Skip to comments.Soebarkah
Posted on 05/31/2011 12:06:12 PM PDT by opentalk
There has been so much written and conjecture on the forced out into the open Obama passport documents that I have not had much interest in exploring them in the name Soebarkah which appears on the document as one of the listed names of Barack Hussein Obama.
As an exclusive as only found here though, the name Soebarkah is a confirmation of adoption, Obama's Muslim status and a sort of strange Islamic prophecy of the day Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in that it was not in the stars to last.
Soetoro in the name, in the prefix of SOE links the name to Javanese roots and not Indonesian alone. Why this matters is that Indonesian names reflect region, family and often religion. It is quite obvious or should have been by now in no one has noted it, that the name Soebarkah is a combination and not one word. The name is Soe Bar Kah.
Soetoro signifies the adoptive father as Lolo Soetoro. Bar is obvious in Barack, but also links to the Islamic Aramic in bar means SON. So we have confirmation of this is the Son of Soetoro.
The Kah is interesting in Indonesian, KAH translates as WAS. In names, KAH is added as a suffix to form a question of "Who?"
So what SOE BAR KAH means is literal, and I'm genuinely surprised with even Indonesian "experts" asked to explain all of this, that none of them had any comprehension of the language of their own nation.
Soe Bar Kah means literally Who is this, but the son of Soetoro.
This name is the actual legal title of Barry Soetoro, his bona fides, that he has been legally adopted, is a Muslim and is an Indonesian from the Javan region.
(Excerpt) Read more at lamecherry.blogspot.com ...
Why is this excerpted?
Hard to drum up a blog count if you don’t do an excerpt.
--This name is the actual legal title of Barry Soetoro, his bona fides, that he has been legally adopted, is a Muslim and is an Indonesian from the Javan region. Just as Johnson in Scandinavian means Son of John, and Johnsen in Dutch means the same in different dialect. What this name on a legal document filed in America as a passport for Barack jr. is his legal manifestation that he is Indonesian, not American, as he has renounced his entire ties which bind to these United States. If this was American English, it would be I, Barack, am a foreigner, as a name means everything in explaining who the individual is. In Indonesian, this name is telling every person there, on the street or in government, that this tan kid is the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro and a certified Muslim............he is one of the Indonesian clan
This name Soebarkah is the legal document which would hold up in Indonesian courts as it requires no other documentation. It appearing on a US document signifies it was in use as Obama's defining name outside these United States.
This is Barack Hussein Obama's legal name. The meaning of it disqualifies him from the White House and exposes him as criminal fraud, as this child had it explained to him completely what this name meant in adoption, Islam and Indonesia, that he was no longer American.
This is why this kid wanted to be "president of some country" as he knew damn well even then that America was off limits due to his being British and Indonesian, but the Empire had many colonies he could be president of one day if he slummed around far enough. What is troubling in this, is Maya Soetoro knows very well what this all means and she has been covering all of this up as a co conspirator. I find it hard to believe that this blog is the only forensics linguistics expert in all of this, but there you have for the first time someone pulling apart this tri part name in explaining what the prefix, base name and suffix mean for the total legal adopted name.
It has come to that time for someone to say, enough said..........and it might as well be me.
I have often called obama “Soebarkah” on this forum.
An alternative spelling of Soebarkah is apparently “Subarkah”, since Ann Dunham called herself “Ann Dunham Sutoro” after her divorce from Soetoro. “Subarkah” appears to be a relatively common Indonesian name:
No one named Soebarkah/Subarkah can be an American President, since he was once an Indonesian citizen. Our American polity (Congress, the courts, and the people) need to take steps to remove the impostor and traitor Soebarkah, and to invalidate ALL he has done as “President”, from DeathCare to his Supreme Court appointments!!!!
..may be the end agenda.
Damn!!! That is one ugly woman.
Only two people have seen Hussien's passport since the 2008 primaries: One died of acute lead poisoning of the brain and the other is in Federal custody.
Someone thought she was cute...there are some pics out there....looking like an anemic Betty Page wannabe.
The Declaration of Independence ....
“Someone thought she was cute”
Yea, well “someone” was blind or had a couple of sacks laying around.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a U.S. citizen by birth and, under U.S. law, could not lose that citizenship by any actions his parents took-- only by his own voluntary renunciation of citizenship, in writing, after he was 18 years old.
I think she looks like Paul McCartney in drag...
Would you possibley have the statute that says this?
“...only by his own voluntary renunciation of citizenship, in writing, after he was 18 years old.”
Would appreciate it . . . thanks . . .
"F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."
I was wrong about having to be 18, but clearly, anything Obama's parents did when he was four years old didn't affect his U.S. citizenship if he was born in the U.S.
The bastard was born a dual citizen, so nothing changed but how many nations have his citizenship when Lolo got suckered into adopting the mutt.
If Russia passed a law making all Alaskans automatically Russian citizens, would Sarah Palin be ineligible for the presidency?
It does not necessarily disqualify him, because citizenship conferred involuntarily upon someone has no bearing on one's American citizenship (which for Obama is potentially still in question if his long form BC is not legit). This is a citizenship from Indonesia conferred upon a small boy. It has no bearing.
There is no way that an involuntary citizenship from a foreign land takes away one whit from any American citizen.
LL is right. It takes a LOT to remove American citizenship from someone. It was not even instantaneous for that Al Qaeda guy from Orange County who was working for Osama and raging publicly against the USA. It took a while before we docked him.
Theoretically, you can lose citizenship for voting, or serving in the military, of your other country. However, plenty of Mexican Americans go back and vote in that country when they feel like it, and nothing is done, no one follows up on it. And my own cousin fought in the Israeli army, and there were other Jewish Americans who signed up back then and did the same. Nothing was done to them.
It’s pretty hard to LOSE your American citizenship. One other way is to sign up voluntarily as a citizen in another country, but even that is not followed up.
Nice try, stupid, but nice try. Keep working on it ...
Mere citizenship is not the issue. Multiple-by-birth citizenship is the issue, as in naturally occurring divided loyalties, which the founders sought to protect the We The People Republic from because of what we see this sonofabitch doing right before our eyes to destroy the Republic. But of course barry bastard is an affirmative action promotion, so he is allowed to step around the Constitution. He’s speshul don’tchaknow.
Multiple-at-birth-citizenship is indeed something worth discussing for a Constitutional amendment. We need to discuss this on a national level SOON. We need to stop anchor babies from becoming any kind of citizens, and to clarify to Americans that they are NOT natural born citizens even now. And there is an argument against allowing natural born status for anyone who automatically is a citizen of another country at birth besides USA. I don’t know if that is fair, because other countries have their own rules, and how could we keep the parents’ earlier country (assuming both parents were fully naturalized USA citizens at the time of the child’s birth) from automatically giving their future children full citizenship? But it’s worth a serious debate.
The founders took that into consideration and solved it by addressing a very special type of citizenship for the president, natural born (soil and parents) citizenship. If prents have naturalize when the child is born on US soil, the chiuld has NBC status by the nature of the birth. If one of the parents, in barry the bastard’s case the father, is not an American citizen of any type, then the child is born with divided loyalties by the nature of the birth not by the act of some foreign nation declaring some thing. That dissembling has become all too common in the birther discussions. And Lurking Libertarian tried to stand that false analogy up on this thread.
That is what Daily Kos will argue in 2012...
The reason I asked, is that I read a statute that an adopted person has a six-month window, from their 18th birthdate, to “affirm” their US citizenship.
I have been unable to find the statute since.
Cans of worms inside cans of worms.
This puts a completely new and different spin on all of this, and the implications are getting more disturbing by the day.
And we all thought that Clinton was slick...
Sven Magnussen has posted a number of times the State Department rules about how a minor can indeed renounce citizenship. It is possible and LL as usual lies in support of Soebarkah. It’s all he does.
The fact is that at least at that time, there were procedures in place for a minor to renounce US citizenship. There is no public evidence (could be that people have it but not made it public) whether Zero renounced it or not. Or for that matter, whether he had it in the beginning, or if he did renounce it, how the US citizenship was originally obtained.
If Sven doesn’t show up with the quoted statute or whatever it’s called do a search on his comments and you’ll find it. He’s not a prolific poster so his comments are easy to search.
Check Sven Magnussen’s comments or maybe freepmail him, I don’t know how often he’s on FR. He seems to know a lot about that kind of stuff.
This is about **natural born** citizenship, not merely citizenship.
You know that.
Soebarkah is how Subarkah used to be spelled in 1961. Bahasa Indonesia used oe at that time, but changed the spelling to eliminate Dutch influence. Which explains why people were born Soekaro and Soeharto but died as Sukarno or Suharto. Djakarta too changed into Jakarta (that is also reflected in these documents). Yes, Subarkah is a common Indonesian surname - one of the important military officers carrying Mr Suhartos coffin was a Subarkah.
Yes, yes you were very wrong.
How do you explain the official US document excerpted in Reply 3 indicating that l'il Barry was no longer American?
Relevant US Code language for minors losing citizenship:
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code, or violating section 2384 of said title by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after the enactment of this subsection under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
This guy isn't all that slick, he's protected.
You might find this of interest — per renunciation of Citizenship:
Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality:
The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.
POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
(1)obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
(2)taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
(3)entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec.349(a)(3)INA);
(4)accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
(5)formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
(6)formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
(7)conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed — VOLUNTARILLY — and with the INTENTION of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.
The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the PREMISE that U.S. CITIZENS INTEND to RETAIN United States CITIZENSHIP when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.
DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE
In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:
is naturalized in a foreign country;
takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government, and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her INTENT to RETAIN U.S. CITIZENSHIP since such an INTENT will be PRESUMED.
When, as the result of an individual’s inquiry or an individual’s application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ASK the applicant if there was INTENT to RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP when performing the act. If the answer is NO, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person’s INTENT to RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP and, consequently, find that the person has RETAINED U.S. CITIZENSHIP.
PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP
If the answer to the question regarding INTENT to relinquish citizenship is yes, the person concerned will be asked to complete a questionnaire to ascertain his or her INTENT toward U.S. citizenship. When the questionnaire is completed and the voluntary relinquishment statement is signed by the expatriate, the consular officer will proceed to prepare a CERTIFICATE OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY. The certificate will be forwarded to the Department of State for consideration and, IF appropriate, approval.
An individual who has performed any of the acts made potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S. citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S. consular officer that the act was performed with an INTENT to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person ALWAYS has the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship abroad in accordance with Section 349 (a) (5) INA.
DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE
The premise that a person INTENDS to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:
formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
is convicted of treason; or
performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)
Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual’s INTENT toward U.S. citizenship.
APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE TO PAST CASES
The premise established by the administrative standard of evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously. Persons who PREVIOUSLY LOST U.S. CITIZENSHIP may WISH to have their cases RECONSIDERED in light of this policy.
A person MAY initiate such a RECONSIDERATION by submitting a REQUEST to the nearest U.S. consular office or by writing directly to:
Each case will be reviewed on its own merits taking into consideration, for example, statements made by the person at the time of the POTENTIALLY expatriating act.
Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are abroad.
PS: instead of a birth certificate maybe someone should be looking for a “CERTIFICATE OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY”
(see above: “PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP”
Yep. None of those applies to Obama because all of those conditions are based on trying to get rid of your Americen citizenship. I knew very few people living as expats (when I was also one) who wanted to lose their citizenship. One infamous “neighbor” exception was Marc rich, but he only wanted to make sure he could never be extradited back here. He bought a couple of other citizenships for that reason.
Even the very wealthy Americans I knew figured out ways not to pay American income taxes (which the USA insists upon even if you are paying taxes in the host country). But they didn’t want to lose USA citizenship.