Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
Did you hear Rush today? He said Clarence Thomas has become the most influential of the justices, as well as Public Enemy (of the Left) Number One. Why? For one thing, he’s moving the court back to the original meaning of the terms used in the Constitution. For that reason alone he’s scaring progressives to death. May the Good Lord bless and keep Thomas; he is perhaps the greatest justice on the bench.
I find this interesting
GHW Bush is according to some on FR a failure as a conservative and a “RINO”
and GWBush is considered no better, yet look at who they put on the court
Register with the SS for the draft and take an oath of citizenship. Just like I said. In any American Consulate office. You have ONE (1) year.
Don't be so argumentative.
Not to take a thing away from such a great judicial pick, but didn’t that Bush also put David Souter on the bench? I seem to recall it.
But yes, Thomas is the jewel in the crown. I hope Bush gets the full measure of credit for it.
Which of my facts do you contest?
Do you claim that the selective service registration that has an automatic date stamp of 08 was actually created in ‘80?
Do you claim that Obama’s passport file was not breached 3 times without the security protocols kicking in and stopping it?
Do you claim that either the official 2 1/4-inch DOH seal or the seal of the State of Hawaii is on the long-form that Obama claims the HDOH sent him?
Do you claim that you have photographed a seal that doesn’t bend when the paper it is supposedly on folds, like Obama’s COLB?
Do you claim that the employer’s SSN verification that was done, showing that the SSN on Obama’s latest tax return was never issued to Obama, is not accurate?
Do you claim that the Hawaii Democratic Party’s official Certification of Nomination specifically states that Obama is the candidate of the HDP?
Your WHOLE ARGUMENT seems to be that if the government has allowed Obama to hold office then he must be eligible. The only way you could get to that conclusion is by assuming that the government is infallible. Exactly what ARE you smoking, anyway?
Yes, this Obama is acting as POTUS and is destroying this country, but it started with his lawyer’s threats to the media if they reported the fact of his ineligibility and went downhill from there. We have a court system that is saying it is NONE OF OUR FRICKIN’ BUSINESS IF OUR WHITE HOUSE IS OCCUPIED BY AN ENEMY COMBATANT!!!!!
Yes, it feels like an alternate reality, but you need to wake up and realize that Obama’s destruction of this country has started with the government, media, courts, and law enforcement - which all ignored and tee-hee’ed about the FACTS I just gave you above. EVERY DOCUMENT this guy claims to have is a fake or has been manipulated, and EVERY OFFICIAL has said it doesn’t even matter and anybody who thinks otherwise is a crazy conspiracist.
If you’re gonna bend over and submit to that kind of warped reasoning, then I invite you to join the NM gal who spread her naked body on the hood of a car so a trooper could do her right there in public and on surveillance video. If a government trooper did it, it must be right, eh?
The Jay Treaty only applies to citizenship staus with GREAST BRITAIN. Read it, mainly Secs. 9 and 10. The State Department maintains a list of all treaties which are in effect. Articles IX and X of the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Jay Treaty)” are still in effect between the US and United Kingdom.
In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land a constitutionally ratified treaty – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.
Therefore, regardless of any far-fetched hypos concerning North Korea, or any other country for that matter, the US and the United Kingdom are required by the Jay Treaty to consult the nationality laws of each sovereign state. The Jay Treaty is both US law and British law.
By authority of the US Constitution, the Jay Treaty requires the US to recognize British subjects and to protect these rights. To properly do so, the US must rely on British law in order to recognize British subjects.
BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.
And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Pay special attention to the following text taken from Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”
If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. ...then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith's, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared, that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us they violated their allegiance and opposed our laws; so then there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connection, who can be affected by the decision of the present question.
I don't know what I would I have done as a Founder; I can but admire Mr. Madison who choses the right over the expedient.
Of those documents, how many could reveal that the story - including the story of his nativity - was all a big fat lie?
What HAS been revealed has already shown that clearly - such as the records for STanley Ann Dunham showing her not living in HI with Barack Obama Sr at all, contrary to what Obama has claimed all along. If he lied about that, and the peripheral records show the lie for what it is, then what makes you think he wouldn’t lie about other stuff - stuff that would also be shown up by peripheral records, such as whether he applied to Occidental College as a foreign student, which would mean that he claimed to not be a US citizen AS AN ADULT?
I don’t buy that you don’t know what you would do as a Founder. My question is extremely simple and straightforward. Either you would or you wouldn’t want foreign enemies to have the right in perpetuity to sire the POTUS. The degree to which you are dancing away from this simple question is just amazing. If you want foreign enemies to have this right, say so. If you think it would be better for the Republic to restrict the highest office of the land to the sons and daughters of American citizens, say that. What on earth is so hard about this question?????
I'd suggest the likelihood of that ever happening in this case is ZERO.
That you are trying to say it is simple shows you don’t understand a lot. If James Madison argued this with others on the floor of Congress, it shows it was not simple then, and it still isn’t.
A superficial look at this would say “Sure, we don’t ever want anyone we don’t like (for any reason) to father the president.” Should a criminal have the right to sire the POTUS? Should a convicted spy have the right? Would an immigrant father be more likely to inculcate anti American feelings, or would a refugee from an undemocratic regime be more likely to value the freedom he found in America? Marco Rubio was born to Cuban parents, and Cuba is an enemy. Do you think he should be kept from running for president?
What about the idea that we don’t judge a person by his parents, but by his own actions?
Following these threads and research/reading have shown that eminent statesmen, legislators and historians of the day were ready to accept those who were children of the enemy. (see INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR’S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830))
If you were a Founder and you were writing the Constitution, would you do A or B:
A: Make sure that all foreigners, including those who hate and seek to destroy the Republic, have a permanent right enshrined in the Constitution to sire the POTUS,
or
B: Restrict eligibility for the highest office in the land to the sons and daughters of American citizens?
You may “understand” your question, but you just don’t comprehend how my reponse answers it. If you can’t relate my response to your question, then I really can’t help you. Let’s just end this nonsense and move on.
If I was going to do either, I’d make it very plain. The Founders did not define “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. Most American law was based on Common Law, and legal cases since have held that we follow the jus soli definition, with some jus sanguinus exceptions.
I would never hold myself out to be wiser or better schooled on American law than the Founders. Do you hold yourself better than they?
I comprehend that you never answered the question I asked. I also comprehend why you refuse to answer it, and are so anxious to ‘move on’.
Do you think James Madison was wrong to argue for the child of the enemy to have the right to serve in Congress? Would you have done otherwise? How about the Supreme Court cases?
Here is my question. You’ll notice it concerns what ***you***, not anybody else, would do:
If you were a Founder and you were writing the Constitution, would you do A or B:
A: Make sure that all foreigners, including those who hate and seek to destroy the Republic, have a permanent right enshrined in the Constitution to sire the POTUS,
or
B: Restrict eligibility for the highest office in the land to the sons and daughters of American citizens?
Obama is in the WH as President. Reality is a bitch.
So,will you be voting for Obama in ‘12?
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.