A Hillary Clinton insider has claimed that Chelsea was threatened if Hillary
made it public that he believed Obama was not Natural-Born US Citizen.
Bill Clinton was prepared to cross the illuminati but he decided that
Chelsea's life was more important than Hillary's presidency.
Tell me, who was the first person to file a court case against Obama's
ineligibility? Hint:
http://obamacrimes.com/
The first person was a Hillary supporter. Not a Republican or a Birther.
There was no Birther movement yet. He started the Birther movement and he
was a Democrat supporter of Hillary.
For sure, Hillary knew of Obama's ineligibility. But the illuminati
promised her the Sec. of State post with the option to be World Bank
President if she ceded POTUS to Obama; plus Chelsea's life.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
At 04:13 AM 1/2/2013, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I've already said, you can not enroll into this muslim school that Obama
enrolled in if you were not registered as a muslim. And any adoption of a
child by an Indonesian muslim man automatically makes the child a muslim.
That was the law. Research it my friend.
Jojo has obviously not researched this, or he's lying. When the story came
out, it was in a Moonie publication that attributed the claim to the
Clinton campaign in 2008. Clinton denied it. So CNN and another major
media source sent reporters to the school itself. It's a public school
with students from every major religion present in Jakarta. There was a
different school involved, a Catholic school, where Obama seems to have
been registered as a Muslim.
Jojo was actually asked for a source here, but he did not provide it, he
simply repeated his claim, that's his normal practice.
I recall seeing a story that Obama was indeed registered as a muslim
student. Things like this happen. His mother's husband, the head of
household, was Muslim, and he has a Muslim name, so the school may have
merely assumed he was Muslim. It actually means very little about his
actual religion, and he was a young child at the time.
The adoption would make the child eligible to be treated as a muslim, I
think that Jojo might be correct about that. So what?
Jojo's claims about U.S. citizenship are idiosyncratic, common among
birthers, and legally invalid. If someone is a U.S. citizen by right of
birth, they are not a naturalized citizen. There is no case law on
renounced citizenship on this, to my knowledge, but an "automatic
renouncement" would clearly not apply. One can be a dual citizen, it does
not negate "natural born citizen."
These are arguments that have been *demolished* elsewhere, being brought
here. For coverage of birther issues, in general, I now refer to
http://www.thefogbow.com/
On the adoption issue, see
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/adopted-in-indonesia/
On the dual citizen issue, see
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/three-theories/two-citizen-parents/
Suppose, however, the one non-Catholic school at the time was only open to
muslim students. Suppose that it was only opened to others later. This
would have just about zero implication as to Obama's present religious
affiliation. I forget how old he was, but it was certainly before the age
at which people make informed decisions about religion. There is no sign
that the school was a madrassa, a "religious school." That was something
simply alleged without evidence in the original story, apparently an
assumption that a "muslim" school, in a majority muslim nation, would be
religious.
On the adoption claim, from Fogbow:
Claim: There's evidence Obama was adopted in Indonesia.
The only "evidence" is a
<http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100312/GAL-10Mar12-4044/media/PHO-10Mar12-211335.jpg>handwritten
school
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html>registration
page from the Santo Fransiskus Assisi (Saint Francis of Assisi) Catholic
School in Jakarta, Indonesia, that refers to Obama as "Barack Soetoro."
However, according to
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY&feature=player_embedded>school
officials at the Assisi School, it was customary for students to be
enrolled with their father's last name and religion.
(That would mean that a male head of household was considered the father,
whether or not there was a formal adoption. This is routine here, by the
way, if the actual parent informs the school that he's to be treated that
way. It can be complicated.)
None of this has any legal significance whatever. If the birth
certificates and legally-binding statements of Hawai'ian state officials
are fake, that would be a real issue. But this wouldn't make a difference.
"Natural born citizen," it is totally clear, refers to place of birth.
Period. There are exceptions under some circumstances for people born
outside the U.S. There is some issue about children who lived outside the
U.S. up to the age of 25. That didn't apply to Obama.
And *none of this belongs on this list.* It's here only because Jojo has
continued to make his off-topic and highly disruptive claims.
No more original text below.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.com>de Bivort Lawrence
To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
Your statements about nationality and about adoption and nationality are
incorrect.
What is your evidence for Obama being "registered as a Muslim"?
On Jan 1, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
While what you are saying about Indonesian schools may be true today - I
am not knowledgeable about the current school system in Indonesia, so I
will not debate that.
While that may be true, it surely wasn't true in the 70's when Obama went
there. Records show he was registered in that school as a muslim.
One more thing, he was adopted by an Indonesian muslim. If he was
adopted to be an Indonesian, he would have automatically lost his U.S.
citizenship and gained Indonesian citizenship and automatically became a
muslim. In Indonesia, you gain the religion of your adoptive father.
Indonesia does not have and never had a "Dual Citizenship" program with
the US. Which means that he would have had to reacquire his US
citizenship when he reached 18. He had to do something to gain back his
US citizenship. Which automatically made him a naturalized US citizen,
not a Natural-Born US citizen required by our constitution.
One of my cousins was in the same boat and he was born about the same
time as Obama. He was born in U.S. soil (New York) but his parents
brought him back to the Philippines. By US law, as a minor, he has no
official citizenship status if there is a question as to his citizenship.
In my cousin's case, he was born on US soil to Filipino parents. Hence,
his citizenship status was in limbo, until he can make a decision when he
turns 18. He can choose to be Filipino or US citizen. When my cousin
turned 18, he had to go to the US Embassy to choose US citizen and get
his papers (passport). He is considered a Naturalized US citizen. A
person that has to take action to gain US citizenship is not a Natural
Born US citizen. This is the status of Obama even if he was indeed born
in Hawaii. He would still be a Naturalized US citizen and hence
unqualified.
So, as you can see, Obama is unqualified to be POTUS on many fronts. The
argument about whether he was born in Hawaii or not is just one aspect of
his qualification (non-qualification) to be POTUS.
In a free society like America, such questions about his qualifications
should have been vetted openly. If there was even a hint as to his
qualifications, it should have been settled publicly and openly. Why
don't people take this issue seriously. Even if people think that his BC
was original and valid, people should still be calling for it to be
settled once and for all. Open up the vault copy. No other steps or
half measures will do. Great controversies require great measures to
settle. Let the Birthers see it and it they are wrong, you get the
chance to humiliate them to your heart's content. If I am wrong about
this, I'm sure I will have great shame and tuck my tail between my legs
and go away quietly.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:ldebiv...@gmail.com>de Bivort Lawrence
To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Birther Myth? or Lomax lies
The earlier posting on "muslim" schools is confused.
Some "Muslim" schools have a curriculum that is based solely on the
Qur'an. This kind of school would only attract non-Muslim students
interested in the Qur'an, or in the culture of Islam.
Some "Muslim" schools have a standard secular curriculum, and are
attended mostly by Muslims, thus confusing some into calling them
"Muslim" schools.
Some "Muslim" schools are merely called such because they operate in a
Muslim country, like Indonesia. This is like calling US public schools
"Christian" because they operate in a predominantly Christian country.
To suggest that President Obama must be a Muslim because he went to a
"Muslim" school in Indonesia is a statement that at best is meaningless.
On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
Indeed. There is a Catholic school in Birmingham, UK, where the
majority of pupils are Muslim
<http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115>http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birminghams-catholic-school-where-90-of-the-pupils-231115
Nigel
On 31/12/2012 04:40, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Yes, "Christian" catholic schools are more tolerant of other faiths,
but not muslims. You can not go to a muslim school like the one Obama
went to unless you are a muslim.
Before Lomax spins this again; may I simply ask readers to research
this on their own to see which of us both is lying.
Jojo
