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 Corsis new book, "Wheres 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 ...
You’re a liar. Prove that Obama sr signature is on a Barry jr BC! You stealth obamanoids will tell any lie to defend your barry bass turd.
A significant anomaly:
Obama's passport file was accessed by an employee of Brennan's Analysis Corp.
Brennan was Obama's first choice for DCI.
Payment for services rendered.
The issue is not going away. It's a lead balloon for Obama. Obama has only temporarily stymied the questions, with the death of Osama Obama and his fake COLB, about his past. It won't be long before the momentum builds to where it was, and you're right, you can see the Obama bucket brigade is out in force. LoL.
Yes, I got "it". You think that this is important for some reason. Of course, you have yet to explain what possible relevance this has for Obama's citizenship.
Since 1898, the citizenship status of the parents of a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is irrelevant to that person's own US citizenship. It's settled law.
What else would her missing passport records show?"
Who cares? Whatever it shows or doesn't show has no bearing on Obama.
A common law marriage has to have a divorce decree to end it, yet there will be no marriage certificate. Happens here in Tennessee all the time. However, SADO was not connected to Obama sr long enough to have a common law marriage, therefore absent a marriage certificate (and none has been shown or attached to the divorce decree) I presume a fraud in obtainging a divorce decree.
You are probably thinking of honorary or ceremonial citizenship, as opposed to substantive (for lack of a better word) citizenship. That's a horse of a different color. But you have to consider the historical context in which the Constitution was written. The founders didn't want anyone with even the slightest suspicion of loyalties to another nation (anywhere in their background) to assume the presidency. If you had loyalties elsewhere by being born to one parent who was a citizen of a foreign country, regardless of where you were born, you can not be president.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if some presidents were made honorary citizens of foreign countries during their presidencies and still ran for second terms (or in Franklin D. Roosevelt's case, a third and then a forth term).
Yes, I agree entirely. THAT was the point I was making. Some people are claiming that Obama's purported birth certificate is fraudulent because it doesn't show his Indonesian adoption. My point was, because of HI law, that Indonesian adoption wouldn't have been reflected in Obama's original birth records unless his mother and step-father moved legally to change those records.
"Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything."
How can the law of the place of one's birth "not have anything to do with it"?
Again, what’s the point? His whole past is a fraud. But just looking at facts we can’t, nor can anyone else, change the fact that there was a divorce.
Who cares? Whatever it shows or doesn’t show has no bearing on Obama.
BALONEY her paaport records would show if BHOzo was ever on her passport and if Obie’s citizenship was Aerican. It would aloso show whether she had a passport and the ability to travel to Kenya in 1961. I suggest you keep the mop handy, investigation is not your bailiwick.
Since 1898, the citizenship status of the parents of a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is irrelevant to that person’s own US citizenship. It’s settled law.
“subject to the jurisdiction” is not settled law.
Obama could have rescinded his Oath of Renunciation anytime before his 18th birtday plus 6 months, but he chose to naturalize instead.
Well, ignoring Plyler v Doe argumentum, what is SETTLED law is the context of how that phrase is applied in Ark. And in Ark, the Court says...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."If Ark - a child with no citizen-parents is a US citizen, and he CLEARLY IS, then Obama is a US citizen. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.
See Post #158. The Indiana Court of Appeals, the only US court to offer an opinion on the merits of this question, disagree. A unanimous held...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens
I understand that you probably disagree with the finding of the court, but so far, that's the only legal opinion where comment on the merits of this issue have been offered as the central legal holding of a case.
Please don’t talk about jurisdiction so much, you clearly don’t understand all of the ramifications here. At least that is the polite interpretation. Dr Ann Dunham Soetoro’s actions might have a lot to do with this argument. They also might not. I’d like to see her passport records for this period too to find out if President Obama is, or was, dual national Indonesian/American. According to the USDOS a dual citizen is subject to the laws/jurisdictions of both countries equally, except when the person is in the specific countries in which they hold citizenship. Then, that particular country holds the rights. So, if you are a dual US/Irish citizen you answer to US law in the USA and Irish law in the Irish Republic. Of course Ireland is in the EU, so you are also an EU citizen and answerable to EU law in the EU. Outside the EU you answer to US, Irish and EU law equally. This is why dual citizenship is a problem in an executive head of state. You should read the Civil Rights Act 1866 and the Expatriation Act 1868 to discover what jurisdiction means in the 14th Amendment. You are misusing Wong Kim Ark and you are wrong. I’ll repeat there may have been no adoption at all. Can you read Dutch or Bahasa Indonesian?
For undergraduate studies that is simply not true.
Rhodes Scholarships (in the other direction) were just one form such scholarships took.
Rhodes scholarships are for graduate studies, not undergraduate.
The fact is there are very, very few scholarships available for foreign undergraduates. It is MUCH easier to get financial aid for college if you are a US citizen, especially if your skin is dark.
LOL. Why would anyone bother getting divorced if they weren't married?
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.