Documents show marriage of Obama's parents a sham

WND ^ | June 06, 2011 | Jerome R. Corsi

[RobinMasters]

The recently released immigration file for Barack Obama Sr. indicates the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service had doubts he and Obama's mother were married.

While Ann Dunham may have sought Obama Sr. as her husband and the father of her child, the record suggests the two never lived together as a married couple.

As WND reported, there's no record of Ann Dunham's whereabouts during the last six months of her pregnancy.

Moreover, within weeks of the baby's birth, Dunham left Honolulu with her infant son and traveled to Seattle, where she enrolled in night courses at the University of Washington. She did not return to Honolulu until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in September 1962 to attend graduate courses at Harvard.

The INS file shows that Barack Obama Sr. was not faithful to Dunham, even when the two were in Hawaii at the same time.

Instead, the documentation supports the conclusion that Obama Sr. and Dunham took part in a sham marriage that the Kenyan student thought might help him extend his visa and remain in the United States to continue his education.

Economic necessity and his desire to complete his studies as soon as possible forced Obama Sr. to remain in Honolulu during the summer months, both to take summer classes and to work part-time.

[curiosity]

I know the exact opposite. I have repeatedly seen the statute allowing Hawaii to do this. Butterzillion has posted it on her website many times.

There you go making things up again. There simply was not statute on the books in 1961 allowing registration of out-of-state births in Hawaii. Period. I personally read the relevant territorial law and there simply is no such provision, your delusions notwithstanding.

[DiogenesLamp]

If he is a bastard, then he never had any citizenship other than American. An illegitimate child obtains his citizenship solely from his mother, and not from his father.

If he is the product of Parthenogenesis, then you have a point. As he is not, you do not.

He would not have been a dual citizen if he was a bastard. Under British law at the time, a child born outside the British Empire had to be legitimate in order to inherit British subjecthood from his father.

You may have missed it, but we threw off British Law in 1776. And Just to illustrate our disagreement with the British regarding "British Father's making British Subjects", we fought the War of 1812 because we specifically disagreed on this point.

BTW, where is it written in the Constitution that dual natioanlity at birth precludes eligibility?

Article II. Divided allegiance is incompatible with a "Natural Born Citizen." A "Natural Born Citizen" cannot have divided Allegiance.

Here, let David Ramsey, Delegate to the Convention, Representative, and Historian, explain it to you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29370568/Mario-Apuzzo-David-Ramsay-Defines-Natural-Born-Citizen

“[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….”

“citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….”

“as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776…

[curiosity]

That DOES NOT prove that what's on his website is authentic. No one has made a detailed comparison between what he supposedly got from Hawaii and that image file he's posted.

Let me get the straight. You believe that Hawaii issued him a certified copy of his long-form, but he posted something else that isn't authentic, and not a single person in the entire Hawaii DOH has cried foul? And birthers wonder why people consider them crazy conspiracy loons...

[DiogenesLamp]

Those weren't in the file you linked to, but I did go look at some of the news stories you are talking about. Harvard awarded Obama Sr. a terminal master's degree and then cut off his funding, and the INS denied a visa extension. But it wasn't for the reasons you say. It was for the simple reason that Harvard would not give him funding to continue his Ph.D. Since he was on a student visa, he had to leave as soon as he coudln't be a student.

Some unnamed sources have claimed Harvard cut off his funding because of his womanizing, but that has not been proven. But I conceed it is possible.

Hmmm.... Maybe you aren't completely unreasonable.

Also, in that file there is a note from INS officials saying they felt the marriage was a sham and needed to be investigated. I'm not going to bother looking it up, because I've noticed you just ignore inconvenient facts.

There you go making up crap agin. Sorry, but there was no such note in the file. I looked.

Your previous willingness to consider the prospect motivates me to find the document in question.

In case that's hard to read, Here is the text.(Last Paragraph.)

"Recommend that Subject be closely questioned before another extension is granted – and denial be considered. If his USC (U.S. Citizen) wife tries to petition for him make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bene-fide (sic) of the marriage."

[curiosity]

You may have missed it, but we threw off British Law in 1776.And Just to illustrate our disagreement with the British regarding "British Father's making British Subjects", we fought the War of 1812 because we specifically disagreed on this point.

Huh? Weren't you just arguing that Obama is British because he had a British father? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

As to your other quotes, not a single one of them supports your contention that a person isn't eligible to be president just because the British crown claimed him as a subject during his childhood.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you're basing that on what, exactly?And you're basing that on what, exactly?

Already covered it.

[DiogenesLamp]

There you go making things up again. There simply was not statute on the books in 1961 allowing registration of out-of-state births in Hawaii. Period. I personally read the relevant territorial law and there simply is no such provision, your delusions notwithstanding.

And what do I get for proving you wrong again? I'm thinking at this point the audience is mostly just you and I, and worrying about convincing you is like the prosecuting attorney worry about convincing the defense attorney. Doesn't matter if I do, you'll keep defending your client. Give me a good reason why I should bother looking this up? I suspect you already know where it is, and are just doing your routine contrarian schtick.

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me get the straight. You believe that Hawaii issued him a certified copy of his long-form, but he posted something else that isn't authentic, and not a single person in the entire Hawaii DOH has cried foul? And birthers wonder why people consider them crazy conspiracy loons...

Let me HELP you get it straight. I believe Hawaii has issued him a certified copy of an abstract of whatever has been put into his record, and I don't KNOW if he posted THAT or something else. Either way, it isn't an ORIGINAL, so it doesn't make any difference. As for DOH crying foul? They've been HELPING this guy every step of the way. Why should a state run entirely by Democrats want to trip up their own claimed native son? Apart from it being ILLEGAL for them to confirm or not anything in his records without his permission, why would any of them WANT to?

[curiosity]

Yeah, I saw that. Note that they only called for an investigation IF his wife petitioned to get him a visa. Of course, we know she never did this, which makes it very unlikely his marriage was a sham contracted solely for immigration purposes. Instead, she divorced him before his visa was up for renewal.

It is quite obvious that Obama Sr. was not behaving as if he were trying to use his marriage to get a visa. If you're in a sham marriage for immigration purposes, you want to do everything in your power to make it appear as if the marriage is legit. Obama Sr. seems to have been totally indifferent to anyone's perception of his marriage. That most certainly IS NOT behavior consistent with a sham marriage.

Instead, the evidence suggests that Obama Sr. was simply a deadbeat who never intended to be faithful to his wife or to ever have any part in his son's life.

But you know what? I don't really care. Go on believing it was a sham marriage if that's what you want to do.

Just answer me this: why do you care so much about Obama Sr's marriage? Of what possible relevance is it to Obama Jr's eligbility or fitness to be president?

[curiosity]

And what do I get for proving you wrong again? I'm thinking at this point the audience is mostly just you and I, and worrying about convincing you is like the prosecuting attorney worry about convincing the defense attorney. Doesn't matter if I do, you'll keep defending your client. Give me a good reason why I should bother looking this up?

In other words, you can't find the relevant section of the law because it doesn't exist. Thought so.

[curiosity]

I believe Hawaii has issued him a certified copy of an abstract of whatever has been put into his record, and I don't KNOW if he posted THAT or something else. Either way, it isn't an ORIGINAL, so it doesn't make any difference.

Why does it matter whether it's an original? An certified abstract is just as good in court as a certified original for proving the facts of birth.

As for DOH crying foul? They've been HELPING this guy every step of the way. Why should a state run entirely by Democrats want to trip up their own claimed native son?

Okay, so you believe the entire DOH is in on the conspiracy. Thanks for confirming.

[DiogenesLamp]

Huh? Weren't you just arguing that Obama is British because he had a British father? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I know this is hard for you but please try to keep up. I am arguing that British Law is irrelevant to American eligibility. The British attempted to claim American Sailors because they had "British Fathers". The War of 1812 was the manner in which we expressed our disagreement with this idea.

The only thing that matters in American law regarding Eligibility is whether a child has an American Father or not. If not, then it doesn't matter what his father was, he wasn't American so the child is not Eligible under Article II.

As to your other quotes, not a single one of them supports your contention that a person isn't eligible to be president just because the British crown claimed him as a subject during his childhood.

That is an argument I've never made. It matters not who claims the father. It only matters who DOESN'T claim the Father. The United States of America DOESN'T Claim Obama's father, (As expressed so thoroughly in his ejection from the nation.) so the son isn't born completely as one of us either. He carries the taint of foreign influence, and illegitimacy.

[DiogenesLamp]

In other words, you can't find the relevant section of the law because it doesn't exist. Thought so.

Ha ha ha ha... You are not going to bait me into playing this game. If you are the only audience, (which seems to be the case at the moment) then i'm going to go do more important stuff. I think your method of debating is more like Discovery where you don't seek to learn anything to educate yourself, but instead want to know what kind of ammunition your opponent is bringing against you. (Also, making them waste time with searches that are pointless because you will ignore the information anyway.)

Got better things to do right now. Talk at ya later.

[curiosity]

The only thing that matters in American law regarding Eligibility is whether a child has an American Father or not.

Interesting theory. Too bad there isn't anything to support it.

[curiosity]

And I agree with you on this. Stanley wasn't embarrassed, but I bet her Mother was mortified. (didn't tell her coworkers she had a grandson.)

Wait a minute. I thought birthers believed she placed the birth announcements in the papers? Why would she do that if she wanted to keep the birth a secret?

[noinfringers2]

And there is still the problem with his SS number/card.

[Plummz]

Transporting a minor across state lines for sexual purposes is a federal crime, regardless of the age of consent for the state(s) in question.

[Plummz]

The U.S. Constitution requires the President be a natural born citizen.

Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.

[curiosity]

The U.S. Constitution requires the President be a natural born citizen.

I agree. However, nothing in either the writings of the founders, nor in US case law even remotely suggests that a person must have a US citizen father to be a natural born citizen.

[Plummz]

Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com