So, this is Obama in 5th grade:
And, Race, you say this is Obama in 4th grade?
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 ...
Unless you work at CSI... ;-)
The phrase "native-born citizen" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The phrase in the Constitution is "natural born citizen".
"No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;" ...... U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.
Current U.S. law defines a natural born U.S. citizen ("citizens of the United States at birth") as follows:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. 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; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
That was the point. Pixel dimensions don't necessarily represent the quality of the image.
ROTFLOL! Ain't that the truth!!!
You’re thinking of “natural-born” not “native-born.” They aren’t the same thing.
That’s the United States Code, totally irrelevant to the wishful-thinking crowd! ;-)
fyi...
snopes is VERY liberal. use with caution.
The point is pixel dimensions do represent the resolution of an image.
I haven’t followed this issue closely because it smacks of a fools errand, since the LibMedia will go to any length to cover any Obama scandal. But, it seems to me if Hussein would just release the blanked-out “certificate No.” it could be verified as valid or not valid by the State of Hawaii.
Yes, distorting the original content of the pixels.
We need more ammo ................. FRegards
I will concede that what she might be wearing is the 70's Nancy Sinatra Boots are made for walking type of dress. If this picture is indeed real and her son was 10, it would have been the 70's.
Please alert us when Israel Insider's next story comes out. He stated that he had an exchange of e-mails with McKinnon re the "birth certificate" which he will detail in his next piece on the subject.
The Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states that the President must be a "natural born citizen" but the Constitution does not define what the term "natural born" means.
That definition is left to U.S. law and that definition has changed, in accordance with U.S. law, throughout the course of U.S. history.
The first U.S. law that addressed the term "natural born citizen" was the Naturalization Act of 1790 ..... "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".
If U.S. law does not define the term "natural born", what does?
An OB/GYN who states that candidate John Smith is not a "natural born" citizen because he delivered John Smith in 1951 in a New York City hospital by C-Section and not by vaginal delivery?
A hippie who declares that only those born through "natural childbirth" without pain meds or epidurals are "natural born citizens"?
An al Qaeda operative couple that claims that their child, born in New York while they were engaging in sabotage operations, is a "natural born" citizen but the child of a U.S. Naval officer and his wife born during an overseas accompanied tour of duty is not?
The intent as best can be determined of the Framers.
Undoubtedly- the headline is somewhat misleading- although technically correct- McKinnon admits to messing around with Hawaii birth cert’s...in fact does a little show and tell- AND that information does ineed, subvert Obama’s claim on site that it’s legit..
Rest assured- I’m keeping my eye out fo Part V of the series- if I don’t post it- some other freeper will:)
Notice how many views this thread has had since it was posted. Remarkable.
The intent as best can be determined of the Framers.
Exactly.
When was the Constitution ratified?
1789.
When was the first U.S. law defining the term "natural born" passed?
The very next year in 1790.
Was it therefore the intent of the Framers that the term "natural born" be defined by U.S. law?
Yes, that would be self evident. The Framers themselves passed the Naturalization Act of 1790.
In that 1790 law, why would a person born in a foreign country be deemed a "natural born" citizen?
Because it was recognized by the Framers that the citizenship of the parent mattered, in spite of where, geographically, you were born.
bookmark
Less than 33,000...
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.