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 take Lincoln's side. Washington would have too -- his response to the Whiskey Rebellion showed that. I think even George Mason would have taken the Union side -- but for a different reason. Mason had a much higher regard for common law.
That was the South's problem, reflected by Justice Tanney's prideful ruling in Scott. That an elite aristocracy knew best how to rule, and deserved what ruling role it had. In Tanney's case the aristocrats were Judges and Lawyers according to the strict process of law. Like a madrassa schooled Wahabist was Tanney, and like it is under Wahabbi rule, there is a class of non-humans. For Tanney that under of sub-humans were negro africans -- and his view was shared by many in the North, as was discovered post-Reconstruction and in the migration of blacks north. One didn't need Jim Crow Laws in the North -- segregation was enforced more powerfully by social ostracism and neighborhood-by-neighborhood exclusiveness.
But in the south, the negro was viewed as a man. Many were slaves, but those who weren't were men as good as any -- not subhumans like Tanney's Catholic northern mores had them. Until the anti-social consequences of Lincoln's war-zone Emancipation and the carpet-baggers after the war. Those resulted in a lasting distrust of blacks. In the rise of the KKK -- which at its peak was bigger in the North than the South, fwtw.
In the South the pre-war elite class were the landowners, and like the northern lawyer class ruled by contract law, permits and legislation, the southern class of elites ruled by land deed and land rent.
It wasn't because the South wanted to break up the Union and create a federation with greater states rights that they lost, it was because they were dropping all ties to the old natural law faster. Greek and Latin were taught, Hebrew was dropped.
Yes we do. There are standards required of those seeking office. This individual doesn't meet the standards. He knew it before swindling millions of dollars out of his supporters. He's still trying to pretend he meets the standards while not even being able to produce a very simple document that any other native born citizen of the United States could obtain for $3 and a couple minutes effort to apply for the certificate. He can't do it because he's not a native born citizen. All the flim flam matters not. He's not qualified to run for the office.
Our system is perfectly fine. It doesn't need changing. The ineligible scam artist needs to be officially disqualified and removed from the nominating process. We require a native born U.S. citizen to avoid foreign entanglements and misplaced loyalties. It was done for a very good reason. That reason has not changed. The non-native born scam artist running for the Democrat nomination has stated he affinities for Muslims over the interest of the United States in his own writings. That is unacceptable. Aside from not being a native born citizen, he already has divided loyalties. Even if he passed the technical requirement of being a native born citizen, he is an anti-American Marxist. He is politically and socially inept and illiterate in the simplest aspects of international relations. There's plenty of reasons to oppose him. It's just much easier to remove him on a strict legal technicality. Just the way he won his earlier political positions by technically disqualifying other black voters who preferred his opponent.
Thanks for the info. However, the Russians can once again place four to six divisions on Iran’s 2,000 kilometer border with “Russia/USSR” as they did when the Khomeini 1979 revolution they incited was in progress.
IN that event, they had four divisions of dark haired, Farsi/Persian speakers waiting, who were later aimed at Afghanistan.
They already have some 50,000 Russian consultants/advisors inside Iran, virtually one or more in every islamic iran’s government office or organization. So in depth intel.
Although they would have to cross a high mountain range to send boots on the ground at us if we take Khuzestan province (oil fields) as part of our “protection of Persian Gulf oil, we would still have quite a battle on our hands against Russian troops sweeping in from the North..
The other side of this coin is that Khuzestan runs parallel to Iraq for quite a long stretch and would simplistically be an extension of our Iraq ops further South and a tad East, rather than a totally new war zone.
Our blockade would be a declaration of war on Iran (good idea) and Russian and China seem to be establishing an underground set of cooperation mindsets with China’s tons of cash Dollars being needed by Russian development of their oil fields (about $25 billion required). this amount is petty cash for China, which holds abvout two or three trillion dollars in cash..
Free flow thought additions to your comments.
I can see the same ruling coming out after the election as before for this class of plaintiff.
I think your point is that there may be some other plaintiff later that can show actual harm was done and possibly get standing. A corporate interest that can show some decision has harmed them. I can't see how the court would allow them to sue based on the Presidents eligibility for office. The court would restrict them to challenging specific decisions.
From your #5400: You're taking the the definition of "natural born" to mean born inside the United States. It would take a lot of serious legal parsing to get that meaning out of it. It's hard to imagine the founders intended for the children of ambassadors who were born abroad to be ineligible. Much less soldiers stationed abroad.
I am not going to get very far into this with you but I want to address a couple of your legal points.
The power of Congress with respect to elections is spelled out in Article II, Sections 1-3 and it is not to "supervise elections".
If Congress looked at the guy who got the most votes and said "this guy is not eligible" they could presumably declare him not elected.
But the Constitution is couched in terms of "eligibility" to hold the office, not legality of candidacy. So when an ineligible person gets elected, the defect continues into his administration. And leaves his actions in office open to challenge by appropriate legal process.
Your view of legal standing is correct. The dismissal against McCain is simply that the plaintiff was not the guy to make the claim. McCain is still ineligible.
Earlier on the thread, a number of people here would like to encourage or participate in a legal challenge. All very good. But the point we have attempted to make is that getting in to a legal setting to assert the eligibility claim against both of these candidates is a difficult effort.
Standing is one of the principal problems; the other is "lack of a case or controversy"--the courts don't decide hypothetical issues; as to either one of these candidates, the answer to a suit is that the guy might not get elected.
That defense might well be argued to have disappeared if both McCain and Obama get the nominations--the argument is then in the context that both are not eligible.
What is the "natural born" test? There is obviously no law (decision authority) that directly addresses the issue. The problem is that a person who is born outside the geographical limits of the 50 states is subject to the legal sovereignty of the foreign power which has jurisdiction over the area where he was born. The sovereign of that area could impose whatever limits on the person the sovereign choose including the right to limit the conduct of the person by legal process in future years.
That is why you have the test; that is why the test means (among other things) that to be eligible to be President of the US, a person must have been born in the geographical limits of the US. That is the foundation of Joshua Benjamin's analysis of Obama's Indonesian citizenship as an obstacle; if a person successfully creates a foreign sovereignty limitation on their U S Citizenship of any character, they are not eligible either.
How a court would decide this issue in the modern world, you don't know. And the issue has a number of nuances. But as to McCain, he is clearly not eligible under this test; and as to Obama, assuming he was born in Kenya which I believe it is abundantly clear that he was, Obama is not eligible either and that is how the court should come down.
As to the other objections to Obama, the courts should probably hold him ineligible also. However if the issue comes up in a context in which he has prevailed in the election and can prove he was born in Hawaii, I assume the courts will hold him eligible in any event although that decision does fly in the face of the legal proposition.
Sure, we ought to amend the Constitution and fix this--suppose you have a national disaster and the President, Vice President, Speaker, etc. are gone and you are down to looking at cabinet officers--how much time do you want to be required to spend looking at their history leaving the country without a President?
Your final point--future challenges; is also correct. If Obama wins, there will be persons with significant economic interests and resources who do have standing to challenge his legal eligibility to serve. And guaranteed, whatever reluctance the court's have at present, some District Court judge will be willing to hear the issue and address the merits with orders permitting discovery.
But the Constitution is couched in terms of “eligibility” to hold the office, not legality of candidacy. So when an ineligible person gets elected, the defect continues into his administration. And leaves his actions in office open to challenge by appropriate legal process.
***So, if Obambi gets elected anyways, we freepers and other activists can keep peppering him with lawsuits and other actions because he “stole the election”. Something to keep in mind.
Probably not. We don't have enough financial swat to be effective.
Point is that when the President acts, lots of economics are on the table and thus significant financial interests are impacted--they put up the five or ten million dollars necessary to do the investigation and support the legal action to invalidate the President's act they don't like.
If I were to take a major action against Iran, here is what I would do.
1. Move 2 to 3 carrier groups into the gulf, including 2 MEF’s (Marine Expiditionary Force), and what ever SEAL teams not engaged elswhere.
2. In the dark of night launch a massive air campaign against all military target in Iran, with special attention given to their naval/coastal defenses and installation.
3. Simultaneously seize every Iranian Oil platform in the gulf using SEALs and Marines.
Most of Iran’s Oil is produced by these offshore platforms. Without that oil, they will be starved of money. They cannont risk their destruction by attacking them (we can threaten to render them unusable if they do).
We tell Iran that they can have the platforms back when they have proved to OUR satisfaction that their nuclear facilities have been dismantled, the Russians have left, and Ahmednutjob has been turned over to US authorities to be put on trial for the 79 Hostage Crisis.
In the meantime, we can top off America’s tank on Iran’s dime.
No boots on the ground, nothing the Russians can do about it.
And if it flies in Iranian airspace without our permission, it dies.
Okay - HOW MANY RETARDS here FAIL to understand that Obama is a legitimate US citizen because his MOTHER IS A NATURAL BORN US citizen?
Apparently far too many...
DO your Constitutional research, folks - please...!
A.A.C.
#Indy said, on August 26th, 2008 at 9:25 pm-30-I can’t verify this…maybe someone can. I don’t know if it is true or not, but this blog was on No Quarter
Is this true
TriciaNC // August 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm
IMPORTANT!
Phillip Berg, the man that filed the court papers regarding *61 not being a natural born citizen says he has within the last hour received confirmation that *61 was indeed adopted by Lolo Soetoro and was an Indonesian citizen. He also has confirmation, *61 used the Indonesian passport to go to Pakistan in 1981.
There is no record he revoked that citizenship and swore oath to this country.
Says he wants us to get ahold of any delgates to make *61 face this and step down ASAP before he is nominated.
Says also believes (although he has yet to receive full disclosure of all case law…is working on it) he may not even be eligible to be a US Senator.
Says he is 99.99% sure.
He says Repubs have this info but probably will not do anything until he is nominated.
#Original Joe said, on August 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Could be disinformation, just like the rumor that Hillary’s campaign debt was paid off.
#Snoopy said, on August 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
The lolo Seotoro adoption papers are in route to Phil Berg. When asked to confirm the story , Phil said ” I can not confirm this, wink , wink, “.
Delivery confirmation has date for 08/27/08
Ed Hale will have all the information on the papers on tomorrows show.
-http://www.hcsfjm.com
Retards? Great line! Personally I am surprised how few CAPS you used.
Highway 61 Revisited, see post above.
Holy crap! Thanks for the ping:) On my way over to read TD now.
FWIW IMHO — and this is NOT something that the courts have ever decided, AFAIK — Obama is NOT a natural born US citizen because HIS DAD IS A NATURAL-BORN KENYAN CITIZEN.
thanks!
#5431 Lucy.
Thanks, Fred.
Ping.
Thanks for the ping, I was wondering about this...
Says he is 99.99% sure.
***It’s that 0.01% that kills you.
Perhaps he will just hand it over to Hillery? Or will Hillery contest the nomination on the grounds of Obama's standing as a non US citizen?
Hillery could win that argument in DNC committee before Obama receives the nomination? Howard Dean will be her greatest rival.
Very interesting.
Many people feel that the citizenship issue would not be ripe until the electoral college holds its post election vote. Riots for sure then if Obama will have won the election.
Thanks for the ping Lucy.
The power of Congress with respect to elections is spelled out in Article II, Sections 1-3 and it is not to "supervise elections".My point was that The Constitution gives some of the power over the election to Congress and the rest is not mentioned. I take that to mean the founders wanted Congress to handle presidential elections.If Congress looked at the guy who got the most votes and said "this guy is not eligible" they could presumably declare him not elected.
If the courts cannot remove a sitting president how can they remove a president elect?
But the Constitution is couched in terms of "eligibility" to hold the office, not legality of candidacy.Correct....
the other [problem] is "lack of a case or controversy"--the courts don't decide hypothetical issues; as to either one of these candidates, the answer to a suit is that the guy might not get elected.
McCain's lawyers also argued that "he was not a state actor". The meaning I took from that is constitutionally he is just another guy expressing his views under the First Amendment. McCain is merely campaigning for candidates for the office of Presidential Elector. The fact that those candidates plan to vote for him is incidental. Those electors could constitutionally vote for whomever they wish although by custom they usually don't. As such there is no controversy the court could decide until after The Electoral College votes. But at that point The Constitution doesn't allow the courts to address it.
While the court didn't rule on this point I have a lot of faith in Ted Olsen to put forth solid arguments.
So when an ineligible person gets elected, the defect continues into his administration. And leaves his actions in office open to challenge by appropriate legal process.I'm sure a lawyer will toss that argument in to support a claim. And I can even see where a rogue judge might allow it. But the appeals court will reverse any rulings that allow discovery on that point. There is no remedy since the courts have no constitutional power to remove an ineligible president....
If Obama [ or McCain under your theory ] wins, there will be persons with significant economic interests and resources who do have standing to challenge his legal eligibility to serve. And guaranteed, whatever reluctance the court's have at present, some District Court judge will be willing to hear the issue and address the merits with orders permitting discovery.
But the point we have attempted to make is that getting in to a legal setting to assert the eligibility claim against both of these candidates is a difficult effort.Correct. I'd say the founders did a very good job of designing a system that makes it difficult, if not impossible to do so.
What is the "natural born" test? There is obviously no law (decision authority) that directly addresses the issue. The problem is that a person who is born outside the geographical limits of the 50 states is subject to the legal sovereignty of the foreign power which has jurisdiction over the area where he was born. The sovereign of that area could impose whatever limits on the person the sovereign choose including the right to limit the conduct of the person by legal process in future years.But how is this any different for someone born inside the United States who had at least one immigrant parent? They likely received foreign citizenship by blood from that parent as well. This could conceivably go beyond the second generation depending on the laws of the other country. In that case we would be ceding to other countries the ability to define who is eligible to be our president. Did the founders intend to yield sovereignty here?That is why you have the test; that is why the test means (among other things) that to be eligible to be President of the US, a person must have been born in the geographical limits of the US. That is the foundation of Joshua Benjamin's analysis of Obama's Indonesian citizenship as an obstacle; if a person successfully creates a foreign sovereignty limitation on their U S Citizenship of any character, they are not eligible either.
Foreign citizenship can be renounced and that is likely the acceptable resolution to any controversy if it applies to either of these candidate for the office.
My problem with this whole line of attack is that it takes facts not in evidence and creates legal controversies that don't exist. Obama may have been born in Kenya. Obama may have been adopted in Indonesia. Obama may have traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.
Show me a point in US law that says a dual-national using their foreign passport will lose their citizenship.
Show me a point in US law that says a child can lose his citizenship through foreign adoption or naturalization.
Show me a point in US law that says a citizen's "natural born" status can be taken away without also taking away their citizenship. The second word in the phrase is "born" which implies a state at birth. It takes a lot of legal parsing to remove the plain meaning of that word. The founders could easily have said something about divided loyalities but choose not to.
Which gets back to my theory of a Democratically led snipe hunt. The Democrats know this issue cannot go anywhere and are quite willing to feed it as a diversion. It's candy. It's not good for you but it tastes really good. It makes you fat and slow. The Democrats know the truth of this issue and can put it to bed at a time of their choosing. I'd say the Democratically filed Berg case is likely the time of their choosing.
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.