1 The Indonesian angle to Obama’s status I consider to be a sidetrack. However I have in fairness to retract and apologize for a factual inexactitude I gave out above. To dispose of the matter I confine myself to facts not in contention:

Obama’s problem:

a The Dunham-Soetoro 1980 divorce record establishes their marriage, with one child over 18 (Barry Soetoro=Obama).
b Immigrating to Indonesia subjected Barry Soetoro to Indonesian authority and law.
c Foreign-born wives are automatically awarded Indonesian citizenship one year after marriage (within one year by statement, on expatriating previous citizenship) and transmit Indonesian citizenship to their children under Articles 7(2) and 13(2) of Indonesian Law 62/1958
d Indonesia only permitted Indonesian citizens to attend their public schools and required foreign children to attend international schools: Barry Soetoro attended a public school.
e Barry Soetoro attended public school (January 1968) soon after arrival in Indonesia.
f Lolo Soetoro is acknowledged as Barry Soetoro’s legal father (Articles 5a, 6, 10, 261-265 Indonesian Civil Code) on his first school registration: information on these registrations was checked with government documents and authorities.
g Barry Soetoro’s first school registration also gives Barry Soetoro’s nationality as Indonesian, which again was checked with government documents and authorities.

The above establishes a preponderance of evidence (ie more likely than not) of the exercise of Indonesian citizenship by Barry Soetoro before January 1968, on the basis that paternal acknowledgement and thus Indonesian citizenship is proved by his immediate admission to public school; or, failing that, transmission of Indonesian nationality by his mother after one year if not sooner. In neither instance did having a prior nationality disqualify. Available evidence indicates that Ann and Barry Soetoro were considered Indonesian citizens by Indonesian authorities before Barry Soetoro’s return to Hawaii in 1971 and his mere return did not expatriate Indonesian citizenship.

This -> needs to be said. A retraction: I researched the status of the 1930 Hague Convention in US diplomacy and found absolutely nothing ! Eventually I came across a 2000 State Department telegram to the North Korean Government in which State reject a NKG citation of the 1930 Hague Convention as having no possible influence on American policy with regard to US citizens naturalizing abroad. (See http://www.state.gov/s/l/16133.htm.) Without question the 1930 Hague Convention cannot be cited against Soetoro-Obama. I cited this Convention in response to 1Lishell and was wrong: for that I apologize to 1Lishell and readers.

The conditional language of INA 1952 S349(a)1 (essentially “while abroad: expatriated but on hold”) permitted Barry Soetoro, on returning to Hawaii before age 25, to resume US citizenship – IF previously entitled. If Ann Soetoro chose ELECTIVE naturalization by statement before the completion of one year of marriage this would have incontrovertibly expatriated her US citizenship.

Various clauses of Article 17 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 are cited as containing acts which might have expatriated Barry Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship in the United States: no evidence exists that Soetoro-Obama performed any such act until 1996 – assuming he was an American citizen. It is extremely significant that the Soetoro-Obama Selective Service Registration, alleged to date from 1980 and released through FOIA, gives every impression of being fraudulent (1Lishell probably contests that). Anyhow, 1Lishell cannot be serious when he asks us to believe that the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to a legally binding and (Indonesian) expatriating oath or promise when recited by children under school discipline.

If Barry Soetoro resorted OFFICIALLY to Indonesian citizenship abroad in his own behalf after age 18 his consequent expatriation of purported US citizenship was voluntary and conclusive. Soetoro-Obama will not permit Americans to access any information that would allow critical tests to determine his true nationality – he is under no obligation, retort his supporters – but even to think about the issue means juggling the legal systems of four sovereign nations, US, Britain, Kenya, and Indonesia, which all have had competing claims in their respective law upon Obama. Was it to this Obama referred when said in Germany that he was a (quote) “Citizen of the World” ?

Does this profile fit a natural born citizen, who has no undivided loyalties or is not subject to foreign claims ? For many these facts define ineligibility to the Presidency. Anyone who believes the Presidency was designed for US citizens who once were not exclusively US citizens – unless said citizens were alive at the Constitution’s adoption in 1787 nearly 222 years ago – displays an inability to construe the pellucid logic of Article 2 or cares nothing for constitutional government. Had “natural born citizen” (US born citizen of two US citizen parents) equaled “citizen” (US born) there would have been no reason for the Framers of the Constitution to stipulate it: “natural born” had a clear meaning (maximum ius soli et ius sanguinis) for the Founding Fathers that a less literate posterity is anachronistically interpreting.

2 Article 3 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 has been quoted with reference to Barry Soetoro and one hesitates to cause pain. Article 3 applies only to the children of female Indonesian citizens married to foreign husbands. In Indonesia until 2006 citizenship (except via Articles 7 and 13 Law 62/1958) derived from the Indonesian father, not the mother, thus to acquire it children of this type of mixed marriage had to make a special petition. Quite simply, as the son of an Indonesian father and mother this Article is completely irrelevant with regard to Obama. (Google “Marcellina Tanuhandaru” for background.) If not sooner, Barry Soetoro acquired Indonesian nationality under Articles 7(2) and 13(2) of Indonesian Law 62/1958 as soon as his mother did.

3 Expatriation of Indonesian nationality under Article 17 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 follows upon 5 years consecutive residence outside Indonesia beginning from age 18. Article 18 of Indonesian Law 62/1958 requires expatriated Indonesians who return to Indonesia to report within a year of arrival to authorities if they wish to reclaim their status. It’s as simple as that: ask an Indonesian.

4 1Lishell has attributed to me beliefs about Obama’s citizenship which are not mine. My position is that if Obama’s original birth record – for example, those CertificATES he has admitted possessing before CertificATIONs (COLB ) were introduced in 2001 – could pass muster in court they would already be in the public domain: as they are not, nor were referenced by Obama’s attorneys in Hollister v Soetoro, those CertificATES must contain information Obama wishes to prevent becoming public knowledge. I believe all the following statements are true:

1 No birthplace or registration address is ever printed on a Hawaii short form COLB.
2 Obama’s newspaper birth announcements and recent Hawaii DoH statements predicate some as yet unidentified type of birth record from 1961 on file: informant as yet unknown, place and country of birth as yet unknown.
3 One or more entries in Obama’s original birth registration are suspect, possibly fraudulent.
4 Obama has blocked (or not cooperated in terms of) access to his personal records held anywhere, despite protestations of transparency.
5 Forensic analysis of COLBs that Obama’s attorneys (Hollister v Soetoro) reference as evidence details multiple instances of criminal forgery – additionally no envelope(s?) from Hawaii DoH with corroborating post marks have been produced.
6 Legal repudiation by Obama of birth records held in Hawaii is not possible.
7 It is inadmissible to testify as to one’s own place of birth.
8 There are several false statements in the Dunham-Obama and Dunham-Soetoro divorce papers about residency and citizenship.
9 Barack Jnr has written that he discovered his birth certificate and immunization papers while at high school – this certificate has never been released.
10 At the beginning of their relationship Barack Snr did not reveal to Ann Dunham the existence of an ongoing common-law “marriage” (to Grace Kezia ) in Kenya (not recognized in Hawaii) and at some unspecified time later told Ann he was no longer involved.
11 Stanley Ann Dunham dropped out of U of Hawaii late in 1960.
12 Barack Snr informed his father, Hussein Onyango Obama, of the impending marriage and received a letter back expressly rejecting the match.
13 Stanley Ann Dunham had dated Barack Snr to the displeasure of her parents (according to Susan Blake) and Mr and Mrs Dunham did not attend the marriage ceremony on 2 February 1961 (according to Barack Jnr) – it is unknown if Ann received her parent’s consent.
14 Records show that shortly after Barack Jnr’s birth was registered in Hawaii (on 8 August 1961), a witness (Susan Blake) met Ann Obama and Barack Jnr in the last week of August 1961 in Seattle – at which single meeting Ann told many apparent untruths.
15 Ann Obama enrolled at the U of Washington as a student August 1961.
16 No reason has yet surfaced to explain why Ann Obama did not rejoin her husband in Hawaii.
17 Ann D. Obama did not return to Hawaii until 1963 – after Barack Snr had left for post-graduate study at Harvard in 1962.
18 Throughout his life Barack Snr evinced many signs of personality disorder: shallow and manipulative personal relations, alcoholism, violent abuse, grandiosity and self-destructiveness.
19 Ann Dunham from her teen years evinced many signs of personality disorder: low self-esteem, identity issues (due not least to carrying her father’s first name), sexual risk-taking, repeated lying and fabulation, and impulsiveness.
20 Barack Snr compulsively mimicked (vengefully) his father’s behavior – traveled to a distant continent and married a white woman (as Hussein Onyango Obama claimed for himself but never substantiated, except for a single photograph).
21 Ann Dunham compulsively mimicked (vengefully) her parent’s behavior – she married very young (and secretly ?) to a disapproved spouse and moved farther and farther afield.
22 Ann Dunham was peremptorily taken by her parent’s against her will from Washington State to Hawaii in July of 1960.
23 Ann D. Obama’s movements and residences, from February 1961 until late August 1961 (Seattle, WA), are as yet unknown.
24 Barack Snr’s movements and residences for the summer of 1961 are as yet unknown.
25 Barack Snr was an African-Kenyan nationalist.
26 All Barack Snr’s children were born in Africa: Barack Jnr claims (see point 7) to be the exception.
27 Only those may serve as President who are born in the United States to two US citizen parents.
28 Barack Jnr was born to a British (later Kenyan) citizen father from whom he received British (then Kenyan) citizenship at birth.
29 50 Secretaries of State and Congress have vitiated their legal duty to determine Obama’s eligibility to the office of US President.

On the basis of these facts I consider it certain that Obama cannot ever be the legitimate President. These facts also point to the high probability that Obama was born in Kenya; a dispute as to that probability should be resolved by critical test. This test should follow a ruling that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is legally irrelevant in the determination of the true facts of his birth (see posting above). This ruling would probably come as a result of a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to the Presidency. Those challenges are in preparation; only one is required to succeed; it may come by way of the National Grand Jury, if not sooner.

You notice 1Lishell has no answer to your well stated summation.

Try reading the article I linked to and you’ll realize your errors.

Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but that’s OK. It certainly cannot be about this site, because it’s only been around since Friday, October 24, 2008.

-Phil

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. But, we’ll see.

-Phil

I wonder at the sincerity of that concern. I’ll try not to be too verbose here. A group of people, myself included, became intensely involved in discussion of politics/world events over a period of a couple of years at a website. The site was not supposed to lean that way, but it transformed over time. The commenters who obviously held different views than the majority gradually engaged in disgusting behavior, creating sock puppets to add to the problem. It became clear that there were some operatives at work. (Actually the site owner was working behind the scenes and knew the commenters were coming from another site.) They were not acting directly on behalf of any political candidate but clearly had an agenda. It isn’t necessary to get into the details here. The whole site had to be shut down. It re-emerged with stricter moderation, but was never the same. (It was interesting to have the flow of limited moderation initially). I don’t see that happening here because comments are moderated strictly now, but what I have noticed is a bit of escalation. When a commenter refuses to agree to disagree and regularly comes back to show us the error of our ways, I start to smell a troll with this agenda: dissuade people by fear. I go back to my initial question: why Bob’s concern? Is Bob like O’Reilly, just looking out for the folks?

I understand if you delete or edit, Phil.

Just curious…what are the potential illegalities that have been “proposed”? Are you referring to the gathering of people and information, or the use of that information when contacting political representatives?

In either case, I don’t see how anything mentioned would be “potentially” illegal. I don’t know of any law that prohibits citizens from gathering facts and using those facts to try to influence their representatives’ political decisions. Do you?

Are you still in law school, or are you already a lawyer? What is so complicated about this?

If Obama has no constitutional right to hold office because he does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements for that office, then it requires no constitutional act to remove him from the office he occupies.

Can any lawyer walk into a court, sit on the judge’s bench, and preside over a case? No. They must have a legitimate (legal) claim to that position, otherwise they have assumed a power that they cannot and do not rightfully have. It would not require any legal process to demand the lawyer to remove himself from the bench. He would have no legitimate claim to that authority.

You think that an election overrides constitutional eligibility? What if an 18 year-old foreigner ran for the presidency and won the election? Does that mean we must accept said person as the next president, despite the requirements in our constitution? Your claims are entirely inconsistent with the proper understanding of law.

What I’m saying is that President Obama does not magically cease to be in office if he is proven to be ineligible. President Obama took office, and he’s there until he’s term-limited out unless there are ground for impeachment.

Perhaps you are related to Der Schlick-meister, former President Clinton? That’s what your entire comment sounded like to me.

-Phil

You said, “An underlying defect in President Obama’s qualifications would not invalidate the fact that President Obama properly holds office as a result of the process outlined in the constitution.”

So you are going on record as saying that if the President is found to be ineligible by way of his birth, nobody could do anything to him?

If that presupposition is true, then you would be saying that impeachment is above even one Barack Hussein Obama.

-Phil