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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-398 next last
To: little jeremiah
But if you have not immersed yourself in all the long useful threads on FR you are lacking a desire to learn the truth about Zero.

I have read a lot of long threads on this issue. I'd be willing to bet I am more familiar with this stuff than 90% of the Freepers discussing it.

151 posted on 03/02/2012 6:01:15 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
Haste makes waste. I took some time, read more and will admit I jumped the gun. I saw several of your posts that seemed outlandish and looked like the typical concern troll, added that to the fact that you came to FR and immediately began to post on BC threads and nothing else, which MOST of the time, screams troll.

I have long thought that the vehmenent opposition on this issue is the result of it being a sensitive or weak spot for Obama. Why else do his minions show up and try to obfuscate the discussion?

I will now say that I believe I was wrong. I won’t try to blame it on being tired, or anything else. Wrong is wrong and I believe I was and I admit it. I should have taken more time reading your past posts and not jumped on the band wagon with the others calling you out on this thread.

Thank you for that.

I just saw where you defended Bushpilot1 and that’s good enough for me.He should not have been zotted, he was set up by after-birthers and trolls. He was one of the good guys and he got zotted and the trolls are left standing. It sucks!

I thought his point was taken in an unfair light, and I think it was absolutely wrong that they banned him on such a flimsy basis. Did you notice how much the Obot loons screamed about how insulted they were? (When he pointed out the Founders were racist.) It's like they got a scratch, and screamed that their arm had been ripped off! They are pathetic babies, and their tantrum should not have been rewarded.

You know better than I. What can be done about getting him reinstated? He is an exceptional researcher, and a staunch ally. He was one of the first people to make me feel welcome when I first signed on.

So, to set the record straight, I should have taken more time, ( I usually do) and I believe I was wrong and I apologize.

Thank you. I understand the sentiment about the obfuscation trolls, I deal with them a lot. Nowadays, it's difficult to discern which is which because so many conservatives want to argue for the other side. (The Entire crew of the Ace of Spades Blog, "Hot Air" e.g.)

152 posted on 03/02/2012 6:15:11 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
No, I don’t think he is eligible and I know he’s covering up things and lying. I came to FR in 2008 and have always believed he is lying about his BC and many other things.

From the very beginning. When he was first asked about his birth certificate, and he produced that pathetic little computer print-out with the Birthcertificate number redacted, I imediately thought he had something awful he was trying to hide. No other explanation made sense.

He has always been playing some sort of game with his proof of eligibility, and the State Election officials should not have put up with it. Unfortunately, because he was so politically popular at the time, not a single one of them had the balls to stand up and tell him "This is not good enough."

153 posted on 03/02/2012 6:18:06 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: KosmicKitty
BO was a bastard, in the legal sense.

Agreed. An already married father precludes a legitimate marriage to HIS mother. (And there is little evidence that there was one anyway.)

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.

I think the forgery has more to do with his eligibility than his concern about being a bastard. He did say in his book that his parents marriage was surrounded by so much murk that he didn't have the courage to look at it. (or some such.) I suspect he knew all along his parents were not legally married.

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!!

In many states, it was a felony crime at the time! (Those laws were all overturned in 1965 I think.) I have pointed out that from news articles discussing Madelyn Dunham (the grandmother's) co-workers at the bank where she worked, that she seemed embarrassed about him. They claim that they did not even know she had a grandchild until he started running for President.

Why would a Grandmother not tell her co-workers that her daughter had just had her first grandchild? It was likely because she was embarrassed. Interracial pregnancy was taboo in 1961.

154 posted on 03/02/2012 6:27:56 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
legal forgery? BS! looks like a FELONY to me!

I am not addressing the Selective Service issue. That may very well be an illegal forgery. I am addressing the Birth certificate issue. The fact that Hawaii is tacitly tolerating his displaying of it as his defacto "birth certificate" leads me to believe they regard it as a legal document from their office.

Knowing that it is a cobbled together piece of work, leads me to believe THEY are the ones who cobbled it together, and if so it was likely done under a Judge's order, making it a legal replacement document. (Though not the truth, and not an original.)

155 posted on 03/02/2012 6:31:39 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented
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.

They don't "NEED" to, but on computers it's just as convenient to copy and paste, especially if you are already putting it together out of pieces in your data base.

Why would they not make the changes and then endorse the document properly.

Good question. Incompetence?

Doesn’t make sense to me.

It is hard to make sense of it, but the Annulled Adoption theory makes the most sense to me (and some others) at this time.

156 posted on 03/02/2012 6:35:15 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

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

I would think you would mean when did he become BARRY Soebarkah. My guess would be 1965, or shortly after they arrived in Indonesia. As I mentioned, Indonesian law makes adoption of a child younger than five, automatic. All the father has to do is admit he accepts the child to a governmental official. No fuss.

I don't know if you've read Lame Cherry's blog, but he had a pretty good analysis of the Soebarkah part of this issue.

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.

I agree. I'm thinking he was adopted in 1965 when Stanley Married Lolo.

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

At that time, I think she carried him under her passport.

If you haven't already, read this.

157 posted on 03/02/2012 6:42:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Danae
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.

That was exactly what I was worried about. I've been a conservative activist for years. I've been attacked by Demobots before. (They set fire to my grass twice, among other things. Those people are NUTS!!!) I knew what to expect if they could get a hold of my personal details, and how it would bring all that much more fire if it was actually effective in hurting them.

Again, I have to say I admire the courage you had in making your decision to release your birth certificate. My sister said it wouldn't bother her to release HER birth certificate(s), but I don't think she appreciates the trouble it might cause her. I told her never mind.

Again, thank you for your sacrifice. Hopefully they will forget about you eventually.

158 posted on 03/02/2012 6:48:35 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Yes, no one produces forgeries if they have legitimate documents to share.

Agreed.

159 posted on 03/02/2012 6:49:42 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
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.

Jack Cashill suggested this in his book. I am convinced that Barack has his grandfathers genes. (The similarity of appearance is too striking.) Whether they be through Stanley Ann or Directly from his Grandfather, they are there. If evidence comes out to support the grandfather theory, i'll give it a closer look.

160 posted on 03/02/2012 6:52:46 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You know better than I. What can be done about getting him reinstated? He is an exceptional researcher, and a staunch ally. He was one of the first people to make me feel welcome when I first signed on.
______________________________________________
I don’t know, if he’s reading this, I hope he asks JR to give him another chance. He was one of the good ones and a loss to FR. Unfortunately, I never got his email address and we always corresponded here on FR. I don’t think we can post an email address here so unless someone else has his email, there is no way to reach him. :(

Bushpilot1, if you are reading this, ask JR to let you back in.


161 posted on 03/02/2012 6:55:19 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: manc
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.

Who do you think i'm defending?

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

I do not understand what you are talking about.

162 posted on 03/02/2012 6:57:27 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
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.

I applaud his teams work. They did come up with a few new things of which I had not heard. I would just like to know that they have looked at this issue from the perspective i've mentioned in this thread.

If they have considered the possibility that the document is a forgery produced by the Department of Health in Hawaii as a replacement document due to an Adoption or an Annulled Adoption, then that is all that I can ask.

If they have considered the idea and dismissed it for good cause, then my concern will have been addressed. I just don't think they have considered the idea. A lot of people seem to think it is far fetched, yet it seems to me the simplest was to explain stuff that doesn't make sense otherwise.

In all honesty, I posted this thread in the hopes that someone could get the idea to the posse just to make sure they have considered it.

163 posted on 03/02/2012 7:05:36 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: manc
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 .

Read this, and then tell me which document is legal, and which document is the forgery.

164 posted on 03/02/2012 7:08:19 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
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.

This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the "physical document" is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama's attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.

165 posted on 03/02/2012 7:13:08 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
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)

I regard the words "or an abstract" as the legal escape clause to cover up the fact that it *IS* an abstract (not an original) cobbled together by DOH. (Which they WILL do if a Judge so orders.)

166 posted on 03/02/2012 7:16:04 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

The public statements by Hawaiian officials are obfuscatory and ambiguous. I agree. Something is fishy in Hawaii. :)


167 posted on 03/02/2012 7:20:45 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6; edge919
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.

Edge919 pointed out that the Dunham/Soetoro divorce documents indicate Barry was still regarded as a dependent of Soetoro, and pointed out that this piece of information hurts the Adoption by Grandparents theory. It just occurred to me that Stanley Ann didn't necessarily tell Lolo Soetoro anything about it, preferring to leave him financially on the hook if possible. (How was he going to find out? He was thousands of miles away in Indonesia.)

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.

All these odd incidents seem to dovetail nicely with the adoption theory.

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

Very much so. Another analogy is "fuzzy logic."

168 posted on 03/02/2012 7:35:57 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
It may or may not be a legal fake.

I think your analysis is good.

Thanks. I would like to take credit for it, but others have suggested it as well. In any case, it's good to see that some people understand what I am trying to say. Yeah, it may not be right, but people should at least point out the holes in it rather than just carp.

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.

And my thinking is that if he has recently amended it (say 2006) he could possibly get it to say what he needed it to say.

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.

Yes, I agree. That is an entirely different topic, and I currently have no other explanation than that it is a willful and illegal forgery.

169 posted on 03/02/2012 7:43:29 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
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.

I'm not ready to go so far as to say that Hawaiian officials are corrupt. I could accept "incompetent" because I have plenty of familiarity with incompetence in governmental officials, but without clear evidence, I wouldn't suggest they are corrupt.

That being said, it may be very well within the legal process to get a document to say whatever it needs to say. If they can indict a ham sandwich, they can torture a document into confessing whatever they want. :)

170 posted on 03/02/2012 7:49:16 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

you wouldn’t


171 posted on 03/02/2012 7:50:25 AM 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 162 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

do you think obama was really born in HI and is eligible to be where he is?


172 posted on 03/02/2012 7:52:03 AM 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 164 | View Replies]

To: tiger-one
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.

I am writing about both. The REASON they make replacement birth certificates LOOK original is to prevent adopted children from realizing they are adopted.

Many people who adopt children don't want the children to discover that they are adopted. Often couples will have an adopted child together with their own biological children, and they don't want the adopted child to think of themselves as an outsider.

The legal systems in all the states have long agreed that this is often in the best interest of an adopted child, so they made it possible for birth certificates to be created that look exactly like the original birth certificate so that the adopted child (And lets face it, Children have to have their birth certificates for all sorts of reasons, such as playing on a baseball team and such.) will not find anything on it to give away the fact that they are adopted.

Bye

If you are so quick to dismiss an idea without carefully considering it, I can't see how you would be much help anyway.

173 posted on 03/02/2012 7:55:51 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented

You have explained my point better than I have. I agree.


174 posted on 03/02/2012 7:58:26 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well honestly, I have nothing to hide. The truth is the truth. So at best, you get attacked through packs of lies. A grain of truth might be in it, but the rest literally ends being a pack of lies.


175 posted on 03/02/2012 8:00:12 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I don’t know, if he’s reading this, I hope he asks JR to give him another chance. He was one of the good ones and a loss to FR. Unfortunately, I never got his email address and we always corresponded here on FR. I don’t think we can post an email address here so unless someone else has his email, there is no way to reach him. :(

I am in the same boat. I never bothered to trade email addresses with him because I always thought he would be here.

Bushpilot1, if you are reading this, ask JR to let you back in.

Alternatively, I am going to ask JR to send my email information to bushpilot1 so he can contact me even if they won't let him back in. Also, can we not ask JR to let him back in?

176 posted on 03/02/2012 8:02:13 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: manc
do you think obama was really born in HI and is eligible to be where he is?

I do not know where Obama was born, and I do not trust anything which he has shown as proof of where he was born.

I think he is covering up the facts of his birth, and he may very well have been born out of the country.

177 posted on 03/02/2012 8:05:48 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If you click on your name on any post it will take you to your FR page. When you click on In Forum it takes you to every comment you ever made.


178 posted on 03/02/2012 8:28:24 AM PST by Albertafriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Albertafriend
If you click on your name on any post it will take you to your FR page. When you click on In Forum it takes you to every comment you ever made.

Thanks. There is stuff i'm still learning here.

179 posted on 03/02/2012 8:35:40 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the "physical document" is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama's attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.

FWIW, at 6:48 PM - 27 Apr 11, Savannah Guthrie, of NBC, tweeted, I saw the certified copy of long-form POTUS birth certificate today, felt the raised seal, snapped this pic .

Then, of course, there is that correspondence the White House revealed in which Judith Corley gets the HDoH to make and release the two certified copies, which she allegedly flew to Honolulu to pick up and hand-carry back to the WH. That could all be fake, of course, and, if so, it would be a sadistic pleasure to see Judy Corley's law license yanked for abetting a fraud. But, again, don't hold your breath!

180 posted on 03/02/2012 10:05:07 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The smartest person in the entire mix is Barack Sr.

He split!! probably thinking, "Those White people are crazy!"

181 posted on 03/02/2012 10:18:07 AM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; madison10

Still “too young to know that I needed a race,” as he describes himself in Dreams, Obama was sent back from Indonesia in 1969 or ’70. Gramps Stanley Dunham began a bizarre project which involved introducing Obama to Frank Marshall Davis and making secret visits to Chinatown’s disreputable Smith Street bars – located one block away from Oka’s Corner Liquor Store. Obama describes the “excitement” of these visits in Dreams, page 77-78:

“Don’t tell your grandmother,” he would say with a wink, and we’d walk past hard-faced, soft-bodied streetwalkers into a small, dark bar with a jukebox and a couple of pool tables. Nobody seemed to mind that Gramps was the only white man in the place, or that I was the only eleven-or twelve year old. Some of the men leaning across the bar would wave at us, and the bartender, a big, light skinned woman with bare, fleshy arms, would bring a Scotch for Gramps and a Coke for me. If nobody else was playing at the tables, Gramps would spot me a few balls and teach me the game, but usually I would sit at the bar, my legs dangling from the high stool, blowing bubbles into my drink and looking at the pornographic art on the walls — the phosphorescent women on animal skins, the Disney characters in compromising positions. If he was around, a man named Rodney with a wide-brimmed hat would stop by to say hello. …”

Frank Marshall Davis too, described adventures on Smith Street at “The Green Goose,” a bar “operated by one of my friends.” Group sex and voyeurism at the Green Goose fill two pages in his pseudonymous porno book, Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet), published just before Obama returned from Indonesia.


182 posted on 03/02/2012 10:39:14 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If the child was the progeny of grandpa and a hooker, and he wanted to ‘adopt’ the child, what better way than to have your daughter appear in Hawaii with a new ‘grandchild’ who is then left with the grandparents to raise? A granddaughter who had a meaningless ‘convenience’ marriage (to a man that was already married ) to give the child a legal ‘father’ ???


183 posted on 03/02/2012 10:49:27 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I'm not ready to go so far as to say that Hawaiian officials are corrupt

When I was a teenager I went there, and it was well known by the locals (I had friends who lived there) that Hawaii was completely controlled by the organized crime syndicate.

As usually follows, the crime syndicate becomes the 'government'.

184 posted on 03/02/2012 10:53:25 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Back then unmarried pregnant girls were sent away before they began to "show." And they didn't have many cameras in Kenya.

So one would assume your answer is 'no'.

185 posted on 03/02/2012 11:00:00 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No, but that doesn't prove anything.

True. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

However, if there was just one picture, that would be good evidence. Yet none is to be seen.

You would think that the proud grandparents would have taken at least one picture of her pregnant. Wasn't she supposed to be pregnant when she got married? Where is that picture?

186 posted on 03/02/2012 11:03:26 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Anyone of any age can move out of the US, renounce their US citizenship, and naturalize with a foreign state. Proof is available by examining Barry Soetoro’s school record ... Indonesian National born in Hawaii.


187 posted on 03/02/2012 11:07:18 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Anyone of any age can move out of the US, renounce their US citizenship, and naturalize with a foreign state. Proof is available by examining Barry Soetoro’s school record ... Indonesian National born in Hawaii.


188 posted on 03/02/2012 11:07:48 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Candor7
You are a newbie TROLL who seeks only to further muddy the waters of the issue

Gee whiz. It seems everyone's a troll anymore. Even me.

189 posted on 03/02/2012 11:10:32 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
FWIW, at 6:48 PM - 27 Apr 11, Savannah Guthrie, of NBC, tweeted, "I saw the certified copy of long-form POTUS birth certificate today, felt the raised seal, snapped this pic http://plixi.com/p/96540721".

Then, of course, there is that correspondence the White House revealed in which Judith Corley gets the HDoH to make and release the two certified copies, which she allegedly flew to Honolulu to pick up and hand-carry back to the WH. That could all be fake, of course, and, if so, it would be a sadistic pleasure to see Judy Corley's law license yanked for abetting a fraud. But, again, don't hold your breath!

Yes, I was aware that they had physical copies. (Albeit without the green anti-copy paper.) *I* have a physical copy as well. Two of them. They say different things. One of them is the truth, the other is what the state currently says is the truth.

If they can create a forgery for me, they can certainly do it for him. And certify it too!

190 posted on 03/02/2012 11:18:38 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
The smartest person in the entire mix is Barack Sr.

He split!! probably thinking, "Those White people are crazy!"

:)

191 posted on 03/02/2012 11:22:32 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
If the child was the progeny of grandpa and a hooker, and he wanted to ‘adopt’ the child, what better way than to have your daughter appear in Hawaii with a new ‘grandchild’ who is then left with the grandparents to raise? A granddaughter who had a meaningless ‘convenience’ marriage (to a man that was already married ) to give the child a legal ‘father’ ???

This theory violates the premise of Occam's Razor in my opinion. Why needlessly complicate what is already complicated? (Unless there is compelling evidence to do so.)

192 posted on 03/02/2012 11:24:35 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
When I was a teenager I went there, and it was well known by the locals (I had friends who lived there) that Hawaii was completely controlled by the organized crime syndicate.

I have read other articles discussing corruption in Hawaii. Specifically, the use of that state to create fake birth certificates for foreign nationals. I don't know how much credibility I should give the stories but i'm keeping them in the back of my mind.

As usually follows, the crime syndicate becomes the 'government'.

Government and crime syndicate appear to always be opposite sides of the same coin. Throughout History, government always started with the bad-ass of the tribe taking everyone else's stuff. This is the guy who became King, and the same basic methodology has continued ever since.

193 posted on 03/02/2012 11:29:12 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
True. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

However, if there was just one picture, that would be good evidence. Yet none is to be seen.

You would think that the proud grandparents would have taken at least one picture of her pregnant. Wasn't she supposed to be pregnant when she got married? Where is that picture?

As far as I know, there are no pictures of my mother when she was pregnant, and she had 5 of us. I have no pictures of my wife when SHE was pregnant. My family has never been much for photography. I just don't see it as being very indicative of anything.

194 posted on 03/02/2012 11:32:32 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Gee whiz. It seems everyone's a troll anymore. Even me.

:)

195 posted on 03/02/2012 11:34:04 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

[quote]This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the “physical document” is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama’s attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.[/quote]

Whatever the case, this does not fit with what the White House claimed they were releasing at the time. They claimed it was a scan of a document they received from Hawaii. In reality, the copy released over the internet was a purely digital creation. It could not have been a print that was scanned. The “evidence” that was provided to the American people, and was represented as proof and a valid copy of a physical birth certificate, was, in fact, nothing of the sort.


196 posted on 03/02/2012 1:21:48 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

I agree.


197 posted on 03/02/2012 1:40:16 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Stanley Ann may not have had to DO anything. I have read quite a bit from others on this subject. It is my current understanding that Under 1960s Indonesian law, a child is AUTOMATICALLY adopted if he is under the age of five when his mother Marries an Indonesian citizen. (Here is the law in effect at that time.) The only requirement is that the father must identify the child as his in front of a government official who comes to the house.

But that doesn't sound like something our government would recognize. In fact, your "adoption" of Barack sounds a lot like my "non-adoption." How likely is it that something like this would have gotten back to the State Department or the Hawaiian Department of Health and meant a change in his passport or birth certificate. From what we know, it's not at all clear that such an "adoption" or "non-adoption" would have meant any change at all in Obama's citizenship.

In fact, it probably wouldn't have. I'm not sure about the exact law at the time, but nowadays the child (if he had reached the right age) would have had to swear before a US official that he was abandoning his citizenship, and I'd be willing to bet that never happened (though we won't know for years if it did or if it didn't). If you want to argue that Obama was adopted and this changed his passport or his citizenship or his birth certificate, a very informal or irregular "adoption" makes your case weaker than a more correct and formal adoption would.

SHE may not have been much for paperwork, but Bank Vice President Madelyn Dunham lived by it. I have little doubt she sought legal advice for what to do.

One problem with all the theorizing is that people have an ability to compartmentalize their lives. The woman who's a tiger about paperwork at work, may not want forms and red-tape cluttering up her relationships with her children and grandchildren. I can't say for sure what if anything happened, but I suspect the laxity of the two Stanleys and Madeline's maternal feelings could have outweighed any desire to formalize or legalize their guardianship through adoption. As I've said, though, it would have been possible to become the child's guardians without going so far as to adopt him.

It makes sense that his financier for the trip (and the Hotel Room where he stayed) was Madelyn Dunham, Vice President of the Bank. If this is the case, then his presence must have been necessary for some reason, and I can only assume it was to sign legal documents and affirm before a Judge.

That's possible, but as I've said, we want to make other people far simpler than they are in fact, especially if we don't like them. That's part of what I meant by "compartmentalization": a bank VP isn't always a bank VP in all her interactions and relationships. It's not impossible that family troubles and uncertainties got to the point where they felt -- however silly it might have looked later on -- that Barack Sr would have been a positive influence on Barack II.

But one thing you might already know: the Soetoros did adopt Lia, an Indonesian girl. If they legally and formally adopted Lia it might lend support to your theory. But once again, it's something we won't know about for years to come, if even then.

198 posted on 03/02/2012 2:06:01 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

Here it is, sorry it took me so long to reply. Until I read the entire thread, I still thought that Stanley Ann was his mother but likely another man the father. The evidence presented on this thread plus a few more things convinced me that he is not the child of either purpoerted parent.

The truth about the usurper in the WH is totally different from the propaganda.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702976/posts


199 posted on 03/02/2012 2:25:50 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: x
But that doesn't sound like something our government would recognize. In fact, your "adoption" of Barack sounds a lot like my "non-adoption." How likely is it that something like this would have gotten back to the State Department or the Hawaiian Department of Health and meant a change in his passport or birth certificate.

This is a good question, and it depends on a lot of factors. My understanding is that Lolo married Ann in 1965, but didn't go back to Indonesia till later. If he married her in Hawaii, he may very well have adopted Barry in Hawaii. Would Ann have insisted on it? Again, it depends.

If Lolo didn't adopt him in Hawaii, would an Indonesian adoption be a problem for Barry? There's evidence that in 1968 it might have caused a little problem with Ann's Passport. My understanding is that this was when Barry was being taken off her passport and required to get one of his own.

From what we know, it's not at all clear that such an "adoption" or "non-adoption" would have meant any change at all in Obama's citizenship.

I'm not suggesting it changed his citizenship, i'm suggesting that it may have complicated his life by creating issues, questions, and confusion about it. It is my understanding that a guardian cannot revoke the citizenship of their children, and that the citizenship will always be available to be claimed at a later date. However, the Guardian can make a mess of their documentation by naturalizing them into another country.

One way to undo this mess may have been an adoption or legal guardianship.

In fact, it probably wouldn't have. I'm not sure about the exact law at the time, but nowadays the child (if he had reached the right age) would have had to swear before a US official that he was abandoning his citizenship, and I'd be willing to bet that never happened (though we won't know for years if it did or if it didn't). If you want to argue that Obama was adopted and this changed his passport or his citizenship or his birth certificate, a very informal or irregular "adoption" makes your case weaker than a more correct and formal adoption would.

For this issue, there is a probability tree with many branches. The strength or weakness of my adoption theory will depend on which branch was actually traversed. Right now, we are speculating based on what we CAN discover. There are several pieces of evidence to indicate that Barack Obama was actually adopted under Indonesian law. What the effects of this may be regarding American law are not readily apparent. There is a possibility that he was adopted under Hawaiian law, and if that is actually the case, then that WOULD have serious legal consequences for him.

*IF* Barack Sr. was flown to Hawaii for some legal purpose involving Barry, then it reinforces the notion that the Indonesian or Hawaiian adoption needed undoing.

One problem with all the theorizing is that people have an ability to compartmentalize their lives. The woman who's a tiger about paperwork at work, may not want forms and red-tape cluttering up her relationships with her children and grandchildren. I can't say for sure what if anything happened, but I suspect the laxity of the two Stanleys and Madeline's maternal feelings could have outweighed any desire to formalize or legalize their guardianship through adoption. As I've said, though, it would have been possible to become the child's guardians without going so far as to adopt him.

Others have pointed this out as well. Again, I regard this as a probability tree. Each subsequent piece tends to depend heavily on a previous not clearly known piece, and the divergent branches can have wildly different consequences. It may very well be that a legal guardianship may have been all that is necessary, but I think it is an odd coincidence that Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. just happened to be in Hawaii at the same time (both normally living thousands of miles away) and when they both left, Barry remained with his Grandparents thereafter.

Christmas 1971.

Here is a good source for details regarding this event.

But one thing you might already know: the Soetoros did adopt Lia, an Indonesian girl. If they legally and formally adopted Lia it might lend support to your theory. But once again, it's something we won't know about for years to come, if even then.

I think more will come out. I don't know if it will all come out, but it enough might. There are a lot of eyes looking at this issue.

200 posted on 03/02/2012 3:16:42 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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