Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Proof Obama Indonesian, November 10, 2008

The US Constitution must be upheld

         Part 4

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and

Benjamin Franklin

Proof of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship from Philip J Berg’s lawsuit, First Amended Complaint:

“45. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School, a public school, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was
registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.”

Here are the AP photos entered By Mr. Berg as evidence:



Facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian citizenship from Mr. Berg’s complaint:

“41. Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1965, when Obama was approximately four (4) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up citizenship of and residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1965) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

42. Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir (autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in
this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

43. Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2. Thus, where Obama was actually born and what his mother’s citizenship status at the time of this birth is irrelevant.

44. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. During this time, Indonesia was a Police State. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.”

“49. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

50. In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

51. As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.

52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.”

Philip J Berg’s facts regarding Obama’s ineligibility

Philip J Berg’s Amended Complaint

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:


Barack Obama has provided no legal proof that he is eligible to be president.

This is the fourth part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

The next article in the series will present more evidence that Obama is
not eligible to be president.

5 responses to “Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Proof Obama Indonesian, November 10, 2008

  1. The election is over.
    Now is the time to attack the issues.
    Ask the loaded questions.
    For example, why hasn’t the following been reversed?

    In 1977, President Jimmy Carter dealt the U.S. nuclear industry one of its greatest setbacks by issuing Presidential Directive 8 (PD-8), [21] which forbids reprocessing (recycling) nuclear fuel in the United States. “Closing the fuel cycle,” the term used to describe the recycling of spent nuclear fuel, allows used fuel to be recycled and used again. Regrettably, PD-8 has effectively been U.S. policy ever since. As a result, nuclear fuel is run through U.S. reactors only once, wasting a valuable resource and producing unnecessary amounts of high-level nuclear waste.

    Recycling spent nuclear fuel would help the U.S. and the world to reduce the volume of high-level nuclear waste and recover vast amounts of energy that remain in “spent” nuclear fuel even after it has gone through a reactor. Currently, only about 5 per­cent of the energy is used per volume of fuel. The U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel, but France, Great Britain, China, and Russia are safely using recycling technology.

  2. Citizen Wells,
    I just found this link at NQ.
    A lawsuit in New Jersey about the natural born citizen issue.

  3. I am most sure that BO’s EARLY medical records should mention his citizenship…


    I give you a LOT of credit for your perseverance.

    You are right, we have to stay on this important Constitutional issue.

    It’s difficult when you see the American way of life being bought by our government with fresh new dollars. Worse, Republican’s doing this with the blessing of the Democrats.

    And when the sting is still there, from NOBODY in government OR media, responding to the American people all these months.

    It’s like we are under seige, so progress looks nil.

    If Barak Obama was born in Kenya, he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen, because his American mother was not yet 19 years old. Under the naturalization law in effect at the time (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)), the child of a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent, born in wedlock, outside of the United States, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth only if the U.S. citizen parent had resided a total of 10 years in the United States, 5 years after turning 14, prior to the birth of the child. In short, Obama’s mother could not have resided in the U.S. for five years between her 14th birthday and his birth, as she was not yet 19 when he was born. Therefore, if Obama was born in Kenya, he did not acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
    The alternative objection to Obama’s qualifications to serve as President, that even if born in Hawaii, he lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia, is spurious. There is nothing in the alleged facts of his Indonesian residency that would support a determination that he lost his U.S. citizenship while a child.
    A potentially expatriating act (such as naturalization in a foreign state) will only result in loss of nationality if it was entered into voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.
    A U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization will lose his or her U.S. nationality by committing a statutory act of expatriation as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), Section 349, or predecessor statute, but only if the act is performed (1) voluntarily and (2) with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality. This constitutional principle was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980).
    Reflecting these Supreme Court decisions, the INA of 1952 was amended in 1986 to add the clause in brackets below, making clear that the expatriating act must be performed voluntarily and with intent to lose nationality. The INA, Section 349, now reads:
    “(a) A person who is a national* of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by [voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality] – (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having obtained the age of eighteen years; or (2) taking an oath …”
    * the term “national” includes citizens and nationals (of the United States)
    Although prior to 1986, the INA did not include the bracketed language, the Supreme Court had already declared that prior laws in conflict with this principle were unconstitutional.
    The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401(a), included an earlier and broader version of the first expatriating act listed in the INA of 1952 (obtaining naturalization in a foreign state) above. That law did not require that the foreign naturalization occur after the person’s eighteenth birthday. However, anyone naturalizing in a foreign state after the passage of the 1952 law did not commit an expatriating act unless he was over eighteen years of age at the time of the naturalization.

    Any serious Supreme Court challenge to Barak Obama’s citizenship status (assuming that he was born in Hawaii) based on his alleged Indonesian naturalization at the age of 6 or 7 (he moved with his mother to Indonesia in 1967 to live with his Indonesian stepfather, was enrolled in an Indonesian school in 1968 and listed on the enrollment form as an Indonesian citizen, and returned to Hawaii in 1971, at the age of 10, to live with his grandparents) must successfully address several issues:
    1) How could his Indonesian naturalization (assuming that he actually did naturalize in Indonesia) constitute an expatriating act under the U.S. law governing loss of nationality at the time – the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which superseded the Nationality Act of 1940 – when the 1952 law specifically states that the foreign naturalization is only an expatriating act if the application for naturalization was made after the person turned eighteen? See text above.
    2) In fact, most of the potentially expatriating acts specify that they must have been committed after turning eighteen. The concept that Obama lost his ability to “regain” his U.S. citizenship by failing to swear allegiance to the U.S. within six months of turning eighteen apparently comes from the INA, Section 351(b), which states: “A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 349(a) of this title.” The acts in paragraphs (3) and (5) are serving in the armed forces of a foreign state, or making a formal renunciation of nationality before a consular officer abroad. The act in question (naturalization in a foreign state) is in paragraph (1) and specifically exempts those under eighteen, as do most of the potentially expatriating acts.
    3) Even applying the 1940 law, it would have to be shown that Obama, as a young child, voluntarily naturalized with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship – a constitutional requirement, according to the 1967 Supreme Court case, Afroyim v. Rusk, and the 1980 case, Vance v. Terrazas. To succeed, the challenge must ask the Supreme Court to either overturn these earlier decisions, or carve out an exception, where routine foreign naturalization (prior to the 1986 immigration amendment codifying the 1967 and 1980 decisions) constitutes an expatriating act regardless of voluntariness or intent (and even if done by a minor child). This is a heavy burden, especially given the consistent trend of Supreme Court decisions over the last 40 years, all of which have further restricted the circumstances under which nationality can be involuntarily taken away by the government.
    4) The idea that Obama’s mother (and therefore by extension, he) lost U.S. nationality by virtue of her marriage to a foreign national and/or then living outside of the U.S. while married to a foreign national directly contradicts the INA, Section 357, which states: “no woman who was a national of the United States shall be deemed to have lost her nationality solely by reason of her marriage to an alien on or after September 22, 1922, or to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship on or after March 3, 1931, or, in the case of a woman who was a United States citizen at birth, through residence abroad following such marriage, notwithstanding the provisions of any existing treaty or convention.”
    5) It should be evident that although Indonesian law governs who can or cannot be an Indonesian citizen, only U.S. law determines who can or cannot be a U.S. citizen. If Obama’s mother had voluntarily renounced her U.S. citizenship (which she would have to have done in front of a U.S. consular officer, most likely at the U.S. embassy in Indonesia), she would no longer have been able to carry a U.S. passport and would not have been able to re-enter the U.S. in 1972, unless as a foreigner issued a visa. But, as discussed above, this would not have affected the citizenship of her child.
    6) A further note on the concept of “dual citizenship” – the fact that a country does not recognize dual citizenship, does not mean that that country will automatically rescind a person’s citizenship if/when that person acquires a second citizenship with another country. It only means that that country will not give any legal consideration to the second nationality of any of its citizens. Millions of American citizens have dual (or more) citizenships. The U.S. government does not care in any way about those other citizenships, other than an oath taken during the naturalization ceremony that the new citizen renounces allegiance to any other country. But those new citizens are not required to turn in their other passports. In fact, as a very practical matter, most naturalized citizens must maintain dual citizenship if they ever plan to travel to their country of origin. For example, neither Brazil nor the United States recognizes dual citizenship (in fact, under Brazilian law, a Brazilian citizen cannot renounce or lose his citizenship in any way). A Brazilian who naturalizes in the U.S. (or an American who naturalizes in Brazil) must carry both passports if he wants to travel between the two countries – the Brazilian passport to enter and depart Brazil, and the American passport to enter and depart the U.S. Most countries do not give legal recognition to dual citizenship, but understand that people in this situation must carry both passports.
    7) Under all of these nationality laws, a determination of loss of nationality had to be made by the Department of State (based on an analysis of the facts in the specific case). Absent a determination by the U.S. government that someone had lost U.S. nationality, there was no requirement to do anything (such as swearing an oath of allegiance or applying for naturalization) to “regain” U.S. nationality. There is no evidence that the U.S. government ever determined that Barak Obama lost his U.S. nationality. In fact, if such a determination had been made, he would have been ineligible to carry a U.S. passport, and would not have been able to re-enter the United States in 1971 to live with his grandparents.

    AFROYIM v. RUSK (1967)
    In 1967, in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of American citizenship involuntarily. This decision declared unconstitutional and rendered invalid any prior application of U.S. law that resulted in the involuntary loss of nationality of a U.S. citizen.
    Beys Afroyim (1893-1984) was a Jewish artist born as Ephraim Bernstein in Ryki, Poland. In 1912 he immigrated to the United States. In 1926 he became naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In 1950 he moved to Israel. He voted in an Israeli election in 1951. In 1960, Afroyim tried to renew his U.S. passport, but the State Department refused on the ground that he had lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election. Afroyim sued Dean Rusk in his official capacity as Secretary of State and head of the State Department, which is responsible both for issuing passports and for dealing with loss of citizenship.
    At various times before 1967, U.S. law had provided for multiple ways for U.S. citizens to lose their citizenship, possibly without their consent, for example:
    • Loss of citizenship could be used as a punishment (for example, for military desertion)
    • Women might lose their citizenship if they married a non-U.S. citizen (on the assumption that they would acquire their husband’s nationality)
    • U.S. citizens who became citizens of foreign countries might automatically lose their U.S. citizenship (see Bancroft Treaties)
    • Naturalized citizens who established a residence outside the United States might lose their citizenship (another consequence of the Bancroft Treaties)
    • U.S. citizens who voted in a foreign election might lose their U.S. citizenship (this is the law that affected Afroyim)
    However, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Read literally, this would seem to imply that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a U.S. citizen for life.
    The Supreme Court had to decide whether it was constitutional to take away the citizenship of someone born or naturalized in the United States.
    The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that Afroyim’s citizenship could not be taken away without his consent. The majority relied strongly on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment was written soon after the American Civil War, in order to secure the rights of the freed slaves. At this time, African Americans had already been made U.S. citizens by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the original draft of the Amendment contained no definition of citizenship. However, some Senators were worried that a future Congress might reverse the Act, so they inserted the first clause of the Amendment in order to ensure that the blacks’ citizenship was “permanent and secure.” This guarantee would have been meaningless if Congress retained the power to strip citizens of their citizenship without their consent. The citizenship guarantees of the 14th Amendment were eventually held by the Supreme Court to apply to all Americans — not just the freed slaves and their posterity — in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
    The majority also pointed to the Titles of Nobility Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment from the early nineteenth century. It was passed by Congress in 1810 but never ratified by the states. This amendment would have removed the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign government. The majority reasoned that the fact that this was passed as a constitutional amendment, rather than a simple law, shows that, even before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress did not believe that it had the power to strip U.S. citizenship from anyone.
    In ruling in Afroyim’s favor, the court explicitly overruled its own earlier reasoning in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), a case in which Congress’s right to revoke U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election had been upheld.
    The minority argued, in their dissent, that Perez v. Brownell had been correctly decided and should not be repudiated; that the 14th Amendment had not in fact stripped Congress of the power to revoke a person’s U.S. citizenship for good cause; and that Congress was well within its rights to decide that allowing U.S. citizens to vote in foreign elections ran contrary to the foreign policy interests of the nation.
    The decision had the following effects:
    • No one who had become a U.S. citizen through birth in the United States or through naturalization could have citizenship taken away without consent. However, the question of how such consent might be indicated remained somewhat open. Until a later case — Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980) — was decided by the Supreme Court, the U.S. government continued to hold to the view that intentionally performing an action which Congress had designated as expatriating (i.e., citizenship-losing) could be interpreted as clear evidence of consent to lose U.S. citizenship.
    • The statute calling for loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election was eventually repealed by Congress, in 1978 (Public Law 95-432).
    • The concept of dual citizenship, which was previously strongly opposed by the U.S. government, has gradually become more accepted. State Department policy, which historically had been extremely dubious of dual citizenship, as of 2006 goes beyond the decision of Afroyim in allowing freedom to U.S. citizens to take advantage of multiple citizenships.
    The decision did not change these other aspects of U.S. immigration law:
    • Someone who committed fraud in the naturalization process (for example, by lying about themselves to U.S. immigration services) could still have their naturalization voided on the grounds that they had never truly been naturalized as U.S. citizens in the first place.
    • Naturalization applicants could still be (and indeed, as of 2008, still are) required to make a statement under oath or affirmation, renouncing any prior allegiance to any foreign country or ruler, upon becoming a U.S. citizen. A naturalized citizen who behaved in a manner inconsistent with this oath (for example, by continuing to use the passport of their previous nationality) might—at least in theory—still be liable to loss of U.S. citizenship on the grounds that the oath had not been taken in good faith (and hence that the naturalization was fraudulent). However, U.S. State Department policy since 1990 has been not to pursue such cases.
    • U.S. citizens who became naturalized in a foreign country might lose their citizenship if the foreign country required them to renounce their U.S. citizenship (this renunciation could be seen as consent to loss of U.S. citizenship). However, U.S. State Department policy since 1990 has been not to pursue such cases. (This did not apply to Afroyim because, as a Jew under Israel’s Law of Return, he could take advantage of Israeli citizenship without having to go through any ceremony or swear any oath. The question of Afroyim’s presumed acquisition of Israeli citizenship, however, was never brought up in the U.S. courts as a potential reason for revoking his U.S. citizenship.)
    VANCE v. TERRAZAS (1980)
    In Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court ruled that intent to give up U.S. citizenship had to be proven by itself and could not simply be inferred from a person’s having performed an action designated by Congress as expatriating. The determination of whether a U.S. citizen did indeed give consent to loss of citizenship, however, could be made upon a preponderance of evidence, rather than under the more stringent standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” Changes of this nature were made to the citizenship law by Congress in 1986 (Public Law 99-653). However, U.S. State Department policy since 1990 has been to assume in almost all situations that an American who performs a potentially expatriating act did not in fact intend to give up U.S. citizenship, unless the person explicitly indicates such an intention to U.S. officials.

  5. Mrje,

    Thank you for your research and post. However, I do not see where it addresses that Barack Obama apparently carried his Indonesian citizenship forward well past the age of 21.

    Since Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship with America, from what I have seen, this was a de facto abdication of his American citizenship. It was not allowed and at that point, his carrying forward of Indonesian citizenship was an act of international law, which America would have to respect.

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 )

Connecting to %s