Posted on 02/27/2011 7:57:21 AM PST by chatter4
Just a wild thought, but, do we have any Freepers in Hawaii or Washington, DC area, that could check the Hawaiian newspapers, to see if there was a birth announcement for Maya Soetoro? She is the maternal half-sister of Barack Obama. She was born August 15, 1970 in Jakarta, Indonesia. Although I have never see an image of the document, it has been claimed that she too has a Hawaiian COLB. I understand that the newspaper announcements are certainly not proof of a Hawaiian birth or of Obama's eligiblity for office, however, if it could be shown that Maya's birth was also announced in the Hawaiian papers, that would certainly turn a few heads, seeing how the newspapers claim they get their information from the Hawaii Health Department.
How about getting some DNA from her. That would tell most of the story, Right?
Her DNA would tell if she was related to 0bama, provided you had some from him as well. It would not tell you anything about where she was born, or what certificates existed proving or disproving that.
You have a bad habit of assuming that which you have no knowledge of and then attacking others with your wrong assumptions.
“Nothing will shut up the O’Reilly haters.
fixed.”
Remind you of anybody? Thats an attack. Me thinks you have the bad habit. I just like to argue.
Thanks for the link.
The problem is that this is too convoluted. We are totally in the weeds if the discussion is that the birth announcement has been tampered with. Also the fact that there is the same announcements only on one day is interesting. Even if it is true there is no way that this gets any traction. Unfortunately, it appears that the birth announcement angle has not yielded anything useful.
I do thank the researchers who have gone to the trouble to look through the archives.
“Fight the Smears” is a Paid Political Ad
The ‘Fight the Smears’ web page with the image of a birth document is a political advertisement and conforms with U.S. Code 441.d, Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations. This code section deals with campaign funding, reporting and other parameters but does not require the material to be truthful by the person advertising. Political advertising is legal even if the advertiser does not tell the truth. In Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993), the Supreme Court said this in regard to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and advertising;
“But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”
The campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement displaying graphics for visual impression, displaying statements of impression such as ‘native born’ and the candidate’s status as a ‘citizen by the 14th Amendment’ and solicitations of impressions to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all for the truth about the candidate.
The state of Hawaii has not ever stated that the online image was issued by them as the ‘issuing authority’ of a genuine “identification document”. The political ad by the campaign did not provide any further information verifying that the image came from the Hawaii Department of Health, Vital Records. The original online newspaper and fact checking organizations (L.A. Times, Daily Kos, Annenberg Political FactCheck, Politifact) who received the image from the campaign said they received the image from the campaign.
So therefore, the online image of the birth document means nothing…
…except that many many Americans were duped into believing the image was for real including the media and our own state and national public officials!
http://jbjd.org/2011/02/20/too-ignorant-to-lead/
http://jbjd.org/2011/01/03/de-coder-rings-1of2/
Find out what a genuine birth “identification document” is with the proper “authentication feature[s]” as issued by lawful authority as issued by “a State” as per U.S. Code Section 1028.
“(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001028—-000-.html
Remember political free speech is a constitutional protection which the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment.
Guess what and coincidental? Annenberg Political FactCheck who, by using their own right of free speech, told us that the birth certificate image was for real and did warn us by explaining that politicians can lie legally in an updated 2007 article, the same year the candidate announced his candidacy. And they do give us an example of presidential candidates which, as they say, are allowed to legally lie.
“False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not
June 3, 2004
Updated: May 10, 2007
By Brooks Jackson
(This article was originally posted June 3, 2004. We are reissuing it now, updated only to fix bad links and such. Politicians still can lie legally, and the high volume of ads expected in 2008 campaigns makes it likely that voters will be exposed to more deception than ever. -B.J.)…
Read the story and see the APFC screen caps at; http://jbjd.org/2011/02/20/too-ignorant-to-lead/
or see the article here: http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports188.html
“The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), while freeing corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures from their treasuries, reaffirmed the importance of disclosure to a well-informed electorate. The Court reasoned:
… With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. . . citizens can see whether elected officials are “‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1088:9-13-2010-legal-center-questions-fec-on-statements-implying-non-enforcement-of-election-law-&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61
‘The First Amendment protects political speech… transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.’
Neither the web page nor has anywhere or anyone else revealed conclusive evidence such as a birth document request letter from the requester to Hawaii or an acknowledgment from Hawaii verifying the image as being real and authentic. Until genuine birth “identification document” records are publicly reviewed, this means no disclosure, no transparency and therefore no public record exists of Mr. Obama being constitutionally eligible for President and of course this is only the first step in determining natural born citizenship.
Mr. Obama will begin his campaign the second quarter of this year so begin spreading this information all the way to the end of the internet so the American people are informed about the truth of his undocumented status. This way, only a DNC official and committed followers will be the only ones left to “play for the big win”.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146261-dnc-chairman-were-going-to-play-for-the-big-win
One fact we know for sure: the birth announcements say nothing about the LOCATION of where the baby was born.
There is absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya. Read the book: “OBAMA - INELIGIBLE TO SERVE - LIES, CRIMES and DEADLY AMBITION” (at Amazon). In this book there are Legal Facts that explain WHY Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE under the U.S. Constitution. There are also transcripts of testimony that state Obama was born in Kenya, Statements made by the Kenyan Ambassador confirming he born there, articles in Newspapers are quoted, and numerous other accounts by many people all stating Obama was born there, including his own Grandmother and other family members. Everyone has to get their facts first, then argue — if they can after they read the book. Obama is a fraud — and is perpetrating the biggest HOAX on the American people in history. (If anyone does not understand the legal cases and what they say — this book will explain the cases and the concepts in clear, understandable terms.) America must wake up!!!
No. It's my opinion.
That sounds like a lot of stuff that's been long-debunked, not new information. Did you just sign up to spam this book?
Is that your blog? I appreciate that someone looked at the microfilms at the LOC and in HI.
But the specific request about Maya - that hasn’t been done, has it?
Actually, it is my blog.
I am the person that owns the only personally collected copies made from the microfilms of the obama birth announcements. I have the largest collection in the country as far as I know.
I provided a full set of those same copies to Butterdzillon so that she could expand on the work that she wanted to do on these same announcements. It was a bit different than what what I had decided to do.
On my last trip into DC to research at the Library of Congress, (rough trip :) ) I looked up a bunch of different dates and names. If you can refresh my memory on the DOB for Maya, I can check my copy dates for that. Like I said -that one was a rough trip - a bunch of weird stuff happened to us while we were in the LOC that time.
Maya’s DOB August 15, 1970. It’s unlikely that you would have copied the paper’s archives from that year.
I’m so sorry you had a rough trip - was it because of hostile people or just circumstances in general?
Thanks for letting me know all this. I read as much as I could about the microfilm at the blog. You’ve worked so hard on it, and we appreciate it.
The theory proposed here is that the grandparents posted a birth announcement for his sister even though she was born in another country. That would cast doubt on the process by which birth announcements were generated in that decade, and pretty much destroy the “proof” of his own birth announcement.
I’ve made a list of the ideas about the newspaper angle:
Theory #1 is that the microfilm has been tampered with after the fact - that’s something you examined;
Theory #2 the grandparents put in the announcement even though the grandchild was born overseas;
Theory #3 the hospital did indeed automatically generate the birth announcement, and everything there checks out in Obama Jr’s favor as to the place of birth.
I’m trying to wrap my head around the other big issue of why the Democrat Party modified the OCON for 49 states to remove the language stating Barack Obama was constitutionally eligible. (I think they were worried most about his father’s nationality.) I would like to have people work on their own state governments about this, to see if the language is in fact required according to state regulations, and if what Nancy Pelosi signed off on was illegal. It was definitely deliberate.
You probably saw this, but this law professor’s blog post was refreshing today.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-he-or-isnt-he-american-citizen.html
Yes, I read that, and I zipped it. LOL
I did do a few dates for the 70’s - I think. Crap, I put that stuff away months ago and haven’t thought much about it. About half of what I went after on that particular trip was for Butterdzillion, and a bit of stuff I personally was still curious about. Listen, I’ll put the link to that post here - I talk about the trip and the weird stuff that happened. Just know that NONE of my posts are full disclosure.
If I collect things at the request of another person, I do not disclose the details of that, even though I am NOT compensated for my time or expenses. I spent over $1000. to do that last trip into the LOC. I had to travel, stay overnight. ect. DC ain’t cheap baby!
I choose not to disclose certain details or material primarily because I “volunteered” to go. It’s hard to explain, but I don’t look for attention - I just want to provide material for people to use to help with their own research. And it’s just damn fascinating!
Anyway, here is the link to the post about the weird trip to the Library of Congress, it’s the “update” about halfway down the post:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/wheres-sherlock-holmes-when-you-need-him
>> She is the maternal half-sister of Barack Obama. She was born August 15, 1970 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Maternal as by mother?
Yes, maternal is by mother, paternal is by father.
I checked through the copies from my last trip and I did not have any for the year 1970. I think that if I had even just done a visual check and didn’t find her, I would recall having done that.
Actually, I have a link somewhere that was current a few months back, it was the Honolulu paper giving info on how to submit a birth announcement to be published. So, if they do it now, it’s likely they did it then also. Seriously, newspapers back then did print these at the request of grandparents or parents. They were also printed from lists provided by the vital stats office. No one back then got all fricken uptight about printing something like a little birth announcement. And HI was more laid back that many places.
1)Lets say that he was absolutely born in HI, S. Ann signs the form giving permission for the vital stats office to send the info over to the paper to be printed up.
2)Lets say that he was born in WA (or Canada or wherever)and a proud Grandparent requests the birth be announced. Provides their own address (since it have been proven obama Sr. NEVER lived at that address)
So the birth announcement info has one of two ways to be provided to the newspaper. Vital stats office, or grandparents. Either one is 100% plausible.
Although I do not make claims that the micro films were absolutely tampered with, there are definitely indications that they likely were. It would not have been terribly difficult. I wonder if the films were supposed to have come from a master reel. There are suggestions that they didn’t, yet there are “mistakes” in the filming of the reels at the LOC that also occur in the HI films.
Anyway, there are only about nine or ten (actually less I think) libraries that have both sets (newspapers) for these dates. That includes the libraries in HI. There are a couple of places that have one film only of one newspaper for that date.
As I mentioned in my article, it would be super easy to swap these films out.
Humm, one thing occurred to me. The films from HI don’t appear to have the dates along the edges of the films, while the LOC films absolutely do. I will have to check with TsunamiGeno and see if he remembers if the HI films had them or not. He made those copies.
Maya does not have a HI COLB. This has been confirmed via a request for her birth index data which came back to several requestees “no records exist that are responsive to your request.”
In order to even qualify for a foreign birth HI COLB, SAD would have had to have proven she was a permanent resident of HI during the year preceding Maya’s birth.
Since the birth announcements at that time came from the HDoH, it is not likely that Maya’s birth was published unless it was submitted directly to the papers by Gramps or Toots.
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.