Posted on 08/05/2008 4:41:40 AM PDT by Neville72
Forensics specialist Techdude, who has been chipping away at the Obama Birth Certificate mystery for some time, has confirmed that the name on the original Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) which was used to forge the document presented by Barack Obama as his valid Birth Certificate IS:
Maya Kassandra Soetoro.
His sister.
The document presented by Obama as the “truth about his birth certificate” can be seen on his official campaign web page, “FightTheSmears,” here.
In an exclusive TexasDarlin report on Sunday, Techdude revealed that he had discovered the true identity of the person on the original COLB, but that he was not ready to disclose that person’s name.
He gave readers step-by-step instructions for conducting the analysis at home. In a follow-up post, I published a comment by Techdude in which he explained why he was waiting to name the person, and he challenged readers to solve the mystery first, offering a free trip to Las Vegas for the first person who posted the correct answer.
Several hours later, KG, a reader on the TexasDarlin blog, posted her/his discovery in the Comments section of this post, and detailed the technical process she/he followed to get there.
KG revealed the original name on the COLB:
Maya Kassandra Soetoro.
Techdude has reviewed KG’s analysis, and verified the result.
KG does not have the technical tools to immediately produce a report for publication, and is not sure he/she wants to be published. Nevertheless, you can read KG’s process yourself in the Comment thread.
In the coming days, Techdude will provide a final report that fully discloses his discovery, and provides all the fancy technical data, images, formulae etc. that everyone has come to expect. He will respond to questions posted on this blog to the best of his ability. (NOTE: KG has asked Techdude to donate the trip funds to help retire Hillary’s debt, and Techdude has agreed.)
Now, Senator Obama faces a serious and urgent inquiry from Americans:
Why was his sister Maya’s birth certificate used to make his own?
I have a preliminary theory, and it goes something like this:
The Hawaii COLB form was revised in 2001. Prior to that, it included much more birth information, such as name of the hospital, signatures and professions of parents, etc.
If Obama needed to show his birth certificate to the public during the election, he wanted to present the current short version, but the one he had in a shoebox somewhere was an older version.
When it became clear in 2007 that he might need to show it, Maya’s COLB was ordered. Obama did not order his own because he didn’t want a chatty Hawaii Govt. employee to notice that the child’s name on his COLB is Barry Soetoro, and the father’s name, Lolo Soetoro. He did not want his legal name and Indonesian identity to be known.
If it got to the point that the campaign needed to show a birth certificate, as a last resort they would make a few digital adjustments to Maya’s in order to transform it into Barack Hussein Obama’s COLB, and post it on line. They trusted, in this event, that Govt. employees or officials would not bother to check it against his real name, or would just keep quiet if they did notice. Obama probably never expected the electorate to question its authenticity, at least not to this degree.
That’s my theory, anyway.
There are, of course, two other important questions related to this investigation:
1. Is Maya aware that her COLB was used to fabricate Obama’s?
AND
2. Why does Maya have a Hawaiian birth certificate in the first place, as she was born in Indonesia?
Judah Benjamin, our resident historian and researcher, will be discussing these questions in the coming days.
Stay tuned.
Maybe now the MSM will WAKE UP to this story.
Evenhandedness would be served. GOP people with a "personal life aren't exempt. Ask yourself what the media would do if they had juicy stories about any of the following private citizens:
Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Karl Rove, Rumsfeld.
Since Justice Wilson believed it to be binding, I do not have to 'consider' anything of the sort. Too many people wish to contort the meaning and purpose of the Law by using the 'it's just a philosophical idea' type argument.
IMHO, by doing so, you desecrate the entire purpose and intent of the Constitution, which was to protect the sovereignty of the People.
-----
It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."
True, but the fact that nothing was 'codified' made no difference, precisely because the Law of Nations was already IN operation.
-----
That's a false assertion.
Telling me I'm wrong doesn't prove anything anymore than the straw-man argument concerning the Nuremburg trials did.
----
Congress can pass legislation till the cows come home, but they were not given the authority to create or define, merely to REGULATE.
A very definite but distinctive difference.
I applaud any beating the press gives Edwards over his affair.
It’s rich in irony that he got busted at the Beverly Hills Hilton hours after he was a featured speaker at a homeless conference in LA.
Two Americas alright. One for hypocrite Johnny and his pals and one for the rest of us.
Pinging myself for later read.
Binding in what sense ... especially considering that the phrase was written in 1789? What objective body of legislation are we talking about? I would certainly agree that the "law of nations" could be binding in a moral sense; however, the concensus at the time the clause was written, was that the term was sufficiently vague as to authorize Congress to define its terms, prior to specifying punishments for violation. In other words, "morally binding" was (and still should be) considered insufficient grounds for legal action. The rule of law requires that the legal basis for jurisprudence be fixed in the sense of being written, rather than felt. Clearly the "law of nations" is not that sort of law.
I don't use "philosophical idea" as a means of denigrating the concept of "the law of nations" -- the term acknowledges the important idea that there are universal concepts of right and wrong, after all.
However, it would be silly to make the entire Constitution generally subject to that particular sub-clause (and perhaps to go far beyond its intended context), especially since "the law of nations" is so vague as to require definition by Congress. The whole point of a written Constitution, after all, is to preclude the possibility Congress changing the rules based on vague principles.
True, but the fact that nothing was 'codified' made no difference, precisely because the Law of Nations was already IN operation.
Hm. So basically you're agreeing with my point. That the "law of nations" was "In operation" is to acknowledge the generally-agreed principle that Genocide is Wrong. However, ours is a society based upon the rule of law -- written law -- and you agree that there were no written laws at the time governing our authority to prosecute the Nazis for committing genocide. Here, in a nutshell, is the sort of situation that led to the Constitutional authorization for Congress to define the crimes committed (i.e., codify them into written law) in accordance with the philosophical precepts that form the "law of nations," so that the U.S. had a firm, "rule of law" basis on which to prosecute the Nazi war criminals.
Telling me I'm wrong doesn't prove anything anymore than the straw-man argument concerning the Nuremburg trials did.
Uh... I provided a direct cite showing that you were wrong in your assertion that Congress had no power to legally define the terms of citizenship. I don't see how that has anything to do with the Nuremburg trials....
Thanks for the pings!!
I’ll keep checking my tire pressure.
Who placed the birth announcement--was is secured via live birth records, etc, or was is telephoned in by either Stanley or her mother in Hawaii. if "Barry" was born somewhere else, and then transported to Hawaii--of course his mother would want American birth certificate for him.
Or is this clipping a fraud also? Afterall, I have great newspaper articles printed on newsprint that speak of fantastic subjects relating the my museum objects.
Thank you again, Meek.
Veddy, veddy interesting.
Really? Some 18 year-old gives birth outside the US, maybe in Indonesia someplace, and she is conniving enough and scheming enough to have a method for obtaining a US birth certificate for her child? Do you know of a single instance of such scheming aside from the one that you posit for Obama?
ML/NJ
________________________________________________
This kind of twisted, contorted thinking reminds me of the 'Paul is dead' nonsense of 1970.
You seem bent on believing that obama was born in some foreign country, without the slimmest of proofs. Just a couple of thoughts, why would an anti-American 18 year old mother place a birth notice in a Honolulu paper from somewhere else across the Pacific? How would that help her get a BC or US citizenship for her son? Please be specific.
I imagine the same way Americans visit Cuba even though the US bans travel to Cuba -- they first travel to Canada or Mexico and then fly to Cuba. (How do I know this? Check out my tag line.)
If the ban was a US ban on travel to Pakistan, then all that would mean is you can't fly to Pakistan from the US. In theory, you could get in trouble if US customs noticed the stamp on your way back, but I've never heard of that happening to anyone. Anyone else have any better info?
That would explain the trip to Indonesia before. That and visiting his mother and sister.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.