Obama and Kenya. Again. (FactCheck- sweet: Donofrio's info makes them admit their error)

We’ve burned through rather a lot of pixels combating the claims of those who deny that Barack Obama is eligible to be president of the United States.

He is, by virtue of having been born in Hawaii, as attested to repeatedly by state officials and even by the flagship of conservative publications, the National Review. And, for the 10 percent of you out there who aren’t entirely sure, yes, Hawaii is part of the United States.

We’ve given the denialists a lot of grief for the times they’ve been wrong. But we’d be remiss not to note when they get something right. Our Aug. 29, 2008, Ask FactCheck item asking whether Obama has Kenyan citizenship correctly stated that Obama did have dual citizenship as a child but that it expired as an adult. But Leo Donofrio, a former lawyer, argues that we got the year wrong. He’s right about that, and we have corrected the item.

Initially, we said that Obama’s citizenship expired in 1982, on Obama’s 21st birthday. In fact, however, the Kenyan Constitution provides a two-year window during which one can decide which citizenship to keep. So, President Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984, not 1982, as we had initially reported.

We regret the error. But we do note that the two-year change doesn’t really make any difference. As we’ve said before, the only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and be a natural-born citizen.

Obama was born in Hawaii. And he lost his Kenyan citizenship around the same time Don Johnson created a minor crisis in the sock and the razor blade manufacturing industries.

That hasn’t kept Donofrio from arguing otherwise, with the usual conspiracy-theorist mix of twisted logic and misreading of the law.

If you really want to get into the weeds with his argument (or, really, with any other birth certificate related question), we suggest that you head over to Obama Conspiracy Theories, where a blogger who uses the pseudonym "Dr. Conspiracy" has taken on the Herculean (or is that Sisyphean?) task of debunking birth certificate related conspiracies. We agree with his take on Donofrio’s argument.

ROFL!! And as snarky as Gibbs when he's asked.

~~~~~~~~~

Donofrio's comment (all the way at the bottom of the page):

[Ed. We've got them on the run. Got to give credit to Factcheck for admitting they printed a false fact. Factcheck.org has responded They now admit they got their facts wrong.

But instead of discussing the meat of the article they've tried to lump us DUALERS in with the BIRTHERS by labeling the legal question we are asking as a conspiracy theory.

How is a legal question a conspiracy theory?

Obama supporters take one position on the issue which has never been settled in any court although the closest case to the issue - Wong Kim Ark - came out on our side (The Sonoran News did a very nice piece on that yesterday by the way), and we've taken the opposite position. How that is a conspiracy theory, I'll never know. If taking a position on a legal question is a conspiracy theory, then they are just as much guilty of conspiratorially theorizing.

But it's not a conspiracy theory is it? Whether a fake BC was presented, that's a conspiracy theory. Whether a dual citizen at birth is a natural born citizen is a legal question. But this is VERY encouraging. When the mammoth Factcheck has to grovel before my puny blog, that deserves a round of drinks which is just what I'm about to engage in.

Factcheck has pointed their readership at another blog to explain the quagmire Obama now finds himself in. The blog they pointed to is a propaganda site I usually give no quarter to. You can't argue with liars. And they've got some fat lies up there now. I will address them, and we shall see if this site has the humility to correct themselves as well. Since Factcheck.org is relying on this site, I am preparing a point by point destruction of the nonsense written there. See you in the AM, I am getting out tonight for a change.

I look forward to tomorrow. Lots of interesting things going on in the background and the Undead Revolution thing is almost ready to launch. Things are heating up now. I have adrenalin ignition.]

Brooks Jackson Director, FactCheck.org

Brooks Jackson is a journalist who covered Washington and national politics for 34 years, reporting in turn for The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. At CNN he pioneered the "adwatch" and "factcheck" form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements starting with the presidential election of 1992. His investigative reporting for The AP and the Journal won several national awards.

He is the author of three books: "Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process" (Knopf, 1988); "Broken Promise: Why the Federal Election Commission Failed" (Twentieth Century Fund, 1990); and "unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation" with Kathleen Hall Jamieson (Random House, 2007).

I love how they state that National Review ‘attested’ to 0’s
eligibility ... LOL. Guess they chose to overlook Andrew McCarthy’s take on it:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*snip*

These twists and turns in the Obama narrative rush to mind when we consider National Review’s leap into the Obama-birth-certificate fray with Tuesday’s editorial, “Born in the U.S.A.”

The editorial desire to put to rest the “Obama was born in Kenya” canard is justifiable. The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues.

For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen.

In theory, that could raise a question about whether he qualifies as a “natural born” American — an uncharted constitutional concept.

The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.

Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president).

In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out?

CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATION

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president. On this issue, NRO’s editorial has come in for some blistering criticism. The editorial argues:

The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

On reflection, I think this was an ill-considered assertion. (I should add that I saw a draft of the editorial before its publication, was invited to comment, and lodged no objection to this part.) The folly is made starkly clear in the photos that accompany this angry (at NRO) post from Dave Jeffers, who runs a blog called “Salt and Light.”

To summarize: What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”).

The certification form provides a short, very general attestation of a few facts about the person’s birth: name and sex of the newborn; date and time of birth; city or town of birth, along with the name of the Hawaiian island and the county; the mother’s maiden name and race; the father’s name and race; and the date the certification was filed.

This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.”

Rest here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=931696981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD

Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

Oath of Allegiance

The oath of allegiance is:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

—

Now from the FIRST government site: “a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.”

But in the citizenship OATH a declaration is to be made “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen”

So SOMEBODY is lying.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.