Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Once Again I will Posit Adoption for Barack Obama.
Various | 3/1/2012 | DiogenesLamp

Posted on 03/01/2012 1:50:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp

I just finished Watching Sheriff Arpaio's press conference. The Sheriff's posse has concluded that the document was created on a computer and is therefore a forgery.

I will once again point out that if Obama was adopted, he would get a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate, but it will in fact have been created by the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii at the Direction of an Hawaiian State Judge.

"The Obama was Adopted" theory addresses the "forgery" issue head on, and precludes it from being a crime. In my opinion, this is the simplest explanation for the fact that Obama's document looks cobbled together, and that Hawaii is tacitly confirming it as legitimate.

I will further add, (for those who have not already been so informed) that *I* was adopted, and *I* have a birth certificate which was created six years after I was born, and is in fact a replacement birth certificate that lists my new last name, new parent's names, etc.

This theory ties up a lot of the loose ends neatly (not all of them) and it doesn't involve believing that the Hawaiian government is involved in a criminal "conspiracy." I urge people to consider this idea before jumping to the conclusion that everyone involved with producing this document has committed a criminal act.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: arpaio; birftards; birthcertificate; certifigate; kerkorian; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-398 next last
To: Fred Nerks
just wondering...IF your amended bc showed the name of a mother who wasn’t your mother, might you see a different outcome?

The "mother's name" on both documents is different on my birth certificates.

You are relating your personal experience to circumstances that may be nothing like your own.

I think it is only because of my personal experience that I am even looking in this direction. Had I known nothing of the details of an adoption, such an answer would not have even occurred to me. I must point out, that I am not the only one who thinks Obama was adopted by his Grandparents. (Later legally annulled, thus the new document.)

There’s no way you can know when and by whom

Everything is surmised based on what seems to be KNOWN facts.
1. Indonesian law seems to make adoption of children under five automatic.
2. After 1971 Obama lived with his Grandparents.
3. His birth document appears to be a forgery of recent vintage.
4. Hawaii does not disown it.

What makes sense of it all? This adoption theory seems to. It is both Legal *AND* fake. If you have any familiarity with the theory of Quantum Mechanics, this idea is not so difficult to grasp. The "cat" is both dead and alive at the same time. :)


101 posted on 03/01/2012 6:19:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
There is no such thing as a legal forgery.

And the fact that you apparently aren’t aware that there are NUMEROUS massively long threads on FR researching Zero’s background nor have you read them, shows that my initial suspicious about you are factual.

And when I suggested reading the “Auntie” thread you weren’t interested in a link, and sneered about physical similarities, which are not the point of the thread in question.

The fact that you trot out this crap thread today shows you for what you are.

I did ask for a link. I probably HAVE read the "auntie thread", but may not have given it as much import as you have. Have you read the Vattel Research thread? HMMM????

My idea is not crap. Why don't you spend less time worrying about what I have or have not done, and show everyone what you think is wrong with the idea?

102 posted on 03/01/2012 6:23:40 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

BO was a bastard, in the legal sense.

Little commie mommy was a promiscuous young thing and BO, with an ego the size of Indonesia, couldn’t staten to be called a bastard, ergo, the forged birth certificate.

Back in the early 1960’s, a young white girl having a black baby would have been an outrage. No wonder little commie mommy took little bastard Barry to indonesia!!

(My belief, anyway)


103 posted on 03/01/2012 6:26:46 PM PST by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
Fred’s here watching you.

You are going to get yourself into an awful tangle assuming that your own circumstances/experience have anything to do with zero.

At Last! An Audience! :)

I welcome you all to read everything I ever wrote on this website, and likewise everything I ever wrote on THIS WEBSITE.>

My name is "Diogenes" on THAT website.

104 posted on 03/01/2012 6:27:03 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
Vote away....still won’t mean you’re right. :) Hey, if you think DL is legit, that’s your choice. Have you read ALL past posts from day one? If not, please do so.

I agree. Please do so.

105 posted on 03/01/2012 6:29:35 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
My idea is not crap.

legal forgery? BS! looks like a FELONY to me!


106 posted on 03/01/2012 6:30:22 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

DL:”Yes, it’s fake, but it’s a LEGAL fake. That is my theory.”

Why does a legal institution need to “manufacture” a seal. Why would they not make the changes and then endorse the document properly.

Doesn’t make sense to me.


107 posted on 03/01/2012 6:30:48 PM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
‘he’ talks about me without the courtesy of including my name ... so I can do the same. I doubt we are dealing with an obamabot, what we have here is someone who thinks they have it all worked out...and can’t take anything but their own theories into account. It’s a pity...

I don't know why you would be offended. I've said the information you come up with is very interesting. I've actually been quite impressed with some of your stuff.

And no, I don't think I have it all worked out. I just think this theory needs to be considered. Obama is an Enigma, wrapped up in a riddle, surrounded by a mystery.

I personally think he is a commie at heart and an agent of the forces of darkness, but that's just my opinion.

108 posted on 03/01/2012 6:32:46 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I don’t think the grandparents would have adopted Barry Soetoro, but instead they simply got legal guardianship. The divorce records still suggested that Lolo Soeotoro was still legally Barry’s father.

Now THAT is a good point. I wish other people would spend more time actually making a point rather than wondering if I am an Obot spy. :)

I would like to respond further, but I have to go pick my daughter up from one of her school functions. I'll see if I can think of a good answer to this point tomorrow.

109 posted on 03/01/2012 6:35:31 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So tell me, Schrodinger’s cat notwithstanding, when did he become Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah?

Which he must have been at some time, for there to exist a need to have that name removed from her passport in August 1968.

Did he accompany SAD to Indonesia or elsewhere UNDER THAT NAME in July 1965 when her passport application was dated?


110 posted on 03/01/2012 6:38:05 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It has caused me some trouble. I am in the process of putting together a Libel Suit. A no joke Libel suit. Issues of Jurisdiction are right now being addressed, it takes time to do the legal research needed. Damnit ... lawyers are EXPENSIVE, but in this case my family and I consider it absolutely worth it.

If I were you I would not publish it, you will only get attacked for it. Unless you feel really strongly about it, let it go. Once your anonymity is gone, and flipping nutcase can pick it up and go all sorts of freaky on you and your family.


111 posted on 03/01/2012 6:40:40 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented
Yes, no one produces forgeries if they have legitimate documents to share.
112 posted on 03/01/2012 6:42:38 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2; madison10
I'd have to agree with madison that Stanley Armour Dunham is for sure in Zero's ancestry. That almost certainly means that Stanley Ann is indeed his mother.

However, there's another theory of his parentage that is as amusing as it is implausible. That's that Stanley Armour is not his grandfather, but his father, and that his mother is an unknown black woman whom Stanley Armour came to know through his friendship with Frank Marshall Davis. Wouldn't that be a hoot! But how it would have ever got past Toot is the big question.

113 posted on 03/01/2012 6:42:51 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

it really is sad that there are people like you who only look to defend someone or something based on your views instead of ;looking at facts.

Here is a suggestion as the lefts tactic of make fun of those who raise certain issues is getting old much like PC.


114 posted on 03/01/2012 6:44:25 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
It’s quite common for Permanent Resident Alien minors to be in the custody of a Social Service Agency in one state, while in the physical custody of a relative in another state.

******

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your statement above.

Are you saying above that Obama was a "Permanent Resident Alien" at some point in his life, like the time he received his Social Security card that says it was issued in Connecticut? Thanks.

115 posted on 03/01/2012 6:44:58 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

All I am trying to say is, beware the theories that present an answer to everything - and don’t throw out suggestions that seem a little out of left field. No one person will ever close the book on this, imo.
It’s going to take teamwork, and the sheriff has a team.


116 posted on 03/01/2012 6:46:55 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is the presentation of Arpaio's evidence: (Sheriff's presentation)
117 posted on 03/01/2012 6:52:05 PM PST by usar91B (The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" - AL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

LEGAL FORGERY

it can’t be both, either it is a forgery or legal, I knew the loons on the left were dumb but FFS this is even way out for them .


118 posted on 03/01/2012 6:53:32 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
It’s quite common for Permanent Resident Alien minors to be in the custody of a Social Service Agency in one state, while in the physical custody of a relative in another state.

You've got your causal chain all bollixed up. You are starting with an anomaly about his SSN, which is in the Connecticut number series, probably due to a simple clerical error, and leaping to the conclusion that he was an alien minor whose care was overseen by a Connecticut charity and which applied for his SSN on his behalf with their CT zip code in the return address. That's absurd. You are laying out all the possibilities and picking an extremely unlikely possibility just because you think you had a clever idea.

You need to start with real evidence that he was some sort of alien. But, on the contrary, all of the evidence says he was born in Hawaii. That makes him a citizen, and parents can't renounce their child's citizenship. He has to do it himself, after turning 18, and after convincing a State Department official he knows what he is doing and is not under duress.

Some people have invested too much time and money into false theories and won’t give it up. Or you can cling to the hope his BC is fake, his SSN is fake, his Selective Service is fake and everyone is in on it since the beginning.

Just because the standard birther theories are garbage doesn't mean yours is any better.

119 posted on 03/01/2012 6:59:44 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The problem with this theory is that the document has evidence of never actually being a physical document. Printing the document, and then actually getting it photocopied, would have eliminated all of the various problems within it. Instead, we have a document that can literally be modified piece by piece the way i twas assembled.

The White House never claimed it was only ever a digital copy. It claimed to have the physical document.


120 posted on 03/01/2012 7:07:17 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: manc; DiogenesLamp

what might that mean...a true copy or an abstract...only the sheriff knows where the computer is located that this traversty came from, and I'm not going to be surprised if it turns out to be at the DOH in Hawaii. Now THAT would make it a legal forgery, wouldn't it? (sarc)

121 posted on 03/01/2012 7:08:39 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

October 2008:

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

“...have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Basically - “we have records.” But does not say - “born in Hawaii”. So at this point NO ONE from Hawaii - including Brian Schatz, head of Hawaii Democratic Party - had declared Obama born there. I point that Brian Schatz did not because legally he was supposed to - when Obama/Biden ticket is put on the ballot. But he removed standard wording when it was done - thus forcing Ms. Pelosi to submit the statement that the ticket met constitutional eligibility requirements.

Fast forward to July 27, 2009:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5193422-503544.html

“Some Republicans have been dancing around birther issue, refusing to state flatly that the president is a U.S. citizen.”

“”They can vote for the measure, and endorse the idea that Obama was born in Hawaii, which could earn the wrath of birthers. Or they can vote against commemorating the 50th state’s joining of our blessed Union. Or GOPers can skip the vote, but that could look nutty.””

“Fifty-five members did not vote – but don’t read too much into that, as 35 of them were Democrats. “

So Abercrombie used Hawaii’s 50th statehood anniversery to put the government on the record - FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME - that Obama WAS born in Hawaii. They threatened ridicule on anyone not supporting it. 55 abstained - over half of those were Democrats.

LATER THAT SAME DAY

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“...have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

She makes this statement in a press release out of the apparent blue. It was not in response to anything. It is just a released statement. But the statement still leaves wiggle room. It says ‘the vital records say he was born in Hawaii...’. I bet they do! Manipulated vital records can say almost anything. As they do in adoption documents. She does NOT personally claim Obama was born in Hawaii. She relies on ‘the vital record’ to make that statement. So even in July of 2009 no one PERSONALLY has yet vouched for Obama being born there.

Two days later Janice Okubo issues this email in response to one received about the July 27, 2009 statement:

Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

Aloha Justin,

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

Janice Okubo
Communications Office

Mark Bennett has refused to substantiate this claim by Okubo.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/28/hi-ag-denies-having-information-supporting-department-of-health-claim/

And remember Abercrombie. Becomes governor and is going to clear all this up. Weeks later he can not find it and gives up.

No one in Hawaii has PERSONALLY vouched for Obama being born there. Okubo and Fukino may have crossed the line and would like face a jury before anyone else. But everyone else has their “get our of jail” excuse ready. No pun intended.


122 posted on 03/01/2012 7:09:23 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
You've got your causal chain all bollixed up. You are starting with an anomaly about his SSN, which is in the Connecticut number series, probably due to a simple clerical error, and leaping to the conclusion that he was an alien minor whose care was overseen by a Connecticut charity and which applied for his SSN on his behalf with their CT zip code in the return address. That's absurd. You are laying out all the possibilities and picking an extremely unlikely possibility just because you think you had a clever idea.

*******

Obama could quickly put a stop to this Connecticut controversy by simply getting a copy of his original Social Security application form and showing it to the public like he showed his Hawaii long form birth certificate to the public back in April 2011.

According to the Social Security site, anyone can quickly and easily get a copy of his own Social Security application by simply requesting a copy and paying a small fee.

123 posted on 03/01/2012 7:17:45 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

yea can’t make up a copy today today .

FFS

Ever wondered why the man will not just show the damn thing?

Even when judge rules he will not show it nor will he show his many [past records but of course the idiots out there who are so stupid who cannot think for themselves will sit there being told what to think and the lunatics on the fringe of the left will try and silence folks by making fun of them, don’;t you agree on that?


124 posted on 03/01/2012 7:18:32 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“1. Indonesian law seems to make adoption of children under five automatic.”

This is interesting because of the constant incorrect claim that SAD and Soetoro where married in 1967. That was ‘the line’ (and still is mostly). This blatantly incorrect date was obviously feed to the media time and time again. No attempt to correct it appears to have been made.

1967 makes Obama 6 years old.
1865 makes the date 3 or 4 years old. Thus the automatic adoption kicks in.

Also, one of the very few ways to annul this is for the birth father to ‘reclaim’ the adopted child. And in 1971 that is likely why Obama Senior was needed in Hawaii.

It is reported that he stayed in an apartment in the same building as the Dunhams and that they paid for that and his travel while he was there. He basically was the Dunhams guest on that trip.

It does feel like we are dealing with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!


125 posted on 03/01/2012 7:23:55 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
The White House never claimed it was only ever a digital copy. It claimed to have the physical document.

The document went from physical to electronic to physical then to electronic.

It started out physical, bound into a book in the Hawaii DoH's records storage room. They took the book down off the shelf, opened it to Obama's page, and pressed it onto the copier glass. Then it went electronic as the copier scanned it and back to physical as the copier printed the copy (actually two copies were made, if memory serves).

Then they stamped and dated the copies with Dr Onaka's official stamp and turned them over to Obama's lawyer, who hand-carried them back to the White House.

At the White House, they scanned one or both of the copies back into electronic form and gave the PDF out to the press.

So, the question is, at what point did the forgery take place, if it took place? And with what purpose?

Remember, the original is still in the book on the shelf at the Hawaii DoH. If the electronic document the White House put out has any substantive discrepancies (facts, not pixels, that is) vs the document in the book, then the Hawaii DoH ought to be blowing the whistle! Unless they are in on it, which would be huge. But in that case no WH forgery would have been needed.

126 posted on 03/01/2012 7:29:36 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

What happened with this document could only happen if someone took an image, scanned it to a computer, and then digitally altered it. It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.


127 posted on 03/01/2012 7:33:47 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

If you’ll take a look at Barry Soetoro’s St. Francis Assisi School record, then you’ll notice Barry was born in Honolulu, HI and identified as an Indonesian National.

How is it Barry Soetoro could renounce his U.S. citizenship and Barack Obama could not?

St. Francis Assisi School of Djakarta, Indonesia is operated by St. Francis Assisi Foundation of Connecticut, U.S.A.

Are all these coincidences clerical errors?


128 posted on 03/01/2012 7:34:22 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: manc

There are some ‘funny’ people where you is...did you hear the one at the sheriff presser who asked ‘WHAT’S YOUR MOTIVE’?


129 posted on 03/01/2012 7:38:48 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Whichever the cawe, “none so blind as he who does not wish to see” fits.


130 posted on 03/01/2012 7:53:27 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
If you’ll take a look at Barry Soetoro’s St. Francis Assisi School record, then you’ll notice Barry was born in Honolulu, HI and identified as an Indonesian National.

How is it Barry Soetoro could renounce his U.S. citizenship and Barack Obama could not?

So? Priests and nuns can screw up a nationality, especially if they are ignorant furriners. Lolo probably told them the kid was Indonesian. He may even have believed it. But under the 14th, little Barry was an American, and minors can't renounce their citizenship, nor can their parents do it for them. So, the Catholic school record just proves he was there and reinforces that he was born in the USA. IOW, it damages the birther case; it doesn't bolster it.

St. Francis Assisi School of Djakarta, Indonesia is operated by St. Francis Assisi Foundation of Connecticut, U.S.A.

So what.

Are all these coincidences clerical errors?

No, but your obsession with them is a sign of mental illness.

131 posted on 03/01/2012 8:04:08 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.

That would mean the alteration would have had to have been done by the WH, and the State of Hawaii is party to the crime by tacitly validating it (failing to blow the whistle).

Pretty neat if the Sheriff can prove that! He'd have to persuade a court with proper jurisdiction to subpoena the Hawaii original and call the Hawaii officials as witnesses. And, of course, the evidence, once dragged into court, would have to prove the case. Maybe if he can get Arizona to deny Zero ballot access, he can bump the case into federal court and persuade a judge to do the above. Don't hold your breath.

132 posted on 03/01/2012 8:12:33 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
How is it Barry Soetoro could renounce his U.S. citizenship and Barack Obama could not?

Under U.S. law, a minor child born in the U.S. cannot renounce his U.S. citizenship until he reaches his majority.

As Lolo Soetoro's adopted son, young Barry became an Indonesian national (in the eyes of Indonesia) -- but he did not lose his right to declare for U.S. citizenship upon reaching his majority.

133 posted on 03/01/2012 8:15:52 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

an adopted child should not run for President.
Too much baggage.


134 posted on 03/01/2012 8:22:53 PM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
It may or may not be a legal fake.

I think your analysis is good.

The problem is that Obama has presented a false story. He presented this pile of garbage as an original document. He needed to to keep looking eligible.

The postal stamp on his elective Service is a big problem. It's my understanding that you can't get a job in government without signing up.

135 posted on 03/01/2012 8:31:49 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: okie01
But ......

Obama did live as an Indonesian citizen. You cant live as a foreign citizen and then become president of the United States... Legally. And you can't undo the fact that he has sworn allegiance to Indonesia, just as we were swearing allegiance to the united states when we were children.

136 posted on 03/01/2012 8:44:12 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Agreed. Or documents are morphing to fit the desired reality due to a higher power - whether lawyers or someone from the future, it isn’t sure.
I’d rather focus on the Obamanation’s unconstitutional acts than his birth. He’s violated the Constitution, acts don’t stand, annul and continue with life.
God help us, though, I worry about the timing of Andrew Beitbart’s death compared to his planned release of Obama video from college.
Whatever happens, the conspiracy theories on Obama will certainly rival those with Clinton, probably more so.


137 posted on 03/01/2012 8:52:59 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: okie01

If you’ll look at Stanley Ann’s passport renewal form, 1968, then you’ll see she wrote and struck out the Obama’s name. The instructions on the renewal form clearly indicate a person listed on the original passport who has naturalized in a foreign state is to have their name written and struck out.

It’s proof Obama’s mother was notifying the U.S. State Department that Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) is to be taken off her renewed passport because he has naturalized with a foreign state.

The instructions for striking out a name because they have naturalized in a foreign state are clearly indicated in the declaration above Stanley Ann’s signature. Most Obots choose to ignore this incriminating fact.


138 posted on 03/01/2012 9:13:36 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
It’s proof Obama’s mother was notifying the U.S. State Department that Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) is to be taken off her renewed passport because he has naturalized with a foreign state.

Makes no difference, Sven.

The mother cannot renounce the citizenship of a minor child born in the USA. Nor can the father...or anybody else.

Only the minor child can, once he reaches his majority.

139 posted on 03/01/2012 9:22:51 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

lj what is the “Auntie” thread? Link please and ty.


140 posted on 03/01/2012 10:41:05 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It’s not just adoption. Under Hawaii law, the facts on file can be changed any time a judge okays it. Any number of corrupt Democrat judges could have agreed to change the vital records in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011 based on nothing more than Barry’s sworn say-so.


141 posted on 03/02/2012 12:25:53 AM PST by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You wrote, in-part ...”a replacement birth certificate that will be designed to look like an original 1961 birth certificate”

You are not writing about rules or privacy. You are writing about format.
Bye


142 posted on 03/02/2012 2:12:05 AM PST by tiger-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Only the minor child can, once he reaches his majority.”

Incorrect.

The minor child can re-apply for there citizenship upon age of majority.

Parents can and do change their childs citizenship all the time.


143 posted on 03/02/2012 4:29:21 AM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; Apollo5600

Apollo:”It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.”

cynwoody, after reflecting on this and your assumed order of events, I don’t know that I agree with your assumptions. You are proposing that Hawaii provided paper copies of the birth certificate, these were sent/carried to the White House, scanned and then modified and then reprinted.

I propose that maybe we were misinformed somewhat along the way (perhaps lied to?) and that Hawaii supplied the Obama folks with a digital copy of the certificate with the paper copies. There are two reasons I consider this likely. First off, wouldn’t the computers in the White House be more secure than most and wouldn’t it be unlikely that Sheriff Joe could gather the source of the document from something generated in the White House. It’s more probable that the work was done on less secure equipment such as what Hawaii might use. Secondly, Sheriff Joe mentioned at the end of the press conference he thought an investigation in Hawaii was one option. If he suspected the White House modified the LFBC, why would he recommend an investigation in Hawaii?

As you have posted in other threads, I think Hawaii is complicit in this cover-up (and have been for some time) and that the real birth documents need to be brought forward - IF they actually exist...


144 posted on 03/02/2012 5:14:42 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; Apollo5600

Apollo:”It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.”

cynwoody, after reflecting on this and your assumed order of events, I don’t know that I agree with your assumptions. You are proposing that Hawaii provided paper copies of the birth certificate, these were sent/carried to the White House, scanned and then modified and then reprinted.

I propose that maybe we were misinformed somewhat along the way (perhaps lied to?) and that Hawaii supplied the Obama folks with a digital copy of the certificate with the paper copies. There are two reasons I consider this likely. First off, wouldn’t the computers in the White House be more secure than most and wouldn’t it be unlikely that Sheriff Joe could gather the source of the document from something generated in the White House. It’s more probable that the work was done on less secure equipment such as what Hawaii might use. Secondly, Sheriff Joe mentioned at the end of the press conference he thought an investigation in Hawaii was one option. If he suspected the White House modified the LFBC, why would he recommend an investigation in Hawaii?

As you have posted in other threads, I think Hawaii is complicit in this cover-up (and have been for some time) and that the real birth documents need to be brought forward - IF they actually exist...


145 posted on 03/02/2012 5:15:45 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; Apollo5600

Apollo:”It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.”

cynwoody, after reflecting on this and your assumed order of events, I don’t know that I agree with your assumptions. You are proposing that Hawaii provided paper copies of the birth certificate, these were sent/carried to the White House, scanned and then modified and then reprinted.

I propose that maybe we were misinformed somewhat along the way (perhaps lied to?) and that Hawaii supplied the Obama folks with a digital copy of the certificate with the paper copies. There are two reasons I consider this likely. First off, wouldn’t the computers in the White House be more secure than most and wouldn’t it be unlikely that Sheriff Joe could gather the source of the document from something generated in the White House. It’s more probable that the work was done on less secure equipment such as what Hawaii might use. Secondly, Sheriff Joe mentioned at the end of the press conference he thought an investigation in Hawaii was one option. If he suspected the White House modified the LFBC, why would he recommend an investigation in Hawaii?

As you have posted in other threads, I think Hawaii is complicit in this cover-up (and have been for some time) and that the real birth documents need to be brought forward - IF they actually exist...


146 posted on 03/02/2012 5:17:04 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; Apollo5600

Apollo:”It could not have been digitally altered from Hawaii, and then printed, redigitized, printed, and digitized again, because the act of printing and then taking a photocopy of the image (as they claimed they did) would have eliminated any artifact that pointed to intentional editing.”

cynwoody, after reflecting on this and your assumed order of events, I don’t know that I agree with your assumptions. You are proposing that Hawaii provided paper copies of the birth certificate, these were sent/carried to the White House, scanned and then modified and then reprinted.

I propose that maybe we were misinformed somewhat along the way (perhaps lied to?) and that Hawaii supplied the Obama folks with a digital copy of the certificate with the paper copies. There are two reasons I consider this likely. First off, wouldn’t the computers in the White House be more secure than most and wouldn’t it be unlikely that Sheriff Joe could gather the source of the document from something generated in the White House. It’s more probable that the work was done on less secure equipment such as what Hawaii might use. Secondly, Sheriff Joe mentioned at the end of the press conference he thought an investigation in Hawaii was one option. If he suspected the White House modified the LFBC, why would he recommend an investigation in Hawaii?

As you have posted in other threads, I think Hawaii is complicit in this cover-up (and have been for some time) and that the real birth documents need to be brought forward - IF they actually exist...


147 posted on 03/02/2012 5:18:05 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented

Sorry for the multiple post. I was getting a Proxy error and actually only pressed the button twice!

Strange....


148 posted on 03/02/2012 5:22:46 AM PST by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
If Obama was adopted by Soetoro, he could petition the court to ‘correct’ his last name, reflecting whatever name he wants.

However, the legal parents (by birth or adoption) on a corrected/amended BC would still remain the same.

One would think so, but I am not so certain. In any case, the two newspaper advertisements indicate that those names are what were being used in 1961 anyway. It doesn't bother me to think they were the original names put on his original birth certificate, I just doubt that Stanley was there when the paperwork was initiated.

It is probable the grandparents became the official guardians of obama (as opposed to adoption). A legal formality rich with documentation, but the paperwork is out of our reach.

This is likely true in ordinary cases, but it appears that Obama was the adopted son of a foreign national. It may have required a defacto adoption to straighten out his citizenship issues. I'm sure it was a legal tangle back in 1971.

149 posted on 03/02/2012 5:57:12 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I will go back and read them again. I went back to the day you joined and read from there. I will admit I didn’t spend hours reading each post. I will read more when I have time and if I think I was wrong, I have no problem admitting I was wrong.

Thank you. I too, make a habit of admitting something when I am wrong.

150 posted on 03/02/2012 5:58:50 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-398 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson