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 ...
I’m interested in that too. AFAIK it’s all conjecture.
In Perkins v. Elg, the court ruled that a person does not automatically lose their naturalized citizenship status merely by moving overseas. But Obama was born here. You can argue that he's a natural born citizen or a native born citizen, but the fact is that he was a citizen at birth. That cannot be taken away from a person, it can only be relinquished voluntarily and intentionally. And according to U.S. law a parent cannot do that for their child.
Does that evidence perhaps include the legal papers finalizing the Indonesian adoption? Or something showing when the Indonesian law changed to allow someone of Obama's age to become an Indonesian citizen upon adoption?
I don’t think there would be any more support for Premier Hussein’s impeachment beyond the Republicans in the House, and I am not convinced that all of them would vote to impeach. Even if they did, the Democrats and all of the RINO Republicans in the Senate would never in a million years vote to convict.
If your fundamental premise is correct--he is not eligible to hold the office of President; then impeachment does not lie against him.
Impeachment is the remedy to remove someone who holds the office of President. The legal result under Supreme Court precedents that are fairly clear is that if he is not eligible to hold the office, he is not there even if that is where he physically goes to work for some period. He isn't President--therefore no impeachment.
And to follow along with the part of your inquiry I didn't quote, the consequences are these: Joe Biden is Acting President, not President nor Vice President; those of Obama's acts which require a President (appointment of Supreme Court justices; signatures approving legislation which legislation would not have become law without his signature such as bills where Congress adjourned after passage and before he signed the bill; military orders) are void.
And at that point, he is simply a squatter in the White House until he is removed by appropriate process.
The way you would get to that position legally would be the result of a proceeding in which a person with standing pursued a legal action to invalidate some specific act as President.
An effective challenge to a military order would work and lots of individual members of the military would have standing but that is a careful legal proceeding and so far, where the officer had standing and effective representation, the military has withdrawn the order.
Another effective challenge would be by a party to a Supreme Court appeal who challenged participation of Sotomayor or Keagan in an appeal to which that person was a party.
It has generally been conceded (except by me) that Magic was born of an American mother in Hawaii. If true, that would make the man a NATIVE American Citizen. If so, that citizenship cannot be removed.
Upon reaching his majority, the fellow had the choice of American, Indonesian, British, or Kenyan citizenship. Apparently he chose "American."
The fact that he had this choice (probably still does) is enough to convince me that he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as required by Article II of The Constitution.
The fact that elected Republicans, and so many FReepers, are not getting, or pretending not to get, the difference between NATIVE and NATURAL born citizenship, is disheartening to say the very least.
To further adumbrate: It was traditionally held that a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" is a person born to TWO (2) American Citizens within American jurisdiction. The parents themselves can either be naturalized, or Natural Born. Someday, some court or other might get off its black-robed duff long enough to answer the questions put to it on behalf of the 50 Million or so American voters who can still read the Constitution and hold that traditional view.
Fake, but accurate?
Snopes ? Rofl lmao
They’re never biased! /sarc
Numbers of Freepers have come up with enough stuff to suggest the issue has never been settled. The fact the FOUNDERS exempted those who'd been simply living in America, whether they were born here or not, suggests their concern was with where the hopeful office holder was born (or the jurisdiction thereof).
Then, it turned out America was a lot more difficult to get populated and developed than the Founders had imagined. If it hadn't have been for the Great Famines of the 1800s we'd probably still be pushing in the lower tens of millions rather than up there over 300 million people.
This applied mostly to immigrant families from Ireland and Italy who were sending the girls to convents abroad to have the kids ~ most of whom would be shuffled into Catholic orphanages and then raised to be part of the religious community.
Exactly. Obama has said “students loans” paid for his school. The problem is loans have records, and there are no records of Obama having taken out student loans, or him paying any back. He basically scammed the system and has been lying ever since.
This has never been proven. And many have already pointed that out. The problem is - it has not been disproven. The college records remain locked away (or destroyed all together by this time).
Barry Soetoro as a foreign national makes a lot of sense with the available data points.
The 1980 divorce - it lists a 'child' above 18 that needs college costs paid for. Not 'stepchild', not 'adopted child' - 'child'. The Hawaii court in 1980 seems to believe they were dealing with a legal child of Lolo Soetoro.
Name change while at Occidental. That has never been played out. Barry to Barack for sure happened. But everyone is murky on the last name used during the time.
Lack of a valid social security number. Why does a person who never lived in CT have a CT number of a dead person?
Forged selective service document. A foreign national would not have to register with SS. Maybe he did not - because he did not have to.
Indonesia makes the obots go nuts. Look at this thread. There is something in this. Indonesia issues stir the bees in the hive more than anything in Hawaii or Kenya.
An adult who claims foreign national status on US soil after age 18 is basically disavowing their citizenship. You must present yourself as a US Citizen while in the US. This is why you MUST show your US passport when entering the US if you are a multi-national with US citizenship.
At the age of 18 Obama could have claimed British, Kenyan, US and Indonesian citizenship. Did he claim only one and use it as early adult? Did he claim multi-national but hide his US citizenship to gain favored status? There is proof lacking - one way or the other. So it remains possible - if not probable.
That confirms, as I thought, that Occidental hasn’t released Obama’s records. Based on his writings while at the Harvard Law Review, I don’t expect we’ll discover Obama was a brilliant student if his transcripts are released.
Now, we are stuck with a guy who is an America hating, Muslim Islamic loving,Communist/Marxist loving idiologist who has and continues to implement his plan to destroy our capitalism, freedom way of life in our nation....he's already gone a long way to implement his plan for us folks.....and I put nothing past him.
Great post, as always. You do a singular job of laying out the issues, and you have a gift for cutting through the noise and getting to the heart of the matter.
One thing I wanted to mention. Don’t assume that everyone who doesn’t grasp the difference between native and natural born is a conservative. I recently had a very eye-opening experience. I took an intensive tour of four of the most radically—and rabidly—Obot/anti-birther/Soros funded/moonbat sites on the web. I discovered FR anti-birthers posting on these sites [as members of good standing], furthering the anti-birther cause. I came upon numerous mentions of FR anti-birthers as cause celebres, acknowledged, lauded and cheered on by the leftists. I came upon mentions of leftists who had stealth FR accounts, and who further the anti-birther memes on eligibility threads. They then report back to their lefty brethren how insane and stupid FR so-called ‘birthers’ are.
So don’t assume everyone who claims an inability to distinguish between native and natural born is trying all that hard. They may be here just to defend Obama. Fwiw.
Unfortunately it may come for you!
Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson, both considered as possible SCOTUS justices, wrote the following re McCain's eligibility to be President for the Senate. In it they opine that natural born can be the product of either jus sanguinis or jus solis.
"The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.
and
Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
and
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier."
Now you may discount or disagree with their opinion, but for you to state without reservation that this is settled law is just plain wrong. Eventually, this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
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.