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...
















Hmmm. I guess I "questioned" my wife's citizenship on our first date when I asked her where she was born.
I guess that's what happens when the nation we live in becomes a joke.
Have a look at the comments section beneath Klein's piece:
One can always recognize CYA mode by the introduction of new irrelevant information into a subject that had already generally concluded.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Upset? No. Amused? Very.
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.
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.
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!
Isn't it obvious? Lybia was holding the real birth certificate.
Question for Dubya: "You invaded Iraq, why didn't you invade Iran or North Korea, the "Axis of Evil" afterall?