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 Corsi’s new book, "Where’s 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 ...
Are you willing to admit that the focus on “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was a mistake?
Listen to the podcast. Obama got punk’d becuase Corsi’s new book deals primarily with the lack of eligibility of Obama as POTUS. The bc is only a part of the conversation.
It got Obama to pre-emptively release a document that HE NOW OWNS. Let’s see if it will stand up to scrutiny...
First, IIRC, Wayne Madsden is not an approved source or link on FR. Madsden’s stock in trade is unattributed claims (claims secret sources) for spectacularly sensational revelations (too good to check, IMO). For example Madsden was the source of the “SADO was pregnant on the beach in Kenya story and the baby was registered with the local Imam,” IIRC.
Second, think about it. Wouldn't any alleged CIA cover have been blown by 1980 if “According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that “Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960”.[6]
What kind of cover would this company have, if the story it provided to a handful of (foreign based?) employees before Obama was born was published the NY Times in 1977, right before Obama shows up in NYC??? How stupid do folks think the CIA or our enemies are?
If this company's cover was blown in 1977 in the NY Times, it seems irrelevant that it was “identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, issue 14 in 1987.”
I regard Lobster Magazine to be a spectacularly unreliable Commie tinged source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster_Magazine
“Lobster was launched in 1983 by Robin Ramsay and Stephen Dorril. The name was suggested by Dorril, who had previously wanted to call a band ‘Lobster’. In 1991 they described themselves in Lobster 22 as Dorril is a Freudo-anarchist, with Situationist tendencies; and Ramsay is a premature anti-Militant member of the soft old left of the Labour Party.”
Second, think about it.
Do you think the focus on “Where is the Birth Certificate?” was a mistake?
“I’m telling Daddy!” isn’t an answer.
Do you think it was a mistake to focus on the Birth Certificate?
There isn't one single document which supports Mary Toutonghi’s 50-year-old memory (which she explicitly stated was questionable) that her own child was a certain age at the time she babysat Stanley Ann Dunham Obama’s baby, Barry in Seattle in early 1962 in the rental house they are documented to have occupied at the same time, as corroborated by U. of WA transcripts and Polk.
There isn't a single document which supports a non-SADO wife of BHO Sr. in the US _prior_ to SADO who had a baby and who was conincidentally named Anna Obama and coincidentally was babysat for by Mary Toutonghi in Seattle but in January of 1961. There are no documents, testimony, eyewitness, no nothing to support this theory, yet folks are supposed to go to the "Auntie thread" and also see no documentary support for this theory.
When you get a document, any document which supports the non-SADO person or positive evidence that BHO Sr was somewhere other than Kenya in 1959 before coming to the US, I would be glad to consider it. On that score, nearly 60-year-old memories of Senior's teachers in high school claiming knowledge of events after he left aren't persuasive to me and are refuted by INS documents and contemporaneous newspaper accounts in 1959 showing a 1959 arrival from Kenya in HI!
This was on subject inasmuch as this delusion is tied directly into the notion that he HAD an Indonesian passport (and thus Indonesian citizenship) because he supposedly couldn't get into Pakistan with an American one (he could have).
Many of the following posts were about the Passport - i.e. maybe he has an Indonesian passport - try to follow now - ON SUBJECT.
Then someone brought up the Social Security cards. I didn't bring it up. I replied. Not sure how Indonesia ties into Social Security Cards (dare I ask?) - but I was not the one bringing it up.
Do you call to task the poster who brought up the SS cards for not staying on subject? No.
Do you bother to correct the poster who is STILL suffering under the delusion that there was a travel ban on Pakistan in 1981? No.
Why not?
Why do birthers still get away with the “travel ban” nonsense without a single birther saying “Don't say that, it is wrong, and you will make us sound like idiots!”.
Why is there no effort at all expended towards clearing up these commonly held misconceptions?
Hey, dreamer? Didn’t you use to hang around with that islamist activist from Virginia? Ismail?? The guy who had supposedly wormed himself into some hi-level conservative staff??
Who are you, feathers??
I don't know, nor would I care to know, any Islamist activists - and I don't know who “Ismail” is - or what conservative staff he has wormed his way into.
Thanks for asking!!!! :)
Having dealt with you once before on this topic, I am not going to get into an extended debate.
But, impeachment is not the issue here. When you have an office holder who is not eligible to hold the office, he isn't the office holder. His purported acts are void. There is Supreme Court authority which you posted directly on point. If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, he isn't the President either.
So in a sense, impeachment and the 25th Amendment are the only methods for removing a sitting President; and impeachment appears to be within the sole purview of the Senate. Assuming Obama is not Natural Born, impeachment is not the remedy because not being President, he cannot be the target of an impeachment.
The release this morning of the claim letter from the Osama Bin Laden heirs may well operate to bring the issue back to the table.
International Law requires that to avoid prosecution and Criminal Liability, the Seals who carried out the mission were required to have been acting on lawful orders and were further obligated, as were their superior officers, to challenge orders which were not lawful.
Lawful orders among other things require issue by the Commander in Chief.
So if these guys were relying on orders from Obama and he is not a NBC, the orders were not lawful and they have a criminal murder problem (maybe).
There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.
No they did not.
and I sent you a check-mate post from a plethora of other Kenyans saying the exact same thing!!!
Unofficial statements by Kenyans with no knowledge of the circumstances of his birth do not trump the official statements of Hawaii officials who do have such knowledge.
Keep on writing your nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Obama has *not* presented any Birth certificate in the form of a physical paper legal document with the embossed [raised] seal of Hawaii DOH to the WH journalists.
Only scans, photocopies and digital photographs. None of these would be acceptable in a court of law because they are obviously not secure against forgery.
Its all up the the various states Secretary of States to require legal proof of Constitutional elligiblity for POTUS candidates.
Why don’t you try your photocopies, digital pictures and scans with the new Republican SOS’s elected or appointed by new Governors in 2010?
All it takes is one of them to authenticate that 151 file number and the game is up.
The proof is in their divorce. A couple can't get divorced unless they were married in the first place. Duh. Whether Obama Sr. was or wasn't served is immaterial.
Just catching up and this is a "WOW!" statement.
The proof is in their divorce. A couple can’t get divorced unless they were married in the first place. Duh. Whether Obama Sr. was or wasn’t served is immaterial.
Was Sr. served with a marriage license as well?
Ah yes the divorce papers. With the missing page.
What? the Dog ate it? Wasn’t he full on SAD’s passport application...
This was the key point in dispute at the May 2 Drake hearing, IMO.
Judge Berzon agrees with you, as I suspect does most of the federal bench, but DeJute, on orders from Obama and Holder, disagrees with you and, as teased out by Judge Fisher in the final minutes, argues that elligibility of a president-elect cannot be determined by the courts, but goes to the electors and congress and as soon as POTUS is inaugurated, both eligibility and the very constitutional definition of NBC language in A2 is the sole responsibility of the Senate, and not the federal courts including SCOTUS!
This cringing by the federal bench over the DOJ stripping them of ability to rule on the meaning of constitutional language is why the 9th agreed to hear this case.
Hmmm...I might have to post a vanity on this...:
DeJute even
DEJUTE: It’s a distinction worth noting because the commitment to the House is that that body has the sole authority under the Constitution…
BERZON: …to impeach.
DEJUTE: To impeach. And the Senate has the sole authority…
37:00 BERZON: But this wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment, would it?
DEJUTE: Wouldn’t it be a high crime and misdemeanor? I don’t know…we’re in the area of there has clearly been no case law. But I do know that if the Constitution says that the only body that can remove a sitting president is the Congress in both houses, then the…
37:22 BERZON: Where does it say 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.