About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Latest Birther "Bombshell" Offers Further Evidence Obama Born In Hawaii

May 10, 2011 9:42 am ET by Ben Dimiero

WorldNetDaily continues to set the stage for the release of Jerome Corsi's sure-to-be comedy classic, Where's the Birth Certificate?, with a series of articles desperately trying to cast doubt on Obama's citizenship. Today's offering from Aaron Klein, posted with the headline "Bombshell: U.S. government questioned Obama citizenship," alleges that the "U.S. government is on record questioning President Obama's citizenship status as early as when he was 5 years old, stating it lacked documentation to determine his citizenship."

Both the headline and the lead paragraph, however, are wildly misleading -- as Klein later notes (buried at the end of the article) the U.S. government also answered these questions "on record" by definitively stating that Obama "is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961." Bombshell!

After opening his article by teasing the fact that the U.S Government was "questioning" Obama's citizenship status when he was 5, Klein wastes several hundred words documenting the attempts by Obama's mother to extend Obama's stepfather's visa. Eventually, Klein gets to the "bombshell."

Here it is, in full [bolded subheadline in original]:

'Nothing on file' to document Obama's citizenship

Before that, immigration authorities exchanged queries about Obama, with one noting questions about Obama's citizenship.

One critical exchange is dated August 21, 1967, from Sam Benson, an officer at the Southwest Immigration and Naturalization Service office in San Pedro, Calif.

Benson's query stated, "There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse's son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant's child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, who may suffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(a)."

The reference is to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which defined a "child" as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who, among other qualifiers, could be a "stepchild," whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the "age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred."

A response to Benson's inquiry came from one "W.L. Mix" of the central immigration office, who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen.

Mix replied: "Pursuant to inquiry from central office regarding the status of the applicants' spouse's child by a former marriage."

"The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants' spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicant's step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child's mother on March 5, 1965."

The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu.

The bolded subheadline introducing this section of the story is a misquote. While the bolded text quotes the official saying there is "Nothing on file" to document Obama's citizenship, what he actually said is that "there is nothing in the file to document" Obama's status. "Nothing on file" suggests that this documentation is non-existent, while "nothing in the file" is more limited to "this information is not in front of me." And, as Klein himself notes, that information confirming Obama's citizenship was available, and was confirmed by "'W.L Mix' of the central immigration office."

I suppose a more accurate subheadline would have been: "U.S Government in 1967: Obama 'a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu,'" but that doesn't sound quite as exciting.

So, to clarify: an immigration official was on record "questioning" Obama's citizenship status. His question was answered by someone in the central immigration office, "who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen" that was born "in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961." In a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on what would appear to be further evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth, Klein ends his report by stating "the files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu." Yeah! Maybe this "W.L. Mix" character is in on it. His name is suspiciously close to "Marx," after all...

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by galmud (May 10, 2011 9:48 am ET)
      17  
      Keep digging world nut daily. Soon your hole will be so deep nobody will hear you scream anymore
      Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (May 10, 2011 9:53 am ET)
      15  
      By WorldNetDaily's standards, President Obama himself "questioned" his own citizenship simply by requesting a copy of his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii.

      Hmmm. I guess I "questioned" my wife's citizenship on our first date when I asked her where she was born.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by villabolo (May 10, 2011 2:40 pm ET)
        2  
        We seem to have a lot of aspiring comedians on this forum.

        I guess that's what happens when the nation we live in becomes a joke.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by goesto11 (May 10, 2011 3:18 pm ET)
          2  
          If you're one of the aspiring comedians, I'd seek another line of work.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by teh.stoopid.lib (May 10, 2011 9:54 am ET)
      14  
      ohferchrissakes! Could these people find a different horse carcass to flagellate now. Stick a fork in it already!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (May 10, 2011 9:58 am ET)
        13  
        They're doing exactly what you'd expect of people about to publish a book whose entire premise was obliterated a couple of weeks before the book release.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (May 10, 2011 10:12 am ET)
          17  
          The entire premise certainly hasn't been obliterated: Obama still isn't white.

          Have a look at the comments section beneath Klein's piece:

          "Typical, this family got more US government handouts than Harlem in the 70's it sounds like. The first welfare affirmative action president all the way..."

          "And he is still in government housing."

          "Comrades, ignore the Mulato behind the curtain. He is of no consequence... Rule of Law, D'oh."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by neon desert (May 10, 2011 10:03 am ET)
      8  
      Seems as though we're in foll-bore CYA mode now. Trying to make the birthers original Obama citizenship concerns seem more understandable.

      One can always recognize CYA mode by the introduction of new irrelevant information into a subject that had already generally concluded.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Always Right (May 10, 2011 10:05 am ET)
         
      Whether accurate or not, most on the right recognize this is not a winning arguement.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by foole (May 10, 2011 10:13 am ET)
      12 1
      In the 1980's people developed what experts called an "MTV" attention span. People began to lose the ability to focus on anything on TV beyond 3 or 4 minutes, basically the length of a music video.

      Here in the opening of the 21st Century, people have developed a "Headline" mentality. Everything they feel they need to know should be in the headline of a story. These days, you could write a story that consisited of "Blah, blah, blah blah blah! Blah blah? Blah!", and as long as the headline is graphic enough (ex. "OBAMA BEATS KIDS!!!") the average reader will soon enough be telling their friends and neighbors about how President Obama beat his kids.

      The headline doesn't say that. And the article could actually say President Obama beat a group of kids at checkers during a White House visit, but if you get that headline right, all the corrections in the world won't stop the headliners from believing the President is beating his kids. And, of course, headliners begat birthers, deathers, tea partiers, etc., etc.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ouroborus (May 10, 2011 11:06 am ET)
        4  
        I wonder if the Drudge Report a symptom or a cause of this headline mentality. I swear Drudge could link to an article that just said MY READERS ARE ILLITERATE SWINE in 120 pt font and no one would raise so much as a peep.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Boswell (May 10, 2011 12:03 pm ET)
          4  
          if it's not true and can fit on a bumper-sticker Sludge will post it in 96 pt type
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (May 10, 2011 10:16 am ET)
      7  
      the prez is an alien, he's from plutocracy....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tspang (May 10, 2011 10:34 am ET)
      7  
      I knew these birthers wouldn't give up so easily.

      These people, while not stupid themselves, clearly recognize that many regular WND readers ARE stupid and easily led, and are taking full advantage of their fertile, propaganda-ready minds.

      Why didn't WND get the message about "birtherism" being a trap by Obama and the media? Didn't they get their Karl Rove talking points?

      Here's hoping for a "birther" discussion at next year's CPAC!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foole (May 10, 2011 10:48 am ET)
        4  
        I'm anxiously waiting for the first birther question of the 2012 Presidential Debates! And the first "Why did you support destroying Medicare..." question of the debates as well. The debates will be entertaining as we may not only get a political debate, but a little tap dancing along with it.
        Report Abuse
          • Author by foole (May 10, 2011 11:47 am ET)
            14  
            Guess we'll all have a little something to look forward to in the debates. Which of the questions would you prefer to answer if you caught one of them? I would much prefer to explain that we joined NATO in performing air strikes in Libya to prevent a genocide much the same way we did in Bosnia in the 1990's.

            How do you answer the birther question in such a way that you manage to please both independents and the wackadoo birthers? How do you say you voted for lowering taxes on the top 2% while destroying a very popular government run program, and not sound like you're looking after the rich at the cost of working Americans?

            Yep, we've all got something to look forward to in the debates.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hoosier (May 10, 2011 11:57 am ET)
                14
              It's pretty obvious the MMfA Drone Brigade is visibly upset the birth certificate issue has pretty much been put to rest now that Obama finally produced what had been the cause of the controversy from the very beginning when Hillary supporters first started inquiring about it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by vysotsky (May 10, 2011 12:02 pm ET)
                5  
                How could the birth certificate have been "the cause of the controversy" when the release of the long form birth certificate hasn't affected "The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President" in any way?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Boswell (May 10, 2011 12:05 pm ET)
                  3  
                  s'OK, nobody does anything but laugh at the Marching Moron FOXSACK Sock-puppet Fighting Keyboardist in Mom's Basement Brigade
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by riverdog (May 10, 2011 2:58 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  went to your link to amazon vy. love the "those who baught this also purchased", and its corsis othe trash and jesse venturas conspiracy crap book. well they have found a audiance.
                  corsi is supposed to call in to a local talk radio show in my town on wednesday or thursday. i'm not sure if i will listen to this nut or not.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by beDecent (May 10, 2011 12:05 pm ET)
                8  
                When Hillary supporters first started questioning it, it was answered. Birthers are just dumb, plain and simple, and they have been for years.

                Upset? No. Amused? Very.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tspang (May 10, 2011 12:57 pm ET)
                  4  
                  That's 100% correct, beDecent, but it's an notion that bears repeating:

                  The 2008 "short form" birth certificate was a valid, legal document (not a forgery!)

                  People of sound mind and sufficient intellect put the issue to rest at that time.

                  Now, many wild-eyed wingnuts didn't want to accept it, but that was their problem. They alone are to blame for their derangement, and for spreading it to other like-minded simpletons.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by CrashGordon (May 10, 2011 12:32 pm ET)
                5  
                Hoosier, the cause of the debate was a bunch of whacko tea-baggers screaming because one of their candidates didn't get elected. And because Obama isn't white, they were able to boil up this tempest in a tea-pot.

                I, personally find it hilarious that while the nutjobs are screaming "where's the birth certificate?", Obama hands it to them and then says, "By the way, here's bin Laden, too." So while they were focused on a trivial nontroversy, Obama was doing what presidents do--taking care of our country.

                Yep, I can't wait for the debates either.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tspang (May 10, 2011 12:40 pm ET)
                4  
                It's true. Part of me was sad to see the "long form" birth certificate produced.

                There was certainly no question in the mind of any person of reasonable intelligence and temperament that the 2008 "short form" was valid, and I was constantly surprised and impressed by the different ways that conservatives were able to showcase their stupidity.

                Just when I thought they couldn't get any crazier, they kept coming up with more insane material, and I admit that I was beginning to miss it.

                It will be equally fun to watch the new "after-birther" crowd and the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that believe them. WND, Pam Geller....who's next? I'm looking at you Jim Hoft!
                Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (May 10, 2011 11:55 am ET)
            6  
            I can't wait for the question "why did you attack Libya". Why didn't you attack Syria? Yemen?

            Isn't it obvious? Lybia was holding the real birth certificate.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Tony195616 (May 10, 2011 12:32 pm ET)
            3  
            I can't wait for the answer to the question "why is boulderhippy making reportable off topic comments?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dbtexas (May 10, 2011 5:22 pm ET)
                 
              That's what he and all right wingers do: deflect and obfuscate.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (May 10, 2011 1:49 pm ET)
            3  
            I can't wait for the question "why did you attack Libya". Why didn't you attack Syria? Yemen?

            Question for Dubya: "You invaded Iraq, why didn't you invade Iran or North Korea, the "Axis of Evil" afterall?
            Report Abuse