Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)

Israel Insider ^ | 3 July 2008 | Reuven Koret

[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.

[tutstar]

Deos anyone know if the requests being made to Hawaii for info re BHO birth records would be unfound due to a misspelling of his name? There was an article found recently talking about his Senate run and his name was spelled Barak, it also mentioned he was born in Kenya but my question is if the misspelling would make a difference in the document requests being made?

[Albertafriend]

I was following Miss Tickly’s blog every day and I’m pretty sure people have put in requests for index data for any of the possible spellings.

[LucyT]

(Why is FR moving so slowly?)

Miss Tickly Update:

misstickly | November 10, 2009 at 11:58 am |

I should have checked in with you guys earlier. My husband had an accident that has temporarily left him blind in one eye. He was already blind in the other. Obviously, I had to step up for him.

It wasn’t due to any person commenting on my blog or due to anything that I was blogging about. I just shut down. I had to for my own reasons. I am VERY sorry to have alarmed you nice people. I hope you can forgive my rudeness.

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/what-happened-to-miss-ticklys-blog/

Miss Tickly,

We understand your distress. Please don't worry about not notifying us, your personal life comes first.

So sorry about your husband's accident, hope he recovers soon.

From,

The Ping List

-

[There are two things we should never worry about, the first are those things we can't do anything about. The second are the things we can do something about... oops, those pesky dangling participles, again.]

[Fred Nerks]

thank goodness! sorry to hear about the husband’s accident, but it’s so good to know she’s ok.

[LucyT]

#8,685 was a duplicate, so I asked it be removed.

[LucyT]

The official story claims Dunham and Obama, Sr. were married Feb. 2, 1961. The pair separated two years later and they divorced in 1964. Obama's father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982.

In actuality, it isn't clear Obama's parents were married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.

In his book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Andersen elaborates: "There were certainly no witnesses (to the alleged civil marriage ceremony) – no family members were present, and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling that they were even engaged."

Andersen further quoted Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Democrat-Hawaii, a self-described friend of Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, as saying that "nobody" was invited to the wedding ceremony

Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," wrote of his parents' wedding:

In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."

Obama's birth story is further complicated by the fact that when Barack Obama Sr. arrived in Hawaii at 23 years old in September 1959, he already had been married, since age 18, to a Kenyan woman named Kezia Aoko, who was allegedly pregnant with Obama Sr.'s first child when he abandoned (not divorced) her in Africa in 1957.

Obama Sr. ultimately had four children with Aoko.

WND staff writer Jerome Corsi concluded there is no evidence to suggest Obama Sr. was divorced from Aoko either in Kenya before he left for Hawaii or in Hawaii prior to the alleged marriage with Dunham.

[azishot]

Thanks for letting us know, LucyT.

Hoping that her husband has a speedy recovery.

(It’s always the *not knowing* that fuels our imaginations.)

[LucyT]

Ping to # 8,681.

[Faith]

Prayers for your husband’s complete recovery along with prayers for you as well . . .

[LucyT]

PING.

[Thanks, anonymous.]

Posted 1 hour ago on scribd.

It may be Carter’s response to the motion for reconsideration.

KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 91 - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on M

Case 8:09-cv-0082-DOC-AN Document 91 Filed 11/13/2009

http://tinyurl.com/yacdl5e

or

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22509969/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-91-REQUEST-FOR-JUDICIAL-NOTICE-re-MOTION-for-Reconsideration-re-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-Case-89-11-13-09-RFJN

[MestaMachine]

This is an addendum FROM Orly Taitz to the original filing. It is information she is asking Judge Carter to take into consideration along with the original information she previously submitted on her Motion for Reconsideration.

Judge Carter has issued NO RULING as of this date.

[STARWISE]

New from Donofrio

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue.

###

November 13, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[Ed. UPDATE 6:48 PM. Advanced Indiana broke this story first yesterday.

Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks.

This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]

The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause.

The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue.

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, but then they went ahead and visited some of the underlying merits of the case in a rather cavalier manner. Since any appeal of this decision will be dismissed on other procedural grounds, no appellate court will ever review them on this issue.

The upper courts will simply deny the appeal without reaching this aspect. So they took a crack at stopping this in its tracks.

And they failed miserably. And it’s very encouraging. The arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals are weak. The facts used by them are also a fantastic attempt at propaganda. For example:

With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…

That’s interesting.

Later in the decision they reject this fact. Amazing.

It appears that the Indiana Appellate Court was not willing to accept that Barack Obama Sr. was the President’s father. That alone tells you something was rotten in Denmark. But the legal arguments they proceed upon, particularly their selective quotations from the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases illustrate a wonderful example of a court acting as one of the advocates.

Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point.

Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.

Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:

1. natural born

2. citizens by statute

3. 14th amendment citizens

- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.

- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.

- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.

All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.

To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.

Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident.

The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:

The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.

The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.

Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

- he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.

Leo C. Donofrio

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/

---

“Thank you.” From Leo Donofrio to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Posted in Uncategorized on November 14, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

Dear Indiana Court of Appeals:

- Thank you for bestowing my work with meaning. I have been feeling that the efforts I put into this blog had become meaningless. But since your propaganda filled decision in the Arkeny and Ruse case came down, I know my readers are more than prepared to see your ruse for the deception it is. They are educated and well versed in the law and facts and prepared for this moment.

- Thank you for ignoring the important fact of American history unearthed by this blog in December 2008 when we exposed that Chester Arthur lied about his parents heritage and that his lie kept the nation from knowing that he was a British subject at the time of his birth.

Your mention of him in Footnote 16 makes it appear as if the nation was aware of Chester Arthur’s dual nationality, but there was not one single reference to this fact in all of American recorded history until that news was broken here.

Your decision gives our work true meaning and depth. For anyone who has come into contact with our reporting thereto knows – whether they support Obama or not – that you have disgraced your robes and oaths by playing fanciful with the facts and portraying that which was hidden from the voters, the media and American history – until we discovered it last year – as if it were known to the public at large the whole time.

Your disgrace is my potential realized.

- Thank you for the motivation you have recharged my soul with. The issue is not going away. Instead, it’s destiny awaits in the DC District Court.

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

21 Comments »

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/thank-you-from-leo-donofrio-to-the-indiana-court-of-appeals/

[Faith]

God bless Leo. May He give him wisdom and discernment, along with the desire to prevail in the pursuit of the truth. Thanks for the post, STARWISE.

[Fred Nerks]

...With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…

FIGHTTHESMEARS:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

-------------

I take it that the fightthesmears acceptance of the factcheck statement doesn't count?

[STARWISE]

Totally false .. that same language is
on both sites.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

[Fred Nerks]

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

sounds like something his lapdog Bauer made up for him.

[STARWISE]

Absolutely .. he takes great liberties
with cocky surefootedness.

[jcsjcm]

bookmark and following!

[Diver Dave]

Placing another “Toot”mark.