionally sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes to claim such utter ignorance.

    Try reading either of his best-selling autobiographies or simply do the easiest thing to do on the internet and read this. Maybe you’ll learn something:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama

    truther:
    The only school record that is available is the onefrom Idonesia. I mean , if there is no reason to not to share history, why seal it?

    These things are protected by privacy laws. The same laws that protect all citizens of this country and help to counter identity theft. Look it up. Start with HIPPA. Its one of the big ones. Here, I’ll help you again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPPA

    You really need to learn to do your research before you speak. You consistently come off very uninformed and not credible.

    truther:
    I also dont buy that he can not get a long form BC from HA. I think it was recently they sstopped providing them. I ordered mine and recieved a COLB, but I can ask for the long form, pay $15.00 and get it. I am sure the Pres Of The US could get a copy of his. It would shut alot of people up! and help us trust him.

    Well, I call BS on your claims about getting your “long form”. We’ve heard that story before and for the past two years have issued the challenge for *anyone* to post a copy of a HI “long form BC” obtained within the past two years.

    So, the challenge is to you as well. If you can so easily get yours for $15, then PROVE IT. Either put up or shut up, as they say. If you haven’t done so yet, then why not? Its only $15, right?

    Also, the old “if only he would show this it would shut people up” is a tired concern troll meme and we don’t buy it in the least. Look at all of the birther sites and stories over the past two years. All most birthers will do is endlessly move the goalposts to something else as their argument. This issue is not about the BC at all – it is all about people wanting to hate Barack and wishing they could come up with magical excuses to pretend his presidency never happened.

    Why don’t you actually go to the HI DOH website and educate yourself on what records you can get and what you can’t and hear their own statements directly in regards to Barack Obama’s documents. They have explicit pages easily accessible on their site dedicated specifically to those issues:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

  143. avatar
    AnotherBird August 3, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    truther: Joh Mc Cains eligibility was questioned. He provided a Long Form BC.

    John McCain steadfastly refused to release anything. What has been presented as his birth certificate is a forgery, by those pesky McCain birthers. You are another sock puppet.

  144. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2010 at 3:19 am #

    truther: Joh Mc Cains eligibility was questioned. He provided a Long Form BC.If Barrack Obama was baracks father than explain to me how a child can be a NATURAL BORN,not Native born citizen. He tells us that in his book. There are just too many unanswered questions backed by any substantial truth to patently sayy ,”yes all is well.”I don’t understand why you don’t think he should not release. Geez we knew bush was in the lower part of his class, mistakes he made. Mc Cains record. Clintons past and grades, Nixons etc. We know nothing about Barack. NOTHING. The only school record that is available is the onefrom Idonesia. I mean , if there is no reason to not to share history, why seal it?
    I also dont buy that he can not get a long form BC from HA. I think it was recently they sstopped providing them. I ordered mine and recieved a COLB, but I can ask for the long form, pay $15.00 and get it. I am sure the Pres Of The US could get a copy of his. It would shut alot of people up! and help us trust him.

    Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution?

    More repeatedly debunked birther nonsense and no, you don’t think. A long form BC from HA? BwaHAHAHAHA ! !

  145. avatar
    Rickey August 3, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    It’s amusing. Truther tells us that he is merely looking for the truth, and then he/she proceeds to spout a series of long-debunked birther talking points.

  146. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2010 at 3:41 am #

    Rickey: It’s amusing. Truther tells us that he is merely looking for the truth, and then he/she proceeds to spout a series of long-debunked birther talking points.

    The best part and more telling than the little birther realizes: “I ordered mine and recieved a COLB . . .”

  147. avatar
    truther August 3, 2010 at 4:05 am #

    The best part and more telling than the little birther realizes: “I ordered mine and recieved a COLB . . .”
    yes I did. If I wanrt to I can order the original long form and get it! If he wanted to get his long form ,original he can too. Even if he wasn’t president! They have never destroyed originals, at worst they are on micro film. It can be gotten. For some reason he chooses not to and that is my point, why not just get it?
    Where did you learn that Mc Cains was a forgery? This honestly I have never heard. I have been following this pretty closely and have never heard that. If so why did Congress accept it?
    You see none of this makes sense.You are telling me what you believe is true, just cuz you say so. All I have ever wanted is proof. Proof of anythig that is straightforward. As much as you accept the Colb as real, I do not accept it, but that point is such a small part of all the mystery surronding him. I strongly disagree he has shared his true history with us. You say his books? He states from the get go, they are not 100% true, much is fiction. Again why? What part is truth and what part fiction. It has been said that Bill Ayres actually pened most of the books. Did he? I don’t know, but with all the confusion and his very own statements I think a logical person could and should question and seek proof.
    I am not here to argue, geez at first I din’t realize that this forum was unfriendly to anyone who questions anything. I am trying to look at all sides. Obviously we do not agree, but can we exchange ides with out insults or shall I disapear? I did not mean to interupt. There are plenty of places I go where most agree with me. I am not looking for support for what I may think, i am looking for both sides and try to figure what i believe to be true.

  148. avatar
    misha August 3, 2010 at 4:13 am #

    truther: What part is truth and what part fiction.

    What is truth, and what is fable?
    Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel?

  149. avatar
    Majority Will August 3, 2010 at 4:57 am #

    truther: “You are telling me what you believe is true, just cuz you say so.”

    No, McFly. The state of Hawaii says so. They are the legal authority guaranteed by U.S. law and the Constitution. Any other opinion like yours is irrelevant. You seem to have a hard time respecting the law.

    John McCain never published his birth certificate. A fake birth certificate was submitted by Hollander in the case of Hollander v. McCain. Barack Obama, however, published his birth certificate online in June, 2008.

    Why are you insulting the legal authority of the state of Hawaii while showing utter disrespect for U.S. law and the Constitution?

    You’re avoiding the truth. Are you afraid? Why should anyone care if you disappear? You’ve contributed nothing meaningful so far. You called the COLB b.s. and then admitted that it is the exact same legal form you received. Make up your mind, Mr. Waffles.

    More of your birther nonsense especially the long form drivel has been debunked on this site. More information with verifiable sources is right in front of your face.

    What do you expect to find that a COLB doesn’t provide? Please point out the eligibility requirement in the Constitution that gives you the right to demand more information than what the state of Hawaii has provided.

    You won’t and you can’t.

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

    News Release

    LINDA LINGLE
    GOVERNOR
    _______________________________________________________________________

    CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
    DIRECTOR
    Phone: (808) xxx-xxxx
    Fax: (808) xxx-xxxx
    _______________________________________________________________________

    For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063

    STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
    records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
    was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
    or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    ###

  150. avatar
    thorswitch August 3, 2010 at 5:30 am #

    Truther –

    If I wanrt to I can order the original long form and get it! .

    Then do so, and post a scan or photo of it someplace where we all can see it. Of course, you can redact your real name, but prove to us that you can get the ORIGINAL long form (and since few birthers would accept a copy of Obama’s original long-form, be sure that the document you get is the actual ORIGINAL form, and not just a copy of it, ok?)

    Also, have you seen Joe Biden’s birth certificate? Do you know where he was born? Not just the city, but the hospital he was born in and the name of the doctor who delivered him? If not, why not? He’s only a heartbeat away from the Presidency after all and must meet the same requirements. How about George Bush or Dick Cheney? Do you have all of the birth information for either of them?

    As for some of your other arguments:

    First, there is no difference between a Native-born Citizen and a Natural-born Citizen. They are 2 interchangeable terms used for the same exact thing. As for the claims that 2 citizen parents are required for someone to be “natural-born,” that view has not only never been upheld by a court, but in cases where the courts have been asked to determine if someone has to have any, one or two citizen parents to be a citizen of the US, the courts have consistently ruled that NO citizen parents are required for someone to be born a citizen of this country – being born within our borders is sufficient to be a native/natural-born citizen.

    Some have tried to argue that there are 3 kinds of citizens – Natural/native-born citizens, “plain” citizens and naturalized citizens. This, too, is false. Citizen is the larger category that is broken into two types of citizens – native/natural-born and naturalized. Our model of citizenship was based on the British common law definitions of being a subject of the crown, as recently demonstrated by the discovery that in the Constitution, Jefferson originally had written the word “subjects” when referring to Americans and then wrote over it so that it read “citizen.” Obviously, the two concepts were essentially the same thing in his mind. And, British common law held that if someone was born within the borders of British Empire – regardless of the status of their parents (unless those parents were in Britain as ambassadors or an attacking/occupying army) – were automatically British subjects.

    If you’re going to try arguing that native-born and natural-born citizens are two distinct classes (which they aren’t, but I’m sure you’re going to continue to assert that they are) then please provide proof of this in the form of any part of the Constitution – including amendments – that mention both native-born and natural-born as distinct classes of citizenship and specify what the distinction between them is. I would also accept any federal citizenships statute or MAJORITY (aka *winning*) court opinion that mention both native-born and natural-born as distinct classes of citizenship and specify what the distinction between them is.

    Also, before you try to argue that Obama is the one that has to prove he’s a natural-born citizen, when someone in the country is accused of wrongdoing (such as when people accuse the President is a fraud) they are given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent of wrongdoing unless or until the accusers can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of something. Given that questions about Obama’s citizenship status were raised before the election, at a time when any of his opponents would have been thrilled to be able to prove that and remove him from the race, AND that no objections regarding his fitness for the Presidency were raised by either the Electoral College or any members of Congress (to whom the Constitution grants the SOLE responsibility of determining if the President is qualified,) AND that he’s not only presented a copy of his birth certificate – a prima facie document proving his natural-born status that has also been confirmed as genuine by the governor and vital records offices of the State of Hawaii – but there are now also records from the State Department showing that when his mother was applying for a passport to join her husband, they determined that Obama was, in fact, a US Citizen, it’ll take quite a bit to prove that he’s NOT a citizen. Especially since any documents so far that have purported to be “Kenyan” birth certificates have been shown to be sloppy forgeries.

    All you’ve got are “what ifs” “could bes” “mights” “maybies” and “suspicions” but nothing that actually constitutes REASONABLE proof.

  151. avatar
    thorswitch August 3, 2010 at 5:32 am #

    Note – the first like after “Truther -” above (If I wanrt to I can order the original long form and get it! .) was me quoting Truther, not actually a part of my message. I messed up the quoting function. Sorry for any confusion!

  152. avatar
    Lupin August 3, 2010 at 5:41 am #

    truther: You see none of this makes sense.You are telling me what you believe is true, just cuz you say so. All I have ever wanted is proof. Proof of anythig that is straightforward. As much as you accept the Colb as real, I do not accept it, but that point is such a small part of all the mystery surronding him. I strongly disagree he has shared his true history with us. You say his books? He states from the get go, they are not 100% true, much is fiction. Again why? What part is truth and what part fiction. It has been said that Bill Ayres actually pened most of the books. Did he? I don’t know, but with all the confusion and his very own statements I think a logical person could and should question and seek proof.

    There has been many accusations launched at George W. Bush involving his military service, driving record, drinking habits, election fraud, to name but a few.

    Did you care?

    Did you go on the internet looking for proof to assuage any doubts you might have had regarding his competence or even his legitimacy?

    The Internet never forgets. Could you show me a link to you expressing similar concerns about GW Bush, or any concerns at all about the Presidency, before a black man was elected to the White House?

    If not, it is obvious that you only harbor such doubts when black people are accused of something, because you are predisposed to believe them guilty of fraud, deception, etc.

    That’s what makes you a racist in my book.

    You’re not looking for truth; you’re searching for a validation of your prejudices.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 3, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    @truther

    Congress never accepted any McCain birth certificate because McCain never released one. The so-called McCain certificate is a clumsy fake presented by the plaintiff in a dismissed lawsuit.

    There are a couple or articles here on it. The fake is so bad (different fonts on the altered parts) there’s no argument once you look at it.

    This is the one of the Alice in Wonderland aspects of birtherism: they say McCain produced a birth certificate and Obama didn’t — exactly the opposite is true.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) August 3, 2010 at 8:44 am #

    truther: The best part and more telling than the little birther realizes: “I ordered mine and recieved a COLB . . .”yes I did. If I wanrt to I can order the original long form and get it! If he wanted to get his long form ,original he can too. Even if he wasn’t president! They have never destroyed originals, at worst they are on micro film. It can be gotten. For some reason he chooses not to and that is my point, why not just get it?Where did you learn that Mc Cains was a forgery? This honestly I have never heard. I have been following this pretty closely and have never heard that. If so why did Congress accept it?You see none of this makes sense.You are telling me what you believe is true, just cuz you say so. All I have ever wanted is proof. Proof of anythig that is straightforward. As much as you accept the Colb as real, I do not accept it, but that point is such a small part of all the mystery surronding him. I strongly disagree he has shared his true history with us. You say his books? He states from the get go, they are not 100% true, much is fiction. Again why? What part is truth and what part fiction. It has been said that Bill Ayres actually pened most of the books. Did he? I don’t know, but with all the confusion and his very own statements I think a logical person could and should question and seek proof.I am not here to argue, geez at first I din’t realize that this forum was unfriendly to anyone who questions anything. I am trying to look at all sides. Obviously we do not agree, but can we exchange ides with out insults or shall I disapear? I did not mean to interupt. There are plenty of places I go where most agree with me. I am not looking for support for what I may think, i am looking for both sides and try to figure what i believe to be true.

    So show proof that you got your long form. Sorry I just don’t believe birthers at their word because they have been known to make stuff up. Congress never got McCain’s birth certificate. Where did you read that? The only birth certificates for McCain were forgeries submitted during one of the birther lawsuits. McCain was born at the Coco Solo military base. The fake birth certificates say he was born in Colon hospital. Coco Solo is not located in Colon. None of it make sense because you’d rather believe innuendo than common sense. His books weren’t penned by Bill Ayers. Some people say that the moon is made of green cheese do you believe that to? You’re not looking for the truth.

  155. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 3, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    Soebarkah is how Subarkah used to be spelled in 1961. Bahasa Indonesia used “oe” at that time, but changed the spelling to eliminate Dutch influence. Which explains why people were born Soekaro and Soeharto but died as Sukarno or Suharto. Djakarta too changed into Jakarta (that is also rflected in these documents).

    Yes, Subarkah is a common Indonesian surname. one of the important military officers carrying Mr Suharto’s coffin was a Subarkah. But it is also the name of a town on Java, 81 km from Jakarta.

    http://en.tixik.com/subarkah-394316.htm Sorry for the bad English there: this looks like a machine translation from Dutch (the word destination is a giveaway).

    So, though it is probably correct to assume it is an Indonesian nickname, it could also be the place Barack Obama was living at at the time or had last been living at (depending on the time scale – I cannot find that Soebarkah anywhere).

    In any case, there is no reason to consider this an anagram for Soetoro Barack Allah as Orly did.

  156. avatar
    G August 3, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    truther: yes I did. If I wanrt to I can order the original long form and get it! If he wanted to get his long form ,original he can too. Even if he wasn’t president! They have never destroyed originals, at worst they are on micro film. It can be gotten. For some reason he chooses not to and that is my point, why not just get it?

    Then prove it. Live by your own words or else prove you are nothing but a hypocrite full of BS. So, why didn’t you order your long form? Where is it… Why didn’t you spend the measly $15 to go get it then.

    truther: Where did you learn that Mc Cains was a forgery? This honestly I have never heard. I have been following this pretty closely and have never heard that. If so why did Congress accept it?

    Look, we already answered that for you and provided detailed links. Learn to read. You are ignorant only by your own choice and there is no reason for anyone to have patience with you if you are already provided with answers and links and you continue to spout off without reading them. If you had “never heard” about it, then you obviously haven’t been paying close attention at all – except if by close attention you mean that all you read is nothing but biased bunk birther sites. You come off like an ignorant brainwashed person.

    As to the rest of the nonsense you typed, we don’t care if you leave and go back to your safe little birther sites where everyone agrees with you. That simply just proves what we’ve suspected about you all along. You are nothing but a birther concern troll with no serious desire for the truth. Either that or you just prove that you willingly chose to be a gullible fool … Alinsky wrote his autobiographies…seriously??? Where do you come up with this nonsense. Again, all this shows is that you believe any tabloid trash that is spoon fed to you on right-wing hack sites and you are an extremely gullible person who would rather believe fiction that supports your pre-conceived emotions about issues rather than caring about truth at all.

    Seriously, you call yourself Truther but you demonstrate that you care nothing about looking for what is actually true. Maybe you mean Truther in the wacky sense, such as those crazy conspiracy folks who think 9/11 is an inside job. Hint: those folks are wackaloons too. And spare us your paltry concern trolling schtick. You’ve been given several chances at intelligent grown-up dialog so far and all you’ve done is ignore the answers and facts provided to you and continue to spout worn out birther nonsense.

    You are clearly a birther.

    If you can’t hack the criticism here, then feel free to go back to your safe little birther sites where you can each pat each other on the back regurgitating all the fictional fantasies you want and leave reality to the serious people.

  157. avatar
    Sef August 3, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Soebarkah is how Subarkah used to be spelled in 1961. Bahasa Indonesia used “oe” at that time, but changed the spelling to eliminate Dutch influence. Which explains why people were born Soekaro and Soeharto but died as Sukarno or Suharto. Djakarta too changed into Jakarta (that is also rflected in these documents).Yes, Subarkah is a common Indonesian surname. one of the important military officers carrying Mr Suharto’s coffin was a Subarkah. But it is also the name of a town on Java, 81 km from Jakarta.http://en.tixik.com/subarkah-394316.htm Sorry for the bad English there: this looks like a machine translation from Dutch (the word destination is a giveaway).So, though it is probably correct to assume it is an Indonesian nickname, it could also be the place Barack Obama was living at at the time or had last been living at (depending on the time scale – I cannot find that Soebarkah anywhere).In any case, there is no reason to consider this an anagram for Soetoro Barack Allah as Orly did.

    In legal documents the usual practice is to add initials or signature to written-in changes. Most probably a person named S“barkah crossed out Barack’s name & added his name to indicate he was responsible for the change.

  158. avatar
    Dick Whitman August 3, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    Sef:
    In legal documents the usual practice is to add initials or signature to written-in changes.Most probably a person named S“barkah crossed out Barack’s name & added his name to indicate he was responsible for the change.

    Locally Employed Staff would never be allowed access to Passport applications after it had been filled out and signed by an applicant. Most likely, the cross out was done by Stanley Ann.

  159. avatar
    AnotherBird August 3, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    truther: Where did you learn that Mc Cains was a forgery? This honestly I have never heard. I have been following this pretty closely and have never heard that. If so why did Congress accept it?

    Look the sock puppet is back. McCain has refused to release his birth certificate. The logical conclusion is anything presented as being his birth certificate is fake.

    truther: As much as you accept the Colb as real, I do not accept it, but that point is such a small part of all the mystery surronding him.

    Honestly truth-evader. It is meaningless if you want to accept it or not. Obama’s eligibility has been accept by every state, the US senate, Congress, and everyone that really matters. President Bush’s administration accepted. America’s intelligent agencies have accepted it. John McCain and Hillary Clinton has accept. So what does it really matter that a simpleton doesn’t. Nothing.

  160. avatar
    Sef August 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    Dick Whitman:
    Locally Employed Staff would never be allowed access to Passport applications after it had been filled out and signed by an applicant. Most likely, the cross out was done by Stanley Ann.

    And why do you assume it was done after her signature? It could be part of a checking process before she was finished with it.

  161. avatar
    NbC August 3, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    AnotherBird: truther: As much as you accept the Colb as real, I do not accept it, but that point is such a small part of all the mystery surronding him.

    And yet you accept one which has been shown to be a fake?

    Hilarious

  162. avatar
    NbC August 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    NbC:
    And yet you accept one which has been shown to be a fake?Hilarious

    Sorry that should have been to truther…

  163. avatar
    NbC August 3, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Sef: And why do you assume it was done after her signature? It could be part of a checking process before she was finished with it.

    The entry is clearly incomplete. I fail to see the relevance here.

  164. avatar
    NbC August 3, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    truther: There are plenty of places I go where most agree with me

    Which helps explain why you seem so poorly informed

  165. avatar
    Sef August 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    NbC: S“barkah

    This was a conversation with “Dick Whitman” about “S“barkah”.