Posted on 05/09/2011 8:35:43 PM PDT by RobinMasters
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.
Jerome Corsi’s new book, "Where’s the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore
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."
The records further identify the "oldest child" as "in university."
"Mother resides with youngest child in 4-bedroom house provided by mother's employer," continues the divorce documents.
The documents identify the minor as Obama's stepsister, Maya Soetoro.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obama is married to Dunham and his name his on the birth certificate, and as such, he was the natural legal father.
And SAD as well???
Bless you, BD, for posting this eloquent, powerful statement (first I’ve seen it—and I am SO glad I got a chance to see it!) and bless JR for saying it. Certain SP’s heads will explode, upon reading the marxist part. I have seen some of the nastier SPs argue that Obama is a socialist but no way a marxist. I hope to goodness they make that case to JR—the zots would be so sweet.
Sure, if by case law citations, statury law citations and other evidence of legal authority, then sure - I spout "nonsense".
You are a VERY entertaining person, but not in the good way. Just saying.
It is inconceivable - literally beyond even imagining - that a court would a) adopt the Vattel definition and then b) impose it retroactively on a person who was elected President with 69 million votes.
It won't happen, it never could happen, and if it happened to MY guy I would say it was wrong, beyond the scope of the court's power, and a cause for armed resistance.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your probably right that Barry will never be outed as the usurper he is. I evidence this by the fact that when I wrote to my Republican Congressman concerning how someone who was admittedly born into foreign citizenship could possibly be considered a natural born Citizen...the letter they sent back stated (essentially) that a) Barry won and b) he showed his b.c. (this was WAY before he released the suspect LFBC). I then wrote back that I said nothing of the B.C. issue, and wanted an answer to my question on how a multinational could be considered a natural born Citizen. Nothing but crickets since then.
Since it appears they are not willing to address this, then we are clearly not living in a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who still believes that we are should stop kidding themselves. The votes of a majority can strip away the rights of a minority of voters (specifically). Everyone in the country is supposed to be protected, equally, by the Constitution...which mandates the Commander in Chief by a "natural born Citizen." But that clearly doesn't matter any more.
Regarding your other comment:
"Now, I think it would be wise for Congress to write a definition of NBC into the US Code, but if Congress wrote a law adopting Vattel going forward"
Congress already tried that, in 1790. In fact, they tried to extend the natural law definition (to those born outside sovereign territory):
"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"."Furthermore, the repealed Act of 1790 is what non binding Senate resolution 511 used to "find" McCain a NBC...because he was born to two citizen parents and therefore born not owing allegiance to another nation.
The common theme, and the concern was that the Commander in Chief should not be a multinational. For obvious reasons.
The Congress realized they only had the authority to define who may become a citizen through naturalization laws and that they didn't have the authority to define who may be a "natural born Citizen." They repealed themselves 5 years later.
In a Constitutional Republic, 69 million voters should not be able to vote in a president that doesn't meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution. And, if they manage to do so, such an ineligible person should not be able to escape Congressional and/or Judicial scrutiny on their eligibility....and be REMOVED if found to be ineligible.
What if 100 million voters, who grow up in an ever increasing anti-Constitution America...pushed by anti-Constitution media and hollywood...vote to make the 2nd Amendment null and void?
Should the courts, should Congress get involved? If they did, a vast majority of the voters would be (so called) "disenfranchised."
Think it can't happen? I'm sure most people didn't think a marxist multinational from birth could become President and Commander in Chief.
Sometimes, defending the Constitution is difficult...and a "majority" viewpoint may get rejected in order to uphold the Constitution.
Going forward, the country must awaken to our history and the intent of our founders and framers if we are to keep our Constitution...all of it, intact and survive the multi-nationalist, globalist, anti-American mentality that is so pervasive in our society.
b
“”The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since.”
“”1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.”
“6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . “ was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
Page 307 U. S. 326
This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.
7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349.”
“”Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499682/posts
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html#328
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
It's possible. Question is...did Barry?
Sorry to answer your question with a question, how could we find out through the 0b0z0-imposed blackout?
Must be a racist question!
I will go with that twist - easily.
At first I thought looking through the BHO INS records was - can it get any weirder? But now it is making sense. It actual help tell the story.
Legally, the die is cast via the 1964 divorce. For that to get filed, approved, processed, etc. the records in Hawaii had to be ‘cleaned up’ at that time. Seattle, Canada, Hawaii in a home birth - who knows. But whatever it was was scrubbed and cleaned up then.
One Word: ROTLMAO!!!
I simply do not understand what the point is. It does not matter whether they were married or not. There is a divorce decree with all parties named. Does there have to be a birth certificate to show someone was born? That has been answered, hasn’t it.
But it doesn’t matter how many times you ask.
.........
What is your point?
__________________________________________
O RLY ???
Well then why did you make it such a serious issue up thread...
The point being that you have continually posted as though you are an authority on what is on an alleged marriage certificate while stating that detractors are wrong...
Barry Dunham couldnt join a genealogical society without his own BC and his parents MC
The first 3 generations must all be linked and proven..
with birth, marriage, death or divorce documents
a divorce would require that marriage certificate at any level
the other generations from Gen 4 and up must be linked with some sourced and acceptable documentation..
A “divorce” decree from Barrak Obama SR would not suffice...the marriage certificate would have to be provided
An alleged birth certificate with the signature of an unproven father would not suffice...again wheres the marriage certificate ???
A divorce decree from Loloo Soetoro would not suffice to change Barry’s name...wheres the marriage certificate, the adoption papers and the altered BC ???
and then he would have to prove why he should be acknowlefged as “Barak Obamas ...again he woulfd have to provide court documents for a legal name change from Barry Soetoro or Dunham...
See how difficult it would be for Barry to join all the societies that he could claim through his alleged mother, Stanley Ann Dunham and her many illustrious early Amertican forebears...there has to be quite a lot..First Families of some state, French-Indian Wars, American Revolution, Civil War and all ???
And suddenly that same wretched Barry who cant even become a member of the Sons of the Revolution (SAR) because he cant prove his links, is eligible to be president of the United States without any proofs ???
BTW have you ever tried to join a genealogical society ???
Do you understand what I am saying here ???
Ya got one ???
That is a valid question. But it is hard to logistically believe Kenya is the answer. Kenya seems like an adopted storyline by Obama...and with his name it was probably easier to say ‘I’m Kenyan’ vs. ‘I am Hawaiin’.
BHO Srs. INS records just released though provide some insight as to why SAD records were cut off in 1965 and before!
INS memo says they talked to spouse while she was in Philippines in April of 1964.
So SAD in Philippines in 1964???? Why?
Pregnancy termination? After all one baby for a single mom in 1964 had to be hard. Two?
Just guesses...
Exactly!
We would never hear the end of it! Just like they can't shut up about how HE got bin laden lol, HIS decision this, HIS decision that... lol
Wow, and big WOW!!!
WHO was the co-author of the "Swift-Boat" book, and WHAT did that accomplished, hmmm???
t is a matter of record that the State of HI granted SADO a divorce from O SR therefore acknowledging a marriage. I stated a fact and your claiming I made it a serious issue?
And then you say "The point being that you have continually posted as though you are an authority on what is on an alleged marriage certificate while stating that detractors are wrong...
I never claimed anything, other than there was a divorce and an index entry!
So what is your point?
Whatever he authored, and whatever you think it accomplished, it doesn't change the fact that he's a 9/11 Truther - the lowest of the low, the scummiest of the scummy.
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.