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 ...
Very, Very interesting. All those BC that say DATE ACCEPTED you can see a seal, without having to squint your eyes.
So did you or did you not wished to be pinged with the results of the FOIA request?
the deCosta document shows it was ACCEPTED in May, 1930.
... I have since acknowledged that there must be more than one version of BC abstracts...
Due to regular Revisions of the format,perhaps?
The date on the rear of the obama document, is, IMO the date the document was issued.
It would be most helpful if you would supply us with the date your FILED certificate was issued. Can you do that?
Yes, please do ping me for that. Any idea when that info may be incoming?
I am not getting sucked back into the wacky vortex where I am asked for info, I give it, and then my credibility is attacked because my answer isn’t what some want to hear or believe.
I am finished responding to this thread, with the exception of the FOIA-ping txflake mentioned.
Have a good weekend everyone.
A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
New York Times ^ | July 11, 2008 | Adam Liptak
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 11:29:35 PM by reaganaut1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043909/posts
SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER!
*
Thanks for the ping. I did catch that article earlier.
I'm sorry if I repeat myself, but I'll put all my gleanings about these photos in one place, and I won't make anything up. When done, will you comment?
1. In the photo with Obama and boy (photo 2), I see the ticket counter behind them. That counter has a raised middle with the ticket equipment, and lower metal-topped baggage counters on each side. The ticket counter has a pole that angles out and then rises up, holding a destination sign, San Francisco.
In the black and white photo (photo 3), I see the same counters, with the same sign. Now I can see that the top of the pole then angles over to hold the destination sign, this time Los Angeles.
2. That same sign in photo 2 was the source of speculation that the photo was actually taken at SFO. An optical illusion makes the sign look like a banner on the wall, but it is really hanging on the metal pole. In the photo with Obama and Ann (photo 1), I can see how the bottom right corner of the San Francisco sign covers the top of the Philippines Airlines sign on the back wall. See my post 2834 for more of my thoughts on the position of the photographer, angle of shot, and impact on terminal landmark movement.
3. In photo 2, above the boy's left shoulder I see the distant orange-colored Christmas tree (tree 1). I can see a vertical line on the right running up along the side of tree 1. This is another ticket counter sign pole. This one is holding a square sign. The sign is blocking the top of the Christmas tree. Below the tree, I can see the ticket equipment behind the counter.
In photo 3, I can see that the ticket counters are arranged in rows, with the different stations hanging different rectangle and square signs, just like in photo 2.
4. In photo 3, I see a lighted wall sign that runs the length of the wall. This sign says "Pan American." Below is a wall map of the world.
In photos 1 and 2, I see the same kind of lighted wall sign. In photo 1 I can see that the sign says "Philippines Airlines" and "Japan Airlines."
In photo 3, to the left of the "Pan American" sign, I see a sign that says "To Gates." From this, I glean that the "Pan American" side is facing the tarmac. I see the row of windows below the ceiling, which I glean was put on this side to see the planes coming and going. In photos 1 and 2, I see no windows below the ceiling. I glean that this is because it is the street side.
5. In photo 3, I see the ceiling lights that form a row of three-light rectangle fixtures running the length of the ceiling by the wall, then a row of single round lights. In photo 2, I see the corner of the same rectangular fixture with the square counter sign blocking out the middle light. The single round light is in the corner of the photo.
6. Conclusion - I conclude that all the photos were taken in the same terminal.
I believe that Obama, Ann, and the boy, were located near the wall map when they took photos 1 and 2. In photo 3, the right-back-corner counter sign is behind and below the square sign from a counter up front. The resolution of photo 3 blurs out the text of the counter sign, but if I really wanted to believe, I could be convinced that the counter sign says "San Francisco." The square counter sign in front of it is the one I see blocking the top of tree 1 in photo 2.
The person who took photos 1 and 2 would have been facing the spot that the photographer of photo 3 was standing, shooting back at their spot.
-PJ
On the new thread (2043991) someone posted a link to a section of Dreams From My Father.
http://www.nationmedia.com/EastAfrican/01112004/Features/PA2-2212.html
In this excerpt he says that his Grandma told him that his father and his mother were both coming to Hawaii for Christmas. Maybe they came on the same plane and one of the grand-parents took the pictures.
I agree with everything you described about the pictures. 1,2 and 3 had to be the same terminal. The new terminal in # 4 is very different. I just find it very very hard to understand how the Christmas pictures could be taken in a terminal that no longer existed at the time they were supposed to be taken. Maybe someone should contact the airport instead of relying on Biglook.
“What the whole world is missing here is that McCain was born in the Republic of Panama and NOT the Canal Zone, U.S. territory.”
This is just ridiculous. We’ve just been through close to 3,000 comments saying that Obama would be “natural born” wherever he was born if his mother had spent 5 years in the U.S. after her 14th or 16th birthday before his birth (which she didn’t). Why wouldn’t the same thing apply to McCain? He, in fact had two U.S. citizens as parents, not one. What difference does it make where he was born?
>>>Maybe they came on the same plane and one of the grand-parents took the pictures.
If that were true, I would think all three would be in the same shot. Since they aren’t, it lends the appearance that Ann took one picture and handed the camera to the boy (whom I still say is Malik) to take the other.
That is funny. You and I must have been on two different 3,000 comment threads.
David was kind enough to break his explanation of the legal to a summary thread for us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts
Obama and McCain: Citizenship And Eligibility—Legal Issues
Here you go Gatun! A new thread on McCain’s citizenship status! And some of your knowledge is already being posted over there!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043909/posts
I couldn’t ping you from there. I didn’t have the characters on my font map to put the accent on the ‘u’.
Thank you.
What Prof Chin keeps missing is that McCain was born in the city of Colón which is located in the Republic of Panama and had no relation to the Canal Zone…none what so ever. Think of it this away: Colón was in a separate country altogether. McCain might as well have been born somewhere in Kenya.
I would never, ever hire Chin for anything; and what is scary, he teaches.
Look at this:
“But the zone was generally considered an unincorporated territory before it was returned to Panama in 1999, and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.”
“…returned to Panama…”
The Canal Zone was never “returned” to Panama because it never belonged to Panama. Jimmy Carter gave away our property.
“…and some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.”
I have never read such Shi’ite. It is not true.
Anyway, thank you for the heads up. It is maddening that these folks who are suppose to know it all don’t know anything about the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama.
Also, the important thing is to keep McNut from becoming president no matter how it is done.
Thanks again, and thank you for letting me spout off.
No.
If Stanley Ann had been in the US five years after age 16, Obama would be a citizen, even though he was born in Kenya.
There would still be the issue of whether or not he was "natural born" for purposes of eligibility to serve as president under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4 of the U S Constitution.
As can be seen from the recent press articles, many Constitutional Lawyers see the natural born test as something other than "citizen when born"--for the most part, the view is that there is a reasonably good Constitutional interpretation that the phrase means citizen born a citizen in the confines of the United States at the time of his birth.
The only wobble on that view came in the Goldwater situation when, even though Goldwater did not meet the test at the time of his birth, the territory in which he was born was ultimately incorporated in the US states. Neither Kenya nor Panama have been so incorporated.
If the argument reaches the courts, there is no conclusive authority on the question.
The Obama/McCain situations are related in that a sole attack directed at Obama is subject to political arguments about racism and political extremism. The case against McCain is sufficiently clear that there are already a number of lawsuits pending seeking the remedy of decertifying his delegates on these grounds. Combining the question as to both candidates affords the courts the opportunity to deliver a result that is completely non-partisan.
3000
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.