The title of this post is an ironic reference to a song by The Zombies. But the question has come up in reference to the Obama birth certificate question (not that again). And there are some strange alliances at work here. Gay run site Hill Buzz is quoting gay haters WND.
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.
I know next to NOTHING about the laws in this area. Can you sign an alias to official documents? Probably. Especially if you have an alias notification filed at some courthouse. But what if you don’t have such a document on file? I suppose if you are notorious like Obama it may be OK. In any case (in this case?) the Supreme Court seems to have taken an interest despite being previously disinterested.
There is way more at Hill Buzz and if this sort of speculation and the ensuing discussion interests you may I suggest a visit there.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
6 responses to “Hoosier Daddy”
The name change theory is interesting, but not relevant to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. If he was, he was. A name change is no big deal, and he never made a secret of having been Barry Soetoro.
You can change your name by simple usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change
***QUOTE***
A common law name (i.e. one assumed for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name (e.g. State v. Ford, 172 P. 802; Bonnie Lee Daniels, 337 A.2d 49; Elizabeth Marie Hauptly 312 N.E.2d 857; Piotrowski v. Piotrowski, 247 N.W.2d 354; Thomas v. Thomas, 427 N.E.2d 1009; Klein v. Klein, 373 A.2d 86; Stuart v. Board of Elections, 295 A.2d 223); although it is not the person’s true name (10 USC 1551, U.S. v. Cox, 593 F2d 46).
***END QUOTE***
Presumably, he has been using the name Barack Obama openly and notoriously for some time, and I doubt the argument that he really isn’t would be taken seriously by any court. He is not “stuck” with Barry Soetoro if he doesn’t want to be.
The Holister petition is based on the “natural born citizen” argument and attempted to obtain jurisdiction by interpleader. The case was thrown out as frivolous and attorney Hemenway was reprimanded:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22653015/Hollister-v-Obama-USDC-DC-Dist-Memo-Order-Hemenway-Sanction
The Supreme Court may be interested in the recusal issue, I suppose. Putting the petition for rehearing on conference is a procedure to see whether there are enough votes to hear the case.
If you look at the court docket, the recusal petition was filed so late that it might not have been considered at the earlier conference in which the underlying petition was denied:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
They may want to take a look at the recusal issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32347910/Col-Hollister-v-Soetoro-Obama-Appeal-Motion-to-Recuse-Case-09-5080-5-31-2010
Or they may want to look at the case again, and go on record as dismissing the “natural born” argument (which does not depend on whether he was born in Hawaii or what his name was or is.)
From a liberal, pro-Obama perspective, the Hollister case has all the right elements. The attorney is a real crackpot. His tone is quite indignant and nutty.
BTW, regarding Natural Born claims, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court, the so-called “Vatell argument” will go nowhere:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
Thing is that if his files were sealed by an adoption, he may not be ABLE to access or give out his original birth certificate. Take that 2 cents from an adoptee.
(And I’ll second what Eric said also. – “The attorney is a real crackpot.”) No matter what any birth certificate says, my name is MY choice.
As far as I can tell, having read too many of these arguments – from both sides, he qualifies on citizenship grounds. Unless someone can prove his mother wasn’t his mother.
Also, if I understand things, unless he personally renounced his US citizenship as an adult.
I gather he acquired dual citizenship by virtue of his adoptive father’s nationality, but irrespective of whether Indonesia recognized his US citizenship, as a child he couldn’t renounce it – unless of course my understanding of that particularly knotty aspect of US citizenship law is flawed.
Now if there’s something out there proving he renounced his US citizenship as an adult… that’s a whole different mess and one I sincerely hope is not going to happen.
Kate,
What if his scholarship at Columbia was only open to the foreign born? Or he went abroad on a British passport? Or Indonesian. After age 18.
That would not invalidate his citizenship. But it would be proof he was lying from the start.
I’d really like to see his college records. And his passport records. I think the “birther” issue is misdirection.
Of course it could all be misdirection. I have no dog in the fight. I think he is beatable on political grounds.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/02/obama-tied-with-no-name-republican-for-2012.html
M. Simon,
There’s no doubt he’s been lying all along. What we don’t know is what he’s been lying about. It’s both interesting and suspicious that he’s got absolutely no “social history” – no friends from the past, nothing – until he hit politics.
Of course beating him on purely political grounds is a whole lot less knotty. And if a subsequent investigation uncovers criminal fraud, so be it.
I think that it is quite obvious why Team Obama has not made public whatever is in the Hawaii files. Strategically, that keeps the argument at the level where they want it — the birth certificate only. If he was born in Hawaii (which I think he pretty clearly was), then it is to their advantage to have the Birther types devote the lion’s share of their energy to an issue which is a waste of time, and which Obama can settle at a time and place of his choosing. (And that’s assuming it ever heats up enough that putting it to rest would be of value to his reelection campaign.) More complex issues involving name changes, dual nationality, and the “natural born”/Vatell argument are over ordinary people’s heads. Better not to even acknowledge them.
But a birth certificate is something everyone can understand!
You wanna give the crackpots something to do? Tell them about the possibility of expatriation!
Here, let me start the meme for them if they haven’t already.
http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article3.htm
***QUOTE***
There are two ways a person may lose his or her US citizenship. The first is rescission of citizenship, known as ‘denaturalization.’ This is applicable only to naturalized citizens and is outside the scope of this article.
The second way to expatriate oneself is to voluntarily perform any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing citizenship:
1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state after attaining the age of 18;
2. Taking an oath or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state after attaining the age of 18;
3. Entering the armed forces of a foreign country if either
a. the armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US; or
b. the person serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
4. Accepting employment or performing the duties of any office or post with a foreign government after attaining the age of 18, if
a. one has or acquires the nationality of that foreign state or
b. a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5. Formally renouncing US citizenship before a US diplomatic or consular officer outside the US;
6. Formally renouncing US citizenship in writing within the US in time of war; or
7. Committing an act of treason for which one is convicted.
For citizenship purposes, the effective date of loss of citizenship is the date the person performs the potentially expatriating act.
***END QUOTE***
The above could provide very fertile ground for conspiracy theorists, who could comb the world for evidence of expatriation and loss of US nationality — either by Barack Obama or his mother!
Think about it. Was she herself a citizen? How do we know she did not perform an act of expatriation?????
We are not being told THE TRUTH!