Mugabe was marketed as a moderate. Now we have our very own Mugabe.
Hussein hasn't yet hugged Ahmadinejad, but if elected, he will.
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 ...
RB, have you seen Phil’s post?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040486/posts?page=526#526
You may want that for your Iran Hostage history site.
mkjessup ~ So what do you and your Martian Overlords plan to do with us Earthlings?
Please don't eat us.
If they start with the fat ones, I'm doomed...
…plus the original claim that he was born in a hospital that hadn’t yet been built…
In no way am I arguing with you, but you may have BO confused with McNut.
Folks (not McNut) out there insist McNut was born at Coco Solo Naval Base, Canal Zone, located on the Atlantic side of the isthmus.
If he was born on the Atlantic side, he could not have been born at Coco Solo because Coco Solo Hospital wasn’t built until ‘41-‘42. He was born in ‘36.
This would mean that he was born in Colon Hospital, Republic of Panama, and not the Canal Zone. Colon Hospital is a short distance from Coco Solo.
But a couple of years ago or less, I read here on FR his father was stationed at Quarry Heights, Canal Zone, located on the Pacific side (not Coco Solo). A couple of hundred yards past the front gate was Gorgas Hospital, our civilian hospital located in the Canal Zone. This means he would have been born at Gorgas Hospital, which was the nearest hospital.
Now this brings up another point:
If he was born at Colon Hospital, Panamanian territory, could he have become a naval “officer” at that time of his career?
I know the rules have been relaxed in some of these areas, but they were very strict at that time about officer eligibility.
Will be back in a couple of hours.
Regards.
What do you think the odds of that are?
1440:1
***His relatives are Moslems. They lie a lot.***
***That’s racist!***
No it’s not. It’s in their Koran that its cool to lie to infidels. Even suggested.
Cordially,
But the State of Hawaii would have a copy, if he was truly born there. I can’t wait for Drudge to finally pick this story up and force Obama to either put up or shut up. But, if I were part of the McCain campaign I wouldn’t comment on this subject at all, I would leave it to surrogates.
“It’s all pretty sobering. What will liberals, socialists and regular old Democrats do?”
Don’t leave out African-Americans, they will be more angry than any other dem voting block if Obama is forced out. The danger for Hillary would be African-American anger at Obama being thrown under the DNC bus, and their lingering anger at the Clinton’s for their perceived racist comments during the primaries.
Absolutely not. That's why I started my post with "Unity, NH" where Hillary buried the hatchet (in BHO's back?! )
Her public attacks on him were the only ones which could get some play in the press, that hurt BHO without hurting McCain.
From here on out, BHO cannot be hit. Mark my Post!
Even if Hillary! unleashes something in the background, it will be blamed on racist Republicans, and BHO will be able to use it to his advantage.
And McCain obviously will not take him on directly, and Hillary is going to smile publicly and certainly not stab him directly.
Hillary was out-teflon'd by BHO. She may be able to bloody him up for a fight in 2012 in the background....but she will see that the Republicans pay an even higher price.
IANAL, but I think that the footnote and the actual USC language refer to it taking effect October 1988, with the provision of it applying to those born after November 1986.
Note that (g) itself states: "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;"
If this wasn't to go into effect for people born before 1986, why would the military proviso be referenced with such an old date?
From what I see, it's retroactive to all....with a 2 years/14-years clause that would make Sen. Obama a natural born citizen if he was born in Hawaii.
Tell him that because of people like him nully is no longer proud to be an American.
I have seen what they have done.
They utterly destroyed one of the world's largest and best trained standing armies in a matter of weeks. OK, that's what we expect from them.
What impressed me was how well they comported themselves after the military victory.
Everything from restoring some semblance of order, building schools, hospitals, sewage and water systems, inculcating a population with no history of freedom with some concept of a constitutional democracy.
Doing all this while dead-enders are doing their dead level best to destroy them and everything they stand for.
Doing this in 120° weather, while not having so much as a sip of water in honor of the local religious customs during ramadan.
Doing it with a smile for the children, a kind word for the women, and respect for the men.
No, nully is no longer proud to be an American.
nully is now deeply and profoundly humbled to be an American, and to be able to count himself as a countryman of such men and women.
Yes. Then, in 1986, legislation was passed to address that, putting them in the classification of Citizen by Birth. It is unclear how the 1961 decision would apply, but IANAL. :-)
Nothing says he can't, except your assumption.
Then why does Obama still have a low-res version of the admitted forgery up on his "stop the smears" website as "proof" of his citizenship?
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—
(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth, (3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and (4) while the person is under the age of 18 years— (A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile, (B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or (C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Yep, you're right as far as I can tell.
1401. Nationals and citizens of 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
Not quite.
You said you were retiring for the night at 19:29:44, and posted again at 20:03:21
So I thought I’d tease you a little...
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Amen, nully.
My screen got blurry all of a sudden.
57 States? Where did that come from?
...the Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing the 57 Islamic states,...
I'll venture a guess:
The law you are quoting applies only to births OUTSIDE THE USA! Are you saying that he was born outside the USA?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That’s just ONE of the reasons suspected for Obama not releasing his BC.
Apparently some of his African family memebers have been quoted as saying he was actually born in Kenya and brought to Hawaii a couple of days after.
All Obama has to do to end this is to release his REAL BC.
Why doesn’t he?
So, in place of the term "birth certificate," please read: "form that was issued at the time of the candidate's birth, which would have contained more information than the post-2001 short-form 'Certification of Live Birth' that was released by the campaign."
Of course, one doesn't necessarily have to be born in a state to get a Certification of Live Birth from that state, but I do believe that he was born in Hawaii...and my point was that it was likely other information on the form that he doesn't want to release.
If one is not a Natural Born Citizen at the time of birth, then one is not eligible to be president. Congress cannot ex-post facto create a Natural Born Citizen out of a foreign national by legislative mandate. The status at the time of birth is controlling. Thus, if Obama was born outside the United States in 1961 and his father was not a US Citizen, then he would not be a Natural Born Citizen.
Congress has the power to make Citizens of anyone they want at any time they want, but they do not have the power to change a person's birth status after they are born. Any act by Congress that would change a person who was not actually born a Citizen of the United States into a "Natural Born Citizen" would be unconstitutional on its face.
They can change them into a "Legislatively Mandated Citizen" but they can't go back in time and make them a "Natural Born" citizen.
Can they take it away?
Can the SCOTUS?
It was Lady Jag's fault.
;-)
Mugabe was marketed as a moderate. Now we have our very own Mugabe.
Hussein hasn't yet hugged Ahmadinejad, but if elected, he will.
Perhaps his grandmother is on to something here:
~snip~
“He keeps a lot of secrets and is full of surprises. I am very confident he will win the race and become president,” Hussein, wrapped in brightly colored clothes, said in a husky voice.
~snip~
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL0872724120080109?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
Me? Confused? I suppose that is theoretically possible...
Oh, sure, I suppose now you’re going to pull the al taqqiyah card.
So will Hillary!™
Yikes is right. Bookmarking for later.
Hussein publicly promised to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea without preconditions.
And isn't it special that those totalitarian nations have endorsed him.
If elected, he most assuredly will meet Ahmadinejad.
Yeah. Mine too writing it. Somehow it’s slightly easier to say in person.
You have got that right!
The 1986 legislation may have made Obama a Citizen, but it did not make him a Natural Born Citizen.
I am not questioning whether Obama is a Citizen. Arnold Schwartenegger is a Citizen, but he is not a "Natural Born Citizen". And if Obama was born outside the United States and his father was not a Citizen, then Obama cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Your status at the time of your birth is what determines whether you are a Natural Born Citizen.
If Obama was born outside the United States, then by virtue of the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) Obama would not be eligible to take the office of President.
It may have at the time but the law was changed subsequently. All similarly situated persons benefit ~ that’s usually the course of such things in this country.
I have read that nothing in the law that replaced this one in late 1986 says it changes anything retroactively.
Just as that law, in effect from 1953 to 1986, said nothing about changing the law in effect before 1953.
ALL new laws do not apply retroactively.
Obama can end all of this by releasing his real BC.
Why doesn’t he?
His campaign had said that the BC recently posted on several websites, including his own, was the real one.
That one is now an admitted fake, by the guy who faked it.
What is Obama hiding?
I, for one, wouldn't put money on that.
"He who votes doesn't count, only he who counts the votes counts."
Yes, it's a graphic satire of so-so quality which should be obvious. The crux of the matter is the true nature of Hussein's "innocent vacation to Pakistan and India"--
Hussein's campaign claims the 1981 trip to Karachi was merely to visit a friend's family.
The activities and associations of the friend and his family are quite damning.
A man says he's only visiting his uncle--but the man is Ramzi Yousef and his uncle is Sheikh Khalid Mohammed. . .or the man is Yassir Arafat and his uncle is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Yes, we must continue to research Hussein, for his real story disqualifies him with every newly revealed chapter.
You're using a similar logical fallacy to those who said: "Why won't President Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan if he has nothing to hide?"
Or look at it from a game-theory perspective: if he doesn't have a legit BC, then he won't show it; if he does have a legit BC, why show it?
In fact, if he's legit, it serves him well not to show it except under his timing...perhaps after critics put themselves out there in a vulnerable spot.
Fact is, he's taking NO real heat from this, so why respond now and draw attention to it? A smart player doesn't let his opponent dictate his moves.
I saw that, didn’t think of doing that until you said that! LOL!!
Oh BS. He still has a low res version of the fake BC up on his own “stop the smears” site as “proof” of his ciizenship.
If he had a real one, that fake would be GONE like days ago.
PS: this was the exact Kerry strategy vis a vis "Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth" for a few months.
How did that work out for him?
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 11:10:39 AM by David
What’s the link man? Did I mention I love you?
Yet in the last election some districts had 110% + voter turnout.
Not a peep from the MSM.
Not necessarily true.
1409. Children born out of wedlock
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001409——000-.html
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.