There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so. If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law. I do not know if Hawaii respects Indonesian adoptions, but it is quite possible that some sort of legal process might be needed to rectify the problem of having been adopted in Indonesia. There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him. Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document. Adoption may have been the method used.
2) When states create new birth certificates for adopted children, they don’t change the birthplace. And Obama’s says he was born in Hawaii.
One would think that would be the case, but Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. Born on Ship can claim "Hawaiian birth." I believe I read in the Hawaiian laws, that "home births" have up to a year to be examined by a Doctor after birth. We do not know WHAT type of birth document was the original record for Barry. A "born at home" affidavit type of Birth record followed by an Adoption would be indistinguishable from what we are currently seeing. Until THAT possibility is eliminated by evidence, we can't ignore it.
It is axiomatic that Hawaii will not admit to an adoption even if there was one. Do you have any way of proving there wasn't? It certainly fits the available data, and better explains why there are so many peculiarities with his current birth document.
“There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so. If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law. I do not know if Hawaii respects Indonesian adoptions, but it is quite possible that some sort of legal process might be needed to rectify the problem of having been adopted in Indonesia. There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him. Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document. Adoption may have been the method used.
One would think that would be the case, but Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. Born on Ship can claim “Hawaiian birth.” I believe I read in the Hawaiian laws, that “home births” have up to a year to be examined by a Doctor after birth. We do not know WHAT type of birth document was the original record for Barry. A “born at home” affidavit type of Birth record followed by an Adoption would be indistinguishable from what we are currently seeing. Until THAT possibility is eliminated by evidence, we can’t ignore it.
It is axiomatic that Hawaii will not admit to an adoption even if there was one. Do you have any way of proving there wasn’t? It certainly fits the available data, and better explains why there are so many peculiarities with his current birth document.”
The names and signatures of Barack Hussein Obama Senior and Stanley Ann Obama are on the 1961 birth certificate, the 1961 birth announcements in the newspapers and the son is referenced by name in the 1964 Obama divorce decree: “That one child was born to said libellant and libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a son, born August 4, 1961.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12234409/Divorce-Decree-1964-13-Pages-Merged
Ann Dunham was an undergraduate student at the University of Hawaii until August, 1967 and she first arrived in Indonesia after her marriage to Lolo Soetoro, in October of 1967.
“There are several reasons to believe he was adopted, not the least of which is that his sister Maya said so.”
No she didn’t. You’re construing her denial of an allegation to be an admission of that allegation.
“If not under Hawaiian law, then certainly under Indonesian law.”
Way to keep your options open. In developing a conspiracy theory, it’s pretty standard to have contingent arguments. (”Even if JFK wasn’t assassinated by Suspect A, then certainly he was assassinated by Suspect B.”)
“There is also evidence to indicate that by 1970 his mother let her Parents adopt him.”
No there’s not.
“Notwithstanding the fact he was LIVING with them, she no longer claimed him on her 1973 tax return. They would at the very least have had to have some sort of guardianship document.”
No, that’s not true either. The IRS has four qualifications to claim a dependent. Residence, age, support, and relationship. Relationship includes, and this is a quote from the IRS, “the taxpayer’s child or stepchild...or a descendant of one of these.”
Do you seriously think that every grandparent raising a grandchild in the US has to adopt the grandkid to claim the kid as a dependent? Or are you so desperate to justify your adoption theory that you’re willing to just make up tax law without even bothering to check if it’s accurate?