Well, I don’t know the truth, but other people have shown that is WAS allowed. Plus, I think we need more specifics - WHO didn’t allow it? If it was simply not-advised by the US government, that’s not a “law” that can be broken. And if it was illegal for Americans, and he went on an Indonesian passport, then I guess he didn’t break any law that way, either. If the law forbade American citizens to go there, and he wasn’t an American citizen, then how did he break the law?
It’s just that we “hear” a lot of things on these threads. I think we need to focus on what we have evidence for, or we’re likely to go off wasting time in the wrong direction.
To me, right now, I’ve seen people saying that travel then WAS allowed, and people saying it was NOT. So, rather than choose to believe one or the other, I’d like to see some actual proof.
There are many suspicous things about Obama, that’s for sure. But we need to build on case on premises that have evidence behind them. And since our legal system is based on being innocent until proven guilty, these court cases will probably move further along if they’re based on some evidence, and not on hypotheses. I think perhaps more work has to be done digging for evidence, before these cases go to court....?
Sure, there is a lot we don’t know.
As far as “natural born” citizen status we do know that Obama, at best, had dual citizenship at birth as his “official” father was a British subject through Kenya.
The Supreme Court seems content to not examine whether dual citizenship is compatible with natural born citizenship. Of course, the issue is divided loyalty. (On a side note, the foreign relative that Obama campaigned for, who lost the election in Kenya, allowed followers to terrorize the country, killing many people as he bargained for a share of the government despite losing the election. He eventually prevailed through these terror tactics is some form of shared power.)
As far as evidence that Obama was born in America, all that has been provided is his factcheck.org birth certificate. It does seem a little odd that “Hawaii” would come out on its own, without court order, to say that they have Obama’s original birth certificate on file, without corroborating his posted one as accurate, or affirming that he actually was born in Hawaii. Their statement did nothing to clarify ANY of the issues involved.
It is not hard to clarify any of these issues, though, if Obama were inclined to do so.
In the Hollister case, Obaba’s and Biden’s lawer actually references the suspect factcheck.org birth certificate as a reason the case should be dismissed. They don’t want to actually produce the document(s) that could prove eligibility to hold office.
In a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor should have to prove the guilt of the accused.
In an election contest, the candidate should have to prove eligibility, something Obama has not been required to do.