~Born in Vancouver; The Seattle Scenario, Pt. II

Barack Obama once voted for legislation legalizing killing a baby during delivery, and was rated as the most left-wing Senator in the U.S. Senate for views such as are reflected by that vote.  Where did he come by such a view?  Why did he refer to being denied an abortion as being “punished with a child”?  There is only one place he would have acquired such a view and that is from his own mother.

She, being educated in the truth-uncovering occupations of Social Psychology, Sociology, and Cultural Anthropology, was focused, like those branches of behavioral science, on what the truth is concerning human experience, motivation, and behavior, and would have made him aware of her own experience.

What experience?  The experience of unprotected sex, -which led to an unwanted pregnancy, which led to an unwanted birth and an unwanted role of motherhood while still too young to want such a responsibility.  She, in her son’s mind, was punished with an un-wanted child because of a lack of abortion services, but in reality, also because of a lack of adoption opportunities.  [Note: I argue just the opposite possibility in a later speculation titled: “The Secret Obama’s Mother Couldn’t Tell Him” which goes deeper into a mother’s concerns regarding what to tell and not tell her child.]

No adoptive parents to be found in Hawaii, Washington State, nor Vancouver.  You can figure that he would have placed such a high value on abortion rights because adoption was a total failure in his own mother’s experience (as she conveyed to him for his enlightenment about the real world) .

His view of abortion is connected to his awareness of the short-comings of adoption for African-Americans, -which is connected to his mother’s personal experience, which she honestly, as a cultural anthropologist, conveyed to him so he would learn from her mistake and not leave a young woman in the condition in which she found herself when pregnant with him.

What his attitude reveals, by implication, is that his mother definitely sought out an adoptive couple, and could not find one anywhere, though not for lack of trying.  What is key to the truth is the trying part.  She tried in Hawaii and failed.  That means she had to then try again in Seattle.  That means she was there during July and half of August, (and possibly June) and thereafter.  That means her son was not born in Hawaii because she was not in Hawaii, -was not born in Seattle either, and was not born in the United States because if he had been then he would have a birth certificate from somewhere in the United States other than Hawaii.

None of this would exist as speculation if she had actually done what any similar young woman who planned to keep her baby would have done, -which would have been to stay in Hawaii close to her mother (and father) before, during, and after the delivery of her first child.  There would have been no reason to up and leave one or two weeks later.

Her presence in Seattle after delivery argues for her already being domiciled there in advance.  It all boils down to a few very simple realizations, including; if she had no great reason to have to be in Seattle before her delivery, then none would have magically appeared afterward.  But it she ever had a great reason to be back in Seattle, then it was to be there before the delivery (with a waiting adoptive couple who would be the means to avoid being stuck with the unwanted role of being a single mother with a bi-racial child in early 1960’s America).

So the thing that drove her to Seattle had to have driven her there before her delivery, and consequently she was not in Hawaii when her son was born.  He therefore had to have been born in Vancouver because he has no Washington State birth certificate, nor Oregon, nor Idaho, etc.  So her presence in Seattle leads unavoidably to the conclusions this logic arrives at, and those conclusions end with the realization that he is an American who was not born as a United States citizen.

Obama’s sycophants insist that all speculation is pure bunk because the Great and Powerful Oz of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health hath spoken the unquestionable TRUTH and thereby “settled” the issue.  But in fact, that argument is pure juvenile bunk.   Here’s my reply to a statement by one who puts the word of the Hawaiian government employees on a pedestal, stating: “~just because you say someone lied doesn’t make it true, which is why it is meaningless.”

That logic is meaningless because it presumes that simply because a suspicion is not matched by public knowledge confirming it, then it must be false.  I don’t need to even explain how ridiculous that is.  Just consider the revelations of Edward Snowden and many other whistle-blowers.  What you should have written is: “Just because you think someone told the “truth” does not make it the truth.  That would reflect a realistic awareness of “realpolitik”.

And speaking of telling the truth, think about the consequences of supporting the Democrat Knight in Shining Armor by deeds of nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, and lies which are exemplified by the extreme consequences for Lois Lerner.  (None!)

The Dept. of Health employees in Hawaii can tell any lie they want, as long as it’s not before Congress, to the FBI or a court of law, and if called to account all they have to do is invoke the 5th Amendment, like Lois Lerner, and Presto!  Off the hook!  Free pass, -with any incriminating e-mails mysteriously “lost”.  Heck, they might even get several months of paid vacation!

There’s no downside to protecting the President with obfuscation, distortion and outright lies because they most likely will be rewarded for it.  Proof is in the non-firing, non-demotions of those Obama loyalists involved in Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and the NSA scandal.

That being the real situation, no one should ever point to the Democratic socialists in the Hawaiian Dept. of Health as a source of unquestionable TRUTH.  Instead one must NOT trust, and verify.  Of course there is no way to verify anything unless Congress issues a subpoena for the physical “vital record” in their archive.

Learn the scandalous string of events and falsehoods regarding the birth certificates and the extremely suspicious “death” of the director that made its creation possible here: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/  To quote:

On June 12, 2008, the Obama campaign sent an e-mail to PolitiFact with a copy of the senator’s “birth certificate” as an attachment.

Daily Kos & AsperGirl

The same day,  June 12, 2008, the Daily Kos posted the now-infamous Certification of Live Birth (COLB) image along with a cover story.  Kos received 648 comments in a span of only 24 hours (the first 644 were about the most insipid, lame, and mindless reactions ever accumulated in one place).

The vast majority of the comments consisted of derogatory comments about John McCain and his eligibility issue:

HOWEVER, there was one, brave Kos commenter who identified all of the key anomalies in the COLB image and had the stones to question it’s authenticity.  Her screen name is “AsperGirl” and her comment was #643, or one of the last five comments allowed to be posted.

Why is this significant?

I believe it’s because her comments hit too close to home. I believe she struck a nerve, and that was why the comments section was closed off to new ones less than three hours after the post.

Here are her comments, and they serve as a testament to those loyal to the truth:

Birth Certificate is an Obvious Fake

Sorry to disabuse you folks, but this birth certificate on dailykos is an obvious fake.

The fake “birth certificate” just appeared Thursday morning on dailykos without any reference as to who released it or where it came from.

There is a link from the FightTheSmears website to “the truth” posting on MyBarackObama.com but without any reference to it. (i.e. there is no “this is Barack Obama’s birth certificate provided to dailykos by person xxx of the Obama campaign”)

There is no attribution accounting for where the “birth certificate” came from.  In Hawaii, birth certificates aren’t publicly available and reporters’ requests for one have been ignored for months. There is no explanation as to who vouches for its origins or its authenticity.

The certificate number is blacked out.  Why?

There are image artifacts consistent with forgeries and image processing.  It’s not a real, unprocessed scan of a birth certificate.

It’s not certified.  Hawaii state code provides that certificates issued by the department of health be certified:

“§338-13 Certified copies.  (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.  (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original,…”

~    ~    ~

  There’s a whole lot more at The Obama File website http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm  which contains this:

“The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider’s revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website — including one listing the location of Obama’s birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack — one of which has a “photo taken” time-stamp under “File Properties” just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.
That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama Campaign.  Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the 50 states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.”

Plus there is this; on October 31, 2008, a week before the election, the Hawaiian Department of Health released something that no one understood in a realistic light.  It was labeled “NEWS  RELEASE” even though it was not news.  Rather, it was a posting of three paragraphs under the heading of:

STATEMENT OF DR. CHIYOME FUKINO,

all three of which were in quotes.

That meant that what was said was not an official statement by the Department, but merely a “report” of something the Director was being reported as having said to someone at sometime somewhere.  If it was a true certified statement by the Director in an official capacity, then it would have been something that would not appear in quotes.  That indicates that the “News Release” had been thoughtfully crafted by an attorney who knew how to make a statement that was not legally attributable to anyone and yet, -even under the DoH header, no one could be held legally accountable for it, -especially since it was not attributed to a specific quoter and was unsigned.

Placing the statements in quotes rendered them unauthoritative and uncertifiable, making the “news release” neither.  Including and especially this middle paragraph:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, 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.”   [note: those beginning and ending quotation marks are not mine, but are original to the document]

The website points out; “There is nothing in that statement that states the “birth certificate” Hawaii holds was issued by Hawaii.  There is nothing that states Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.  PolitiFact.com actually has Okubo on the record denying that the electronic COLB image provided by the Obama campaign can be authenticated by her or by anyone at DHOH!

PolitiFact.com reported: “We e-mailed it (a copy) to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.”  Spokesman Janice Okubo told us: “~we looked at that image you guys sent us,… I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

See much more here, including many links: http://www.birtherreport.com/2010/05/hawaii-doh-destroyed-original-birth.html   ~and here: http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/HawaiiPoliciesAndProcedures.htm

So the veracity and authenticity of the short-form Certification has never been established, and can’t be.  That leaves the truth regarding the where-abouts of Ann Dunham in August of 1961 completely unknown and unproven.  Hence speculation is not only permissible but is needed.

There’s another good way to find out the truth, and that is to find out what nation’s passport Obama used when he traveled to Pakistan in summer of 1981.  That’s the trip that he never once mentioned in his autobiography about his social upbringing and insights, -the one during which he made a re-connection to the Islamic roots he acquired as a student during Islamic studies in Indonesian elementary school, including practices which, by Islamic belief, rendered him a Muslim.

He mentioned it once during the 2008 campaign while seeking favorably to compare his international experience to that of the former First Lady Hillary Clinton, and then never mentioned it again.  Why avoid it?  Because of the fear of raising the question of what passport he used to go there.

If he used an American passport, it would indicate that Hawaii issued his mother a birth certificate, -one that he would still have had as a Senator and which he could have scanned and released to the public instead of a mysterious string of appearances on the internet of a short-form abstract unsigned, Certification of Live Birth lacking the State Seal, -which wasn’t attributed to the Obama campaign until after a clear-cut debunking of the image had not appeared in the main-stream media, making it “safe” to official-ize it.

Using an Indonesian passport would be evidence of having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow its adult citizens to maintain dual citizenship acquired during years as a minor.  Renunciation of foreign citizenship was required to retain citizenship.

Such a renunciation oath can be viewed by the State Department as actual renunciation, -as if before an American official.  Traveling under a foreign passport is automatic disqualification for an American security clearance since it is generally a clear sign of allegiance to a foreign power and lack of loyalty to the United States.

But one must consider that his new father Lolo definitely would have formally adopted him, thereby making him an Indonesian derivative citizen.  That is what lovers and husbands and fathers do for a child of their beloved who was from a previous relationship.  My own father did the very same thing for my oldest brother, -my half-brother.  No man proposes to the woman he loves and says in effect; “I want you but not your child who is a part of you.  I won’t adopt him (or her).”  Instead he bends over backward to make her happy.  So Barry Obama definitely would have become what he became known as; Barry Soetoro: citizen of Indonesia.

At age ten, before traveling back to Hawaii, he would have obtained an Indonesian passport via self-attesting affidavits of his parents which stated the facts regarding him, -perhaps including the reasons why he had no birth certificate that could be presented.

His Indonesian citizenship would have been provisional in nature and not permanent since it would have been acquired via naturalization.  It would have been acquired automatically by Indonesian law without naturalization if he had been under five years old, (as if he were Lolo’s own child) but he was six years old, so he was not viewed as a natural Indonesian by their legal fiction of law.

Rather, the law would require that after reaching age 21 he state before an Indonesian official his intent to retain his Indonesian citizenship if he lived continuously for five years in a foreign nation.  Thereafter he would have to repeat that official renewal of citizenship every two years.  Doing so would require that he say something or sign something stating that he renounces all allegiance to any foreign government.  A mere formality.    An empty oath.  No sacrifice nor sincerity required.

If his parents acquired his Indonesian passport when he was 10, and it was good for seven years, it would not need to be renewed until he was probably 17 -while still a minor.  If it was renewed at 17 for four or five years, he would not have had to do anything to obtain it when he took his trip to Pakistan at age 19 or 20.  Then at age 21 he would have had a year to make his declaration of intent to remain an Indonesian citizen and renew his passport personally as an adult.

That very likely would have been very easy to do since his mother and father weren’t divorced until the same year that he traveled to Pakistan, so he would have remained as an Indonesian citizen all through his teen years.  And when it came to renouncing any second citizenship (U.S.) that may have been quite easy also if he had no American birth certificate to even indicate that he was an American citizen.

If he used an Indonesia passport, then that fact would indicate that he acquired it because he lacked the preferred United States passport and United States citizenship.  That would indicate that he lacked an American birth certificate.  Without that he had no evidence of U.S. citizenship.  All he had was his mother’s word in the affidavit given to the Hawaiian Dept of Health.  You might say he had presumptive citizenship but not officially recognized citizenship.

His presumptive citizenship would have been based on the erroneous presumption that everyone born within U.S. sovereignty is automatically a U.S. citizen, when that is only constitutionally true of children of immigrants.

Regardless of the universal misconceptions of the United States government, the children of foreign visitors and guest are in the same philosophical and political category as children of Ambassadors since none of them, like their foreign parents, are subject to the political authority of our central government.  They remain subject to their own government and only it (in regard to obedience to its national policies and their civic & military obligations).

Just as the foreign-born children of non-resident, non-immigrant foreigners visiting America are separate from the native-born children of such foreigners, (who are separate from the native-born children of resident, domiciled immigrants) so also are the children of America’s native citizens, -meaning her natural members.  The citizen-born natives and the alien-born natives are both natives and thus similar in that respect, but they both do not have foreign parents, and that distinguishes them from each other, as is seen in a report from the 1960 Census.

Publisher: U.S. Census Bureau
Survey: Census 1960 (US, County & State)
Documentation: Census 1960
Definitions and Explanations

~NATIVE…persons born in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a possession of the United States. Also included in this category is the small number of persons who, although they were born in a foreign country or at sea, have at least one native citizen parent.

[Note by Nash: FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS ARE CATEGORIZED AS NATIVES BASED ON THEIR NATURAL CITIZENSHIP BY BLOOD]

The native population is further classified on the basis of the parents’ country of origin  into the two groups, native of native parentage and native of foreign or mixed parentage, described below.

Table A –

Characteristics of the Population, by Nativity: 1960

Here’s the data lay-out table: https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1960-census-3b.jpg

[Note the separation of those born of natives and those born of foreigners or mixed parentage.
IT IS FALSE THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES ONLY THE CATEGORIES OF NATIVES AND NATURALIZED CITIZENS.   PARENTAGE IS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE.]

PARENTAGE

This category comprises native persons both of whose parents are also natives of the United States. [Natural born citizens]

~NATIVE of foreign or mixed parentage:

This group consists of native persons, one or both of whose parents are foreign born.   [14th Amendment citizens, parents being legal immigrants subject to U.S. jurisdiction]

~FOREIGN STOCK

The foreign-born population is combined with the native population of foreign or mixed parentage in a single category termed the “Foreign stock.”
This category comprises all first and second generation Americans.

[Note: The first generation is American by naturalization only, while the second generation (without their parents’ naturalization), are 14th Amendment native-born citizens.  They are natural citizens if born after their parents’ naturalization.]
Third and subsequent generations are described as native of native parentage.”

Native persons of foreign parentage whose parents were born in different countries are classified according to the country of birth of the father.

      [emphasis & comments added]

http://www.socialexplorer.com/data/C1960CountyDS/documentation/
Document: Nativity and Parentage (Volume II, Part I – Subject Reports)
citation:  U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Subject Reports, Nativity and Parentage. Final Report
PC(2)-1A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1965.

NOTE: According to the U.S. GOVERNMENT definition, BARACK OBAMA IS OF “FOREIGN STOCK”.

No one of Foreign Stock is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military because no such citizen was born a natural citizen.
NOTE: The State Department has stated in response to a FOIA request that they do not have a U.S. Passport application on file for Barack H. Obama.

 by Adrien Nash  Oct. 2013  obama–nation.com

A Re-Cap:

1.   With no conceivable reason good enough for an 18 year-old young woman to transplant herself half an ocean way from her own mother just a week or two after giving birth for the first time, it can be suspected and assumed that she had done so before giving birth and for one or more very good reasons.

2.   Being as she returned to Hawaii about a year and a half later and over time pursued all of her further education there, the reason to be living in Seattle would not have been the superiority of the university there, but something much more compelling, and that was the desire to not be saddled with a newborn during her blossoming and independent young adulthood.  To avoid such a burden required finding a couple to adopt her child, and none could be found in Hawaii.  Hence, her hometown was turned to as an alternate pool in which to fish for an adoptive couple.

3.   With such a scenario almost unavoidable as the explanation for her appearance in Seattle following her child’s birth, it is accompanied by the unavoidable conclusion that he was not born in Seattle but in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia because if he had been born in Seattle, then he would have had a Washington State Birth Certificate, which he did not, nor one from any other American state.

4.   If she (perhaps with her mother) flew from Vancouver back to Hawaii, spent one or more  days checked into a hospital to recover from complications, visited people she knew there including the father, and then sought to register her child’s birth with the Hawaiian Dept. of Health by writing out an affidavit in which she honestly stated (rather than lying to the government) the fact of the birth having occurred outside of Hawaii and the United States (anticipating that such facts would not make a difference) then she encountered a brick wall since late registration was only for at-home Hawaiian births, and international births were under the purview of the INS.

5.   With neither a Vancouver birth certificate nor a Hawaiian birth certificate, her son would have to be dependent on her citizenship for acquiring his, but she was a few months too young for that legally to happen -so he was left as a stateless American with no legal nationality.  He fell through the citizenship cracks.

6.   Without an American birth certificate, he could not obtain a U.S. passport.  By being adopted by his Indonesian father, he became a provisional Indonesian citizen and would have obtained at age ten an Indonesian passport for traveling to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.  If he traveled via a U.S. Visa, he over-stayed its time-limit permanently or acquired Green Card permanent residency.

7.   Being under 21 years of age, he would have used that passport to travel to Pakistan where he was reintroduced to Islam and had his childhood affinity for it re-awakened.

8.   At 21 he affirmed to the Indonesian government (as required by law) his resolve to retain his Indonesian citizenship, and also renewed his passport.  Five years later he renewed it again and continued using his Indonesian passport as his principle proof of identity, -having no choice because he’d fallen between the cracks of the citizenship system.

9.   He passed himself off (depending on the situation) as a dual-citizen, using and maintaining his Barry Soetoro Indonesian identity (because otherwise he would be stripped of his Indonesian citizenship).  His presented status was that of an American with Indonesian citizenship (but actually lacking U.S. citizenship) and it worked, -it opened every important door in his life, right up to running for State Senator, all the while having a publisher’s biography which stated he was born in Kenya.

10. With the undisprovable claim that he was born in Hawaii, it is falsely presumed by all that he is therefore a U.S. citizen (even though the 14th Amendment does not cover his birth circumstance) so the lack of an American birth certificate was never a problem until he ran for President of the United States and his campaign refused to produce one.

Eventually one mysteriously and anonymously appeared on the internet, and the lies and debunking of it and its long-form follow-up, have continued ever since, albeit in near total obscurity aside from the internet.

11. Eventually, it was discovered that the long-form pdf image posted on the White House website was so strange and unexplainable because it was produced on a scanner-copier that no one had used to try to replicate its layer anomalies.  Being as the White House uses just such a Xerox work-station, its multi-layer characteristics were attributed to being the result of the software employed by that line of copiers.

12. Given the arms-length relationship of the President to that birth certificate (his lawyer not allowing it to be in his presence, nor for the press corps to examine-&-photograph it) along with the origin and nature of the short-form Certification of Live Birth, and the factually deficient and deceptively worded and uncertified statements by officials of the Hawaiian government, one cannot escape giving the benefit of the doubt to the strong suspicion that the hard-copy used to produce the pdf image of the long-form birth certificate was itself a forgery concocted in the digital realm from materials supplied by Democrat party employees within the Hawaiian Department of Health, none of whom can be held accountable by their Democrat party superiors in the Democrat party Hawaiian government, because even if an investigation  was sought, there would be no evidence, no trail, no finger-prints found anywhere, -and even if there were, questions would not have to be answered because of 5th Amendment protection against being required to testify against oneself (a la Lois Lerner) as well as protection via union representative lawyers.

13.   So the perfect crime has been committed, and no one with national or State authority will acknowledge it, nor investigate it, nor hold anyone accountable.  And that is in addition to the crime against the Constitution by the nonfeasance of the States’ election authorities and the federal government in allowing the election of and placement into office of a non-citizen who is as far from being a natural born citizen as one can conceivably be and still fool almost everyone.

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

10 Responses to ~Born in Vancouver; The Seattle Scenario, Pt. II

  1. The Magic M says:

    > If it was a true certified statement by the Director in an official capacity, then it would have been something that would not appear in quotes.

    Yup, if it was a quote, it would NOT appear in quotes. That so absolutely totally makes sense. *facepalm*

    • arnash says:

      “Yup, if it was a quote, it would NOT appear in quotes”
      So your twisted mind is now quoting what its resident demons dish up instead of my words, and then like a loyal flying monkey you attribute them to me. That so absolutely totally makes sense.

      You’re like a baby crapping its own diapers. If you want to throw your poop at me, while don’t you at least attempt to be accurate? Oh,…because that is counter to the Rules for Radicals which doesn’t depend on honest, intelligent, informed debate but juvenile, and Luciferian responses instead, particularly of the mocking type which are intended to chill the hearts of the cowardly and insecure. Well, what it also does is reveal just how cowardly and insecure the person is who resorts to such juvenile anti-intellectual tactics.
      Don’t be too shocked when such drivel does not appear after you submit another such empty and foul-smelling defecation.

  2. Slartibartfast says:

    Adrien,

    You are completely wrong regarding Indonesian citizenship and President Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

    First off, I’m presuming that your “evidence” for the adoption is the registration for “Barry Soetoro” at the Catholic school President Obama attended while in Indonesia. This is poor evidence of an adoption for several reasons.

    In the Muslim culture, adopted children keep the surname of their father—to change a child’s last name from “Obama” to “Soetoro” as a result of an adoption would have been very disrespectful to the Obama family (and certainly not the norm for adoption in a Muslim country). On the other hand, the Indonesian constitution guarantees schooling for children. So if President Obama had been formally adopted (and gained citizenship thereby), he would have been legally named “Barry Obama” and constitutionally entitled to schooling.

    However, if he wasn’t formally adopted and didn’t have citizenship, it seems entirely reasonable that President Obama would be registered under his step-father’s last name as an Indonesian citizen (born in Hawai’i, according to the registration, by the way) in order to gain the benefit of free school (I doubt anyone would question an Indonesian man having Indonesian children, but a child of a different last name and a caucasian US citizen wife might raise suspicions).

    Furthermore, even if President Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, in order to have been naturalized thereby he would have had to appear before an Indonesian official at Lolo’s house before his 5th birthday. Unfortunately (for you), President Obama didn’t leave Hawai’i until after his 5th birthday. This doesn’t mean that it is impossible that President Obama obtained Indonesian citizenship later, but the idea that he did so before registering for school is ludicrous.

    Even if President Obama did receive Indonesian citizenship, it would not have affected his US citizenship (nor would it have affected his natural born status any more than Thomas Jefferson’s French citizenship affected his own status as a natural born citizen of the United States). A minor cannot renounce their citizenship, nor can a parent or guardian renounce it for them (see Perkins v. Elg for the SCOTUS precedent).

    Finally, you’ll recall that the school registration lists his place of birth as Hawai’i. Why do you think that is? Most likely, because that’s what it said on the birth certificate he brought with him from the US—the one we know he had since he was referred to as a US citizen by a US State Department report on his father obtained by FOIA request .

    Entries 1, 1a, and 1b of this birther mythbusting pageprovide links to citations which support my arguments here.

    So, at this point, an honest person would admit that, given Indonesian and US law, any issues regarding President Obama and Indonesian citizenship have absolutely no bearing on his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, but I’m guessing that you probably can’t admit anything which would contradict the birther narrative that obots are always evil and wrong… you wouldn’t want to challenge yourself with objectivity now, would you?

  3. arnash says:

    If you had actually read what I wrote (skimming is not reading) you would not have wasted your time writing what you wrote because what I wrote addressed the issues you pretended that I ignored.
    I won’t waste my time rehashing what I’ve already written, so if you seek a response then you need to actually read through it and you will find rebuttal to your erroneous assumptions. But I’ll point out that his place of birth was assumed by authorities to be Hawaii because that was his mother’s story and she was sticking to it. Why wouldn’t she? There would have been no reason to vacillate between claiming he was born in Vancouver and born in Honolulu. She chose Honolulu as his claimed birth place and that would have been the story she told everyone, after all, she wanted him to not be denied that which she enjoyed, namely American citizenship. Also, no one had any grounds to question her claim since she was an adult and willing to sign a legal document attesting to that claim, doing so under penalty of perjury. That was long before the massive invasion from South of the border so counterfeit U.S. citizenship was not yet a problem in the U.S.

    PS NOTE: According to the U.S. GOVERNMENT definition, BARACK OBAMA IS OF “FOREIGN STOCK”. He is no more a natural American citizen than a donkey is a natural horse or a natural mule.

  4. Slartibartfast says:

    Adrien,

    I did read what you wrote and it was a complete waste of time. You have nothing but baseless speculation and reasoning that is nowhere near as compelling as you seem to think.

    You may have come up with a scenario that is technically possible (it doesn’t violate the laws I mentioned), but your reasoning is based on assumptions I’ve shown to be unproven. The only “evidence” that President Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro (or ever went by the name “Soetoro”) is the registration at the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia.

    [FALSE. HIS NAME DURING HIS YEARS IN HAWAII AS A STUDENT WAS BARRY SOETORO, AS HAS BEEN REPORTED BY HIS CLASSMATES. THAT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT LOLO WAS HIS FATHER, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT OF ANY MAN WHO MARRIES A YOUNG WOMAN WITH A YOUNG CHILD. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT CHANGED DURING HIS TIME AT OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE.]
    In fact, this document is strong evidence that he wasn’t adopted (which would also suggest that he never obtained Indonesian citizenship). Had he been adopted, President Obama’s name would most certainly not have been changed (since Indonesia is a muslim country) [DOUBLE-STANDARD ALERT!!! PURE SPECULATION IS APPROVED AND ACCEPTABLE IF IT PROMOTES THE OBAMA NARRATIVE, BUT CONDEMNED IF IT DOESN’T]
    nor would there be any need to lie on the school application (since, as an Indonesian citizen, President Obama would be Constitutionally guaranteed an education). On the other hand, assuming President Obama wasn’t adopted, listing him as “Barry Soetoro” and an Indonesian citizen may well have been sufficient to make the school assume that he was the foreign-born child of a citizen (and therefore a citizen himself).

    SPECULATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT: IT IS TRADITIONAL MUSLIM PRACTICE TO ADOPT THE CHILDREN OF THE WOMAN YOU MARRY, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO TRADITION AND COMMON DECENCY AS WELL AS LOVE FOR HIS BRIDE, LOLO ADOPTED HER ONLY CHILD AS HIS OWN. PROVE OTHERWISE. YOU CAN’T.]

    What evidence we have of Dr. Dunham’s passports and what we know about President Obama’s travel suggests [SUGGESTS???] that he traveled to Indonesia on his mother’s passport, but when she renewed the passport (the Chris Strunk FOIA request), he got his own US passport (which he clearly would have been able to get using his Hawai’ian birth certificate)
    [YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT HE EVER APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A U.S. PASSPORT, (IN FACT A FOIA INQUIRY RETURNED THAT THE STATE DEPT. HAD NO RECORD OF HIM EVER APPLYING FOR A US PASSPORT), NOR THAT HE EVER HAD A U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF YOUR FANTASY IS BASELESS.

    WHY DID HE NOT RELEASE A SCAN OF THAT FICTIONAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE INSTEAD OF REQUESTING A NEW ONE ONLY AFTER HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE ONE OFFICE WHICH REQUIRES THAT HE BE MORE THAN JUST A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. WHAT ADULT IN THE MODERN WORLD GOES HIS WHOLE ADULT LIFE WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE? HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT HE “LOST” HIS. BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE NEVER LOST EXCEPT TO FIRE OR FLOOD, SO WHERE IS IT? NON-EXISTENT.]

    …so he could travel back to the states on his own. There is no chance that Dr. Dunham lost her US citizenship as she held a US passport until her death. [IRRELEVANT]

    All this adds up to a near certainty [REALLY??? CERTAINTY??? OR SPECULATIVE FANTASY OF A DELUSIONAL BIASED MIND?] that President Obama has never held a passport from Indonesia (or any other country besides the US). That being the case, all of your supposition is completely without evidentiary support which makes your allegations worthless since you can’t establish your own bona fides to the standards which you demand of President Obama and in the United States baseless accusations have no credibility whatsoever.
    YOU ARE A WILLING AND COLLUDING FOOL. OBAMA IS THE BERNIE MADDOFF PRESIDENT, THE PILTDOWN-MAN PRESIDENT, WITH AN ENRON PRESIDENCY.
    AS FOR EVIDENCE, WHY DID THE DOG NOT BARK DURING THE MURDER? (“THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK”) THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION AND THAT IS THAT HE KNEW THE KILLER. THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION FOR DUNHAM BEING IN SEATTLE IN AUGUST OF 1961 AND IT IS THE REASON THAT I COMPLETELY EXPLAINED.
    WHERE IS YOUR REFUTATION OF THE REALITY I SHARED? IT DOESN’T EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REFUTE IT, AND SO INSTEAD YOU RESORT TO OBFUSCATION, BASELESS ASSERTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND FALSEHOODS.
    YOUR MIND IS WIRED TO DECEIVE YOURSELF AND OTHERS. IT’S POSSESSED OF A LYING SPIRIT AND REJECTS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH BECAUSE THE TRUTH EXPOSES YOUR LYING SOCIALIST MESSIAH.

  5. Slartibartfast says:

    Adrien,

    There are three things you really should learn and understand.

    1. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor

    2. The burden of proof is on the accuser (or, as it is commonly stated, “innocent until proven guilty)

    3. That repeating anything you hear which is negative towards President Obama doesn’t make it more likely you will find a legitimate gripe, it just reduces the credibility of everything you say

    [FALSE. HIS NAME DURING HIS YEARS IN HAWAII AS A STUDENT WAS BARRY SOETORO, AS HAS BEEN REPORTED BY HIS CLASSMATES.

    That’s funny, because his classmates and others who knew him at the time tell a different story…

    THAT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT LOLO WAS HIS FATHER, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT OF ANY MAN WHO MARRIES A YOUNG WOMAN WITH A YOUNG CHILD. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT CHANGED DURING HIS TIME AT OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE.]

    Since everyone seems to have referred to him as Barry (or Barack) Obama before arriving at Occidental (as well as after he left Occidental for Columbia and later Harvard), there is no reason to believe that he changed during his time there. If you want to assert that his name was legally changed to Soetoro, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that.

    Furthermore, while I don’t think that a stepfather adopting his wife’s children is uncommon, I also don’t believe that not doing so would be horribly unusual. In the real world, different people do things differently—as opposed to your imaginary world where everyone thinks exactly like you or they are wrong…

    Had he been adopted, President Obama’s name would most certainly not have been changed (since Indonesia is a muslim country) [DOUBLE-STANDARD ALERT!!! PURE SPECULATION IS APPROVED AND ACCEPTABLE IF IT PROMOTES THE OBAMA NARRATIVE, BUT CONDEMNED IF IT DOESN’T]

    In Muslim countries, adoption follows the Muslim practice (imagine that!) of not changing the child’s last name (doing so is an insult to the father’s family). I don’t have a double standard—show me evidence that Indonesia didn’t follow the standard practice at the time, otherwise common sense would suggest that Indonesia followed Muslim law and custom in this matter.

    SPECULATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT: IT IS TRADITIONAL MUSLIM PRACTICE TO ADOPT THE CHILDREN OF THE WOMAN YOU MARRY, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO TRADITION AND COMMON DECENCY AS WELL AS LOVE FOR HIS BRIDE, LOLO ADOPTED HER ONLY CHILD AS HIS OWN. PROVE OTHERWISE. YOU CAN’T.]

    He may have adopted President Obama (although I tend to doubt it), but, if so:

    1. President Obama wouldn’t have changed last names (according to Muslim tradition)

    2. President Obama would not have gotten Indonesian citizenship by virtue of his adoption (according to Indonesian law)

    3. President Obama’s US citizenship would not have been affected (according to Perkins v. Elg)

    In short, even if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and later received Indonesian citizenship, it is completely irrelevant to his US citizenship and his eligibility for POTUS.

    What evidence we have of Dr. Dunham’s passports and what we know about President Obama’s travel suggests [SUGGESTS???] {Yes, we know President Obama traveled to Indonesia with his mother and returned to Hawai’i alone to visit his grandparents. In between, his mother applied for a renewal of her passport—a renewal which President Obama had been listed on, but was crossed out. The simplest explanation is that she took him off of her passport in the renewal so he could get his own passport and be able to travel alone. We know he must have traveled to Indonesia on a US passport, since he could not have gotten an Indonesian one and to be listed on his mother’s US passport would have required his Hawai’ian birth certificate—a document which would entitle him to a US passport of his own. The only theory which is consistent with all the known facts is that President Obama has been a US citizen since his birth in Hawai’i.}that he traveled to Indonesia on his mother’s passport, but when she renewed the passport (the Chris Strunk FOIA request), he got his own US passport (which he clearly would have been able to get using his Hawai’ian birth certificate)
    [YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT HE EVER APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A U.S. PASSPORT, (IN FACT A FOIA INQUIRY RETURNED THAT THE STATE DEPT. HAD NO RECORD OF HIM EVER APPLYING FOR A US PASSPORT){This is a completely dishonest statement. Any FOIA request for a document regarding a living person (like President Obama) would result in no record being responsive to the request (no one is ever told that “no records exist”, just that nothing matching what was requested could be released)—because the passport records of living persons are exempt from the FOIA. Also, in a State Department document concerning his father, President Obama is referred to as a US citizen. Incidentally, if you were honestly interested in testing your theory you would make a FOIA request for Dr. Dunham’s 1963 passport (or whatever year she traveled to Indonesia). If you got a copy of the passport, it would prove that I was wrong and if there weren’t any documents responsive to your request then it would be evidence that President Obama was listed on it.}, NOR THAT HE EVER HAD A U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF YOUR FANTASY IS BASELESS.

    Be consistent—you’ve already accused Dr. Dunham and the president’s grandmother of fraudulently obtaining a birth certificate. Therefore, you yourself must believe that he had a valid Hawai’ian BC (meaning even if it was fraudulent it would have been accepted). Either there was a BC filed in Hawai’i in August of 1961 or you require a massive conspiracy to have planted evidence after the fact. Take your pick.

    WHY DID HE NOT RELEASE A SCAN OF THAT FICTIONAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE INSTEAD OF REQUESTING A NEW ONE ONLY AFTER HE WAS RUNNING FOR THE ONE OFFICE WHICH REQUIRES THAT HE BE MORE THAN JUST A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

    When is the last time you used your birth certificate? President Obama may not have had to use his since passing the bar exam (that’s what I would guess would be the last time he had to use it)—possibly a decade or more. Documents get lost sometimes. Fortunately, there is an agency which records vital statistics in Hawai’i that can send people new copies of important documents. In addition, since, as you point out, he was running for the one office which requires he prove his birth in Hawai’i, it seems reasonable, even if he still knew where the old document was, to get a new copy which could be held by the campaign (so it could be shown to the people who attested to him being natural born to get on the ballot, for instance). I would also point out that the document was released BEFORE the issue of his eligibility was ever raised.

    WHAT ADULT IN THE MODERN WORLD GOES HIS WHOLE ADULT LIFE WITHOUT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE? HE NEVER CLAIMED THAT HE “LOST” HIS. BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE NEVER LOST EXCEPT TO FIRE OR FLOOD, SO WHERE IS IT? NON-EXISTENT.]

    Fire or flood are the only possible ways to lose birth certificates? That’s a pretty idiotic statement. The whole point of birth certificates are that they are copies (or abstracts) of documents held by a central authority (in this case, the Hawai’i DoH). A certified copy is sufficient to prove birth in Hawai’i in any US courtroom and the Hawai’i DoH has verified the information on the documents which President Obama has released.

    The truth is that if everyone were held to the standard you wish to apply to President Obama, no one could prove the circumstances of their birth and that, because of the birthers, President Obama has proven his birth in Hawai’i to a higher standard than anyone else has ever been asked to meet.

    …so he could travel back to the states on his own. There is no chance that Dr. Dunham lost her US citizenship as she held a US passport until her death. [IRRELEVANT]

    No, some birthers claim that Dr. Dunham gained Indonesian citizenship by her marriage to Lolo Soetoro and thereby lost her US citizenship. The fact that she demonstrably had US citizenship until she died shows that meme to be a lie.

    All this adds up to a near certainty [REALLY??? CERTAINTY??? OR SPECULATIVE FANTASY OF A DELUSIONAL BIASED MIND?] I’m neither delusional nor biased, just a person who has taken a reasonably objective look at the evidence.} that President Obama has never held a passport from Indonesia (or any other country besides the US). That being the case, all of your supposition is completely without evidentiary support which makes your allegations worthless since you can’t establish your own bona fides to the standards which you demand of President Obama and in the United States baseless accusations have no credibility whatsoever.

    YOU ARE A WILLING AND COLLUDING FOOL.

    No, when I first saw the eligibility issue raised, I looked into it and discovered that every single one of the birther’s arguments was completely without merit. No issues that have been raised since that time (August 2009) have caused me to reconsider that assessment (an assessment which was shared, by the way, by Judge Malihi in Georgia after 3 birther lawyers put on their best evidence that President Obama wasn’t eligible for the his office). You are the one who is hopelessly biased by all of the lies you have been fed by Fox News and the rest of the right wing propaganda machine (supplemented, most likely, by a goodly helping of conspiratorial nonsense, and equal parts ignorance and belief in your own infallibility, but that’s just my opinion). The Democrats are far from perfect, but I think the evidence clearly shows that it is in the best interest of myself and every American to vote Democratic (or at least avoid voting Republican) until the GOP kicks the Tea Party and all of the other RWNJs (like the birthers) out of the mainstream of their party.

    OBAMA IS THE BERNIE MADDOFF PRESIDENT, THE PILTDOWN-MAN PRESIDENT, WITH AN ENRON PRESIDENCY.

    I think you will be sorely disappointed with how history judges Obama’s presidency. Every single year that the Obama administration has been involved in writing the budget, the deficit has gone down (as opposed to the huge increase in the deficit in budgets written during the Bush administration—and covering it up by keeping the wars off of the “official” budget numbers). Just remember that whenever you vote Republican you’re voting for slower growth of business (especially small business), increasing rather than decreasing the deficit, and decreasing rather than increasing public health and safety (though Richard Nixon did many positive things like starting the EPA…).

    AS FOR EVIDENCE, WHY DID THE DOG NOT BARK DURING THE MURDER? (“THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK”) THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION AND THAT IS THAT HE KNEW THE KILLER. THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION FOR DUNHAM BEING IN SEATTLE IN AUGUST OF 1961 AND IT IS THE REASON THAT I COMPLETELY EXPLAINED.

    Just like it is easy to provide an alternate explanation regarding the dog (he could have been sedated, for instance), your explanation is far from the only possibility. Furthermore, it isn’t clear if Dr. Dunham was in Seattle before spring semester. Her transcripts from the Fall of 1961 indicate she was taking “extension classes” and I am unaware of any anecdotal accounts placing her in Seattle in the Fall. In any case, clearly education was important to Dr. Dunham (since she went on to get her phd) and she would have applied to schools (and may have been accepted) before she knew she was pregnant. I find it unsurprising that someone with her strength of character wouldn’t let being a single mother prevent her from getting an education and going to the University of Washington as planned doesn’t seem like much of a reach (especially since it was a familiar area).

    WHERE IS YOUR REFUTATION OF THE REALITY I SHARED?

    Sorry, but the burden of proof is all on you. That’s how things work in America (as anyone who understands our Constitution and legal system would know). Have you ever heard the saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? Well, the Obots have extraordinary evidence to back up ordinary claims (that President Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawai’i), while the best the birthers could manage is evidence of “little to no probative value” which was “wholly insufficient” to support their extraordinary claim (that America is the victim of a conspiracy to elect an ineligible president). President Obama’s burden of proof was completely satisfied by the COLB which he released before the birther movement even started. Since then, it has become completely unassailable due to the corroborating evidence like the LFBC as well as official statements and sworn testimony by multiple officials of the Hawai’i DoH from both parties. In short, it is a legal certainty that President Obama was born in Hawai’i (and he has always been able to establish that fact for any official purpose).

    IT DOESN’T EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REFUTE IT, AND SO INSTEAD YOU RESORT TO OBFUSCATION, BASELESS ASSERTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND FALSEHOODS.

    Actually, I can back up all of the assertions I make with evidence and/or reasoning, and would certainly admit it were I presented with credible evidence that something I said was false (unlike birthers who never admit it even when caught in bald-faced lies). My assumptions in this area are on pretty solid footing as well, since they agree with the interpretation of all of the courts as well as everyone who was considered a Constitutional scholar before 2008. You, on the other hand, have written vast tracts of abstruse nonsense which rests solely on your unsupported claim that you understand the law better than anyone for at least the last century or so. Sorry, but I don’t think any rational person is going to accept your allegations.

    YOUR MIND IS WIRED TO DECEIVE YOURSELF AND OTHERS.

    Frankly, you don’t have a clue regarding how my mind works (or how any rational person’s mind works). Your sense of morality seems to be tied exclusively to your bias (you appear to think that anything President Obama does is immoral while any action taken in opposition to President Obama is moral) which leads you into great hypocrisy. Ethical people make moral judgements based on their principles rather than whether or not the actors share their ideology.

    IT’S POSSESSED OF A LYING SPIRIT AND REJECTS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH BECAUSE THE TRUTH EXPOSES YOUR LYING SOCIALIST MESSIAH.

    You know, the only people who seem to refer to President Obama as a “messiah” are the birthers. President Obama is just a politician to me. I supported Hillary Clinton until he won the nomination (they were pretty much the same, policy-wise) and voted for him twice not because I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but because I thought he was far better than the 2008 John McCain (who seemed to have lost the integrity of the 2000 McCain) and the elitist bully Romney. I’ve approved of some of the things he’s done as president and I’m not so happy about others (his drone strike policies or not fighting for the public option as examples), but I think he’s done as good a job as anyone could in what is clearly the most partisan political environment since the Civil War.

    As for “lying”, I would assert that whatever definition of “lying” you want to use, President Obama comes off much better than President Bush (or Mitt Romney, for that matter—it seems like that man can pander to opposing groups at the same time…). Certainly President Obama hasn’t told any whoppers like “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” or “Iraq was responsible for 9/11” or “torture is not immoral, ineffective, and illegal” or “I am not a crook” (or even “I did not have sex with that woman”). Nor has he done anything as dishonest as outing a covert CIA operative (Valerie Plame) to get political payback against her spouse for exposing the administration’s lies.

    Finally, President Obama is NOT a socialist. I wish he was more of a socialist, but his policies have been those of a center to center-right moderate. His signature legislation (ObamaCare) is essentially that same as the one proposed by Bob Dole, endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, and signed into law by Mitt Romney. If you would like an example of someone who embodied socialist principles, I would suggest you look to Jesus of Nazareth. If you aren’t familiar with his teachings (you certainly don’t appear to follow them), you can find them in the “Jefferson Bible”—a compilation of the first four books of the New Testament by Thomas Jefferson. You might find yourself a better person if you tried to follow the teachings of socialists like Jesus. Certainly the United States would be better off if we moved further away from unregulated lassez-faire capitalism to government which embodies socialist principles like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me”. But that doesn’t really fit into your “US GOOD THEM EVIL” mentality, does it?

    When it comes down to it, there are really only two possibilities: Either you and your ilk are wrong and your arguments are completely meritless (as several judges have said), or the cabal against you is so strong and considers you so incompetent and impotent that it feels no need to make you disappear, imprison you in a FEMA camp, or intimidate you into compliance.

    You may not be able to admit it to yourself, but I’m an honest person who is advocating the facts as I see them and what I truly believe is in the best interests of all Americans.

  6. arnash says:

    Your message is accepted in its entirely in order for all with an unbiased view to see the extent to which your mind allows you to over-look and “cook” facts via the inflating and distorting power of biased presumption. You are completely unaware of what your mind is doing as it bends and twists your perspective of reality in order to fit your zeitgeist. But here are a few responses to your remarks:
    “If you want to assert that his name was legally changed to Soetoro, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of that.”

    I don’t say that his name was legally changed to Soetoro because without an American birth certificate, he did not even have a legal name. He was merely presumed to be a U.S. citizen since his mother was, but he didn’t obtain citizenship through her nor the 14th Amendment.
    As for real-world adoption in the 1960s, if a Muslim man asks a young mother to be his wife for life, he is not only embracing her as his mate but is embracing her child as his own because her child is a part of her. Adoption would be emotionally compulsory. Rejecting adoption would be unthinkable because it would be like saying “I will marry you, support you, protect you, but I reject the part of you that I don’t want to be a part of my family.”

    As for the claim that Muslims do not change the name of their adopted child, -that is essentially unthinkable from a governmental perspective. It could be true on a tribal level, but on a national level, one who is adopted is legally labeled with the surname of his new father. No exception to that reality is conceivable regardless of tribal religious practice.

    “In short, even if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and later received Indonesian citizenship, it is completely irrelevant to his US citizenship and his eligibility for POTUS.”

    That is definitely true. His is ineligible because he was alien-born and not American-born. Even it he had legal citizenship, it would be LEGAL citizenship, -not NATURAL citizenship. But his Indonesian citizenship allowed him to obtain an Indonesian passport, and that was his only form of official identification since he had no birth certificate from Vancouver nor Hawaii.

    “The simplest explanation is that she took him off of her passport in the renewal so he could get his own passport”
    That is simple but simple is not the same as accurate. He was never on his mother’s passport so she couldn’t take him off of it. He could not be barred by the U.S. government from leaving the country with his mother and her husband who could have and would have claimed him as his own son to Indonesian authorities even if he had to state the truth (or a lie) in an affidavit.

    “…you [s]hould make a FOIA request for Dr. Dunham’s 1963 passport” That has already been done by someone, perhaps Taitz, and the reply was that all physical records prior to about 1968 had been destroyed, -with no proof nor record of that being true nor any order to make it happen. Very convenient. (You need to learn more about that by finding the articles that discuss it.) Just like the missing week of records of flights into Hawaii from international origins during the first week of August, 1961. No official explanation given, nor possible.

    “the passport records of living persons are exempt from the FOIA.” The fact of a submission of a passport application is NOT a passport record.
    Absence of a record of Obama applying for a passport can be presumed if the FOIA request was simply to learn if he did or did not apply for one. I don’t assume that such information is private since there is no reason to consider it private nor secret. It is done openly, not secretly. There is nor more reason for requests for passports to be designated or classified as “Restricted” any more than applications for marriage licenses.

    “Be consistent—you’ve already accused Dr. Dunham and the president’s grandmother of fraudulently obtaining a birth certificate. ”

    You’re hallucinating. As I’ve stated repeatedly, -HE HAD NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE! All that was done was to attempt to register him as having been born in Hawaii. That registration attempt via an affidavit failed! He was not issued a birth certificate even though they retained the affidavit and it carried some weight as a statement of “fact” under penalty of perjury. The HDoH was never supplied with proof of his mother’s one year residency in Hawaii, so by Hawaiian law, the affidavit was not confirmed by corroborating evidence.

    “… or you require a massive conspiracy to have planted evidence after the fact.”

    Massive? What is massive about a few people with top-level access and authority faking microfilm and digital records? If the very source of information is compromised by fraud, then it is easy to perpetrate a fraud on all who rely on the veracity of their records and statements. That is very elementary. Politician lie all of the time, and those who work for them will lie for them if they are of the same dishonest ideology.

    “the Hawai’i DoH has verified the information on the documents which President Obama has released.”

    No, they have merely claimed to have verified it. What if they are liars? (which they are) Then what good is their verification? Worthless. Grow up and stop pretending that adults who work for government are religiously honest. All they have done is illegally claim that he was born in Hawaii, and is somehow, someway therefore a certified “natural born citizen” according to their superior and authoritative knowledge of citizenship principles and constitutional law, as well as assert the validity of the information seen in the counterfeits as matching the information seen on their computer monitors when examining the DoH digital Obama file which is also a counterfeit inserted into their data-base.
    What none of them has ever done is claim that what is in their data-base is a record of an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate. Why won’t they say that? They refuse to say anything further because it would required stating that lie publicly, and they don’t want to do that because they know that it is simply not true. Their only records are the mother’s physical affidavit hidden under lock-&-key, and the counterfeit image added to their computer files.

    They have “verified” that that counterfeit digital image “indicates” that he was born in Hawaii. They could insert a counterfeit that says he was born on Mars. Would that make it true. Such “official records” are manifestly dishonest lies to millions of adopted children whose official birth certificates state as mother and/ or father persons with no blood connection to them whatsoever. Same with people in witness protection. Lying is one of the requirements for service in a Dept. of Health Vital Records Division. It is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

  7. arnash says:

    Correction: I stated somewhere that Barry was known as Barry Soetoro during his Hawaiian years, but have since come across evidence that he went by Obama instead, which is logical since he would have felt a greater connection to his biological African father than his adopted Indonesian father. One of the two pieces of evidence is a photo from his school of an added section of cement which shows the carved words “king Obama” (not surprising for a narcissist.)
    That is not evidence that his sole item of official government identification was not his Indonesian passport which contained the name Barry or Barack Soetoro. He also probably obtained a Green Card that could serve as ID for some things.

  8. arnash says:

    Boston Globe reporter withholds Obama file
    President’s official birth narrative doesn’t match up with INS reports
    Published: 11/08/2011
    Jerome R. Corsi
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/11/365749/

    Close examination of the unredacted page obtained by WND, which Jacobs obviously used to write her biography, shows it contained key information relevant to the Obama nativity story that was whited out in the copy sent to Smathers.

    On page 122 of her biography, “The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama’s Father,” Jacobs revealed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham had considered giving up their son for adoption:

    According to the INS memo concerning her April conversation with Dahling, the INS administrator, ‘Subject [Obama] got his USC [United Sates citizen] wife ‘Hapai’ [pidgin for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away.

    Exhibit 1 shows the unredacted INS file from which Jacobs worked to obtain the information.
    Clearly, the redaction was designed to eliminate the information that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham considered putting baby Barack Obama Jr. up for adoption with the Salvation Army.

    Furthermore, the unredacted version of the memo documents that the INS was aware of the adoption possibility as early as April 10, 1961, four months before the baby was born.

    A familiar face or MIA?

    The information in Jacobs’ version of the document is consistent with other documentation that contradicts President Obama’s narrative of his early life. He has claimed that Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham lived together with him as a family in Hawaii until September 1962, when Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii to go to Harvard University to begin graduate studies in economics.

    As recently as April 20, only a week before Obama released from the White House what he claimed was a scan of his original long-form 1961 birth certificate, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was insisting to Fox News that he was in Hawaii when Obama was born.

    Abercrombie personal testimony was an attempt to verify that Honolulu was the place of Obama’s birth, even though under questioning he admitted he was not literally at the hospital to witness the birth.

    Abercrombie’s revised story was that he “first laid eyes on baby Obama a few days after he was born,” supposedly when Obama’s parents introduced the newborn to friends at the University of Hawaii, where Abercrombie and Obama Sr. were students.

    “We not only saw him and were with them, but were introduced to him of course at our gatherings, our student gatherings,” Abercrombie said on April 20. “And of course over the years then as he was raised by his mother and his grandparents we of course saw him frequently because he was with his grandfather all the time.”

    By these statements, Abercrombie claimed to know the Obama family quite well.

    Abercrombie’s point apparently was to affirm Barack Obama Sr., Ann Dunham and the baby were seen and introduced commonly at the University of Hawaii.

    But the document cited in Jacobs’ biography published some three months later, in July, contradict Abercrombie’s claims about the Obama family.

    Jacobs wrote on page 118 that Obama Sr. “said nothing of his new girl friend [Stanley Ann Dunham] to most of his friends on campus.”

    Still, on the same page, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie, who insists Obama Sr. brought Dunham with him to parties at the university.

    But, as if to explain why university students didn’t consider them to be married, Jacobs quotes Abercrombie as saying that Dunham tended to sit quietly beside Obama Sr., as she spoke little and “instead listened closely as the men – and it was mostly men at their gatherings – argued and laughed.”

    Jacobs documents no incident in which Dunham brought baby Obama to the university to engage in social events with her husband and the baby’s father.

    WND has separately documented that Dunham left Hawaii within a few weeks of the baby’s birth to attend on-campus evening classes at the University of Washington in Seattle. She did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left the islands in September 1962.

    Jacobs first revealed that Obama Sr. and Dunham had considered putting the baby up for adoption with the Salvation Army when she wrote an article in the Boston Globe titled “Father spoke of having Obama adopted,” published July 7.

    Jacob recounts in her book how she found the INS file for Obama, Sr.: “In a storage facility in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, where the paper records of what was once called the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service are stored, there is a folder bearing the name Barack H. Obama, alien registration number A11938537, which contained memos stretching from the time he arrived in Honolulu in 1959 until he was forced to leave Cambridge, Massachusetts, against his will in 1964.”

  9. arnash says:

    Addition exploration of the location of Ann Dunham can be found at American Thinker. You decide if his conclusions make more sense than what logic dictates.

    Did baby Barack Obama live with Ann Dunham in Seattle?
    By Shawn Glasco

    Only “mere scraps of data documented” Barack Obama’s mother’s “days in Seattle,” writes Obama biographer David Maraniss in his 2012 Barack Obama: The Story. Incidentally, Maraniss was telling the truth: Ann’s “days in Seattle” weren’t mentioned in Dreams from my Father and were only vaguely implied in Maraniss’s lengthy 2008 article. And it appears that the only “scraps” of evidence of Obama’s mother’s time in Seattle during 1961-1962 was a listing in a Seattle Polk directory and a University of Washington (UW) transcript. And it appears that the only “mere scraps” of evidence of baby Barack’s time in Seattle are a few recollections from some of Ann’s high school classmates and a lone babysitter. continued…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/did_baby_barack_obama_live_with_ann_dunham_in_seattle.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: