Replies

OK, lets go to a couurt of law and test all this.

Why does one need to go to a court of law to test something which requires nothing more than the ability to read and comprehend simple English just a bit above the elementary school level and possess just moderate critical thinking skills?

Is this truly too much for you to grasp?

Indonesian law said that he can’t have dual citizenship if he resided there for as long as he did, buty he did reside there.

So what? Since there was no provision under US law for him to have lost his US citizenship as a child, then either you're misunderstanding Indonesian law, or he was there illegally. Take your pick.

YOU say US Immigration law forbids him losing his citizenship by adoption.

What I said was, there was no provision under US NATIONALITY law allowing for the loss of his US citizenship as the result of adoption. It's US NATIONALITY law which covers the NATIONALITY of US citizens.

Haul out his BC, and argue it in a court of law.

Why does anything have to be hauled before a court? Just show me the provision in INA 1952 which would have allowed him to lose his US citizenship as the result of adoption. There's not even any such provision in the current INA.

Here, read it for yourself and tell me if you see any means by which one can lose their US citizenship as the result of adoption:

Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizens

However there is one portion of the current INA you might be interested in, 18 USC 1481(b):

Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

In other words, for those who are claiming Obama isn't a citizen, the burden is on them to show that he is not.

“In other words, for those who are claiming Obama isn’t a citizen, the burden is on them to show that he is not.”

If we have the burden, then he shouldn’t be allowed to block access to the evidence that most likely proves our case.

“What I said was, there was no provision under US NATIONALITY law allowing for the loss of his US citizenship as the result of adoption. It’s US NATIONALITY law which covers the NATIONALITY of US citizens”.

There is also a provision of 42 USC, Ch 143 which says

C) a declaration by the central authority (or other
competent authority) of such other Convention country -
(i) that the child will be permitted to enter and reside
permanently, or on the same basis as the adopting parent, in
the receiving country; and
(ii) that the central authority (or other competent
authority) of such other Convention country consents to the
adoption, if such consent is necessary under the laws of such
country for the adoption to become final.

The Act of 1952 doesn’t specifically forbid loss of citizenship by adoption but does seem to allow for a framework of negotiation in the “best interests of the child” when all of the statutory law is considered and when adoption is decided.

You really are afraid of what that BC will reveal, aren’t you????

“Why does one need to go to a court of law to test something which requires nothing more than the ability to read and comprehend simple English just a bit above the elementary school level and possess just moderate critical thinking skills?”

When i think of all the absurd lawsuits granted cert in federal courts over the last 20 years, I just wanna LOL. Suits over some minnow living in a mud hole or some idiot dog of a feminist claiming her feelings were hurt by too many attractive women being extolled, ad nauseum, I have to laugh out loud.

Our case is much stronger than any of the fringe lefties nutcase suits. It is SCREAMING for a precedental ruling, and to allay the valid suspicions that a lying usurper is POTUS.