Cheers!
Posted on 03/01/2012 1:50:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
I just finished Watching Sheriff Arpaio's press conference. The Sheriff's posse has concluded that the document was created on a computer and is therefore a forgery.
I will once again point out that if Obama was adopted, he would get a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate, but it will in fact have been created by the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii at the Direction of an Hawaiian State Judge.
"The Obama was Adopted" theory addresses the "forgery" issue head on, and precludes it from being a crime. In my opinion, this is the simplest explanation for the fact that Obama's document looks cobbled together, and that Hawaii is tacitly confirming it as legitimate.
I will further add, (for those who have not already been so informed) that *I* was adopted, and *I* have a birth certificate which was created six years after I was born, and is in fact a replacement birth certificate that lists my new last name, new parent's names, etc.
This theory ties up a lot of the loose ends neatly (not all of them) and it doesn't involve believing that the Hawaiian government is involved in a criminal "conspiracy." I urge people to consider this idea before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved with producing this document has committed a criminal act.
You are dead wrong. Minor children cannot renounce their birthright under US law.
Soetoro's school record is proof of nothing in that regard.
Parents can and do change their childs citizenship all the time.
Mebbe so. But, so what?
The parents cannot renounce their minor child's birthright to US citizenship.
As your very own assertion confirms.
Cheers!
And Citizen AT birth is not the only require of being a natural born Citizen.
A child whose parents did give up their citizenship do have a right to ‘reclaim’ their citizenship. But they must actually reclaim it. And the process is one of naturalization. Thus, they are naturalized and no longer ‘natural born’.
This is Obama’s likely problem. If he did properly reclaim his citizenship he citizenship is via naturalization.
Obots always flip out on Indonesia. And have since the beginning.
Its fun to watch.
Better go study your immigration law and not just quote the party line.
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with immigration law. It's nationality and citizenship law that governs the situation under discussion.
And, for the record, I was a student in International Law at the time in question.
If he and his enablers can get away with fraud of this magnitude, what makes you think that your puny vote or any time on a hypothetical "clock" will matter in the least to your new overlords?
It only IS for as long as we allow it to continue without resisting. Every single person I've met who was ignorant on this subject and whom I've ever had the opportunity to explain this issue to, in some depth, has had a "holy cr@p!" moment when their eyes were opened to the insane bs that is being allowed to happen at the very highest levels of our government, our supposed (erstwhile, in my opinion) servants and stewards.
DL,
The major issue I have with your adoption theory is this: If the state government issued a re-created edition of a birth certificate for adoption purposes and prior records were sealed by court order, why would the WH put up a computer-generated image instead of a simple scanned copy of an abstract that Hawaii created and printed on security paper which ostensibly Barry's attorney went to that state to retrieve two hard copies of?
If Barry and his lawyer showed up in a friendly Hawaii judge’s chambers in 2008 and said “I just remembered, my mom said I was born at Kapiolani,” the judge could have the records changed and it would be perfectly “legal.”
Be that as it may, we have the State Department documents indicating l'il Soebarkah was no longer American. This process usually involves an interview of the child by a State Department official. So, it may have been wee Soebarkah himself who denounced his citizenship.
A minor child cannot renounce his birthright U.S. citizenship. Nor can a parent renounce it for him.
At the same time, the minor can be considered a citizen or a national of another country (e.g., Indonesia). But he does not lose his claim on U.S. citizenship upon reaching his majority.
So, it is quite conceivable that State Department documents might identify him as an Indonesian national -- but it does not change the fact of his birthright claim upon reaching his majority.
Note: A person making such a birthright claim is NOT considered a "naturalized citizen". They are a U.S. citizen from birth.
I’m somewhat confused. If what you say is true, then why would the Obama team release an adopted birth certificate, since the only way to prove NBC status would be with an original? Did they think it would deflect just enough attention, or that it would distract truth-seekers for another year?
You can repeat it but it doesn't make it true. which it ain't. There's a document from the State Department posted on this thread proving this.
the fact of his birthright claim
His claim is more statutory than "birthright," assuming his biological and legal father is the British subject he says it is.
Have you ever seen any photos of her pregnant?
No, but there are plenty floating around from seconds before she got pregnant. Miss Stanley was a real Georgetown law student.
I think she was sent to an unwed mothers home in Vancouver. She intended to give up the baby. Then changed her mind and kept him. Explains how she showed up in Seattle with a newborn that she didn’t know how to diaper.
People will go to extremes for the sake of appearance.
(Oops, left off my response)
All by itself, it wouldn’t indicate much. But considering the other factors, it is highly suspicious.
But to say there's "evidence" is tricky. That can mean anything from vague indications that your theory is not wholly impossible or implausible to hard factual documentation. So far, it's more the former than the latter.
As far as I know, there are no pictures of my mother when she was pregnant, and she had 5 of us. I have no pictures of my wife when SHE was pregnant. My family has never been much for photography. I just don’t see it as being very indicative of anything.
_________________________________________
I don’t really think the fact that there are no photos of a pregnant Stanley Anne is a big deal. There may have been one or more and they got lost, or there many never have been any for one reason or another.
HOWEVER.......this was in the 60’s. They were not a poor family. There are plenty of photos of Stanley Anne as a child, with her parents and photos of her parents when they were young. Stanley was an only child. Barry was their first grandchild(supposedly) and Stanley Anne’s first child(supposedly) yet not a single photo of her or the grandparents with new born Barry. NONE! The first photo of (supposedly) baby Barry is one where he is several months old and he is the only one in the photo.
You don’t find this interesting?
IMHO this thread is all about muddying the waters and distraction and the OP getting his jollies doing so.
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.