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 ...
I doubt marriage records were created for the Naaaitivezzz anyway.
Wow, I CAUGHT UP!!!
Entirely possible. But just because the airport update was done until after 1961, doesn't mean jets could not operate there. Generally those updates were mostly for the terminal buildings. Adding "jet ways" and so forth. But even the early jets could use most existing runways designed for the larger proppeller driven aircraft. The airports just couldnt' handle the large volumne of traffice that the "jet age" was to bring. JFK flew into Dallas Love Field in a 707, and that was and is a pretty old facility. The terminal was upgraded, but I doubt the runways were. Still it was used as the main airport for Dallas until '74 or so, and still serves Southwest Flying fairly large late model 737s and some MD-90s from other carriers. I flew through there in '74, I think in 727 IIRC, which took a lot of runway compared to a late model 737.
great post!
You mean Washington wanted write anyone like Lord Stirling out of contention for President?
The court said no substantive change. If you took the time to check rather than attempting to keep to an error in interpretation, the effective date of the CHAPTER can be found the notes to section 1101. It reads as follows:
Effective Date
Section 407 of act June 27, 1952, provided that: “Except as provided in subsection (k) of section 401 [former section 1106 (k) of this title], this Act [this chapter] shall take effect at 12:01 ante meridian United States Eastern Standard Time on the one hundred eightieth day immediately following the date of its enactment [June 27, 1952].”
When I do the math I get the original effective date of the Chapter as December 24, 1952. Last time I checked, December 24, 1952 is AFTER December 23, 1952 which is what the original language was change to when it was when amended in 1988.
You see a substantive change by making the date determinable by the statute itself when the change doesn't change the actual effective date of 1409 (c) and the SC doesn't see that as a substantive change.
The case clearly tells us what the changes were regarding unwed mothers from the first law through 1988. Those reading this thread also can see clearly that you are holding to an error and this would raise questions regarding your other interpretations.
One of the theories is he was never married when she gave birth. The law in effect when he was born would make him a citizen no matter where he was born if his mother was unwed. This eliminates one potential theory as having an merit.
Another theory is the dates he was born are wrong and he was born before Hawaii was a state. Section 1405 makes that theory irrelevant.
Stanley Dunham is BHO's mother's name. Actually Ann Stanley Dunham. The Stanley is after her father. I guess there isn't a feminine form of Stanley? Even my grandaughter's middle name is Josephine, after her father's middle name which is Joeseph. Her twin sister's middle name is Joy, after her Maternal-Maternal Great Grandmother's first name and her mother's middle name, who was there to see her Christined with it. :) Way cool, yet I had to be the one to tell the minister who my mother in law was, the "original Joy".
You expect the actions of a wild child pre hippy to make sense? Especially when she was only 17-18? You sir (or madam) expect too much.
Still, I'm guessing they failed to adopt him when Stanley came back home with the baby after she was abandoned by her guy (Obama's father).
That's how she escaped with yet a different guy to a different third-world nation ~ she had custody!
When she came back from the romp I'd imagine that's when her mother and father adopted Obama and gave him his present name.
All of that assumes Stanley Ann was a whack job and her parents were somewhat more stable.
Look, you keep saying insulting stuff like this--I'm really easy, I am just trying to find the statute that tells us what the law is and the effective date provisions that spell out when that statute is effective on our facts.
You keep posting this wide general stuff which is fine if it helps you understand how the law applies to the current facts but we don't get closure because we can't set out a statute that states the law and a statute that sets out how and to what it applies.
You know there is error in the general stuff you're posting because it says there aren't any amendments after 1986 and you know the provision you are working on was adopted in 1988.
You also know you have statutory material that tells you they put the December 1952 date in the statute with what appears to be a November 1986 effective date which they put in with a Tech bill in 1988--what did the statute say before they did that so you can at least see what the law was in 1986 before amendment? And when, how, and when effective was the pre-1986 law modified effective to the 1991 birth?
And I find a bunch of the same kind of general stuff which I haven't posted which tells me that in 1991, the law applicable to any birth offshore is the ten year five year rule. I don't post that yet because I can't come up with a statute that says anything other than what I have already posted. Doesn't mean I am not looking.
I also have a whine--I can't do any better than you can with the on-line search engine; I am two thousand miles from my office and the best law search engine I have in my machine won't get behind the current version either.
Do you have a copy somewhere of the full version of Sec. 309 in effect immediately prior to the 1988 Amendment and as of 1952? Together with legislative history and effective dates?
It’s not surprising that someone with that kind of background (abandoned by the natural father) would want a large, intrusive Nanny State imposing socialism and endless government programs.
That they do so doesn't make them second-class people.
Just because she couldn't vote doesn't mean she wasn't an adult for other purposes. 18 was the age for marriage without parental permission in many state for a long time. OTOH, some states had it as 16 for women. Younger with parental permission, even today. Contracts.. well that varied by state as well.
But in any event, once she's married I don't believe the parents have any control anymore...if she was married that is. If she was there should be a record of that somewhere. Most newspapers of the age, and in smaller areas even today, list all the marriage license applications as well as the births and deaths.
I’m still locking for a direct source but so far I have provided the gold standard of sources by the USSC ruling.
However here is another secondary source for those who are not married to an error:
Interpretation 309.1 Acquisition of United States nationality by illegitimate children .
(a) Paternity not established.
(b) Paternity established.
(a) Paternity not established . (1) Prior to January 13, 1941 . Prior to January 13, 1941, a child within this group acquired citizenship at birth in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Swain’s Island, the Philippine Islands, the Canal Zone (before August 4, 1937), Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands (before January 13, 1941), Hawaii (before August 4, 1937), and any foreign country, only if born after May 23, 1934, 1/ to a United States citizen mother who previously had resided in the continental Unites States, Alaska (after March 29, 1867), Hawaii (even before August 12, 1898), Puerto Rico (after April 10, 1899), or the Virgin Islands (after January 16, 1917). 2/ Moreover, in these circumstances, the child acquires a vested citizenship status at birth which is unaffected by any subsequent legitimation. 2a/
(2) Nationality Act of 1940 . Since January 13, 1941, a child within this group, born before or after such date, but prior to December 4, 2952, in American Samoa, Swains Island , the Philippine Islands, Guam, the Canal Zone (before April 30, 1900), Alaska (before March 30, 1867), or any foreign country, acquired similar status at birth, if the citizen mother previously had resided in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swain’s Island, or the Philippine Islands (before July 4, 1946). 3/
Status, once acquired in the above manner, was not terminated by subsequent establishment of paternity; 3a/ nor was acquisition precluded because on January 13, 1941, the effective date of the 1940 Act, the child was beyond minority. 3b/ However, if the paternity of a child born out of wedlock to a citizen mother and an alien father was established prior to the 1941 date and during the child’s minority by legitimation or an adjudication of a competent court, the child did not acquire citizenship at birth under the second paragraph of section 205; such a child could acquire citizenship only under section 1 of the 1934 statute. 4/ ( Revised )
(3) Immigration and Nationality Act . Basically, the provisions of the current statute 5/ are the same as the prospective provisions which prevailed after January 12, 1941, 6/ save that the mother, prior to the child’s birth, is required to have one year’s continuous physical presence in the United States, now defined to include Guam, or its outlying possessions, named as American Samoa and Swain’s Island. However, where for the purpose of retaining citizenship under current section 301 (b), as amended, a United States citizen mother is considered to have been constructively physically present in the united States continuously for more than one year, 6a/ such constructive physical presence will also satisfy the continuous physical presence requirement of current section 309(c) for the transmission of citizenship to her illegitimate children. 7/ Whether and absence will be regarded as having broken the required continuity of a mother’s physical presence in the United States or an outlying possession, thereby precluding her unlegitimated child from acquiring citizenship at birth under current section 309(c), shall be determined in accordance with INTERP 316.1 (c)(3).
(4) Noncitizen nationality . Prior to January 13, 1941, and illegitimate child of unestablished paternity became a United States noncitizen national at birth in American Samoa or Swain’s Island after the annexation dates, if at the time of the child’s birth, his mother had such status. 8/
Since the above 1941 date, the rules that determine when an illegitimate child of unestablished paternity will acquire United States citizenship at birth through a United States citizen mother as they have existed since January 13 1941, will also determine when such child, born to a United States noncitizen national mother, will acquire her status at birth. 9/
(b) Paternity established . (1) Nationality Act of 1940 and earlier statutes . Citizenship at birth jus sanguinis prior to January 13, 1941, descended through a citizen father to an illegitimate child whose paternity was established by legitimation under the law of the father’s domicile. 10/ Legitimation conferred full citizenship status upon the child at birth 11/ although accomplished long after the child attained majority 12/ and even after January 13, 1941, because those born prior thereto were not affected retrospectively by the age limitations on legitimation provided in the 1940 Act. 13/
Citizenship was acquired at birth after January 12, 1941, but before December 24, 1952, if paternity of the child was establish during minority by legitimation or court adjudication, 14/ and despite initial Service opinion to the contrary, 15/ this rule also applied to the child who could only acquire citizenship under section 201(i), Nationality Act of 940, as amended. 16/ As under the earlier law, absent any express statutory provision governing the matter, 17/ legitimation for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth under the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended , could be accomplished in accordance with the law of the putative father’s domicile. 18/ ( Revised )
In all the above instances, the normal statutory prerequisites for acquisition by a legitimate child must also be met. 19/ But for a discussion of legitimation of persons born in Panama, see INTERP 303.1.
A person born of wedlock in the Republic of Panama also may acquire citizenship through a citizen father under somewhat different provisions if section 203(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, and its successor, current section 303(b). 20/
(2) Immigration and Nationality Act . (i) General rules . Since December 24, 1952, if the paternity of the illegitimate child born on or after December 24, 1952, is established by legitimation during minority, citizenship vests at birth jus sanguinis, 21/ upon compliance with the provisions of the current statute relating to the acquisition of such status by the legitimate child, 22/ provided such legitimation takes place while the child is unmarried. 23/ The provisions of the current statute, 23a/ providing that legitimation occur during minority, operate independently of the definition of legitimated child in section 101(c) of the current Act, and are satisfied by mere legitimation during minority notwithstanding that it occurred after age 16 years, or that the legitimation parent did no then have legal custody of the child. 24/ Moreover, contrary to initial Service opinion, 24a/ the provision in section 101(c) permitting legitimation to take place under the law of the child’s residence or domicile is likewise not applicable, and legitimation for the purposes of section 309 can accomplished only in accordance with the law of the father’s domicile. 25/ ( Revised )
Additionally, under current section 309, section 301(g) * in its originally enacted form is retroactively applicable to a person born out of wedlock between January 12, 1941, and December 24, 1952, of a citizen father and an alien mother if paternity is established at any time by legitimation during minority. ( Revised )
Section 301(g) was amended by the Act of November 6, 1966, 26/ to extend the constructive physical presence benefits thereunder to employees of the United States Government and international organizations, but limited its applicability solely to persons born after December 23, 1952. Accordingly, while person claiming citizenship under section 301(g) by reason of either section 309(a) of 309(b) may count the citizen parent’s military service as physical presence, as the section originally permitted, only those persons within section 309(a)—but not those within sectio n 309(b) born before December 24, 1952—may base such claim upon the amended constructive physical presence benefits of the Act of November 6, 1966. ( Revised )
(ii) Legitimation by acknowledgment under section 230, California Civil Code . This section provides that a child born out of wedlock shall be deemed legitimate form the time of birth, if the father publicly acknowledges the child as his own, receives the child into his family (with the consent of the wife if the father is married), and otherwise treats the child as if he or she were his legitimate child. The Board of Immigration Appeals, in construing this section, held that if the father does not have his residence or domicile in California when the action specified in the secti on takes place legitimation thereunder is not completed, and therefore does not occur until the father begins to reside in that state; that while legitimation creates the status of legitimacy retroactive to the date of the child’s birth, legitimation must be regarded as having taken place, and not at the time of such birth, but rather when the action resulting in legitimation was in fact completed in this instance, the date on which the father took up residence in California; and that, therefore, where resi dence was not extablished in California until the child was 30 years of age, the child was a “child” for purposes of the definition in section 101(b) (1) (c) of the current Act, which require that legitimation take place before the 18th birthday. 27/ The Service also takes the position that the definition of “child” in section 101(c)(1) of the current Act, which requires legitimation while the child is under 16 years of age should be similarly construed
(3) Acknowledgment of child, absent blood relationship . The purported legitimation of a child by a citizen’s acknowledgment of the child and marriage to the mother does not result in the bestowal of citizenship upon the child if the natural relation of parent and child does not exist between the acknowledging citizen and the child. 28/
(4) Noncitizen nationality . The rules in (1), (2), and (3) above also confer noncitizen nationality upon the illegitimate child of established paternity born to United States noncitizen national parents, 29/ to the same extent that the legitimate child acquires similar status, provided the statutory requirements for acquisition by a legitimate child are also satisfied. 30/
(5) Legitimation requirements under Panamanian law . See INTERP 303.1(b)(3)
Not really. The great circle route from Hawaii to Boston goes about over San Francisco, but it's not that much of a deviation to go through Seattle.
The direct flight is 5095 miles the path through Seattle is 5173 miles. Only 1.5% farther. In 1961 the direct path might have been out of the question. Flying through SF would make the distance only 0.1% more than the direct path at 5103 miles. The over-water leg would be 2677 miles to Seattle and 2399 miles to San Francisco. That does make the SF run more attractive, but since it would have had more traffic the Seattle path might have been cheaper (although I doubt it, in those days of stricter regulation of fares and such). But the differences in distance and cost are not so much as to discourage a stopover to see friends for a few days, weeks or whatever.
Lord Stirling, born in New York, was a dead natural citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution so I am not sure of his status ;-)
It's not even all that uncommon today, when there are more opportunites but less incentive per opportunity.
Two of my wife's coworker's (both PhD's) adopted their grandson for example.
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.