Skip to comments.Was Obama an Indonesian citizen? [Evidence raises concerns over presidential qualification]
Posted on 05/09/2011 8:35:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the "child" of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
Jerome Corsis new book, "Wheres the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore
The divorce records state: "The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education."
The records further identify the "oldest child" as "in university."
"Mother resides with youngest child in 4-bedroom house provided by mother's employer," continues the divorce documents.
The documents identify the minor as Obama's stepsister, Maya Soetoro.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You’re a liar. Prove that Obama sr signature is on a Barry jr BC! You stealth obamanoids will tell any lie to defend your barry bass turd.
A significant anomaly:
Obama's passport file was accessed by an employee of Brennan's Analysis Corp.
Brennan was Obama's first choice for DCI.
Payment for services rendered.
The issue is not going away. It's a lead balloon for Obama. Obama has only temporarily stymied the questions, with the death of Osama Obama and his fake COLB, about his past. It won't be long before the momentum builds to where it was, and you're right, you can see the Obama bucket brigade is out in force. LoL.
Yes, I got "it". You think that this is important for some reason. Of course, you have yet to explain what possible relevance this has for Obama's citizenship.
Since 1898, the citizenship status of the parents of a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is irrelevant to that person's own US citizenship. It's settled law.
What else would her missing passport records show?"
Who cares? Whatever it shows or doesn't show has no bearing on Obama.
A common law marriage has to have a divorce decree to end it, yet there will be no marriage certificate. Happens here in Tennessee all the time. However, SADO was not connected to Obama sr long enough to have a common law marriage, therefore absent a marriage certificate (and none has been shown or attached to the divorce decree) I presume a fraud in obtainging a divorce decree.
You are probably thinking of honorary or ceremonial citizenship, as opposed to substantive (for lack of a better word) citizenship. That's a horse of a different color. But you have to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written. The founders didn't want anyone with even the slightest suspicion of loyalties to another nation (anywhere in their background) to assume the presidency. If you had loyalties elsewhere by being born to one parent who was a citizen of a foreign country, regardless of where you were born, you can not be president.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if some presidents were made honorary citizens of foreign countries during their presidencies and still ran for second terms (or in Franklin D. Roosevelt's case, a third and then a forth term).
Yes, I agree entirely. THAT was the point I was making. Some people are claiming that Obama's purported birth certificate is fraudulent because it doesn't show his Indonesian adoption. My point was, because of HI law, that Indonesian adoption wouldn't have been reflected in Obama's original birth records unless his mother and step-father moved legally to change those records.
"Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything."
How can the law of the place of one's birth "not have anything to do with it"?
Again, what’s the point? His whole past is a fraud. But just looking at facts we can’t, nor can anyone else, change the fact that there was a divorce.
Who cares? Whatever it shows or doesn’t show has no bearing on Obama.
BALONEY her paaport records would show if BHOzo was ever on her passport and if Obie’s citizenship was Aerican. It would aloso show whether she had a passport and the ability to travel to Kenya in 1961. I suggest you keep the mop handy, investigation is not your bailiwick.
Since 1898, the citizenship status of the parents of a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is irrelevant to that person’s own US citizenship. It’s settled law.
“subject to the jurisdiction” is not settled law.
Obama could have rescinded his Oath of Renunciation anytime before his 18th birtday plus 6 months, but he chose to naturalize instead.
Well, ignoring Plyler v Doe argumentum, what is SETTLED law is the context of how that phrase is applied in Ark. And in Ark, the Court says...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."If Ark - a child with no citizen-parents is a US citizen, and he CLEARLY IS, then Obama is a US citizen. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.
See Post #158. The Indiana Court of Appeals, the only US court to offer an opinion on the merits of this question, disagree. A unanimous held...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens
I understand that you probably disagree with the finding of the court, but so far, that's the only legal opinion where comment on the merits of this issue have been offered as the central legal holding of a case.
Please don’t talk about jurisdiction so much, you clearly don’t understand all of the ramifications here. At least that is the polite interpretation. Dr Ann Dunham Soetoro’s actions might have a lot to do with this argument. They also might not. I’d like to see her passport records for this period too to find out if President Obama is, or was, dual national Indonesian/American. According to the USDOS a dual citizen is subject to the laws/jurisdictions of both countries equally, except when the person is in the specific countries in which they hold citizenship. Then, that particular country holds the rights. So, if you are a dual US/Irish citizen you answer to US law in the USA and Irish law in the Irish Republic. Of course Ireland is in the EU, so you are also an EU citizen and answerable to EU law in the EU. Outside the EU you answer to US, Irish and EU law equally. This is why dual citizenship is a problem in an executive head of state. You should read the Civil Rights Act 1866 and the Expatriation Act 1868 to discover what jurisdiction means in the 14th Amendment. You are misusing Wong Kim Ark and you are wrong. I’ll repeat there may have been no adoption at all. Can you read Dutch or Bahasa Indonesian?
For undergraduate studies that is simply not true.
Rhodes Scholarships (in the other direction) were just one form such scholarships took.
Rhodes scholarships are for graduate studies, not undergraduate.
The fact is there are very, very few scholarships available for foreign undergraduates. It is MUCH easier to get financial aid for college if you are a US citizen, especially if your skin is dark.
LOL. Why would anyone bother getting divorced if they weren't married?
Sure, me and the three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is "wrong".
That's very believable. /s
Look, you're entitled to your very strange opinion, but if you're going to opine that someone is wrong, perhaps that will carry a bit more weight if you can provide some supporting evidence of that opinion, preferably a court decision or two would be nice.
I'm not the one making affirmative claims about his financial aid. That would be the Birthers.
We agree on the Founders’ intent. But for purposes of clarity, if we ever (and we SHOULD) amended the Constitution for clarity of who becomes a citizen and who is indeed a NB citizen, we need to separate the actions of the individual from involuntary actions.
Theoretically, another country can confer a true citizenship upon someone if they wished, and thus make him (or her) ineligible. This is not what we are talking about. That should be non valid.
I also do not think that if a child is born to naturalized citizen(s), on American soil, the fact that the child may have “citizenship” in the parent(s)’ former land is OF NO ISSUE. As long as the child grows up and shows NO allegiance as an adult to the parents’ first country, this should not matter.
There are probably thousands of Americans in that position. I believe that Mexico allows that their citizens remain their citizens even after they become naturalized Americans, and the children of those people can still be listed as Mexican citizens (though the parents may have to formally tell Mexico of their existence). Again, though, the acts of the parents, as long as they are Americans, should not affect that future child.
The most important part of the Constitutional amendment HAS to be that citizenship of the USA is not automatic upon birth on our soil unless the parent was LEGALLY here. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES.
Exactly, the divorce decree exists.
Do you deny that?
He should have used my label:
ÜberCommie & Bitch
Was there such a thing as common law marriage in the early 60’s?
I thought that didn’t come around until the late 70’s early 80’s??
Do you deny that?
Of course not. Stanley and Obama Sr. were married and then shortly later divorced.
The fact that they were divorced proves they had been married, since it is absurd to think anyone would (or even could) get divorced without being married in the first place.
I assume she got a “divorce” from the Kenyan Obama so as to provide cover for the child she starting taking care of. The child needed a name, a father, citizenship of some sort, paperwork that showed all of that, so she could have legal custody as a putative mother.
There may be have been some sort of marriage document as evidence in a file that has been found and reported on FR. All for legal paperwork so she could have legal custody of the child.
Finally got my internet back on today but supposed to be doing other stuff.
This is all very interesting. “They” wouldn’t be all over this thread if this topic was “nothing” to 0bama, or their favorite, “He likes it because it makes conservatives look like kooks” - I love that one.
That's very believable. /s"
Regarding that state of Indiana case:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States at the time of his birth. 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a natural born Citizen using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?
If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).
That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
Yes, but not in all states, and I don't think Hawaii had it. Regardless, it doesn't matter, since SAD and Obama Sr. weren't together long enough to have a common law marriage; they hadn't even been together a year before they separated.
Glad you agree, that makes obama ineligible if Sr. is the father.
Where’s Sr.’s signature you keep talking about?
And by the way, where’s the recording of the adoption by Lolo Soetoro which legally has to be on the bc?
Podcast The Peter Boyles Show - May 10, 2011 7am
WND.com publisher Joe Farah came on the show to talk about the latest birther issues.
Yes, the answer is there is no reason to get divorced if you aren't married. No one would do it. Hence we can infer from their divorce that they did go through with a marriage ceremony. Perhaps their that marriage wasn't legal, but it did happen and is presumed legal and valid until anulled.
Bigamy is illegal in all 50 states of this country. Stanley Ann Dunham could not have married Barack Hussein Obama in the United States because he already had a wife in Kenya. If they were married in Hawaii because he and possibly Stanley Ann lied, then that marriage would be null and void and a divorce would have no legal standing,
I suppose it is possible that Obama Sr. committed bigamy when he married SAD. Why should I care?
This is an outright forgery. This is not the president’s footprint.
The president’s “footprint” is well known to be a HOOF PRINT.
A link, you say? All links are sealed by EO!
they were at least assumed legally married
yes if thats what happened
there is something on this thread that worries the trolls.
That something would be the Nana...
Nanas make sense...
Why do you think the TSA pays so much more physical attention to Nanas that want to fly the once-friendly skies ???
Nanas are dangerous to idiots that want to their lies to be swallowed...
Nanas are notorious for not backing down...
Nanas will keep on exposing lies...
mere slaps and ugly words dont stop us...
we just wash the mouth/keyboard out of the kid that posts naughty words...laugh...and keep on going...
Oh yes the trolls have got them
Worries R Trolls
but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States
obies father was a visitor on a visitor’s visa his father was not admitted for permanent residence...big difference...just like kids born here to illegals its not settled law..you fail. brak out the swab mate.
But you did get the 1/3 beast number
that has to mean something
Hannity is discussing this right now on his show
he has an ObamaBot caller
Lol. I’m just glad to see the trolls back in action. When they got quiet there for a while, it worried me. But seeing them out in force means *they* are worried. Looks as if they have good cause to be. All is not smooth sailing for Barry. He got his Osama respite, and now all the nagging questions/issues are coming back to haunt him. Wait till a Swiftboat-esque group starts running ads against him. There won’t be enough cigarettes in the world, to calm his ever increasingly rattled nerves.
There's an easy explanation for that: the original Constitution, of course, didn't number the clauses. That's done later, for reference. The original Clause 3 was later superseded by the 12th Amendment. In versions of the Constitution you can find online, that clause is often highlighted somehow because of the change. So if you don't count Clause 3 (because it's been replaced), that makes the original Clause 5 now Clause 4.
So are you seriously suggesting they got divorced even though they were never married?
Okay, so why do you, Oh Great Patriot, care whether the long-dead father of an American president was a bigamist? Of what possible relevance is it to anything?
Clear as mud.
Your good friend in the Whit-Hut is part of "birtherland" and you are a part of the "after-birtherland!!!
Now if that was the fact as you soooooo misleading claim, why did your friend in the Whit-Hut demanded the Senate Res. 511???
Gee, how about that?
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.