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.

[ameagle]

Susan Blake recalling her Aug, 1961 visit with Ann Dunham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d7PQJdKMGM

[Spunky]

Calpernia I don't believe that picture of Barack Sr and boy is Malik. Malik is the son of Obama Sr. and his first wife a dark skinned African. That boy in the picture is to light to be the son of two dark skinned Africans. As you can see by the picture of Malik he is very dark skinned.

What has me puzzled though is in Time magazine it says "In 1971, when Obama was 10, Ann sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents.......A year later, Ann followed Obama back to Hawaii, as promised, taking her daughter but leaving her husband behind."

In 71 Obama Jr. would have been 10. A year later he would have been 11. Now the ONLY source we have that he met Obama Sr when he was 10-11 is from himself. I find it hard to conceive that all these things took place at the same time. Barack sent back to states, Ann following a year later, Obama Sr. meets son. I have searched for any other source that would have put Obama Sr. back here in the states, especially in 1971-72 and cannot find any. What did he do while here, if he was? Also if IRC one of the family members reported in an article, stated that Barack Jr. when he went to Kenya 1985-1990? (can't remember) never OFFICIALLY met his father because he had died in 1982 in a car crash.

[PhatHead]

I think that’s a pretty good summary. I do wonder why the Obama campaign doesn’t stamp this out, though, which they could very easily do, I would think.

[DietCoke]

See latest article on LGF :::

Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Myth Destroyed

[RaceBannon]

FORTRUTHONLY; calpernia::you must have missed the many posts

the law stated that the parent had to have lived in the US for 5 years after age 14. BHO was born when his Mom was 18

she did NOT live in the US for ther 5 year period between age 14 and 5 years later, 19.

That means he was NOT born in a condition that would automatically grant him citizenship if the stories of his being born in Kenya/elsewhere are true.

His Mom was not military, government, old enough, or on a tourist visa or something according to these stories.

Cal, can you step in here with that citation please?

[null and void]

Did you say folks like Ford and Washington were too unstable?

Well DUH! Ford couldn't negotiate a set of stairs without tripping.

And Washington? Come on! Go to war with the world's #1 superpower with only a few muskets and precious little else? The man is clearly too delusional to be trusted with anything more significant than a cider stand!

[FORTRUTHONLY]

Try browsing his posts for the past few weeks and see the history of his legal arguments, on both Obama and McCain. Then come back and tell us if he "lacks arguments."

Boy, where do I start? First obvious error in your posting and a basic one is that we were addressing this current post and not David's history. I was not aware of his... legal notoriety but just because he posted (as a lawyer) does not make him correct. Besides, his first point made was my date of joining FR and if that's how he starts all his legal arguments I'd be weary to have him as part of my legal counsel.

He was incorrect in his statement and he should have addressed my comment only. Amendment 14 is where any lawyer should start his/her argument and also the knowledge that to the day the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue (and neither has the Congress).

Have I been impressed on his posts and legal rendered opinions? I have not bothered to read any of his posts due to his personal attack on me followed by comments lacking the proper information, contents and knowledge and chose instead, to make my FR birthdate an issue. Weak, quite weak and I am no longer interested in what "David" has to say. He is just proof that seniority means squat when it comes to informed arguments. But it's good to know he has posses :)

[Political Junkie Too]

This blog has some obvious errors, such as wrong names. The most obvious error is in stating that "On 6/20/08 the ‘expert’ Polarik claimed this certificate clearly produced a year ago was a forgery of an original from 1961..."

-PJ

[RaceBannon]

But there is a question to what you call evidence

Who says he was born in Hawaii? Only he and his campaign does.

His family in kenya says he was born in Kenya.

How many of Obama’s family in Kenya have to be lying for Obama to be telling the truth?

9? 10?

His Muslim faith never being practiced claim: Is Obama lying?

Or are his teachers in Indonesia lying? His half sister lying? His family in Kenya lying?

How many people are liars if Obama is telling the truth, and of them, why are they all SUPPORTING Obama if they are all liars?

[RaceBannon]

Neener Neener! :)

[Spunky]

"So far I have found they divorced in 1972, the late 70’s and 1980. Don’t base your beliefs on a lack of evidence."

Time Magazine: It states Ann sent Barack to Hawaii in 1971. She followed a year later (1972) taking her daughter but leaving her husband behind. (Soetoro) "Ann's husband visited Hawaii frequently, but they never lived together again. Ann filed for divorce in 1980

[FORTRUTHONLY]

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.)

But we keep digressing on this crap and ignore what is of substance: the truth is not what the MSM is interested in offering and there is a deliberate attempt in rewriting and reinterpreting the Constitution as see fit by the Supreme Court. Obama's background, his "experience", his peers need to be brought forward and not something which can be decided at legal level (by a bonehead Supreme Court as of late and a Democratic Congress) like his citizenship status.

[RaceBannon]

Oh, Come on!

Malik is DARK skined JUST LIKE DAD!

Good Heavens miss! :)

[Political Junkie Too]

...chose instead, to make my FR birthdate an issue...

Let me tell you, get over it. It's a Rite of Passage here at Free Republic. They did that to me too, on my first post, and that was back in 2000.

-PJ

[tsmith130]

I don't get it.

"Neener, neener" what?

[FORTRUTHONLY]

It's a Rite of Passage here at Free Republic

That is the funniest joke I heard this week, really. What transition am I supposed to go through by my joining FR and what am I to learn from "elders" like David (other than amateur Legal Eagle opinions)? I respect people and learn from them when they actually address the issue and not go on personal attacks, something which is more fitting of Liberal behavior (when lacking arguments start the insults). If you chose to accept this and roll over and play dead, it was your choice and that alone that does not give you the right to tell me to accept it or not.

Let me tell you, get over it.

Quite Obamesque of you, sir!

[Beckwith]

Where’s the link?

[Spunky]

"Where’s the link?"

I don't have a link. I am reading TIME MAGAZINE April 21, 2008 pgs 36-42.

[toldyou]

“My first US Passport was issued in 1972, and it had space in it for my wife and all of my children. Of course, at that time I had neither wife nor children, but if I had, they would not have needed their own passports.”

What is so strange about my passport, but what was accepted at the time....see below....

My daughter, husband, and I visited Berlin. The wall was up. I left my daughter, who was a toddler, with friends in the West, while my husband and I visited East Berlin for a few hours.

Before leaving Checkpoint Charlie to cross the wall into the East, our military police took a permanent marker and scratched out all my personal information I had written on the first page of the passport. The rules were that our military could visit the East, in uniform, but dependants could not. Thus the elimination of my name, address, etc. Because our MP’s thought it was fine, we proceeded to the East.

I was held and questioned for at least 1/2 hour while trying to cross the wall and re-enter West Berlin, but I pretended not to understand German and eventually they let me go. I have to admit my heart was thumping!

I used the same passport to re-enter the USA a few years later....no questions asked. Can you imagine what would happen in today’s world if info on a passport was crudely scratched out with a black permanent marker?

[El Gato]

Polarik starts out saying that the resoloution of an electronic image is based on dots per inch. However, resolution of an image is simply the number of pixels that it contains

Actually resolution is 1/(dots per inch) on the original. Think of it as a sampling length. If you had two features on the original separated by less than the resolution they could not be discerned as separate features.

The number of pixels in an image is (physical size in inches)* (dots per inch). You could have a physically large document scanned at low resolution be the same size in pixels as a smaller image scanned/sampled at a higher resolution.

Being able to see a feature smaller than the resolution depends on the details of the sampling/scanning. If the pixel is a true sample, then you may miss such a small feature, more likely it's some kind of average over the area represented by the pixel, in which case a high contrast small feature may be observable as a pixel of lessor contrast. Depending the details it may even "bleed" into other nearby pixels.

For images from cameras rather than scanners, the analysis needs to look at the pixels per inch in the "image" plane of the camera.