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 ...
So you DO like the changes in America brought about by the son of a foreign enemy??? You DO like the full frontal homosexualizing of the military?
It's because there isn't a connection to make. Obama's a Marxist. That has nothing to do with the non-entity that his father was in his upbringing, or the non-alleigance he has to some other foreign power. It has everything to do with his hippie mother and the institutions of higher learning that infest out country where his Marxist views was refined.
People who think like Obama are a dime a dozen on the left. They'd do just as much damage if they could get in office, even if they can trace 300 years of lineage on American soil. If his mother's sperm donor was a deadbeat American hippie, Obama would be exactly the same threat.
The Founding Fathers wanted someone born here of unbroken allegiance to another flag, and that idea is solid. I don't mean to disparage it. I only want to point out that in this particular case, it misses the actual problem. Namely, that Obama is in fact of unbroken allegiance to America. He's not an agent of Kenya, trying to undermine America out of sympathy to the Kenyan empire. He's a home-grown Marxist who wants to undermine his own land of America. He wants it to stop being Free and start being Fair. He didn't learn that concept in Indonesia. He learned it in college.
So Dream From my Father is actually a paean to Obama’s college profs??? [Hint: Obama’s father was a full on marxist. Obama’s life story is dedicated to him, not to the profs.]
By your logic, you do. They wrote the Constitution, they appointed the judges who said we follow jus soli. James Madison clearly said "Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.."
The fact that we have a very bad 2008 election result does not invalidate the Constitution. This country has survived some very bad presidents in the past, and horrible as it is now, we'll survive this too.
It means we have to do a better job in 2012. And as I have said before, odd conspiracy theories and wild accusations will not help. If you want to get 0bama out, you won't do it by claiming he's not eligible, but by working to elect a better president.
Garbage. What you’re saying is garbage, what your implying is garbage, what 0bama’s done is garbage.
And I’m done with your garbage.
If Obama was an honest man he would have long ago given verifiable and valid evidence that he was born on USA soil. I realize that so far practically all info gives Obama as born on USA soil but this guy and his enablers are such lying manipulators that the many opposite off beat charges should be officially buried only after all in themselves are false or meaningless.
Sure, his father was Kenyan, but his father could have been some black power Marxist American deadbeat who skipped out on young Barry, was never around, then died in a drunk driving accident. His dad being a Black Panther or some such just changes the paint job on Obama’s fantasy machine, not the engine.
You do understand that Congress does NOT require its members to be natural born citizens?? The Madison quote doesn't have any relevance to Obama as president.
That's all well and not-so-good, but the bottom line is that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should have never have been installed in the White House. The sooner everyone recognizes and comprehends this, the sooner he can be removed.
Why are you in such a bad, angry mood? You got exactly what you wanted: your interpretation of NBC is sitting in the Oval Office. He’s not my interpretation of the Constitution, so I’m unhappy with him and his wrecking ball that he—as a half-foreign hater of everything uniquely and traditionally American—smashes relentlessly against the foundations of the USA. (You never did say what you thought about Obama’s rush to gayify the military. This is what you get with the son of a foreign enemy of the USA—the destruction of everything good about the country.) You should be pleased.
I’m the one who’s got a gripe. I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. According to the way I read it, Obama is ineligible. Nor do I see you as the end all be all of Constitutional interpreters. Granted, you act as if you are, but that doesn’t make it so. I love the Constitution no less for disagreeing with your interpretation of it. So enough with the accusations and questioning of my patriotism. You got your wish in Obama. Perhaps, if the court changes course, I’ll get mine the future, and Obama’s ilk will no longer qualify for the Oval Office.
Many of the arguments I have seen claiming only ‘jus soli’ is necessary to be eligible for POTUSA are referenced to the words in the Constitution that require 14 years of residency in the USA. This clipped use of words is misleading, intentional or not,. A close and accurate reading of the requirement for POTUSA is very clearly structured as I would expect the learned Founders intended. The first and primary requirement is that the POTUSA be a ‘natural born citizen. We can argue and debate the substance of such. Then the requirement follows up by stating this ‘natural born person’ must be 35 years of age. Then to restrict eligibility further the Founders added a requirement that such a person eligible by the first two requirements must also be a person who has had 14 years of residence in the USA. I believe the Founders intentionally structured the requirement for POTUSA to eliminate time of residency as a lone requirement and yet preserve their concern for having a substantial interest for the Nation.
“Namely, that Obama is in fact of unbroken allegiance to America.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Obama told us in Dreams exactly where his allegiance lies (to his Kenyan marxist father). He acted it out by belonging for 20+ years in an Afro-centric church that blames whitey for all the world’s problems: white man’s greed runs a world in need’. He got this from his loyalty to a foreign/Kenyan father, not to an American deadbeat.
Sure, but you can't Pledge Allegiance to Your Dad, in that regard. When America was getting started, it was a small fish in a big pond. The empires of Europe were our heritage, and the source of our immigrants but they were also our greatest threats. The idea that, say, a newly arrived Francophile President could get into office and subvert America to serve the interests of France was a real and present danger.
Obama doesn't give a half-toss about Indonesia, Kenya, or the rest of the world, except as moving scenery in his self-adoration show. He cares about overthrowing the American system and replacing it with Marxism, wealth redistribution and social justice, not aiding foreign masters in Harare.
I get that there's a lot of anti-American sentiment in Obama's past associations, but it's home grown American anti-Americanism. Radical black churches and Harvard Law are hotbeds of hate whitey, hate western civ, hate the Constitution as written, but these aren't Kenyan concepts. They're American.
What Obama's looking for in his largely-imaginary Dad is answers for his own emotional vacancy. There's no empire in that spiritual void for him to pledge allegiance to. It's just a dream.
Well at least you disagree in a thoughtful, reasonable way. I still don’t buy that Obama is more loyal to the US than to just about any and every African and Muslim country on earth; he loves them and hates us, as we have seen played out on so many levels and in so many ways that it’s impossible for me to see it otherwise. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree, though. I doubt either of us can dissuade the other. I just can’t see how Obama could have acted with less loyalty to the US than he has. To me, he is the poster POTUS of divided loyalty. Your mileage evidently differs.
When the Constitution was written, it was based on over 200 years of English Law. One of the rules operating under that law was the Rule of Exclusion.
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
It is a general principle of statutory construction that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion Of another. (For an exhaustive annotation on this "rule of exclusion," see: 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §212 and the citations collected thereunder.) As exceptions in a statute strengthen the force of law in cases not excepted, so enumerations weaken it in cases not enumerated.
John C. Danforth, Missouri Attorney General, April 21, 1975
------
Enumeration combined with the Rule of Exclusion is what makes the Constitution a limiting document!
Since being natural born is enumerated as a requirement for President, any other type of citizen (such as naturalized or native born) is automatically EXCLUDED.
If Obama was an honest man.
Well stated. I agree with all but homegrown. He was not home grown. Most of his life was spent else-where. But it is true that his loyalty is not to America— it is to the concept of a borderless world— where everyone is equal and fairly treated and wise open-minded thinkers make sure the borders stay down.
While I do not know the truth of his eligibility, I do believe with all my heart, that he is pushing this issue just to undermine the constitution. The constitution is an enemy to the borderless world he is working to create.
All I have to say is, good luck to him. A borderless world is am impossible dream. It goes against nature. And nature always wins. By design.
I just read the WND article about Judge Lamberth’s decision that it’s nobody’s frickin’ business whether our alleged POTUS is guilty of social security fraud.
I wish somebody would steal Lamberth’s identity and a judge would rule in favor of the credit card companies’ refusal to resolve the issue, by ruling that it’s not his “lucky day” and it’s none of his frickin’ business whether somebody else has committed identity fraud. None of his business whether somebody is STEALING what belongs to him by pretending to be somebody else.
God knows Obama has stolen so much from the law-abiding taxpayers of this country it’s unconscionable. As long as our law enforcement is this crooked, it is inevitable that America will become Mexico and every other hell-hole where the powerful do whatever they darn well please while the little people have no way to get justice from anybody but God - who will not let anybody “get away with” any of this crap. These people should be glad if the earthly justice system forces them to deal with their crimes and gives them plenty of warning to repent and be forgiven before they get to the REAL incorruptible, all-knowing, and totally just Judge. Because they WILL face that Judge, and justice is not going to be decided by “luck” at all. As long as they refuse to repent their eternal doom is inevitable, regardless of how they seem to “get away with” mocking justice here on earth.
Lamberth will reap what he has sown, as will Soros and all the others - if not here on earth then in the eternal realm. But probably here on earth too - just like the Mexican cops who played the druglords’ game for money have found their families and towns subject to beheadings and other horrors. When you decide to play with the cockroaches it shouldn’t surprise you one bit when your house is overrun by them. The consequence of lawlessness is that the love of most grows cold - which means NOTHING is unthinkable to those people, including beheadings, melting people in acid, sewing a face to a soccer ball, etc. What’s happened in Mexico is beginning to happen here as well, and folks like Judge Lamberth better take a good hard look at the seed they’ve planted, because their kids and grandkids will be living with the tree that grows from that seed.
Maybe when Lamberth’s grandkids are beheaded by lawless thugs we can tell him he can’t get justice because it’s not his “lucky day” and it’s none of his business whether crimes are being committed, none of his business whether the rule of law is being totally lost. I’m sure he’d be happy to smirk over our cute little rebuke of his unjustified nosiness.
I’ve known cockroaches that are less disgusting than these creepy judges.
Try asking Sven for anything, anything at all, to support his fanciful tales. You'll never see a whit of proof or support.
Sven did provide some supporting evidence for a question I once asked him, but I have heard he tends to do a "drive by shooting" with his theories from time to time. I didn't say that I accepted his theory, just that I will keep it in mind pending evidence one way or the other. Despite what your side may think, I will change my opinion on the basis of evidence that contradicts any of my current working theorys. For example, I have recently gone from believing that natural born citizen was based mostly on jus sangunius, and the founders were in complete agreement to that MOST of the founders believed natural born citizenship citizenship was based on jus sanguinus, while some of them still clung to the British "jus soli" version.
In other words, there is enough evidence to convince me that not everyone was on the same page. I still think MOST were, but obviously some were not. I think during ratification, not everyone was familiar with Vattel's definition. Those that knew about it, assumed that others did as well, those that didn't assumed they were referring to the British version.
Thanks for the link. That answers one question in the affirmative. As for the rest of your comment, I'm seeing a marriage date of March 15, 1964. Obama would have been three. Close enough for government work. I'm pretty sure the relevant documents in Indonesia would have been Barry's birth certificate and their marriage License, so after what you showed me, it's pretty darned certain that Barry WAS adopted under Indonesian law.
We're talking about adoption in U.S. courts, not Indonesian. Only that would cause U.S. records to be sealed and a new birth certificate issued.
I am not so intimately familiar with the applicable laws in such a situation in (1971) as to be able to say that an Indonesian Adoption is of no Consequence for an American Citizen later in their life. Someone pointed out to me that the United States is a Signatory to the Hague Convention on International adoptions, so it may very well cause Legal complications in American law. Were I an Attorney in 1971, I might very well have advised the Dunham family to take no chances regarding their grandchild's American Citizenship after an Indonesian adoption. I would prefer to err on the side of caution in this, AND regarding the definition of "natural born citizen."
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.