Archive for February 17th, 2011
Blue Team Action Item: Research why the Supreme Court is compelled to hold a new hearing on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new “conference” on Obama’s eligibility to hold the presidency.
Let’s research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name “Barack Hussein Obama” on it — since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is given.
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed “Soetobakh” by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
In Indonesia, there are no last names. The man who adopted Obama is routinely called “Lolo Soetoro”, but in reality his name in Indonesia is just Soetoro. ”Lolo” is a nickname — but on documents in the West, Soetoro seems to have used the name “Lolo Soetoro” because he needed to complete a first and last name line on documentation.
There are a couple names that could appear on the birth certificate Hawaii has on file for the current US President because of the odd circumstances involved in Indonesian names. Here are a few options:
* Soetobakh Dunham
* Soetobakh Soetoro
* Barry Soetoro
* Soetoro Soetobakh
The reason Obama has spent so much time and money hiding his original birth certificate is because his adoption in the 1970s, and the bizarre, Klingon-sounding name “Soetobakh” are just so strange and difficult to explain to Americans.
I know in comments on this thread another debate will emerge about what happens to a child when he is adopted, and I will continue to maintain that the child’s original birth certificate that was created on the day he was born is removed from the Hall of Records and sealed by court order…with a new birth certificate created and filed in its place that changes the parents’ names to that of the adoptive parents, altering the child’s original name as well if the parents renamed him during the adoption.
I insist this because I have several friends who are adopted, as well as friends who have adopted children. In all of these instances, the children’s adopted names are on the long form birth certificates on file for them in their respective states. Additionally, the adoptive parents’ names are what’s listed on the children’s birth certificates…NOT the birth parents. The birth certificates with the birth parents’ names on them are filed away by court order and sealed from public view. I am not even certain if the adopted children are able to obtain their own original pre-adoption birth certificates without a judge signing off on that.
The man who calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama” was indeed born in Hawaii in August of 1961…but his legal name is either Barry Soetoro, Soetobakh Soetoro, Soetoro Soetobakh, or Soetobakh Dunham.
There are myriad very messy constitutional and legal issues that arise from the fact the current US President has engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to hide his long form birth certificate and actual legal name. THAT is why so much money and energy has been lavished on the efforts to keep his secret.
I wonder if the efforts underway in ten states (and counting) to require the production of an original long form birth certificate for presidential candidates to appear on the 2012 ballots has anything to do with the Supreme Court’s sudden interest in holding a conference on Obama’s eligibility.
Obama, as president, has turned into another Jimmy Carter in office…but in terms of his adopted name change he actually has something in common with Gerald Ford…who was born “Leslie Lynch King Jr.” in 1913.
His mother remarried, and at the time of that marriage her new husband adopted Leslie Lynch King Jr. and changed his name to “Gerald Ford”, the name Ford used for the rest of his life, including the duration of his accidental presidency.
What would have happened if, as president, Ford decided to use the name “Leslie Lynch King, Jr.” on official documents?
Would they have been legal, since his birth certificate was changed at the time of adoption to read “Gerald Ford”?
This is the exact boat “Obama” is in, since his legal name was changed to Soetobakh-something-or-another the way little Leslie Lynch King’s name was changed to Gerald Ford.
I have yet to see anyone make this connection in any articles related to this subject, so I would love help researching any other instances of someone ignoring a legal name change and conducting official business under a nickname that’s completely different from what’s listed on that person’s birth certificate.
Has there ever been an instance like this?
Gerald Ford’s name was changed at the time of his adoption from a name that bears no resemblance at all to it….but Ford kept his adopted name as an adult and used it in his presidency…unlike Obama who reverted to his birth name but does not seem to have ever completed the necessary paperwork in Hawaii to change his name from Soetobakh-something-or-another BACK to “Barack Hussein Obama”, which was the name this political chameleon decided would take him farthest in life (and he was right!).
There are all sorts of interesting legal questions that arise from this.
Maybe you can help raise them in the thread below as a first step to sleuthing out answers for them.
Is Alaska destined to save this nation? Governor Parnell refuses to enact Obamacare
Alaska is an awesome place, apparently. Returning LeNa JaBrowski to the Senate notwithstanding.
The 45th President of the United States will be an Alaskan. The Alaskan rogue spirit that fires and fuels her will do wonders for Washington.
You betcha.
Governor Palin’s hand-picked successor, Sean Parnell, is refusing to enact Obamacare in Alaska, after a federal judge ruled in Florida that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Sounds exactly like what Governor Palin would do if she was still in office.
The federal government cannot compel citizens to purchase a product. It’s that simple. Efforts Democrats have made to force Americans to purchase a product are unconstitutional. No governor should allow Obamacare to move forward in his or her state.
All 50 governors need to follow Parnell’s lead on this.
It’s just that simple.
Just another reminder about comments not appearing — we apologize, but the site changeover is causing these troubles
Just another reminder for anyone concerned, but one of the drawbacks of the site changeover we’re doing is that it’s messing up the comments on threads. There’s a longer lag than usual for comments to show up, and because our focus is on doing everything that needs to be done to move the site to the new server and get the HB 3.0 up and running, one of the things that just needs to fall through the cracks temporarily is yanking valid comments out of the spam filter.
The new site will be smarter about what’s spam and what’s not, so it’s just one of the many things that will be improved when the changeover is complete. In the meantime, we just have to grin and bear this. Honestly, we appreciate the frustration but there is just nothing that can be done about it for the next two weeks or so between now and the debut of the new site…which, we’re sure, will have hiccups of its own for a while until things start running smoothly in their new groove.
File all this under pardon our dust and know we are working hard to get things transferred as soon as possible.
Look at the filth left behind by the unions that shut down the capitol in Madison, Wisconsin today…the detritus of Democrat thuggery has been a familiar scene since Obama’s inauguration, hasn’t it?
h/t Ann Althouse's althouse.blogspot.com
Why do protests and Democrat celebrations look like mobs of brutes and thugs smashed through an area, carving a path of destruction wherever they went?
The above is a picture posted on Ann Althouse’s site, taken by her husband, who witnessed the union thugs’ attack on Madison this afternoon.
Below, please find a classic image from the aftermath of Obama’s Inauguration in 2009.
Wherever Obama voters go, this same phenomenon keeps happening.
Why is that?
Hope! Change! Garbage!
Wisconsin Ground Report: What’s going on with public employee protest rallies? How are Democrats using the usual suspects to protect the union-to-Democrat-campaign contribution gravy train?
Dear HillBuzz,
I work at a UW campus (not Madison), and today at lunchtime, there was a protest rally. I made a point of picking up my mail from another building at that time so that I could check it out. There was a core of about 100 people actively listening to the speakers, and chanting “kill the bill” and holding signs like “Tom Barrett for Governor” (that’s who Scott Walker beat in November 2010). There was another 100 or so people milling around the edges. I believe a lot of those gathered were like me…employees and students who were curious about the gathering, but not engaged enough to get close and join in the chanting. One student near me joked, “when do we get to start breaking things?” He was definitely joking, and many students, that I walked near as I approached the gathering were laughing about the gathering, as if they found the whole thing lame. I have to say from that experience that there’s not a ton of support for protesting this bill, even among people directly affected. Also, in this area, the local schools are open, and there are no significant teacher absences according to the news.
Meanwhile, in Madison, teachers and other public employees, along with Union honchos, students, and outside agitators, are filling the hallways, kicking at doors, stopping the democratic process and generally making pests of themselves.
On Twitter @MacIverWisc just wrote:
“Just got back from 1 hr in Wisc Capitol. Crowd blocking access to Senate Chamber is 80 percent college and high students.”
Lucy in Wisconsin
Wisconsin Ground Report: What’s happening with the state legislature and Democrats fleeing the capitol to avoid a vote on cutting union pork?
Dear HillBuzz,
Senate Rule 15
Before proceeding to business, the roll of the members shall be called, and the names of those present and those absent shall be entered on the journal. A member present during any part of a roll call day shall be included in the official attendance roll call for that day. A majority of the membership presently serving must be present to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; a smaller number, however, can adjourn and may compel the attendance of absent members. When a roll call discloses the lack of a quorum, further business may not be conducted until a quorum is obtained, but the members present may take measures to procure a quorum or may adjourn. (Bolding mine)
Senate Rule 16
Members of the senate may not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without first obtaining a leave of absence. The leave may be granted at any time by a majority vote of the senate.
Wisconsin Ground Report: No sympathy for public unions from private sector employees out of work
Dear HillBuzz,
I am a lawyer in the State of Wisconsin and have a solo practice that centers around helping small businesses. I will admit to not being terribly sympathetic to the public employees. What they are looking at is the same thing that those of us in the private sector have been dealing with for a while. What this law does is require State employees to contribute to their pensions and health insurance which is estimated to result in a 10% decrease in take home income for state employees, including elected officials (not the first time Scott Walker has lowered his own pay). This law also takes away a good deal of the Union’s bargaining power and the Union’s ability to force public employees to pay dues. I have yet to see a news article that points out that this is one way that State employees could potentially make up for the requirements that they contribute towards their own health and pension plans.
