Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Obama And The 'Birther' Controversy- Fact Or Fiction?

Does President Barack Hussein Obama fulfill the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born US citizen?

As I've stated before,I personally think the people who are working this angle are wasting time and energy, since the Supreme court will absolutely not touch this with a ten foot pole - for fear of civil unrest, if nothing else.

But in spite of that, in view of the lunatic theories, the refusal to provide clear and conclusive information by Obama and the plain disinformation floating around the web on this matter both pro and con, I think Joshua's Army members deserve an unbiased look at this.

This controversy has been around since the election, and it hasn't gone away.As a matter of fact, speculation has increased to the point where the White House unleashed its attack poodle Robert Gibbs on the matter:

Question: "Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?"

Gibbs: "No. I mean, the God's-honest truth is 'no.' I mean, Bill, let's understand this. I almost hate to indulge in such an august setting as the White House--and I mean this in seriousness--the White House briefing room discussing the made-up, fictional nonsense of whether or not the President was born in this country.

"A year and a half ago, I asked that the birth certificate be put on the internet. because Lord knows, if you've got the birth certificate and put it on the internet, what else could be the story? Here's the deal again: if I had some DNA it wouldn't assuage those who don't believe he was born here.

"But I have news for them and for all of us. The President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii."

Gibson as usual is factually challenged or simply trying to lie and spin this. What exactly would DNA prove about where someone was born?? And by 'birth certificate', is he referring to the crudely forged photoshop of the short form certificate of Live Birth posted on Daily Kos? Because that's the only one that's ever been posted publicly to my knowledge, although Hawaiian public officials have publicly acknowledged the official short form Certificate of Live Birth's existence.

All that aside, the fact that the White House even saw fit to address this shows that this controversy continues to have legs - in large part because of the extraordinary amount of time, money and effort Obama and his camp have devoted to sealing his records, refusing to answer perfectly legitimate questions and thwarting any inquiries into the matter.

Let's look at the facts.

The US Constitution has only three requirements to serve as president. You have to be at least thirty-five years of age, you must be a natural-born US citizen, and you must have resided for the last fourteen years within the United States.

A natural born citizen is defined as someone born within the territorial limits of the United States or its possessions. Thus, John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born to two US citizens in the Canal Zone, a US possession at the time. So is anyone born in Puerto Rico, or within a US embassy - American embassies in foreign countries are considered US soil, as are certain military installations.

With that in mind, here's what we know about the current president's situation. The president's mother, Stanley Anne Dunham was eighteen and already pregnant with Obama when she flew to Kenya to be with his father. We know that at least two of Obama's Kenyan relatives went public with the fact that they witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, and that afterwards they withdrew very quickly from any media contact. We know that Obama's mother stayed in Kenya for several months, but decided she didn't like the way Kenyan Muslims treated their wives (and likely, the idea of having Obama's father's previous wife in the picture) and left...by which time she was very pregnant. It's also a fact that most airlines won't allow a women in that condition to board a plane, for obvious reasons.

So what if Obama was born in Kenya or outside the US? His mother was a natural born citizen. Doesn't that make him a US citizen anyway?

Sorry, no. Obama's mother was not of legal age to transfer citizenship to her child if he was born outside the US according to the laws in existence at that time. I refer you to Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182.

Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 when he was born. In order to transfer US citizenship to a child born outside the US, she would have had to have lived in the US 10 years consecutively, five of which were after reaching the age of 14. Since she was not nineteen at the time of Obama's birth, she could not have legally transferred citizenship to Obama if he was born overseas.

There's also the matter of Obama's father, who was a Kenyan national and a British subject. Under the laws and international conventions of that time, there's a good possibility Obama would have been a British subject at birth even if he actually was born in Hawaii, because of the mother's inability to transfer citizenship and his father's nationality.

The Obama-Dunham marriage dissolved in some acrimony. Since Obama's father was Kenyan and a Muslim, there was every reason for the Dunhams to believe at the time that Obama's father might attempt to initiate a messy court battle to regain custody of his male child Barack.

After filing for divorce after Obama's birth, the normal course of action would have been for Obama's mother to apply for US citizenship for her child, which she would have eventually gotten.

Instead, with the possibility of a nasty upcoming legal battle, it's possible that the Dunhams simply filed a Certificate of Live Birth with the State of Hawaii after the fact in an effort to circumvent this quickly and create a paper trail.

A Certificate of Live Birth merely attests to the fact that a child was born, and according to Hawaiian law can indeed be filed after the fact. The short form Certificate of Live Birth is supposedly a summary of what's on the long form, but it does not contain an affidavit from the attending physician or the hospital. No one has seen the long form, including Hawaiian state officials, since Obama refuses to give anyone permission to access it and under Hawaiian law the record is legally sealed. One has to wonder why. As an interesting detail, there are two separate Hawaiian hospitals that have claimed to be Obama's birthplace.

And, to delve into speculation - just suppose that Obama's long form certificate, the one that Obama doesn't want anyone to see doesn't have any affidavits from a hospital or doctor but simply states that Obama was born at home, based on an affidavit by a friend or family member..maybe even his mother? That doesn't actually prove he wasn't born in Hawaii..but then again, it doesn't prove he was, and it might just lead to further questions that could prove uncomfortable. Which could be why Obama wants absolutely nobody to see it.

This desire by the Dunhams to avoid a possible custody fight and ensure Obama's status as a legal US citizen could also account for another detail that has been made much of, a birth announcement placed in the Honolulu Advertiser when Obama was born. After all, the reasoning goes, how could someone plan something like that from 47 years in the future,or foresee the need to protect a future president's citizenship status that far in the past?

The answer to that is actually pretty simple. Barack's mom and maternal grandparents had a major incentive to create a paper trail for Barack Obama's legal status as a US citizen that had nothing to do with his future status as a Presidential candidate. The last thing they wanted was to have to go through a custody fight in a Kenyan court against a black father over a black child. Even if in fact, as has been alleged, the notice was 'automatically printed' from the registry office, that would have been a product of the original Certificate, and it proves absolutely nothing. Just like one of those old murder mysteries, the Dunhams had both motive and opportunity.We simply don't know what actually happened - because all of Obama's records have been sealed under lock and key. Not just his birth record, but his records from the exclusive Punahou School, Occidental college, even most of his records and paperwork from Harvard.

But wait, there's more... the separate issue of Obama's Indonesian citizenship.

Around 1966, Obama's mother remarried an Indonesian national by the name of Lolo Soetoro and relocated with her son Obama to Indonesia. The Nationality Act of 1940 still in force at that time provided for a loss of citizenship when a child became naturalized in a foreign country when his custodial parent became a naturalized citizen of that foreign country. While there's some controversy over whether Stanley Ann Dunham actually became a naturalized Indonesian citizen, ( and the records seem to indicate she did) one thing that isn't in doubt was that Lolo Soetoro legally adopted Barack Obama, and he became Barry Soetoro and a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

While he was living with Lolo in Indonesia, Lolo had him registered in public school as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim...at a time when you had to be an Indonesian citizen to use the public schools. The American practice was not to recognize dual citizenship, and that was also the law in Indonesia. Did Obama ever renounce his Indonesian citizenship as required by US law, as Rahm Emanuel did with his dual American-Israeli citizenship? There absolutely no record of anything like that happening.

The so-called 'birther' controversy continues to ferment for one reason - because President Obama's deliberate secrecy and furtive behavior keeps it alive.

As one recent example, an Army colonel recently refused to be deployed to Afghanistan and follow Obama's orders on the grounds it would put the colonel in legal jeopardy for obeying an unlawful order unless he saw proof Obama was a natural born citizen of the US, thus Constitutionally legal POTUS and thus legally commander in chief.

If this had gone to trial, legal requirements would have meant that all of Obama's sealed record would have been fair game for discovery, meaning that the defense would have an opportunity to examine them.

When the colonel took it to court, instead of slapping him into the stockade for insubordination, the Army hurriedly changed his orders and dropped the matter. Did they receive a call from the White House? We'll probably never know.

I'm hardly prone to conspiracy theories, but there's obviously a lot of things here that need to be cleared up. Obama, of course, could resolve all this speculation almost instantly, and I hope he does by releasing his records, since it's simply the right thing to do. As president, he took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and putting to rest any doubts about this matter obviously falls within his oath of office.

After all his blather about a new era of transparency, I think Obama owes a little candor and transparency to his fellow citizens. We elected him, and we deserve to know if that decision was made under false pretenses. It's time the mask came off.

This isn't the sort of thing even Barack Obama can vote 'present' on forever.Nor should it be.


louielouie said...

i was with ff right up until the last two paragraphs.
in which ff comes across as an objective blogger, as opposed to a subjective redneck.
that's where i come in.
this is hussein we're talking about.
this is the communist party of america we're talking about.
why would hussein do any of the things you mention?
and to carry it one step further, the far left liberal fringe, you know, the entire dimocratic party has already stated that the requirement of natural born is unconstitutional as it descriminates against naturalized citizens, that of course is what the dead white guys had in mind in the first place.
taking it another step further, hussein is the darling of all post-nationals, just like his mother, so it will not matter, it will in fact enhance his position, as being a non-citizen president.
this is after all hussein we are talking about.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Louie,
I never mind making points by appealing to people's better nature and sense of honesty and fair play.

If Obama hasn't seen fit to do the right thing already,I doubt he will - willingly, at least. His supporters should be aware of that.

But I want it on record that I'm giving him the chance.


Freedom Fighter said...

Oh, one more thing, Louie.

If it comes out that he actually is not a natural born citizen and concealed it, aside from having to resign his office under the Constitution, he faces criminal prosecution for fraud.

And if other members of his staff or the DNC were likewise shown to be aware, the RICO statues would apply.

That's a pretty major bust, so if Obama is actually not a citizen I can certainly see why he's doing his very best to make sure none of this comes out.

Of course, that also raises the scenario of a foreign power in one of those closed door meetings sliding a brown file folder over to Obama for him to look at, filled with info that's going to come out unless he plays ball their way.

Again, pure speculation..but any Obama supporters who claim to be patriots should therefore insist that he release all his records, just to eliminate even the possibility of his being compromised.


louielouie said...

Of course, that also raises the scenario of a foreign power in one of those closed door meetings sliding a brown file folder over to Obama for him to look at, filled with info that's going to come out unless he plays ball their way.

i wonder if bibi has got anyone working on this?
i wonder if the mossad is a very good intelligence agency?

Freedom Fighter said...


Anonymous said...

This is sheer BS.

It really bothers you that a Black man is running the country, doesn't it?

Jeffry McGee said...

All conspiracies aside, it would be super sweet to see Obama’s actual birth certificate. I’m pretty sure it could be located and released to the media, as Gov. Lingle stated she viewed the document. That’s all. All the rest of the conspiracies stem from the idea that the document is being hidden from the public. It would be very easy to quell the issue.

By the way, I like black people, so all you lefty race-baiters out there can just piss off.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Jeffrey, and welcome to Joshua's Army.

Actually, what Governor Linda Lingle viewed was the short form document.She has not seen the long form with the affidavits, nor has anyone else. It's illegal under Hawaiian law to access it without permission from the person concerned or a court order.


Anonymous said...

Here’s Obama’s dilemma in a nutshell (READ VERY CAREFULLY AND DIGEST):

If BHO shows his original long form birth certificate, indeed showing he was born in Hawaii, it will also show his father was American citizen, Frank Marshall Davis, not the Kenyan/British citizen, Barack Obama Sr. While that would allow Barack Jr. to be POTUS eligible as BOTH a “citizen”/“native born citizen” AND an Article 2 “natural born citizen” — that is, born to two American citizens on American soil — it would simultaneously show he is a fraud hiding his real father — an unacceptable political debacle.

If, on the other hand, BHO keeps hiding his original long form birth certificate — while simply repeating, without showing, he was born in Hawaii — he can still CLAIM BOTH he was born in Hawaii AND his father was the Kenyan/British Barack Obama Sr. This would enable Barack Jr. to claim he’s a “citizen”/“native born citizen” but it would mean (if a federal court would ever get around to declaring and thus far no one has standing to bring the suit) that he’s NOT an Article 2 “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible to be POTUS — a legal/constitutional debacle since all acts under an illegal POTUS are void.

So it seems, BHO has elected option one until forced to go option two because for now it looks like no federal court will ever find a plaintiff with standing. (Of course, there’s the additional issue of BHO losing American citizen status if/when he became an Indonesian citizen — that is, IF he returned and was naturalized he would be a legal citizen, but would lose both native and natural born status, and, IF he returned and was not naturalized, he would be an illegal immigrant unlawfully in this country — but we’ll leave that for another day.)

Rhymes With Right said...

Gotta disagree with you on one point -- even if Obama had Kenyan/British nationality and citizenship from his father, that would not negate his US citizenship through his mother if he were born on US soil (and I believe the evidence shows he was). At most, he would have had dual citizenship -- making him a natural born citizen of the US from birth on forward.

As for the Indonesian citizenship thing, you are just plain wrong. US law makes it exceedingly difficult for an American citizen to lose their citizenship, even through attempted renunciation. A parent cannot renounce their child's citizenship. It is therefore irrelevant whether Obama was adopted by Sotero and obtained Indonesian citizenship for him -- IT HAS NO EFFECT UPON HIS CITIZNSHIP!

And before anyone raises the "did he travel on a Kenyan/British/Indonesian passport" issue -- it is irrelevant. One can travel on another country's passport without losing US citizenship. Just ask my seminary buddy, the Vatican diplomat. Or any number of US Jews who also have Israeli passports and citizenship.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hey Greg,
How are you? How's the Darling Democrat and the Apolitical Pooch?

According to the legal references I cite, There's actually a very good chance that Obama would have been considered a British subject under the existing international law, even if he was born here. Had his father not abandoned him, it undoubtedly would have gone to court.

Since Obama continues to refuse to release his records, neither of us really know where he was born, do we? I merely suggest that to fulfill his oath Of Office, Obama release all his records to remove any doubt.

Your guess as to why he hasn't is as good as mine.

As far as Obama's Indonesian citizenship is concerned, that's simply a matter of record. And I don't think I'm wrong. According to the The Nationality Act of 1940, Obama could indeed have forfeited his citizenship when his step father adopted him, whether or not his mother became a naturalized Indonesian citizen ( which it appears she did). Remember, we are talking about the law as it existed in 1967, not today. The official US position on dual citizenship is to allow it for countries that allow it and prohibit it for countries that do not. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship then and probably doesn't now.

International Law also takes the position that Obama's place of birth and his mother's original nationality are irrelevant and that his Indonesian citizenship takes precedence. This comes from The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4, The Hague Convention of 1930. Which the US signed onto, by the way.

After Obama returned to the US, there would be a legal five year continuous residency requirement anyway for him to become a naturalized US citizen, which would have occurred when he was nineteen.

Again, since he's carefully sealed all his records, we just don't know, do we?

I'm glad you brought up the passport issue. I agree with you, it's nonsensical.

I would be interested to get your opinion on why the Army was so quick to back off in the case of the colonel I cite - or why Obama is acting in such a furtive and secretive manner.

My entire point in writing this was to take a careful look at this controversy. I expected it to hit a nerve, but all I'm really asking is that the president end the controversy by releasing all his records so that there's no doubt.

I feel this is covered by his Oath of Office, and simply want him to do the right thing.

Best Regards,

Christian Atheist said...

Good Evening Gentlemen(you too Anonymous)
For my part,perusing Zero's policies takes me plenty far enough into tinfoil hattery.(Is he a naive fool? Is he trying to weaken or destroy the country?)That being said FF hits it on the head when pointing out the ease with which 'bama could put an end to this question.Why won't he? Why are there so many, not just questions but actively kept secrets?
Where's my hat?
Good one!
Bibi and the Mossad?
Now that would be priceless!
Unfortunately we'd never know it had happened. That's a scene I'd pay good money to see!

Greg said...

( This was lost in the ozone, but Greg was kind enough to e-mail his reply to me..here it is- RM)

"I'm not sure that this comment posted --and I may have also posted it several times. If so, please approve the final version of the comment, as i added information after seeming to discover that it did not go through to your moderation queue.

Here is the relevant supreme court precedent on the matter of loss of US citizenship -- Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 16601118 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967). The key point is this:

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

You might also be interested in Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), each of which holds that a natural born US citizen does not lose his/her citizenship because his/her parents take citizenship in another nation and renounce their US citizenship.

Now, unless you can point to a voluntary act by Obama to relinquish his citizenship, you are SOL in claiming he lost his US citizenship.

In addition, the issue of his father's citizenship is a red herring. At this point the presumption has to be that Obama was born in this country, absent any conclusive evidence to the contrary (I say this not merely on the basis of the evidence as it stands, but also on the basis that no "conspiracy of silence" to obscure his birth outside the US could have survived the last 5 years -- someone would have talked if the price was right). Under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Obama would therefore be a natural born citizen of the US, regardless of his father's citizenship -- at most he would have had dual citizenship. The seminal citizenship case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) makes it clear that the only two exceptions to the ius soli principle under the 14th Amendment are being the child of foreign diplomats or foreign occupying forces -- neither of which applies in Obama's case.

As for the Army case, I think it was obvious -- would YOU want a screwball like that in a relatively high position in YOUR chain of command in a war zone? Pretend we are talking about a 9/11 Truther and not a Birther and you will get my drift.

Now we do agree on one thing -- Obama ought to release his original birth certificate. Not for the reason you state, but rather because it is an important historical document AND it would unambiguously settle the question of his birthplace, which would be beneficial to the country. However, as some liberals i've argued with have noted, it serves Obama's purpose to keep the documents under wraps so as to paint the GOP as a bunch of idiots by tarring all of us in the party with the Birther stain."

louielouie said...

to anon:
what really bothers me is that people keep bringing up race when it isn't an/the issue.
citizenship is.
but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
thanks for contributing the sum total of you knowledge.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Greg,
Just a brief reply.

It appears that we each have some different legal precedents to deal with. Yours seem solid, but I'll research them when I have more time.

I don't presume that Obama was born in the US until he voluntarily reveals records proving it. And at this point, I'd like him to release all of his records, including his school paperwork - which MAY show him enrolled as a foreign student. Don't know until we see, do we?

I also don't buy the argument that somebody would have talked.Most of the documents are legally sealed, and your average civil servant isn't going to risk being prosecuted and fired by going there. As for the media, need I elaborate?

Your argument about the Army colonel is unfortunately bogus IMO. The Army has rules regardless of a soldier's political beliefs, and failing to follow a lawful order is a serous offense and may even lead to imprisonment and a DD.

In the ordinary train of events, they would have tossed him into the stockade instead of quickly reversing his orders. Somethin' happened. I think.

Lastly, please be advised that I am not convinced that Obama is not a citizen, but I merely present the view that Obama has a constitutional duty to address this once and for all.

I find nothing wrong with politicians of either party requesting that Obama do so.

It's that simple.


Freedom Fighter said...

Hey Greg,
I'm back from making a pickup at the airport and now have a bit more time to examine the rulings you mention in more detail.

1) Afroyim VS.Rusk - I don't think this applies here, because it refers to 'destruction ' of citizenship by act of the US government and makes no reference to voluntary action by citizens themselves.

No one forced Stanley Anne Dunham to marry either of her husbands.

Also the decision was rendered after Ms. Dunham's first marriage to Barack Sr, Obama's birth, her subsequent marriage to Lolo and she and Obama becoming naturalized Indonesian citizens. Was the decision retroactive to any degree?

Oddly enough this decision was supposed to amend certain aspects the Bancroft Treaties, which among other things provided for loss of citizenship under certain conditions if a female of one nationality married a man of another and became a naturalized citizen of another.Obama's mother did both.

Those treaties were not terminated until 1980 BTW. And as such, it seems that they agree with the rulings I mentioned that would have prohibited Ms. Dunham from transferring natural born status to Obama.

2)Mandoli Vs. Acheson

Again this decision says that a US citizen by birth who derives foreign citizenship from his parents does not lose his US citizenship.

Fine and good. Show me the indisputable proof that Obama is indeed a natural born US citizen and I'm fine with this.So far , we haven't seen that.

3) Perkins Vs. Elg is way off the mark IMO, because it refers to fighting in foreign wars or taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign power under duress!

Again, no one apparently forced Stanley Anne Dunham or Obama to do anything.And again, the decision only refers to a natural born citizen. Obama may or may not be one.

4) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark again concerns a natural born citizen, and was obviously a manifestation of the racist Chinese Exclusion Act.

I really only see Mandoli Vs. Acheson applying here, and then only if we're provided rock bottom proof that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I appreciate your taking the time to dig for this stuff, and that you likely know more about the legal aspects of the matter than I do.

I also know where you're coming from..you're nervous about the GOP going out on this limb and being made foolish.

As I've said several times, the SCOTUS will NEVER rule on this barring something egregious happening, so I can see why republicans would distance themselves.

But in my case, I'm simply talking principle. I think I came up with some highly plausible conjectures to explain why Obama has acted in the manner he did.

Responsible legislators of both parties should be asking Obama to unseal his records so we can put all this behind us.

I simply think he owes it to the country to come clean.

Rhymes With Right said...

The thing is that the decisions all do apply by analogy (which is how most precedent law applies -- rarely do the exact same facts show up in two cases).

1) Afoyim v. Rusk -- Actually, the voluntary act of the citizen in question was traveling to Israel, taking Israeli citizenship, and voting in Israeli elections. NONE OF THESE was held to terminate citizenship -- and the court also held that serving in a foreign army, or sweraing allegiance to a foreign country could not automatically extinguish citizenship absent clear intent to extinguish US citizenship. The decision was handed down in 1967, but concerned events that had taken place in the 1950s (and an attempt to declare Afoyim not to be a citizen in 1960), so it would be clear that Obama's mother marrying BHO Sr. WOULD NOT have been sufficient to cost her US citizenship (being that her marriage -- later ruled invalid and annulled under US law -- constituted something less than a clear renunciation of her citizenship).

2) You misread Perkins v. Elg -- it refers explicitly to the child of a US citizen not losing US citizenship by the naturalization of their parent in a foreign country. It also seems to implicitly negate all provision of Bancroft treaties that extinguish US citizenship of a US citizen, especially when read in the context of the later decisions (like Afoyim) on the loss of citizenship.

3) Mandoli v. Acheson makes it clear that, unlike you suggest, there was no need for Obama to make a specific election of US citizenship or renunciation of any foreign citizenship upon reaching his age of majority.

4) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark makes it clear that Obama, if born on US soil, is a US citizen.

Now here's why the "conspiracy of silence" argument that the Birthers rely on fails. Some Hawaii official would have disclosed that document and been protected under any and all applicable whistleblower laws. What's more, there would be records on file showing Obama's mother returning to the US from Kenya with an infant child -- records which would have been disclosed by a federal employee who would have been protected under applicable whistleblower laws. Ditto his college records if he claimed to be a foreign student at any point. You cannot tell me that NO ONE with the ability to find out "the truth" of Obama's foreign birth would not have gone to some media outlet (including place like World Net Daily) with a demand for money which would have been met -- after all, it would be the biggest political story of our lifetime and a great way to get rich quick. That no one has come forward leads me to again conclude that Obama was born in this country, given the absence of bona fide evidence to the contrary.

And the Army case has the wrinkle that the officer in question requested deployment -- the Army therefore had the out of rescinding the orders on the basis that his suit constituted a request for rescission of the orders. While I would personally find it preferable that they court martial the guy, why bother when you can settle the loon's case by withdrawing the orders and never activating him in the future? No muss, no fuss, no ongoing headlines about a baseless story.

Now I agree that the "most transparent administration in history" ought to be rushing to release these records. The reality is that they aren't, and don't have to. The best we can hope for is the passage of the Posey bill to avoid such situations in the future.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Greg,
As far as the Obama-Dunham marriage and the Soetoro-Dunham marriages are concerned, both of them were actually terminated by divorce,(uncontested in the case of Obama Sr.) not annulment as far as I know.The first marriage was invalid due to its bigamous nature, true, UNLESS Obama Sr's. first marriage is considered as what the law defines as a 'tribal marriage', in which case it would lack the standing of the civil Obama-Dunham one. Again, we'd need to know whether the decision had any retroactive effect. Otherwise, I buy your argument, although I'm still convinced a case could be made either way under the Bancroft treaties involved and The Nationality Act of 1940.

I'll accept your readings of Perkins v. Elg and Mandoli, although my information is that in practice, US law generally followed the practices of the country inquestion, allowing dual citizenship in countries that allow it and prohibiting it in countries like Indonesia that didn't.

The key in all this stuff is whether Obama is a natural born citizen. We simply have no conclusive proof that he is. It's a pity the SCOTUS has chosen to allow this situation to continue, although I understand why they allowed this can of worms to fester.

David Souter actually made an unofficial request that Obama show him his official long form birth cert in December of `08, but Obama simply ignored him and the SCOTUS did nothing about it.

Still not quite with you on the case of the colonel. he specifically stated that he was willing to deploy as long as he saw proof Obama was a citizen.

And there are several other military personnel who are going the same route if my info is correct.

As far as the 'conspiracy of silence' meme as proof that there's nothing there, it's just a s valid as saying that Obama's furtive behavior and the expense, time and effort spent to seal his records and ward inquiries off prove there IS something there.

I guess we'll see!

It astounds me that our press and political institutions have degenerated to the point that there are not widespread demands that Obama end this by simply releasing his records and do the right thing.This i sonly going to continue to fester unless he does.

Greg, you need to drop by here more often. As always, your comments really elevate the discussion.


Anonymous said...

It doesn't really matter whether he's a citizen or not.

He may have been born in Hawaii, but he's still anti-American . That's why the people behind him pulling the strings picked him.