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 ...
Sure, me and the three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals is "wrong".
That's very believable. /s
Look, you're entitled to your very strange opinion, but if you're going to opine that someone is wrong, perhaps that will carry a bit more weight if you can provide some supporting evidence of that opinion, preferably a court decision or two would be nice.
I'm not the one making affirmative claims about his financial aid. That would be the Birthers.
We agree on the Founders’ intent. But for purposes of clarity, if we ever (and we SHOULD) amended the Constitution for clarity of who becomes a citizen and who is indeed a NB citizen, we need to separate the actions of the individual from involuntary actions.
Theoretically, another country can confer a true citizenship upon someone if they wished, and thus make him (or her) ineligible. This is not what we are talking about. That should be non valid.
I also do not think that if a child is born to naturalized citizen(s), on American soil, the fact that the child may have “citizenship” in the parent(s)’ former land is OF NO ISSUE. As long as the child grows up and shows NO allegiance as an adult to the parents’ first country, this should not matter.
There are probably thousands of Americans in that position. I believe that Mexico allows that their citizens remain their citizens even after they become naturalized Americans, and the children of those people can still be listed as Mexican citizens (though the parents may have to formally tell Mexico of their existence). Again, though, the acts of the parents, as long as they are Americans, should not affect that future child.
The most important part of the Constitutional amendment HAS to be that citizenship of the USA is not automatic upon birth on our soil unless the parent was LEGALLY here. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES.
Exactly, the divorce decree exists.
Do you deny that?
He should have used my label:
ÜberCommie & Bitch
Was there such a thing as common law marriage in the early 60’s?
I thought that didn’t come around until the late 70’s early 80’s??
Just asking.
Do you deny that?
Of course not. Stanley and Obama Sr. were married and then shortly later divorced.
The fact that they were divorced proves they had been married, since it is absurd to think anyone would (or even could) get divorced without being married in the first place.
I assume she got a “divorce” from the Kenyan Obama so as to provide cover for the child she starting taking care of. The child needed a name, a father, citizenship of some sort, paperwork that showed all of that, so she could have legal custody as a putative mother.
There may be have been some sort of marriage document as evidence in a file that has been found and reported on FR. All for legal paperwork so she could have legal custody of the child.
Finally got my internet back on today but supposed to be doing other stuff.
This is all very interesting. “They” wouldn’t be all over this thread if this topic was “nothing” to 0bama, or their favorite, “He likes it because it makes conservatives look like kooks” - I love that one.
That's very believable. /s"
Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
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 parentsLet's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...
1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?
Here's what it says:
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?
2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:
The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.
So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were, [Key phrase], perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC anyway?
If they really were using WKA as guidance, they'd have to note that BOTH of WKA's parents were perminatly domociled here...not just one parent. Furthermore, they'd have to find Barry a "citizen" (not a "natural born Citizen) as that is what Wong Kim Ark was declared to be. Fine...Barry, the "citizen" can be Senator or Rep (or Governor, etc).
That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.
Yes, but not in all states, and I don't think Hawaii had it. Regardless, it doesn't matter, since SAD and Obama Sr. weren't together long enough to have a common law marriage; they hadn't even been together a year before they separated.
Glad you agree, that makes obama ineligible if Sr. is the father.
Where’s Sr.’s signature you keep talking about?
And by the way, where’s the recording of the adoption by Lolo Soetoro which legally has to be on the bc?
Podcast The Peter Boyles Show - May 10, 2011 7am
WND.com publisher Joe Farah came on the show to talk about the latest birther issues.
Yes, the answer is there is no reason to get divorced if you aren't married. No one would do it. Hence we can infer from their divorce that they did go through with a marriage ceremony. Perhaps their that marriage wasn't legal, but it did happen and is presumed legal and valid until anulled.
Bigamy is illegal in all 50 states of this country. Stanley Ann Dunham could not have married Barack Hussein Obama in the United States because he already had a wife in Kenya. If they were married in Hawaii because he and possibly Stanley Ann lied, then that marriage would be null and void and a divorce would have no legal standing,
I suppose it is possible that Obama Sr. committed bigamy when he married SAD. Why should I care?
This is an outright forgery. This is not the president’s footprint.
The president’s “footprint” is well known to be a HOOF PRINT.
A link, you say? All links are sealed by EO!
they were at least assumed legally married
____________________________________________
yes if thats what happened
assumed
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.