36% Believe Obama is Hiding Biographical Information

Sven Magnussen ^ | Jan 18, 2013 | Sven Magnussen

[Fred Nerks]

Like 'the man said' (SEE STAMP ON THE REVERSE) what you have here is an ABSTRACT, it's a little bit from this and little bit from that, the date belongs to Virginia, as does the number, and the original birth recorded for the son of the kenyan and Anna Obama also forms one of the many layers...thus, the number nine for the kenyan as AFRICAN means his race wasn't stated, and a number nine for 'University' means the same thing, 'University' isn't relative to a 'kind of business or industry'.

THE CODE NINE THUS IS STATISTICALLY NOT SIGNIFICANT.

BUT SEE THE 'STUDENT' has attracted the Code of '0' (zero) so I can logically see something like:

Student, retired or unemployed = 0

Agricultural Worker = 1

Professional = 2

ETC. JUST THE WAY IT LOOKS.

[jsanders2001]

Only 36%?

Once again the liberal MSM skews the figures and cuts the number in half...after everything we’ve seen (if you pay attention) how can you not have any doubts? That there is any question that the President is eligible without the public demanding real proof is a testament to how good a liar Obama is (or whether idiots in large numbers will support anything based on emotional knee-jerk reactions instead of common sense or logic)

[SvenMagnussen]

Anyone of any age can move out of the country and renounce their U.S. Citizenship. Obama was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality after his mother informed the SoS, through her 1967 passport renewal, Obama naturalized in a foreign state and she (and Obama) planned to stay in Indonesian indefinitely.

In Vance v. Terrazas, Laurence Terrazas was born in Maryland to a U.S. Citizen mother and a Mexican National father. Because of the laws of each country, Terrazas was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Mexico.

Later, while enrolled as a student in Mexico, Mexican authorities required Terrazas to renounce his U.S. citizenship to the Mexican authorities and declare sole allegiance to the Mexico. When Cyrus Vance, SoS under the Carter administration, became aware of the renouncement to the Mexican officals, Vance issued a Certicate of Loss of Nationality to him even though Terrazas told U.S. officals he had no intention of renoucing his U.S. Citizenship. He insisted he only renounced his U.S. Citizenship to Mexican officals under duress because they threatened to expel him from the university.

SCOTUS found the Vance obtained by a preponderance of the evidence Terrazas voluntarily renounced his U.S. Citizenship. This couldn't happen to a natural born citizen with two U.S. Citizen parents because the student would have been stateless if the SoS issued a Certificate of Loss Nationality.

Dean Rusk, the SoS when Obama renounced his U.S. Citizenship, voluntarily and implicitly through the declaration of his mother to stay in Indonesia indefinitely, after he ascertained Obama wouldn't be stateless when the Certificate of Loss of Nationalilty is issued.

This is why the passport renewal ask for a return date and demands notification of naturalization in a foreign state. If a person naturalized in a foreign state and states the do not plan to return to the U.S., then the SoS may issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. The Obama administration issued a policy pronouncement it will not issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality based upon the parents actions. This does not mean SoS would not issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968.

[Ladysforest]

This:

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/did-corsi-lie-to-zullo-a-real-1961-vital-statistics-instruction-manual

or

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum

[edge919]

That’s interesting. I wonder why they titled Chapter 3 - “Loss of Nationality” subtitled “Loss of Nationality by Native-born or Naturalized Citizens”?

You understand it's possible for laws to make BOTH negative and positive declarations of criteria that would affection naturalization or loss of nationality?? This shouldn't too hard to comprehend.

And why did they begin Chapter 3 with:
“SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by - “
And they go on to list 10 ways that a citizen of the US can lose their citizenship (with adoption not being one of the ten).

Yes, and I hope you understand the law was amended in 1986. We have to look at the law that was in effect at the time Obama would have been adopted, not what it was in 1986 or later. The Cornell law site gives annotations regarding how that part of the law has been amended. Prior to 1986, it contained language to explain how citizenship can NOT be lost:

nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

You'll see this says nationality shall NOT be lost as the result of the naturalization of the parents. What this doesn't cover is when the parent is already a foreign national, such as Lolo Soetoro. Under adoption law, the acquisition of citizenship is considered birth citizenship and not naturalization, so if Obama was adopted, he wasn't being naturalized by a parent or guardian; he was automatically becoming a citizen through adoption and Indonesian law.

Are you saying Indonesian laws trumped US laws with regards to US citizenship?

No, I'm saying the U.S respects the laws of other nations and follows international law where applicable. Under the State Department website on intercountry adoption, it only says that children retain U.S. citizenship when adopted to Hague Convention countries. Indonesia has not been party to this convention. Also, note that this comment also defers to the laws of other countries.

A child being adopted from the United States to another Convention country retains his/her U.S. citizenship. He or she may also acquire the citizenship of the prospective adoptive parents depending on the citizenship status of the parents and the laws of the other Convention country.

And it's worth noting that these ideas about loss of nationality are relatively new. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court acknowledged that parents COULD renounce the citizenship of their child:

neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States ...

What we don't know is what citizenship Obama claimed as a young adult, up till the time he was required to choose U.S. citizenship or not. And again, we have no legal proof he was ever a U.S. citizen prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen, which means these laws on loss of nationality simply don't apply. Obama had to naturalize. t too hard to comprehend.

[Fred Nerks]

OMG!

Looks like you have this situation well covered, I ended up with a squint just reading about it. In item 16 on the BC I posted, I see what appears to be a number 3 on its side, it could also be a ‘w’. (But as Stanley Ann Dunham never gave birth to any child at Kapiolani, it’s a futile observation.

For occupation she gets a zero under ‘date last worked’ - but I see it now, the numbers on that document appear to have little relationship to the Manual.

Hawaii must have a manual for their own use, it probably combines some of the national guidelines with their own peculiar diverse population. How many states would have the question:

‘Is residence on a farm or plantation?’

You deserve a medal...and Corsi needs a kick in the behind.

[4Zoltan]

“Yes, and I hope you understand the law was amended in 1986. We have to look at the law that was in effect at the time Obama would have been adopted, not what it was in 1986 or later.”

I’m citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also known as the McCarron-Walters Act. It was amended by the 1965 Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality also known as the Hart-Celler Act.

As for the rest not under Perkins v Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

“As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.”

Can you cite any treaty/US law that says a child loses his citizenship by adoption by a foreign national?

“Obama had to naturalize”

Not Us Law at the time of his move to Indonesia.

[edge919]

I’m citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also known as the McCarron-Walters Act. It was amended by the 1965 Act to Amend the Immigration and Nationality also known as the Hart-Celler Act.

It was also amended in 1986 when the law took out the part I just quoted. Either you ignored this originally or you were looking only at the law as amended after 1986. Which is it??

As for the rest not under Perkins v Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Do you have a point?? This doesn't address countries that do NOT allow dual citizenship. And unlike Obama, the person in this decision was born in this country to naturalized parents. Did Elg have a stepfather or adoptive father who listed her under a new surname in the other country?

Can you cite any treaty/US law that says a child loses his citizenship by adoption by a foreign national?

I already cited the law and showed that it did NOT include adoption as an exemption to loss of citizenship. The exemptions were based on naturalization of the parents, which didn't apply to Lolo Soetoro who was already a foreign national. The acquisition of Indonesian citizenship through adoption is not considered naturalization.

Not Us Law at the time of his move to Indonesia.

Nonsense. Your selective quotation misses the context of my comment. I said if Obama did NOT have U.S. citizenship prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen, then he would have to had to naturalize to become a U.S. citizen after he was sent to the U.S. to live with his grandparents.

[edge919]

Why would Corsi need a kick in the behind? The “Manual” was amended AFTER Obama would have been born. We still haven’t seen any official manual covering the official coding that would have been used.

[Fred Nerks]

Maybe he could have been a little more forthcoming with Ladysforest, and I’m personally still somewhat disgusted with him for the publicity he gave that shyster Joel Gilbert.

[Yosemitest]

Have y'all forgotten

INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961! ?

One other thing.
Obama is NOT black !
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is ARAB-KENYAN.

"Genealogical evidence has revealed that the impostering "first black president" Barak Hussein Obama is 6.5% Negro and 48% Arabic, the remainder 45% Caucasian."

The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States. Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.

Read British National Archives Show Son Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!

His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II, because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death, and then have his body deported back to Kenya.

[Fred Nerks]

...and btw, I addressed my comment to Ladysforest after reading BOTH the links provided, and the comments to the blog. Did you? Doesn’t seem that way, for if you had, what I wrote about Mr Corsi wouldn’t have surprised you. Is it getting so that an opinion isn’t acceptable any more?

[4Zoltan]

I’ve never even reviewed the 1986 law, only the 1952/1965 law. That law lists the only 10 ways that a citizen can loss their nationality. You seem to be the one that wants to make US citzenship dependent on what foreign laws say, not me.

Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii and assuming he was adopted by Soetoro there are two possiblities:

If Obama is under five at time of adoption - Under Indonesian law he could automatically become an Indonesian citizen, if under US law, he loses the US citizenship.

If over the age of five at the time of the adoption - he could only become an Indonesian citizen by naturalization (at the age of 21).

Indonesian law did not force the loss of US citizenship, it only governs how someone can gain Indonesian citizenship. The adoption could still take place, the child would just not be an Indonesian citizen unless and until he naturalized at age 21.

[Ladysforest]

About Corsi. I emailed him prior to running that 61 VSIM, I let him know that the images he had up on the screen during Mike Zullos presentation were not correct for the information that was given out at that presser. I asked if he wanted to look into that and clarify anything before I ran my post - mainly because a LOT of people in the blogs were pointing out that the image of the code chart had come from a ‘68 fed. VSIM. I sent him a copy of the actual 61 VSIM.

I got an email back from him where he basically said that he didn’t care a whole lot what people were saying about the image, and that he was just going to let it stand as it was. In other words he couldn’t have cared less about the validity of the chart he had used for the presentation being the wrong one.

He had Zullo claiming the image was from a federal 1961 VSIM, and that those code numbers in the image up on the screen (the same chart that The Daily Pen had up) were precisely the same as those used in HI to determine the coding on obamas BC. That was wrong. He knew it was wrong. I recently found out that Zullo hadn’t wanted to discuss the code issue because he felt there was not enough hard evidence, but Corsi insisted. And it was Corsi who designed the slide slow - every screen of it. Anyway, Zullo was reassured - barely - by a long discussion with a management person at the CDC, after going round and round, the CDC finally said that their (Corsi and Zullo) “understanding” of the coding appeared to be correct. With that slight assurance, but feeling he had gotten some supporting official confirmation, Zullo reluctantly agreed to do that part of the presentation. This will come as a surprise to most of you - but I got that direct, so it is true.

As to any revisions made to the 1961 VSIM, it is not likely that JUST the coding for race was revised. Now, I’ve seen a massive number of funky coincidences attached to every damn thing I have researched regarding obama and his magical public records, but I do feel this would be one too many.

More likely it would have been geographical. A lot of changes were going on for the few years surrounding Alaska and HI becoming states. Since I also read the SUMMARIES of the federal data collected, I can say that most references to revisions I found were changing codes around based on population density (apparently).

Not to say that the revision couldn’t have been made to two race codes and nothing else, but what would the point of doing that in mid-year be?

[edge919]

I’ve never even reviewed the 1986 law, only the 1952/1965 law. That law lists the only 10 ways that a citizen can loss their nationality.

I gave a direct quote of what the law said before it was amended and it was a way on how NOT to lose citizenship, soi you're characterization is not accurate. It's okay to admit I was right. I proved it.You seem to be the one that wants to make US citzenship dependent on what foreign laws say, not me.

I provided a quote from the state department that says that the U.S. defers to laws of other nations where such laws apply. I proved my point. It's okay to admit I was right.Indonesian law did not force the loss of US citizenship, it only governs how someone can gain Indonesian citizenship.

Indonesian law does NOT allow dual citizenship. Again, the state department says that it respects foreign laws.

[Fred Nerks]

I would like to address just one item to which you provided a link:

LINK

...The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth..."

That boy was Malik. The same Malik who said in a radio interview he remembers growing up with Barack when they were boys, the same Malik who said that Barack taught school in Uganda. Malik wasn't talking about zero, the boy he remembers is the child the baby-sitter meant when she said she baby-sat in January 1961 for ANNA OBAMA. He's the same boy standing there with his father and stepmother Ruth a year or so after Mark, whom Ruth is holding, was born.

Which just might mean this 'dekunked' document which appears to refer to a birth in Kenya was created to give Kenyan nationality and ID to the boy actually born in Hawaii, seen in the image below sitting next to zero:

[4Zoltan]

Showing respect for another countries laws does not mean the state department would strip an adopted child of his citizenship which is the only way a child could lose his citizenship. Indonesia cannot strip a child of his US citizenship. And there was no US law that allowed the US Government to strip the minor child of his citizenship.

The child could still be adopted by Soetoro, he just would not gain Indonesian citizenship. Until he reached the age of 21 and decide to become a naturalized INdonesian citizen.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you very much for posting all this info. WIll be back tomorrow and read everything again carefullly. Computer being weird and I have to turn it off.

[edge919]

Showing respect for another countries laws does not mean the state department would strip an adopted child of his citizenship which is the only way a child could lose his citizenship.

It's not about "stripping" citizenship. Now you're trying to use drama queen language to salvage a point that you can't support. The law allowed for persons to lose their citizenship if they gained the citizenship of another country. In an adoption, it's treated as though they never had other citizenship at birth, and in Obama's case, we don't ANY legal proof he ever had U.S. citizenship. The State Department cannot provide protection over something in which U.S. law does not have sole jurisdiction.

The child could still be adopted by Soetoro, he just would not gain Indonesian citizenship. Until he reached the age of 21 and decide to become a naturalized INdonesian citizen.

We already have evidence showing that Barry Soetoro did gain Indonesian citizenship. He didn't have to naturalize to become an Indonesian citizenship because adoption is treated the same as birth citizenship.

[Yosemitest]

I'm NOT buying it.