Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
“A review of the archival record shows that there was a small hospital at the Coco Solo submarine base in 1936 and also reveals the name of the U.S. Navy physician who signed McCain’s birth certificate.”
The small hospital that is talked about here is that every town site, civilian and military, had dispensaries opened on weekdays, where one could go for initial diagnosis and cure if it did not seem to be too serious. Each was staffed by a couple of wonderful doctors and a few equally wonderful nurses.
Coco Solo Dispensary, which they did have (confirmed it this a.m.) may have been more of a sophisticated dispensary, although the article didn’t say, may have had a delivery section.
I plan to do some deep research tomorrow. It may take a couple of weeks to get some answers. But I am on it.
Until now, I have not seen an official certified copy of his Canal Zone birth certificate. This is very impotent.
Something which might interest you as does me every time I think about it: The Atlantic side and Pacific side were quite isolate from one another until after the middle of WWII. The only thing connecting both sides of the isthmus was our railroad. The Transisthmian Highway connecting Panama City and Colón City was not built until some time about after the middle of WWII.
“I think Nulley’s #2341 is a pretty fair response to WOSG’s comments which are really pretty excessive in tone.”
“FWIW, I don’t think WOSG’s tone is excessive”
I appreciate that you understand the passion; it is based solely in an interest in keeping these speculations within the bounds of truth and common sense, and I took exception to David’s characterization. I called a comment that accused me of ‘libel’ as ‘assinine’ since it was (knowingly?) distorting what I said completely.
I have been tough in tone at places, IMHO that fits the situation: If you see a child play with matches or walk over a fence into a high voltage area, you gotta use strong language to warn them off before someone gets hurt. I believe this line of speculation will end up being damaging to the reputation of those who make claims based on it. Maybe you havent noticed that the original (Israel Insider) article actually made false claims and statements, but others have, and it is ill-advised to castles on such shaky ground.
False speculations and accusations, like ‘the boy who cried wolf’, degrade the credibility of other claims made. Thus such false claims are highly advantageous to the Obama campaign as ‘proof’ of how crazy his critics are; they win when the water gets muddied by false claims. That is why ‘fight the smears’ will have little or nothing on the REAL Obama scandals, like Rezko or his communist links, but they’ll have plenty on this.
Compounding the error of ‘crying wolf’ is the error of attacking the character of people who are not candidates. They make you look not just foolish, but malicious to boot. I say it again: Think twice before making assertions claims or suppositions about Barack’s mother, her willingness to lie on forms, etc. without evidence that it even happened. Before you make accusations about Stanley Ann Dunham, consider if she was your own hippy liberal aunt. Would you make the same speculations?
Obama can get up in front of thousands and say
“And you know what? They are calling my dear departed mother a felon, a con artist. My mother who raised me and sacrificed for me, they dont know her. Folks, those are the enemies of Hope and Change we are dealing with. They will stop at nothing and will destroy everything to stop progress.”
I have been warning folks to quit doing thing that will make you look foolish and only help the Obama campaign. Before you speculate further, ask yourself which fits better: “I am genuinely curious and open to reason” versus “I really want this to be true, so I am going to simply ignore contrary evidence and rack up whatever positive evidence I can”.
Sure.
Time Magazine reports that they were married at Maui so searching the Honolulu papers may, or may not--where is Maui published, be fruitless.
Further, according to Obama's book and other sources, the marriage certificate is not found filed in Hawaii--Hawaii law requires the authority performing the marriage to file the certificate with the local authority in the jurisdiction that issues the license. Maybe that's Honolulu, even though the claim is they were married on Maui?
Whatever, we read in several places that the certificate cannot be found which to us implies the marriage wasn't performed where he says it was performed either.
I view looking at the newspaper Vital Statistics reports as the extra mile--Vital Statistics in Seattle used to publish the licenses as well as the certificate.
I just don't think they were married in Hawaii. Then you get them out of the Departure Lounge at HNL, on the way to Kenya--I don't see anywhere they might have gotten married until they get to Nairobi or Mombasa where the marriage is clearly legal under local law to everyone's satisfaction. Bet she might have had legal advice confirming that a marriage, made legal in Mobasa, is valid in the US for all purposes.
Don't have a hippy liberal aunt. I'd be more than willing to make similar speculations about a liberal hippy cousin.
She was one of professor Timothy Leary's more, how shall I put this?, enthusiastic students.
Lets just say she got a lot of frequent flier miles, and her current grasp of reality is a little tenuous...
“You are misreading the 1952 law imho, there is a residency requirement for the parent, which is more than fully met by the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham lived her whole life in the United States up until the birth of Barack Obama Jr.
Assuming, of course, that she didn’t spend the last few months of her pregnancy on a honeymoon in Kenya.”
No, that wouldn’t change it. The 1952 law snippet is here:
“Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”
14 years plus 2 years in the U.S. were sufficiently met by Stanley Ann Dunham even before she met Barack Obama Sr. since she lived in Washington state and Hawaii her whole life. If she was in Kenya a week, a month or even a year, she still would meet the citizenship and residency requirements for Barack Obama to be a natural-born US citizen.
So, no, I am not *assuming* the conclusion, I am concluding based on the *evidence* and the *law*:
- His mother is/was a US citizen who lived in the US her whole life prior to 1961.
- The 1952 law gave children born to such mothers US citizenship at birth.
- Barack Obama would be a natural-born US citizen no matter where he was born. Again, that speculation that she even went overseas is a zero-evidence one, and Obama was born in Hawaii, but even if he was born in Kenya, he would still be a natural-born US citizen.
Thus, there is 100% certainty that Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to be President.
QED.
I would further point out that this also precludes the ‘motivation to lie’ factor touted earlier. His passport says Honolulu Hawaii, and if he was really born elsewhere, his mother would have stated as such, as it wouldn’t change anything. Hence, no lies either, and passport saying Honolulu means we can further logically conclude that he was born in Honolulu.
Ya know? as much as we’ve locked horns here I think it would be a blast to have a couple beers with you. If you’re ever out Silicon Valley way, look me up.
Note which you don't recite but I assume you noticed, the fact (Maui) is recited as having come from the Complaint for the divorce. She is sitting there in the law office and the lawyer says well we have to plead the fact on the marriage and she thinks well, I can't say Honolulu cause I know it wasn't there; Maui is the wild west, maybe nobody will know.
I guess the reason for looking for the divorce file was to find out where he plead they were married so if we are willing to take Time's word for it, we can abandon that--too much to hope for that she would have said Mombasa.
If we can look at Vital Statistics in the newspapers and exclude any notice of a Marriage License or Certificate, we really don't have anywhere else to look except Mombasa.
Back in 1960, abortions were illegal. No reputable doctor performed them.
An excellent idea, but is someone actually doing it?
Problem is that as a matter of Constitutional Law, that isn't correct. In places where that comes up, the Court says well if you permit Congress to do that, it could effectively amend the constitution without complying with the Amendment process and we can't have that.
The lawyers who regularly argue cases to the Supreme Court are of the view that historical efforts by Congress to tell the court how the case comes out have received negative treatment at the hands of the Court.
I agree that regardless of the location of his birth, he is a US citizen by virtue of the 1952 law and being born to an American parent.
A few things are still in play.
Is this sufficient to meet the "natural born" requirement? Not according to what I had always been taught. (But so what? I was also taught the Moon was up there "to protect us from meteors")!
More to the point, there is still a lively debate in legal circles as to what constitutes "natural born" I don't expect they will be done splitting finer and finer hairs until some time after the sun burns out.
The two other things still in play are what actually happened? Given eye witness accounts of his birth in Kenya, what if he really was born there? Why would Stanley Ann bother to rush back to Hawai'i to claim he was born there?
I think that it is simply because she feared he wouldn't be granted US citizenship, since he was born off shore, and Barak Sr. had one too many wives for US laws. Her simplest solution was to board a plane as soon as they'd let her, and get their little butts back to Hawai'i before his cord fell off and she could plausibly assert he was born there at home.
She acted based on what she knew and feared, even if it wasn't accurate.
The other alternative is also quite simple. She didn't go on a honeymoon, she didn't meet his parents, and Barak really was born in Honolulu.
If that is the case, it would have been a trivial exercise to get an unquestionably authentic birth certificate. Soooooo...
WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN POST A CLUMSY COPY???
No reputable doctor performs them today either. Still, Leftwingtards ordinarily get them, as they always did, through the doctors who run in their circles. The woman has no excuse.
Congress has as much authority as the President or the Court to interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they have disputes.
True. Reputable doctors did emergency D&C's because of the random bleeding that they coached their patients to say they had.
By the time the pregnancy was "discovered" in the OR it would be too late to save he fetus.
There were also less reputable doctors, disbarred doctors, and Dr. Kildare wannabes who would perform more-or-less safe abortions.
Then there was the ever popular coat hanger.
Stanley Ann and Barack Sr. decide to do the decent thing, they got married and at least tried to establish a home for baby Barak to grow up in.
Give 'em some credit here!
This is the 10¢ accounting error.
You know about that one?
It's the one that when tracked down to its source uncovers the embezzler...
The fact we do know, or at least the fact that appears regularly in the record is that he got a degree in the spring of 1962. But we don't have any record that shows him in school on Feburary 2, 1961 (a Thursday, says Obama, which I have not confirmed). And I doubt we will find one although he might have been enrolled and showed up back in class on the sixth.
You are misreading the 1952 law imho, there is a residency requirement for the parent, which is more than fully met by the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham lived her whole life in the United States up until the birth of Barack Obama Jr.
Raycpa quote the law in a previous post, and it required 3 of the 5 years to be after age 14. She met the requirement.
The 1934 and 1952 laws give citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizen mothers.
No.
The 52 law and the 34 law, codified as 8 USCA Sec. 1409(c) applies only to children "out of wedlock". We have established here a mother and father who are married to each other so Obama doesn't meet the precondition that he be illegitimate; Sec. 1409(c) doesn't by its terms apply.
Thus he has to get back to Sec. 1401(g) to find citizenship through his mother--ten years of residence before birth, five of which are after 16; since she was only 18, she flunks.
If Obama is born in Kenya, he not only isn't eligible to serve as President, he also is not a citizen.
As I said earlier, it is 100% certain that both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the eligibility requirements to be President.
You can keep reciting that at the bottom of every post but it is also not correct.
McCain has an obvious problem as indicated by the numerous law review and other legal periodical articles, meeting the natural born test. There is no conclusive authority directly in point on the issue. The kind of reasoning I have seen courts engage in on statutory issues is: Well if Congress can overcome the Constitutional provision with legislation, it can effectively amend the Constitution. If this ever gets to a tribunal with authority to decide the question, McCain flunks the Natural Born test.
Obama is a question of fact. If he was born in Hawaii, he is eligible; and he is a citizen. If he was born in Kenya, he is not eligible and he is not a citizen. Simple.
I don't understand why someone who has a credit card can't go to the on line Vital Statistics and search for either marriage or divorce records. I don't use credit or debit or I would do it.
Or surely there is a Freeper in Hawaii who could go look, they are public record.
How do you DO that????
You can keep reciting this stuff but believe it or not, I am not an armchair lawyer, I am really admitted--in two states. And although I am not a litigator by profession, I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States; and have argued probably ten or twelve appellate cases including two that were affirmed without an opinion by the Supreme Court.
I would love to have this for a client that could afford to pay to get to the courts although the time to do that is slipping away rapidly.
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.