Skip to comments.Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)
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 ...
You quote 8 USCA 1401(g) to say: 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 year
Fact is that 1401(g) was amended to say that only for persons born after November of 1986; prior to that date, the statute said persons totaling not less than 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen [or sixteen] years.
No way could Stanley Ann have met the Sec. 1401(g) test even if the age was only 14 because she was only 18 at the time of birth.
Just wrong on the black letters.
Oooops. Thanks for clarifying.
Here is another source to the same case...it sure looks like a SC case opinion to me
A remarkable sentence structure! The core of it is "another letter arrived in Kenya". What a strange passivity about that phrase, and it bears no subject-verb relationship to the "they wed". It is not "the lovebirds sent another letter", that would be clear and unambiguous. Instead the letter goes of its own volition, arriving whenever it chooses, being a letter of self-reliance, evidently.
And no date for the wedding. So nebulous!
Yet then at the end a switcheroo ... clear and firm, imperative almost -- "Barack!", born on exactly the 4th of August 1961!
That's a special pleading, eh?
An excellent idea, but is someone actually doing it?
I suspect the answer is yes but do not know of anyone who is doing it specifically. I am sitting in an ultimate remote location and the nearest resources are several hours away and probably don't include fiche copies of Hawaii press.
I know the fiche was in the Seattle Public Library ten years ago and assume when I get back there in the next week or so, I can find stuff if someone else hasn't found it first.
And what you are down to looking for is in Vital Statistics in the local papers in January and February of 1961 for a marriage license issue or for a certificate of marriage filed. And in the last week and a half of July and the first two weeks of August for a birth record publication.
And based on what I believe the facts are, you won't find either one but someone ought to look and say so.
He says something far worse than being trapped.
Look, I got two daughters 9 years old and 6 years old, he said. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I dont want them punished with a baby. I dont want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesnt make sense to not give them information.
Kinda defeats the whole point of being in an ultimate remote location, doesn't it?
That was only the first surprise. Stanley Ann began classes at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and shortly after that, Box received a letter saying that her friend had fallen in love with a grad student. He was black, from Kenya and named Obama.
About that same time, another letter crossed the Pacific, this one heading to Africa. It was from Barack Obama Sr. to his mother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama. Though the letter didn't go into great detail, it said he had met a young woman named Ann (not Stanley). There wasn't much on how they met or what the attraction was, but he announced their plans to wed.
Gotta run...darn chicken won't flip itself on the grill!
The way I see it, this very thread is a also national discussion Obama himself should join. Join so that he can, the son, be reconciled to his mom. And come to face in full that legacy the relationships of his parents and grandparents left in him. To help him see himself.
Don't say that. He has quoted you the new version of Sec. 1401(g). There isn't any argument about that, go back and look at the legal opinion post--the effective date of the 5 and 2 rule is persons born after November 1986; Obama was born in 1961. The amendment is not retroactive--the old rule was 10 years prior to birth, five which are after 14; Stanley Ann flunked by definition.
The statute about which there is uncertainty is Sec. 1409 which by its terms applies only to persons born out of wedlock. Obama misses because his parents were married--this is your case where even if their marriage was in the bush in a Grove of trees, they are still in wedlock for persons affected until a court says they are not.
According to the Chicago Tribune, divorce of Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann occurred in 1964. Where and whenpresumably Honolulu but I have not yet found that in the record; nor I have seen the actual date in 1964.
We need to identify the court where the divorce occurred; and get a copy of the complaint. In the normal divorce proceeding, counsel pleads the location of the marriagelikely if he did so here, that sheds some light on the facts; maybe if he does not plead where they were married, that suggests a purpose in not doing so.
Time gives you the "where and when" of the divorce, and the "actual date," and the "location" of the marriage (per the divorce records).
Your response is bizarre: "I wonder where newspaper Vital Statistics for Maui can be found," and then "If you found it in a Vital Statistics column, you would be tempted to believe it even if you didn't find the certificate." Time is not quoting from "newspaper Vital Statistics," but from the divorce record, which they have obviously seen (and yes, I tend to believe even the biased MSM when they give actual, specific dates.) Time makes no claim to finding the "certificate" of marriage -- they are neutral on the matter of a marriage certificate.
You state that you are "locked in your view that they got married in Kenya," and admit that "it's a mistake to approach the facts that way." I agree.
Then you backtrack to "counsel in the divorce proceeding pleaded Maui which is probably what his client told him; failure to find the filing is probably pretty good evidence that it didn't happen there unless you find Vital Statistics showing that it did."
Who is arguing with that? Why does that somehow lend weight to BO being born in Kenya?
"We are still looking in Kenya." Well, good luck with that. And yes, I've seen the video of Stanley Anne's friend in Seattle; yes, I've seen the airline schedules to Seattle and Kenya. What exactly do they prove? I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory -- if you believe something is being hidden/obfuscated/forged, then look first at the simplest explanation, not the most spectacularly remote.
Yes, ... even with that lead-in my writer’s instinct’s tell me that sentence should have been simpler and informative as to the date of the wedding and not as weirdly remarkable as it is.
“Thus he has to get back to Sec. 1401(g) to find citizenship through his mother-”
If you assume a marriage between his parents (which is valid) and a birth overseas (which is not), we are on the same page her. I quoted from the law itself. You can read the code here:
Let me repeat the law itself:
“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”
So she met the residency test and Barack Obama meets the natural born citizenship test.
Now, I was wondering about why you have a different residency requirement - I found it here: “1986Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99653 substituted five years, at least two for ten years, at least five. “ So an amendment in 1986 changed the situation to the 5 + 2, which Stanley Ann Dunham met. Further, the claim that someone can fail a residency test despite living their whole life in the US is beyond dubious.
“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.”
False. McCain is manifestly and obviously a natural born US Citizen, 100% certainty of this.
PS. Making snopes and other debunking sites:
We need something akin to a psychological autopsy. What did she think the law said?
My money is on she thought that a polygamous marriage + an overseas birth = citizenship troubles for her baby.
If, as her relatives assert, she delivered in Kenya she's be apt to panic and try anything she could to make the problem go away.
Simplest solution? Show up in Hawai'i with a newborn, and claim you delivered him at home.
Further explanation as to why McCain and Obama are both natural born US Citizens.
No Simple Matter to Be a Natural Born Citizen
Published: September 20, 1987
LEAD: To the Editor:
To the Editor:
William Safire’s column on Presidential ineligibility due to birth abroad (’’The Constitution’s Flaw,’’ Sept. 6) was entertaining, but it was not accurate. Lest someone who aspires to the Presidency be dissuaded when he or she need not be, let me clarify this thorny area of law.
First, Mr. Safire commits a common error when discussing the Constitution’s requirement that the President be ‘’a natural born citizen.’’ Mr. Safire believes this to mean native born, that is, born within the United States. A far more logical and reasonable meaning, however, is one who became a citizen naturally, through the circumstances of birth, and not through being naturalized, the lengthy and onerous process by which aliens become United States citizens.
One most definitely may have citizenship transmitted automatically even though born abroad. When is someone born abroad a birthright citizen? Under our immigration law we must start with the date of birth.
If you were born after Dec. 2, 1952, citizenship devolves if either parent was a United States citizen. If both were, either must have had, before your birth, a principal abode in this country for any length of time. You thus may be a citizen automatically although you may never in your lifetime set foot in the United States. And since only one parent need have lived here, one of your citizen parents could never have set foot in this country either.
If one of your parents was a United States citizen and the other was not, but was born in American Samoa or on Swains Island, and you were born abroad, you are a United States citizen if your citizen parent, before your birth, resided in the United States for one year.
If one of your parents was a United States citizen and the other an alien, if you were born abroad, you would automatically be a United States citizen if your citizen parent had been, before your birth, in the United States for five years, two before the age of 14.
Of course, as with most law, things are more complicated than they seem. Three other sets of rules apply for those born in the following three periods: before May 24, 1934; between May 24, 1934, and Jan. 12, 1941, and between Jan. 13, 1941, and Nov. 23, 1952. Since I earn my living as an immigration lawyer by helping clients to traverse this thicket, I do not wish to examine why Congress saw fit to change the law from time to time.
A more interesting constitutional question, one that keeps me awake at night and to which Mr. Safire may wish to devote a future column, is whether or not one who was born in the United States and therefore was a birthright citizen, but who lost citizenship and then regained it, can be President.
If one becomes a citizen of a foreign country, takes an oath of allegience to a foreign state or serves in foreign armed forces, one may lose United States citizenship. Later, he may repatriate and become a citizen again. Does the Constitution’s language, ‘’natural born citizen,’’ mean continuous citizenship since birth? Nobody knows. And as the issue doesn’t affect any of this year’s crop of Presidential hopefuls, we are not soon going to get an answer. DONALD M. KRESGE New York, Sept. 8, 1987
I'm not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure that Sen. McCain is a "natural-born citizen" and thus eligible to be President: He was a citizen from birth, having been born to citizen parents (his father was stationed in the Canal Zone). My sense is that "natural-born citizen" is most plausibly interpreted as being a citizen from birth.Your "100% certain" is Mr. Volokh's "pretty certain" and "most plausibly interpreted".
Read the other article cited, there are several. It nails definitively and conclusively both the common-law and statutory understanding of natural born citizen. McCain is in.
“”We are still looking in Kenya.” Well, good luck with that. And yes, I’ve seen the video of Stanley Anne’s friend in Seattle; yes, I’ve seen the airline schedules to Seattle and Kenya. What exactly do they prove? I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory — if you believe something is being hidden/obfuscated/forged, then look first at the simplest explanation, not the most spectacularly remote. “
.... I’ve been trying to tell them ... will they listen?? ...
So what was the Supreme Court vote on it? I’m 100% certain you must know.
"My money is on she thought that a polygamous marriage + an overseas birth = citizenship troubles for her baby."
As an 18 year old myself during that period of time I rather doubt her thoughts were of citizenship problems for her baby.
“Your #2422: I beg your pardon but I have never accused you of libel—I don’t say stuff like that. “
I never said you did. You called my reply to a post that did reply to that accusation ‘excessive in tone’, hence I copied you on the reply explaining why it was NOT a fair characterization.
This whole born-in-Africa farce is a rabbit trail anyway ...
The case challenging McCain on it was so weak it went .... nowhere. Check the cites I linked and do some digging.
Yes sir. That is a copy of the Supreme Court opinion in the case--I read it on a law search engine Case Law. What you were citing was a an article published by a Cornell Law School student which quoted the dissent in that case (the justices who didn't agree with the result).
Reason that case is not authority here is because the facts are wrong and it deals with a different statute. In Miller, the case is about a father attempting to qualify his kid under the father-citizen born out of wedlock statute by admitting paternity. Argument was that having different rules for father and mother violated fifth amendment equal protection right. Our case doesn't have anything to do with any of that.
The stuff in the dissent is what lawyers call "dictum"--it doesn't have anything to do with the result and thus it isn't authority for anything. It is interesting history but doesn't get you specific rules about how you get a result on your facts.
I have a bunch of similar stuff that says the out of wedlock provision of Sec. 1409 is subject to an overlay of Sec. 1401(g) to the end that the mother of the out of country out of wedlock still has to prove compliance with the 10 years prior to of which 5 years are after 14 or 16, whichever applies. But, I can't find that in the statute either so I am not going to post it as the basis for an opinion. I would like to find the statutory basis for an opinion but the law search engine I have here won't let me get behind the statute.
I tend to think your view is probably going to prove out correct but I can't get there on the material I have available.
And the more I read about the marriage and divorce the more comfortable I am with the conclusion that Obama never gets to the "born out of wedlock" condition anyway. Common law marriages work for wedlock for this purpose--never married at all; just told people they were.
Here, you got them all pleading in a legal divorce case they paid significant money for that they were married.
I still think it's important to find out what the answer is but I haven't got the resources to do that right now and won't for a week or so.
But I will also concede that your hammering me on the issue has forced me to rethink Sec. 1409 which is good because my actual legal opinion on the main issues is in fact in the hands of someone who has the swat to do something about it--since I got to your original Sec. 1409 question after I wrote the main opinion, it wasn't in the opinion--I just sent him an email with my original response to you which now looks a little suspect. So after jousting with you the last day or so, I had the opportunity to write him another email and tell him Sec. 1409 might be a little different.
But you don't need to insult me to get me to pay attention. I have figured out that you are doing real work; and I too am an accountant by primary training and have had my most important business relationships with the accounting community so I am paying attention even though I may not look like it.
Was the bukenasli expulsion program still in effect after the regime change in 1966...?
There are so many discrepancies with Obama's past.
You're obviously eviscerating your own argument.
So why wouldn't a leftist so infatuated with the multicultural ideal want to to take a trip to Kenya...?? She's already proven her "commitment" to the multicultural ideal by becoming pregnant with a Kenyan Muslim's child at the age of 17.
Furthermore, this same individual would marry another Muslim foreigner, and actually move with him to the world's Islamic country where her son would be raised.
But a visit to Kenya is out of the question....?? That logic doesn't make sense.
Condoleeza Rice had her name on a Chevron tanker for awhile. Chevron is heavy into Canadian tar sands oil and is a major competitor of Mobile. (That's just a side note).
So, Mobile Oil was a major supplier of the money for Obama's education ~ and he's going to do what about their taxes?
In response to the expulsion of mixed-race people I was aware, through friends, of continuation of the practice during the early Suharto years ~ thinking of our office secretary in fact (back in the early 1970s) ~ she'd made the mistake of being a Chinese Christian.
More recently the Indonesian government has forced Chinese to adopt Malay names even if they are not Moslem.
The SCOTUS will simply invalidate the constitution. Its not as if they haven't done it before. FWIW I read somewhere that McCain was born in a Panama Hospital, not on a base hospital. That might put a hitch in his giddy-up too. What a Twilight Zone year.
The Brits have a history of removing the records, presumably for safekeeping. There are New York records still in Ottowa.
Stanley Ann is reported by many sources to have been very interested in weaving. I don't know what kind of weaving in particular, but I did check her genealogy. She was a first cousin at about 7 removes, so we are talking about the same American line ~ all the way back to Loweville NY.
The "weaving" would be that appropriate for "baskets", but she may have been into cloth as well. Odds are good that she'd been on an airplane giving birth if it would give her a chance to visit with Luo weavers.
'Obama's grandmother -- who isn't his grandmother -- and who is described in this fawning report as "the famous woman from Nyangoma Kogelo Village of Siaya District" -- made an appearance at the U. S. Independence Day celebrations, held at the U. S. ambassadors residence in Nairobi, Kenya.'
"Its quite a surprise. I couldnt in my wildest imagination think that Obamas grandmother (she's not his grandmother) would be here. I did not expect it at all. I have to at least say hi to her," one person was overheard saying.
And as she mingled freely with many dignitaries, who included Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, Mama Obama, who was with her grand-daughter, Dr Auma Obama, engaged her new found friends in hearty conversations.
Phony grandma --"celebrity"
'She clearly stole the show. Many could not resist either posing for a photo with her, or taking her pictures, with the hope that in the next few months, they would brag to others that they once were with the US Presidents grandmother! (she's really not his grandmother!)
This was the first time Mama Sarah, who embraced the Obama family tradition, first saying she was a Muslim and then saying she was a Christian, attended an official function and going by the look of things, she is definitely going places (yeah, to the White House).
Meanwhile, Obama's real grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who raised him and put him through the prestigious Punahou School, remains a shadowy figure. Hidden away by Obama's campaign, the woman that Obama described as a "typical white person" is, according to Obama, "somewhere in Hawaii."
'Grandfather's third wife Sarah, is the one often referred to by Obama as his "grandmother." She is not a blood relative and describes herself as a lifelong Muslim. "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith," she said.
Sarah was the primary caregiver for Senior after his mother, Akuma, left the family when her children were still young.
But you, probably deliberately, misunderstand the point. Congress can apply its understanding of the Constitution, and make laws on that basis. But they cannot say that "natural born" means anyone naturalized in the first five years of life, or something like that. They can make the law, but it won't be Constitutional, and the courts will or should strike it down. They cannot change the definition from that understood when the Constitution, or an amendment to it, was passed. Sometimes determining just what was understood can be difficult, and in this case, as with many terms in the main body of the Constitution, requires recourse to English Common law.
Congress can't redefine "letter of Marque" or the meaning of of their powers. The reason should be obvious, it would render the written Constitution as meaningless, which of course is the point of the "living document" folks, who aren't happy with the limits placed on government in that Old Rag written by dead white men.
You aren't one of those are you?
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be Blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rest and expatiates in a life to come.
Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill, an humbler heav'n.
An Essay on Man
LOL! Yes, and the fact like his mother/or her friend (can't remember which) I thought Harry BeleFonte was the sexiest man I had ever seen. 18 year olds are pretty nieve.
Faster broadband than I have in the city. I can't be down here without it.
OK. Good points. Thank you. I have not made up my mind at all about the BC issue, but something isn’t right. I think it may be just something mundane or embarassing.
Not necessarily. She at least wasn't willing to violate the law of the land at the time, especially not in some back alley abortion operation. Can't say as I blame her. Besides, crazy as she was, she probably thought it was "noble" to have the baby of an older man (about 7 years older) from a third world country. She may or may not have known about the other wife. I'd say if there exists a marriage certificate and license from a US state, probably Hawaii, then she likely did not know, but if there isn't then she's much more likely to have known. Funny that no one can up with that document either. But the completely private wedding ceremony is highly suspicious, most states *require* at least two witnesses in addition to the person officiating at the ceremony (Minister, Priest (Catholic, Orthodox, or Busddist) Rabbi, Justice of the peace or Imam) on the cerfiicate. The current license application also requires that the person who will be performing the ceremony be named, (and they must be licensed by the State)
"and abandoned me."
If he says the first part, people are naturally going to supply what I did, and he'll like a bigger idiot than he already does.
Let's see--is there any single record anywhere or any single person, the guy who married them, a witness, anybody who can say it happened there? It's a violation of local law for the guy who did the marriage not to file the certificate--where is it?
The newspapers almost always find one of the two events, the marriage license or the marriage certificate, and report it in their Vital Statistics--you find it there?
You don't find anything that supports the fairy tale they got married on Maui, you start thinking about what it is they don't want to tell you.
It can't be said to prove anything to demonstrate that they were married in Kenya; but if you could, you put her, pregnant, in Kenya, and you are part way to explaining how she was there and didn't get back for the birth.
Take the other simple: Break from school; she has dropped out. "Wedding picture" says Barack; in the Departure Lounge of the Honolulu airport. Too early (Christmas decorations still up) to be February 2. The obvious inference is that they are going somewhere to get married. Where are they going? I don't have a lot of trouble with the blanks.
Wrong again. There is a specific effective date for the change--Congress says it applies only to persons born after November 24, 1986. Barack was born in August of 1961. So the change doesn't apply to him--he either has to win with ten and five or he isn't a citizen.
I found this archive picture of the Pan Am ticket lobby at the Honolulu airport from 1961 (at this link of Hawaiian aviation historical photos). Note that the San Francisco banner is actually a counter sign hanging from the pole seen on the left. If you click on the preview picture at the site, you can see a full-screen version of the picture.
This may be a different part of the terminal, but it sure looks to me like it's absolutely the Honolulu Airport in the 1960's.
On another note, regarding the 1964 divorce reference to a marriage on Maui in Feb 1961, if you click around on the site linked above, it looks like air travel to Maui was pretty primitive in those days. What did it cost to fly to Maui in 1961, and where would one go near the few airports that were there? I'm assuming the husband had the resources for the trip, since I'm not sure that a 18-year-old would.
Obama wrote. "LIke many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.
You just keep driving along making these unsupportable pronouncements--I am going to stop responding to you. You may think Safire was in error, but most of the Constitutional Lawyers I talk to have an equally firm view to the contrary. Doesn't make anybody correct until either Supreme Court tells you the answer or Congress and the several states amend the Constitution.
To me, it never makes any difference. If somebody hired me to talk to the Supreme Court, I assume I can win either side. But as an abstract proposition, my bet is on Safire's side of the argument--it means more or less within the confines of the 57 states.
To some extent, it does. Just not enough. It certainly has taken plenty of hits, but so has the earth. Terra just fixes them faster, much faster, than Luna.
WE cannot get a copy of the marriage license from vital statistics for the same reason WE cannot request a copy of the birth certificate. WE are not the parties on the marriage certificate (or BC), nor are WE relatives or descendants of the parties on the marriage certificate (or BC).
IF you want to PAY online, you can check the newspapers for published wedding/marriage announcements or go to Hawaii and check the microfiche in the library.
Just because no one is producing them for your perusal is not evidence in and of itself that they don't exist.
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.