Kagan, Sotomayer Not Legitimate Members of Supreme Court

June 27, 2015 | Uncle Sham

[Uncle Sham]

Two of the five votes concerning same sex marriage are totally illegitimate. They were cast by Elenor Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer acting as though they are legal members of the United States Supreme Court. Any challenge to this ruling should include a challenge to their legitimacy as they were appointed by a Usurper, not a legal President.

It's time to take the gloves off and get the courage to confront the evil that is before us. I can prove that Obama is illegal just using the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three and have made this case many times on this forum. The charade has gone on long enough. We the people have the "reset" button in our hands with the Obama eligibility issue and we need to use it.

That the current federal government has declared war on on every one of us cannot be disputed. Obama's weak spot is his legitimacy as a legal President. Attacking it is our nuclear option. Someone please, hit the button.

[4Zoltan]

“Yes, but Hawaii is a weird state. Probably no other state will issue birth certificates to children not born there. Hawaii will.’

Hawaii Administrative Rules require the birth certificate for a foreign born to list the actual place of birth. Other states have similar laws here is Minnesota’s

“When an adoption occurs in a foreign country, the adoptive parents file their adoption papers from the country of birth with the district court in the county where the adoptive parents live. The district court completes a Certificate of Adoption form and mails the form to the Minnesota Office of Vital Records at MDH.”

“MDH uses the information provided on the Certificate of Adoption form to create a birth record showing the adopted birth information.”

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/osr/adoption.html#create

Adoption:

1) the only mention of Obama is a single line - “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren)above age of 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.” All other financial discussions are only about the minor child.

2)Here is her statement in response to someone’s Facebook message - “You mentioned the adoption laws of Indonesia that you saw as related to my brother’s legitimacy (you were suggesting that because my father, his stepfather, had adopted him, that my brother was no longer American) and I said that I had no idea about Indonesian adoption law.”

Not a blanket denial or admittance.

3) In September/October 1967 the US Immigration Service reviewed Obama’s situation with regards to Lolo and came to the conclusion Soetoro met the criteria for a “step-father” under the Immigration Act of 1952. In all of the correspondence from that time period Obama is referred to as the child from a previous marriage never as the adopted child of Lolo . That is the case even as the Soetoros were pleading emotional and financial hardship from his being separated from SAD. they never plead hardship for his adopted son, even though that would have helped their case. If the adoption occurred after 1966, Obama could only be an Indonesian citizen by petition after the age of 18 or naturalization after the age of 21.

4) Who signed that document and when was it dated? Who provided the information? In my untrained opinion it was not signed by Lolo as he has a distinctive signature (double crossed the “t”). It also does not appear to be SAD’s.

BTW, did you know that President Ford went through high school and college using his step-father’s name even though there never was an adoption. Ford legally became Gerald Ford in his 20s.

5) Do a search on Facebook for the name “Soebarkah”. There are dozens of people with that name both male and female. It’s been explained to me that Soe (changed to Su after independence)refers to the original origin which is Java and barka in Javanese means “blessed” same as in Arabic.

From a 2008 website:

Soetoro is a typical Javanese name, pronounced [sutoro]. As we saw in the case of the fancifully named Batman bin Suparman, the Su- or Soe- prefix (from a Sanskritic root meaning ‘good, fortunate’) is very common in Javanese names. The oe spelling is a colonial vestige, as that digraph was used in the Dutch East Indies to represent /u/ when a standard Roman orthography was introduced to Javanese, Malay, and other local languages in the nineteenth century. After Indonesian independence, in 1950, spelling in the national language was modified to render /u/ as u, perhaps because oe was the orthographic element that looked most egregiously Dutch. (In 1972 there were additional spelling reforms to change tj, dj, and j to c, j, and y respectively.)

Lolo Soetoro was born in the late colonial era (c. 1936), so the Dutch oe spelling would have been in effect then. Interestingly, even after 1950, some Indonesians held on to the oe spelling in their names, perhaps out of a certain nostalgia for colonial days. First president Soekarno made the switch to Sukarno, but his successor Soeharto kept signing his name with oe (though many newspapers switched it to u anyway). And Sukarno’s daughter Megawati (president from 2001 to 2004) uses an oddly half-archaized spelling for her last name, Soekarnoputri, choosing the old orthography for her father’s name but rendering the -putri suffix (’daughter of’) with the modern u.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=528

6) See response to 3. He is referred to as the child from a previous marriage.

Here are some of the references:

November 31, 1965 Sworn affidavit Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro
“I am now living with my parents in the home which they rent here in Honolulu near the University. My son by a former marriage lives there with us.”

December, 1966 – Immigration Service memo on waiver application
“It was also determined that the applicant’s spouse is now employed and can adequately maintain both herself and her 5-year-child by a former marriage.

May 24, 1967 Immigration Service memo
“She also told me that she has submitted applications for visas to enter indonesia for herself and her 5-year-old child, by a previous marriage. She advises that she and her child will definitely go to Indonesia to join her husband …”

August 21, 1967 Immigration memo
“… and she will therefore be without adequate income to support herself and her minor son of a previous marriage who will accompany her there.”

August 21, 1967 Immigration Service memo
“There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act [McCarron-Walter Act of 1952], who maysuffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(e)”

September 14, 1967
“Pursuant to inquiry from Central office regarding the status of the applicant’s spouses’ child by a former marriage.”

“The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicant’s spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicants step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to childs’ mother on March 15, 1965.”

October 6, 1967 (date stamped) Immigration Service memo
“The applicant’s United states citizen wife resides at 2234 University Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii with her 6-year-old United States citizen son by a previous marriage. The applicant, who returned to Indonesia and has been residing there for over 14 months [prior paragraph states Lolo Soetoro left the U.S. on July 20, 1966 which dates this memo as approximately September/October, 1967] …His wife has remained with his stepchild in the United states and earns about $400 per month. She has made application for a visa for herself and her son to travel to Indonesia …she will therefore be without adequate income to support herself and her minor son of a previous marriage who will be required to accompany her.”

“Satisfactory evidence of Mr. Soetoro’s marriage on March 15, 1965, to a United States citizen and evidence of the legal termination of his spouse’s prior marriage have been submitted. There are no adverse factors in this case.”

Could not find any statement by Lolo Soetoro saying Obama is his child. A three page letter he wrote describing the hardship doesn’t mention Obama at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hawaii Administrative Rules require the birth certificate for a foreign born to list the actual place of birth. Other states have similar laws here is Minnesota’s

Why this isn't relevant. For the last 7 years i've been reading articles regarding the usage of Hawaii as a gateway to American citizenship by foreigners all across the pacific rim. Hawaii has/had loose standards deliberately because there are a lot of foreigners with a lot of money who want a ticket into US Citizenship.

I've even read articles that claim this is done deliberate and complicit with the connivance of the officials who are responsible for keeping/issuing such records. I've even seen some official birth stats for Hawaii that are just shocking. This one for example.

The rest of your message I will get to another time.

[Fantasywriter]

Your post is amazing—just fascinating. It strongly reminded me of a scene in a movie I once saw, Unfaithfully Yours, starring Dudley Moore. If you’ve seen it, you will recall the hilariously funny ‘daydream’ sequence. The Moore character imagines the perfect murder, in which he gets away with killing the man he mistakenly believes is seducing his wife. Everything in the daydream is PERFECT. If Moore needs some masks, there is a stack of them right next to his hand. If he needs his little cast of characters each to wear a certain mask, they all don the right one before he can even direct them. If he needs an elevator, it arrives before he can even push the button, etc. It’s all PERFECT.

Your daydream scenario is exactly the same. You need SAD to live in the same house with a certain person (Cindy Pratt) without the latter realizing she is pregnant.
No problem! SAD will be, in your fantasy, the type of woman who doesn’t ‘show’ much. Plus she will wear loose muumuus to hide anything suspicious. PERFECT!

Then you need her to go to the hospital and come home with a newborn without Cindy realizing anything has happened
No problem! In your daydream, Cindy will simply be too self absorbed to notice anything but herself. PERFECT!

But what about the baby crying? How could even a self absorbed person not notice a baby crying in a one-story not especially large house?

No problem! You will simply posit that Little Barry rarely cried (in keeping with the worshipful “light-worker meme), on top of which you will place SAD and baby in a remote part of the house from which they rarely emerge—and NEVER show themselves when Cindy is present. PERFECT!

Let’s see, are there any more problems? Oh yes; Polk lists SAD as a student when in fact she wasn’t. No worries! You will simply stipulate that Polk doesn’t list people’s actual jobs or occupations; rather, it lists what people ‘consider’ to be their employment. Thus, if a person who sits around their parents’ house all day doing squat ‘considers’ themselves a student, Polk is only too happy to list not their true occupation, but rather the one they ‘claim’ is their occupation . (Doesn’t Polk have a disclaimer to this effect? I.e.: that the jobs listed by each entry are either real or imaginary, depending on the listed party’s preference?) PERFECT!

Not to intrude on your PERFECT, if entirely make believe, world, but here is how Maraniss describes SAD’S supposed living quarters:

“she (SAD) had a makeshift room outside her parents’ bedroom. But she and Obama and the infant never lived there.”

Don’t you just hate it when the facts destroy your PERFECT daydream? Without facts, liberals’ entire world could be PERFECT.

But me, I don’t even believe in this mythical ‘makeshift’ room. It appears to be nothing more than Maraniss tossing a sop or fig leaf to his 0bot reader base. Otherwise he would have sourced the info, and given at least some rough idea of when and for how long SAD occupied these strange and awkward living quarters. His loosy goosy vagueness is a dead giveaway. He cannot source the bizarre living arrangement he has cited, and he dare not provide even loose dates for SAD’s supposed occupation of same, since he has no evidence to back such dates.

But I know you will continue to ‘believe.’ That is the nature of the ‘Obama is telling the truth’ crowd; they believe regardless.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I don’t understand that table. It looks to me like Hawaii had by far the lowest number (and percentage) of births to nonresident mothers—which makes sense, given how far away it is. Yet the caption seems to be making a point that has nothing to do with the data in the table. Can you clarify?

[4Zoltan]

Your table is based on the 1961 Vital Statistics in the United States - Volume 1 Natality.

Table 2-1 Live Births by State of Occurrence Distributed According to State of Residence: United States and Each State

Residence is defined as "Unit of residence is defined as the county or county equivalent of which the mother was a resident"

Under the explanation of the tables and the source of data is the following - Birth data for the United States are confined to events registered within the United States and include events occurring to nonresident aliens. The data do not cover any vital events for U.S. citizens occurring outside the United States. Similarly, the data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are confined to events registered in these areas.

The Hawaii entries for Table 2.1

Total births occurring in the State - 17578

Birth to Residents occurring in County of Residency - 17,508

Births to non-residents - Total - 70

Births to non-residents - Intra-state non-residents - 50

Apparently in 1961 not a lot of late-stage pregnant women (50) went from the mainland to Hawaii for vacation and while there went into labor. In fact only 20 women went from one Hawaiian county to another Hawaiian county to have their babies.

[4Zoltan]

Forgot link

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf

Also I transposed the numbers - 50 women went from one Hawaiian county to another Hawaiian county to have their babies and only 20 women came from the mainland and had their babies.

[4Zoltan]

Right because all babies cry the same amounts and SAD could not have slept in the bedroom sharing with grandma while pops slept in the hall and of course SAD would tell the Polk people she was a unemployed when just calling herself a student is less embarrassing.

You haven’t seen much of the real world have you?

[Fantasywriter]

You just make stuff up. You have no source or actual evidence whatsoever. Whatever imaginatively-fertile, evidence-free theory most supports Obama’s lies, you pretend it happened. I marvel you’re not embarrassed to go this far out on a limb to suport a politian known to lie as prolifically as Obama. It reeks of desperation.

This is what I have seen of the world. It would not be possible to bring a newborn home from the hospital to a house of that size and keep it there two or three weeks without a teenaged member of the household finding out about it. Anyone who believes that is possible is just not firing on all their cylinders. There ought to be a limit as to what you will believe on Obama’s behalf. Evidently there isn’t.

[Fantasywriter]

So you believe that Polk calls up everyone in the phone book and asks them where they live and what they do, and whatever the person tells them, Polk prints it?

[4Zoltan]

I don’t know how they did it in 1961. Do you?

How did the Polk Directory know that Madelyn Dunham was the “loan interviewer & escrow Bank of Hawaii” or that Stanley Dunham was “mrg Pratt Furniture”?

[Fantasywriter]

I have read a bit about Polk’s methods, yes.

But the onus is not on me. I am not the one positing that SAD personally informed Polk that she was a student when she was not, and that Polk uncritically printed her lie without any crosschecking or verification.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t understand that table. It looks to me like Hawaii had by far the lowest number (and percentage) of births to nonresident mothers—which makes sense, given how far away it is. Yet the caption seems to be making a point that has nothing to do with the data in the table. Can you clarify?

I took it to mean that Hawaii has made such a point of registering so many non-residents as "resident" births that their stats got screwed up. That there are many "non-resident" births getting reported as "resident" births, which is exactly the situation for which Obama is suspected. In other words, the stat bolsters the assertion of hanky panky going on in the records section of Hawaii state government.

[4Zoltan]

Actually it does no such thing.

Since the data is only for births in the US, no foreign births are reported, all of the states have exactly the same percentage of foreign births registered as US - 0%.

Alaska could not have registered foreign births of 7.57% since they report no foreign births at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

So your argument is that it is all due to remoteness and none of it is due to deliberate granting of resident birth status to the children of foreigners born elsewhere?

So you don't think Hawaii is doing any "gateway" citizenship for foreigners?

Well we can all wish that were so, but I tend to be cynical. Also this theory does not comport with other articles I have read on the topic elsewhere.

I find the probability better than zero. I just don't have your kind of faith.

[4Zoltan]

It’s not a question of faith it’s a question of numbers and statistics.

The numbers were produced in 1961. All of the data is for US births only, zero foreign births are listed. Zero for any of the states

It is impossible to look at the numbers in your table and determine whether any foreign born children were registered as US births.

Frankly your table is outright dishonest. And if that is typical of one of your “other articles’, I would not expect them to be any more reliable.

[4Zoltan]

As I said I don’t know how they collected their data in 1961. and since you chose not to divulge the secret Polk methodologies, I’ll approach it differently.

Question how did the entry for Ann S. Obama get into the 1961/1962 Polk City Directory?

To attempt to answer that we can look at the four entries of interest as they appear in various Polk Directories (provided by ladysforest):

1959/1960 - no Dunhams or Obamas listed.

1960/1961
Dunham, Stanley A (Madeline) mrg Pratt Furniture r6085 Kalanianaole

There is no entry for Stanley Ann Dunham, no separate entry for Madelyne

Obama, Barack H studt r625 11th Ave

1961/1962
Dunham, Madelyne L Mrs loan interviewer & escrow Bank of Hawaii r6085 Kalanianaole hwy

Dunham Stanley A (Madelyne L) mrg Pratt Furniture h6085 Kalanianaole hwy

Obama Ann S. studt r6085 Kalanianaole hwy
Obama Barack H studt r625 11th Ave

1962/1963
Dunham, Stanley A (Madelyne) mrg Craft Furniture 1427 Alexander apt 110

No Obamas

Next we look for possible Polk methodologies:

The 1952 Polk Directory for Kearney, Nebraska says it was complied by actual canvass.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nebuffal/krny1952/

The 1962 Polk Directory for Sarasota, Florida also says actual canvass.

https://books.google.com/books?ei=sw2aVcX_F4TxoATCmpO4CQ&id=7gBPAAAAYAAJ&dq=polk+city+directory+1960&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=information

I can see two possibilities:

1) the individuals themselves through actual canvassing.
2) their employers giving the Polk Directory the information.

Let’s assume number 2 since if the information was by actual canvass then we know the answer - SAD gave them the info.

Using number 2, we see that both Dunham parents info came from the employers (Bank of Hawaii and Pratt Furniture). The information for Barack Obama Sr. might have than come from the University of Hawaii. And that opens the possibility that the University of Hawaii also provide the information for SAD.

However I think it is much more likely the info came through actual canvass and therefore from SAD or her parents.

The problem for you is that her name is in there at all.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

What makes you think those stats are screwed up? Is it just that only 70 Hawaiian births in 1961 were to nonresidents seems suspiciously low? Well, it was 88 in 1960 (0.51%) and only 384 in 2002 (2%), despite the vast increase in transportation options since then. Either this process of reporting nonresident births as resident births has continued into the 2000s, or just not that many late-stage pregnant women get on a plane or boat for Hawaii.

[4Zoltan]

The number is lower than 70 when you consider that 50 of those were women who lived in Hawaii but gave birth in a different county from where they wee considered a resident.

I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means not a resident of the US. But the Table in the Vital Statistic manuals says it means not a resident of the county where the birth was registered.

The number of births in Hawaii is not outrageously high for it’s population size. According to DL the number should be high because it would include both actual births in Hawaii plus foreign births registered as Hawaiian births.

Here’s population and number of births for several states.

For 1960
South Dakota - 683,000, 17,630
Montana - 679,000, 17,258
Idaho - 671,000, 17,022
Hawaii - 642,000, 17,202
North Dakota - 634,000, 16,594

For 1961
South Dakota - 693,000, 17,530
Montana - 696,000, 17,196
Idaho - 684,000, 16,736
Hawaii - 659,000, 17,578
North Dakota - 641,000, 16370

For 1962
South Dakota - 705,000, 17,092
Montana - 698,000, 16,610
Idaho - 692,000, 16,192
Hawaii - 684,000, 17,982
North Dakota - 637,000, 15,690

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

> I think the problem is DL thinks the term non-resident means
> not a resident of the US.

I think that’s his interpretation too, bolstered by that table’s caption’s use of the words “foreign” and “alien”. But that would mean (by that same table) that Idaho had more than 3,000 births to non-US residents in 1961. Does that seem likely?

And I still don’t understand what the table caption is getting at in its final sentence. “Hawaii’s birth rate to non-resident alien parents was surpassed only by Florida”—Hawaii’s birth rate to nonresident parents, by that table, was less than 1%. What are they talking about?

[4Zoltan]

I think the authors of the table have no clue to what the numbers mean. Whether that is deliberate or just incompetent, I don’t know.