Posted on 07/09/2010 4:03:53 PM PDT by curiosity
Better try again. It was dated in 1968, not 1978. I already explained that a Honolulu newspaper story reported that Lolo married SAD in 1965 ... Obama would have been four.
And we know that Soetoro himself was a paragon of honesty because....?
In your view he had to lie about several things on this form ... and somehow truthfully report that Barry was born in Hawaii. Why not just claim he was born in Indonesia if he was lying about everything else?? Why make up a fake name, fake religion and fake citizenship but use a true birthplace. Doesn't make sense?? So again, you appear to be conceding the point.
Typo. My bad.
I already explained that a Honolulu newspaper story reported that Lolo married SAD in 1965 ... Obama would have been four.
Other reports put the marriage in 1966, when Obama was 5. In any case, Soetoro remained in Hawaii with them until late 1967. Obama would have been 6 when they moved back to Indonesia and when any Indonesian adoption could have been done. Assuming, of course, that any adoption was actually done to begin with.
In your view he had to lie about several things on this form ... and somehow truthfully report that Barry was born in Hawaii.
In the view of others, he would have had to lie about Obama being born in Hawaii and been truthful on everything else. If he lied in one part, why should be believe he didn't lie in others? And again, this is the sole piece of evidence that you or anyone else has produced supporting the whole idea that Obama was adopted to begin with. No adoption declaration. No Indonesian birth certificate. No dates when the adoption occured. No proof of any kind of Indonesian citizenship, except one form filled out by one school. On any other subject, this kind of 'evidence' would be met with intense skepticism. But Birthers cling to it like it came from a burning bush.
I've seen later reports that mention they were married in 1967, but the earliest report was that they were married in 1965. I've seen nothing to indicate that they remained solely in Hawaii between 1964 and 1967. Plus, there's no evidence to show where Lolo married SAD. Another one of the glaring holes in the Obama myth.
Obama would have been 6 when they moved back to Indonesia and when any Indonesian adoption could have been done. Assuming, of course, that any adoption was actually done to begin with.
It explains why he was listed as Barry Soetoro. There are often strict laws about using false last names without official name changes such as would be provided through adoption.
In the view of others, he would have had to lie about Obama being born in Hawaii and been truthful on everything else.
He didn't have to lie about Obama being born in Hawaii ... he just didn't know any better because he went by what his less-than-honest wife told him.
No proof of any kind of Indonesian citizenship, except one form filled out by one school.
There's a lack of proof about almost everything in Obama's childhood. This was one document he couldn't make disappear.
On any other subject, this kind of 'evidence' would be met with intense skepticism.
Nonsense. It was photographed by a bona fide reporter. No such thing has happened with Obama's alleged COLB.
There are a lot of glaring holes.
It explains why he was listed as Barry Soetoro. There are often strict laws about using false last names without official name changes such as would be provided through adoption.
Do you know that there were such laws in Indonesia? Or are you speculating?
He didn't have to lie about Obama being born in Hawaii ... he just didn't know any better because he went by what his less-than-honest wife told him.
Again, speculation. You can twist the story six ways from Sunday to fit what you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of an adoption and no evidence of Indonesian citizenship except that one sheet. And that one sheet contradicts the truth that you would have us believe in at least one area. Why assume any of it's true?
There's a lack of proof about almost everything in Obama's childhood. This was one document he couldn't make disappear.
And nothing backs it up.
The big picture is always composed of smaller details. One of those details is the alleged amount of money spent defending against Birther cases. That's a particular detail that other posters were relying upon in making their arguments.
I'll happily move along to discussing the prudence of defending against Birther cases if you'll first admit that 'Obama paid Perkins Coie $2 million to fight the release of records' is a bogus claim totally unsupported by a close examination of the actual court filings made by Perkins Coie attorneys, as I've illustrated.
You didn’t exactly disprove the $2 million claim as your example only covered two months. I don’t recall anyone claiming that Obama had spent $2 million defending against eligibility cases at the end of 2008. I don’t mind admitting that we don’t know exactly how much has been spent, but the bigger point is that the allegedly transparent Obama shouldn’t be fighting these cases if he could prove himself to be a natural born citizen.
I don't know Indonesia's laws on fraud regarding legal names, but I do know that adopted children have to be of the same religion as the father ... which explains why Barry Soetoro would be listed with his adoptive father's religion. Feel free to show that it's legal to go by a step-parent's surname in Indonesia without legally changing your name. Such would inconistent with the nature of some of their other laws, such as when they forced Chinese-Indonesians to change their names from Chinese names to Indonesian names.
You can twist the story six ways from Sunday to fit what you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of an adoption and no evidence of Indonesian citizenship except that one sheet
The only person twisting anything is you by claiming Lolo had to have lied about several things, but was inexplicably completely honest about a detail that would stand out like a sore thumb. And I'm not going by a belief, but simply seeking explanations for a person whose life is barely documented and inconsistently reported by the media, friends and family. Arbitrarily choosing one of his nativity stories as the gospel truth is the part that is a matter of twisting, belief and blind faith. What you offer is no more than speculation when we shouldn't have to speculate about anything. Obama should simply provide full disclosure. Don't carry water for a fraud.
And nothing backs it up.
The bigger problem is that nothing disputes it.
I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but there is a connection, second-hand:
A partner at the Chicago law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, Bruce Ettelson, was on the finance committee for Obama back in 2006.
Another partner at the same firm, Jack Levin, received an award from Obama at a Chicago event during the relevant period of time.
Sarah Herlihy, a junior member of the same law firm and at the time only ONE year out of law school, writes an article about the natural born requirement of the Constitution.
In her article, the opening paragraph leaves no doubts about her position: "The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution’s worst provision.' ”
And the most intriguing, and subtle, evidence is the article's total omission of BHO.
Sure, if he wasn't natural born, and the senior attorney knew it, there would be no reason to mention BHO alongside the other foreign-born politicans in the USA -- Schwarzenegger, Granholm, etc. But if the evidence was clear regarding BHO's birth, then mentioning BHO would have amplified Ms. Herlihy's point greatly, something like, "the country is fortunate that the natural birth requirement isn't even more restrictive, otherwise young and brilliant politicians like our own Barack Obama, whose father was a native Kenyan, would be inelgible for office."
The total omission of BHO from the article is what makes this doubly intriguing.
I'd say there's enough of a connection to take note. If you were an attorney friend of BHO (you might be a lurker at FR for all I know), it'd be awfully easy for you to direct a junior member of the law firm to do such an article.
During a recent, and routine, committee hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas was testifying about the citizenship of Puerto Ricans. A congressman of PR origins brought up the issue of "whether I could serve as President?" and Thomas answered, "we're evading that."
Hmmm ...
Also note that Obama had a private interview with Chief Justice Roberts the week before his inauguration on January 14, 2009. No discussion topics were noted in the media. Kind of irregular, huh? And then Justice Thomas jokes a year later that the court is "evading" the resolution of matters of eligibility for the Presidency?
I'm not a birther by any means. However, there are vastly too many bits of intriguing evidence.
And don't forget that there has already been one ineligible politician who served as President. Chester Arthur's birth was very likely born in Canada, to an Irish father.
I'm just waiting ... wondering ... if something will finally be proven either way.
But we know that one of those ways will never be revealed, meaning proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, because if BHO's status was clear he would've released the long-form BC long ago.
Are you familiar with how law reviews work? They're edited by law school students. Oftentimes the articles themselves are written by law school students. Law reviews are not, in other words, like medical journals.
In this case, Sarah Herlihy was executive articles editor of the Chicago-Kent Law Review while she was in law school. She graduated in 2005. The volume of the law review that featured her article was published in February 2006. Her own article seems to say that her last edits were made in November 2005.
More importantly, notice the caption above the section that includes Herlihy's article: "Student Notes." You treat it as unusual that a fresh graduate would have an article, but that's perfectly normal for the authors of student notes.
Meanwhile, Herlihy was not employed by Kirkland & Ellis in 2005. Rather, she was law clerk to a federal district court judge from 2005 to 2006. Clerkships typically last for a year, so assuming that she started right after finishing law school in spring 2005, she was still clerking in February 2006. So although she works for Kirkland & Ellis *now*, there's nothing that says she worked for them before her article was finished and published.
I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but there is a connection, second-hand:
Your "connection" appears to be as follows:
1) Obama had a finance committee in 2006.
2) One of the members of that finance committee was Bruce Ettelson.
3) Bruce Ettelson works for Kirkland & Ellis.
4) Kirkland & Ellis also hired Sarah Herlihy sometime after she wrote her article on natural-born citizenship.
Not only is that a terribly weak connection, it's a far cry from your original claim that she was "one of BO's legal friends." Because that means that every co-worker of every member of every Obama committee can be deemed "one of Obama's friends."
Moreover, you specifically stated "The attorney was inspired to write the law review article at BHO's request." What's your actual evidence to support that assertion?
But if the evidence was clear regarding BHO's birth, then mentioning BHO would have amplified Ms. Herlihy's point greatly, something like, "the country is fortunate that the natural birth requirement isn't even more restrictive, otherwise young and brilliant politicians like our own Barack Obama, whose father was a native Kenyan, would be inelgible for office."
The reason she didn't say that is because it would be legally incorrect. His father's citizenship did not make him ineligible for office. The same goes for Governor Bill Richardson (whose mother was Mexican), and Governor Bobby Jindal (whose parents were Indian), and Mike Gravel (whose parents were French-Canadian). She didn't mention their names either, because they're eligible natural born citizens.
And do you know why Rep. Jose Serrano brought it up? Not because of Obama; he brought it up because it's a running joke of his at the Appropriations Committee hearings he chairs each year for the Supreme Court budget, which Thomas attends.
Serrano, you see, was born in Puerto Rico. He joked about his eligibility at the hearing in 2007. And again in 2008. And he did it again in 2009. And then again this year.
And don't forget that there has already been one ineligible politician who served as President. Chester Arthur's birth was very likely born in Canada, to an Irish father.
Except Arthur wasn't ineligible. He was perfectly eligible, as evidenced by the severe lack of legal scholars or political scientists who claim that he was ineligible. The only people today who claim that Arthur was ineligible are birthers. Birthers who, when confronted with the undeniable fact that President Arthur also had a non-citizen father, decided to retroactively declare Arthur to be ineligible TOO, rather than admit that their invented argument was wrong.
What’s intriguing is not Serrano’s comments but Clarence Thomas’, that “we” (meaning the Supreme Court) are evading the issue of Presidential eligibility. You avoided your “expert” comments on that; also the irregularity of Justice Roberts’ meeting with Obama the week before his inauguration.
Loren, you’re a leftist lurker. I’m going to stop bothering to answer your posts.
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.