I have seen there is a new argument in the attempt to prove Obama is not eligible to serve as president, and, though I promised I was not going to say any more on the topic, I feel I should address the new argument (actually two arguments), as I have been rather vocal in arguing that this topic should be abandoned.

The first argument seems to me a rather dubious one. It is based on the fact that Obama received a Fulbright Scholarship which requires foreign citizenship. Now, what makes this particularly amusing is that it assumes that a college application is proof of citizenship. However, even if we assume that the application is entirely correct, it still doe snot prove that Obama is not eligible to serve as president. As I mentioned previously, the people making this argument seem to be unaware of any citizenship laws after 1922. According to the law of 1940, as amended in 1952, if Obama returned to the US as a resident, then he retained his citizenship. Even had he at some point claimed Indonesian citizenship, this would not invalidate his US citizenship, and thus, he is eligible for the presidency.

Of course, this is even more silly, as it is completely possible Obama met the requirements to have US citizenship while still qualifying as a foreign national for purposes of a scholarship. As anyone who has paid state taxes yet not been a state resident for tuition purposes can attest, colleges and universities do not always follow the state or federal rules concerning residence and citizenship. The fact that Obama claimed, and was recognized, as "Indonesian" for purposes of a Fulbright says nothing about his citizenship for purposes of constitutional law. And that makes this one of the silliest claims yet.

The second claim, which is given less coverage, is actually the more interesting. Unfortunately I have not had time to do much research to confirm or deny it, so I will have to follow up shortly. However, the claim is that Obama's half-sister managed to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate despite being born in Indonesia. That may make Obama's birth certificate suspect, but it may not. You see, I have run into these claims before, where a piece of evidence contradicting a dubious claim is used as evidence for still more dubious claims. So, as I don't know whether his half-sister obtained a birth certificate, nor where she was born, I have to look into it more. If it is true, it may be relevant, or it may not. I still say the birth announcement from 1961 sells me on Obama's US birth, despite all the claims of a family plot in 1961. I just can't buy the idea his grandmother wanted him to have a birth in the US that long ago, since the only reason for it would be to keep his presidential eligibility alive. For anything else, his mother's US citizenship would be enough. So it seems far fetched to think anyone published a fake birth announcement because they knew the newborn would want to run for president one day.

Still, I will look into the claims about his sister's birth certificate and follow up, at least I will see what I can find. Sometimes the claims are based on such sketchy evidence it is simply impossible to find the truth, as the evidence presented by those making the claim is nearly worthless, and the claim so outlandish, the mainstream simply doesn't bother to rebut it. However, I will do my best, and get back to my readers with whatever I find.

POSTSCRIPT

The following are my previous articles about the many claims that Obama is ineligible for the presidency:

An Interesting Question
A Small Update on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Birth Certificate Controversy Revisited
One More Post on the Birth Certificate Controversy
Really, The Last One on This Topic
Wrong is Wrong
A Few Comments on the Berg Ruling
A New Take on an Old Topic
A Brief Follow Up
Slate Imitates Me, But I Really Don't Mind

As you can tell, I find the individual claims pretty uniformly without merit, however I am disturbed by the claims of many courts that make it appear no one has standing to bring such charges. While I recognize allowing anyone to bring such suits would cripple our election process, there needs to be someone with standing to file such suits, and if no one else, it would seem another candidate for the same position would have standing, as the pool is quite restrictive and also filled with those in an adversarial position, likely to bring charges if they seemed plausible. Limiting those with standing to government officials would not have the same benefit, as if the same party holds office it is likely charges will never be brought. So, for the time being, I think the best choice would be other candidates.

As I mention conspiracy theory thinking in some of these posts, here is a list of my posts on conspiracy theories (excluding the birth certificate controversy):

Sinister PNAC? Hardly!
Food For Thought
Bill Clinton Murdered Leon Trotsky!
Idiots or Geniuses?
Dismissing Conspiracy Theories
Our New Paranoia
259 Lies?
Isn't History Enough?
The Appeal of Conspiracy Theories
A Shortcoming of Conspiracy Theories
Amusingly Left Wing
Absurdities on Oil
Your Fellow Man
Revival of an Old Absurdity
A Question for Those Who Believe "Bush Lied"
Tips for Conspiracy Theory Buffs #1
Rewriting History Concerning World War II
Those Darn Jews
Those Darn Jews Part 2
One Last Time
Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic
Conspiracy Theory Enters the Mainstream
Can They Both Lose?
All In How You Say It
Conspiracy Theories
Sorry, But Jews Aren't the Problem

I know many who believe in the birth certificate claims and related issues are not engaging in traditional conspiracy theory thinking, but in many ways it does resemble other conspiracy theories, most notably how when one theory is disproved another pops up, basically taking the conclusion as a given and then looking for evidence, the same way the Truthers "know" the standard explanation of 9/11 is wrong, and then look for proof.