*Breaking* Obama Hides Indonesian Identity: Fake Birth Certificate Explained

The mystery of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is virtually solved. The findings have been documented in a series of reports published on two blogs, No Quarter and TexasDarlin, no thanks to the Main Stream Media, which has universally ignored this matter.

(Links and disclaimers are at the end; assertions and assumptions are based on good-faith understandings of the truth. The remainder of this post represents draft theories.)

Barack Obama has misled and deceived the American public about his dual identity, dual citizenship, religious background, and birth records.

Contrary to Obama’s public statements that he’s “always been a Christian” Obama was at one time a Muslim.

His Hawaiian Birth Certificate reveals the legal name Barry Soetoro. His original Birth Certificate, with the name Barack H. Obama, was sealed.

That is why the Birth Certificate published on his campaign website “FightTheSmears” is fake. Barack Obama does not want you to know about his Soetoro identity. Obama’s Deception: The Details

The Fake Birth Certificate: The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) published on the Obama Campaign’s website “FightTheSmears” has been falsified. Two experts with combined experience of more than 60 years in document analysis and computer forensics are willing to testify if necessary. I have seen their professional qualifications; trust me, they would pass the “expert witness” test with flying colors. Their latest reports are provided below.

Indonesian Citizenship: Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. He may still have Indonesian citizenship.

When was Obama going to disclose his Indonesian identity to the American electorate? The legal issues related to dual citizenship can be reasonably argued, and possibly will be.

But the immediate problem at this time, on the eve of the Democratic Convention, is that the “presumed nominee” has lied to the American public by intentionally withholding key information about his background and identity.

Religious Background: Obama underestimated the tolerance of Americans in accepting his Muslim background. As Lolo Soetoro’s son, Barry Soetoro was a Muslim in Indonesia. But Obama has publicly proclaimed that he’s “never been a Muslim.” This claim is highlighted on his “FightTheSmears” website.

Will we hold him accountable for these deceptions? Dual Citizenship Could Disqualify Obama from the Presidency

Obama has hidden the truth about his Indonesian identity and citizenship because it could disqualify him under Article II of the Constitution. So he thought he’d just ignore it.

Again, the legal issues can be reasonably argued, but when was Obama planning to tell the truth?

For a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues, see Judah Benjamin’s articles (links below). He lays out a strong argument that Obama is ineligible based on Art. II. New Theory of Birth Certificate Events

Based on Judah Benjamin’s research, backed up by Polarik’s and Techdude’s analyses, I published my new theory of events on Wednesday in Birth Certificate: Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham?

Theory of Birth Certificate Events: 1. Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, with the legal name Barack Hussein Obama II, and Barack H. Obama Sr. was identified as his legal father. [NOTE: an alternative theory, that Obama was born in Canada, is still being researched.]

3. As part of the adoption procedure, pursuant to Hawaiian law, Obama’s original Birth Certificate (BC) was SEALED, and a new Birth Certificate was issued with his new name, Barry Soetoro, and the name of his new father, Lolo Soetoro.

4. Mother and son joined Soetoro in Indonesia, where Barry Soetoro was registered in school as Lolo’s son, a Muslim, and a citizen of Indonesia.

5. After approximately 4 years, Barry Soetoro returned to Hawaii as a U.S. citizen to live with his grandparents, the Dunhams, and attend private school.

6. At some point before his 18th birthday, he most likely changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama, but his Birth Certificate would not have been modified again unless there was another adoption (by the Dunhams, for example).

Among the questions asked therein: If any or all of these hypothesized facts are TRUE, why has Senator Obama deceived the American public, and will the public hold him accountable for the deceptions? CONCLUSION

Barack Obama has misled the American people about his background and his identity. The deception involves an intentional initiative to conceal records related to his birth and his childhood. These records would demonstrate that he acquired Indonesian citizenship when his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, adopted him; he was a practicing Muslim; his current Birth Certificate is in the legal name of Barry Soetoro; and he may still hold Indonesian citizenship today.

Barack Obama has undertaken a concerted and systematic effort to alter, delete, or hide records about his personal and professional life. His secrecy is unprecedented among presidential candidates in American History.

What will our Democratic Party leadership do to ensure that a vetted candidate is nominated for President?

You are not correct. Read the below link on relinquishing US Citizenship:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

You did not read your own post correctly.

b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 349(a) of this title.

Here are the relevent paragraphs of section 349:

Paragraph 3:

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

Paragraph 5:

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

Barack Obama, did not serve in the armed forces of Indonesia as an Officer. Nor did he make a formal renonciation of citizenship

The taking of an oath of allegence to another country does not in and of itself cause you to lose American citizenship, EVEN IF THAT OATH SAYS YOU DO. The United States is not bound to honor that oath.

See the below case law:

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Rich

Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)

The following case seems somewhat more in line with the current State Department policy that loss of US citizenship occurs only when a person truly intends to give it up.

Marc Rich, defendant in a multi-million-dollar business lawsuit, contended that the Federal District Court which had heard his case lacked jurisdiction because he (Rich) had given up his US citizenship in 1982 when he became a naturalized citizen of Spain. The Spanish naturalization oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US citizenship.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals observed, however, that “[D]espite his naturalization as a Spanish citizen, Rich continued to behave in a manner consistent with American citizenship. . . . Rich continued to use his American passport despite renunciation of American citizenship. . . .”

Although Rich asserted that his Spanish naturalization conclusively established his intent to relinquish US citizenship, the court said there “must be proof of a specific intent to relinquish United States citizenship before an act of foreign naturalization or oath of loyalty to another sovereign can result in the expatriation of an American citizen. . . . Despite mouthing words of renunciation before a Spanish official”, the court continued, Rich “brought a Swiss action as an American national, travelled on his American passport, and publicized himself in a commercial register as a United States citizen.”

Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that despite Rich’s actions, he had retained his US citizenship because he had never truly intended to relinquish it.

Its complicated. The U.S. Immigration Support web-site states that dual-citizenship is recognized by the U.S. government. It is stated that

The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship.
Dual citizenship is a complex issue and it is important that you understand that there also obligations and not only benefits that comes with being a dual citizen. Being a citizen of two countries means that you need to obey the laws of both countries, including paying taxes and serving in the military (if required by any of the countries)...

I've always percieved citizenship to be that of whatever country you live in and pay taxes to. However, I can identify with cultural ties that preclude one from severing citizenship ties to the "old country" of one's heritage (even if its "vestiginal" in that no obligation or onus is placed by the country of one's heritage.

The biggest issue with regards to citizenship pertains to travel. International travel requires passports and quite possibley either exit or entry visas (or both). Having dual citizenship allows one to enter on a foreign passport and entry visa is not required by the destination country. However, the reverse may not be so clear.

The destination country may require an exit visa to leave the country on a "foreign" passport, i.e., American. Returning to the "home" country with the "home" passport from a foreign destination will not contain an exit stamp of the "foreign" country on the "home" passport. That could require an entry visa to the "home" country. Its not quite "Catch-22", but it can get sticky; you either don't get out easily of the "foreign" country, or you may not get in to the "home" country so easily. Its always been my thought that the point of having two passports was so that one could get out of hairy situations when needed. Nevertheless, the issue of exit / entry visa is a potential issue; how would one explain to that particular interested "gatekeeper" why such visa isn't in the passport currently being used? Dual / multiple passport travel is definitely not for the faint hearted, and especially if one doesn't know what they're doing.

I heard tell:

On the Vietnamese-Lao border I met a very poor guy who had left Lao using his NZ passport, and trying to enter Vietnam om his English one. The Vietnamese wouldn't let him in and didn't acknowledge that it is possible to have two passports. In fact they thought he was a criminal with two passports. The Lao would not let him in anymore since he did not have a valid visa anymore. I hope he is not still sitting there...

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC Section 1401

states:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is anybody alleging that NoBama was NOT born on U.S. soil? In such case, 8 USC Sec 1401 (b) is irrelevent as it pertains specifically to First Nations. 8 USC Sec 1401 (c) is inapplicable in that it refers to both parents being citizens (at one having a residence in the U.S.A. or its territories). 8 USC Sec 1401 (e) is irrelevent in that it refers to birth within U.S. terrororities / possessions. Furthermore, 8 USC Sec 1401 (f) is irrelevent in that it refers to people udner the age of 5 years discovered in the U.S.A. of unknown parentage where no evidence of birth outside the U.S.A. isn't presented prior to the individual attataining the age of 21.

However, 8 USC Sec 1401 (d) does stipulate that a single U.S. citizenship parent must have resided in the U.S.A. (or its territories) for a contiguous period of 1 year immediately prior to the birth.

However, 8 USC Sec. 1401 (g) states:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

Is anybody alleging that his mother was NOT a U.S. citizen at the time of NoBama's birth (regardless of where it occured)? And regardless of sovereignty of soil upon which NoBama was born, was his mother, if she putatively WAS a U.S. national, not physically present on U.S. soil for a period (or periods) TOTALLING 5 years (at least TWO of which occured in total after the age of FOURTEEN)?

Ammendments to this section of the code:

1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted "five years, at least two" for "ten years, at least five".

This ammendment is not applicable in a foreign birth situation to a U.S. citizen parent prior to the date of the ammendment, in that Congress is prohibiting from passing any ex post facto laws.

So the salient points are whether NoBama was born in the U.S.A. or any of its territories, or whether or not NoBama's mother spent at least 1 consequtive year in the U.S.A. or territories immediately prior to his birth or whether or not she was at least 19 at the time of his birth, and had not lived a period(s) totalling 10 years in the U.S.A. (5 years of which occured after age 14). If ANY of those are true, he's an American citizen.

In any case, there's no place like home and until an American has been abroad (and experienced some trials and tribulations in that regard), they truly don't know what home is. Neverthelss, that notwithstanding and all that, its all a moot point with respect to the Constitutional requirements of nationality with respect to requirements demanded to fill the Office of the President of the United States of America, no? I'm VERY interested in how this plays out.

Not that I'm interested in seeing Hillary in, but what would happen if the validation of votes was rejected on account of this issue? Or what would happen AFTER NoBama was innaugurated and it was found out he was unfit? I don't care 'bout indictment, impeachment or criminality, just who takes over then? At that point EVERY single voter in this country becomes "disenfranchised". And that's a bad thing, no?

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.