I disdain the use of the word "conspiracy" because it has been an accusation from the beginning that those of us who feel we are being kept in the dark about his actual documents are kooks and nuts just waiting for black helicopters to fly over our houses where we crouch in the basement hiding while wearing aluminum-foil hats.
People imply that a coverup must somehow involve a massive conspiracy utilizing all the resources of the "New World Order", the Bilbibergers, the Tri-Lateral Commission, and all that crap. I have said all along, it's just Barack Obama lying to protect his own A$$. (And possibly his grandmother protecting her grandchild.)
I'm skeptical, because 1) those signs may point to a formal and official adoption or something much more informal and unofficial, and 2) it's not clear how Indonesian and US law interact, what kind of Indonesian legal proceedings would have changed Obama's status.
And this is the most salient point of the idea. *I* am convinced he was adopted by Indonesian standards under Indonesian law, but whether or not that has any effect on his American Status is in my mind vague and indeterminate. At this point I drag out one of my old rules.
People do things based on what they *THINK*, not necessarily what *IS*. All it takes for Grandma Dunham to take action is a BELIEF that it will have an effect. It is entirely reasonable to believe Grandma Dunham could be motivated to act on uncertainty in order to guarantee certainty regarding the status of her Grandson. (Who by this time she cared about.)
Maya's understanding of "adoption" and Indonesian adoption law is shaky, and can't be taken as hard evidence that there was a formal legal adoption. If you want to rely on her testimony, though, it sounds like she's saying there most likely wasn't a Hawaiian adoption of Barack by Lolo.
I'm not suggesting any of it is "hard" evidence, it's all circumstantial, but it is nonetheless persuasive circumstantial evidence due to the number of pieces of it, and the subsequent behavior of those involved.
I'm also skeptical of the Soebarkah story. True, the name is there in black and white on the paperwork, but it's in parenthesis after Barack Hussein Obama. We're free to speculate about why it's there and why both names are crossed out, but we don't know with any certainty. It's an indication that something may have happened, but not proof.
Again, I put it in the category of indicative, not conclusive.
The deportation (which I didn't know about before) and divorce papers are more substantial. The response, though, would be that when you live a double life, with some things official and legal and others informal and unbinding, you can get confused about what the actual legal status of your affairs is. If you're fighting deportation, you're going to use whatever arguments are available, regardless of whether they are true or reflect the real legal state of things.
No doubt. Barack Obama sr. tried to use Barry in the same way. To fight deportation. (Barack sr. was only in the country because he lied on his Visa application. US Law at the time barred entry to anyone who associated with Communists or Polygamists.)
And I'd need more information before I could safely say that what the mention of Barack Obama as an adult child "still dependent on the parties for education." I'd want to know what the common practice in cases like this was, and what reasons there might have been for listing or not listing a stepchild.
Like I said, your theory is interesting. It's more plausible than most of the others I've come across. It could very well be true. But I'm going to wait for more evidence.
Nothing wrong with that. That is actually how I prefer to do things. My efforts are not intended to convince anyone that things actually happened this way. My efforts are to show people that they MIGHT have happened this way, and to keep this theory in mind when evaluating the possibilities. When a piece of evidence pops up to either reinforce or impugn the theory, we will be better able to see what is the actual truth. I just want people to consider the idea as a possibility, not the ONLY possibility.
You may be convinced of the truth of your version of things, but "a good circumstantial case" doesn't mean that the burden of proof switches to the other side. You could show motive, means, and opportunity, but you still haven't proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, i'm not convinced of the truth of this theory either. There are bits and pieces that make me wonder if it is correct. (The pencil marks on his long form birth certificate. The Daily Pen has a very good explanation for them, but it requires the document to be real and authentic, if I understand the article correctly.)
Again, I just want it (the theory) on the table among the other selections.
No doubt. Barack Obama sr. tried to use Barry in the same way. To fight deportation. (Barack sr. was only in the country because he lied on his Visa application. US Law at the time barred entry to anyone who associated with Communists or Polygamists.
___________________________________
So Stanley Anne and Sr. go to Kenya, bring back a black baby, say it’s theirs, thinking then Sr. can stay in the US but it doesn’t work. She’s stuck with the kid, Sr. takes off for greener pastures and she marries Lolo and takes the kid to Indonesia. He’s a pain in the a$$, he’s not her kid, when FMD got his divorce and his wife moved out, she brings him back and dumps him on her parents and FMD agrees to help? But there is the Lolo adoption issue so Sr. is paid to come back for a week and clear that up? Is that what you are getting at?
But would he have renounced US citizenship? I know the conventional wisdom for some people is that he hates America, his mother hated America, his grandfather hated America, etc. But consider: people were getting pulled off the streets and killed in Indonesia in the 1960s (or killed right on the street). It does seem perverse that a mother would let or encourage her son to renounce US citizenship at such a time.
True, his mother did essentially turn him over to her parents, but that's not so bad in comparison with putting him at the mercy of events in an unstable dictatorship. If on the other hand, there was no official renunciation of US citizenship, but only an informal assumption of parental responsibilities by Lolo or some Indonesian adoption that didn't get back to the US authorities, why would Barack's name have been entered and crossed off?
PS: You seem saner, politer, and more responsible than some of the other theorists. Sad to see you buying into the "Obama's mom naked" story. The odds are pretty slim of private photos like that surviving and getting hawked on the Internet, as opposed to the commercial porn of the day, and so far, it hasn't been seriously suggested that Stanley Ann was in that business.
So did FMD take pictures and sell them to the industry on his own? That's a stretch. Where there already is an industry devoted to that sort of thing, the odds that some random woman's pictures are going to end up circulated like that aren't that great. Again, it's not impossible, but it looks like people let their imagination run away with themselves.