IMAGE and data from website for the record:
The embedded EXIF file information dates the image file from March 12, 2008, while FactCheck claims vaguely that the shot was taken "recently"
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 ...
That has been put out there, but has anyone seen evidence of that? Like the final degree? In my State divorce papers are in public domain, except for those deemed not for public viewing.
I think I read somewhere where Senator Inuay (I think) supposedly saw it, but I wouldn't take his word for it, since we know he is for Obama.
The origin of the term is a practical joke where inexperienced campers are told about a bird or animal called the snipe as well as a usually ridiculous method of catching it, such as running around the woods carrying a bag or making strange noises.The purpose of a wide democratic snipe hunt is to keep the opposition occupied with an impossible task. It's a bonus that they get a laugh out of it.
* Is there anything that wikipedia doesn't cover?
And the best of snipe hunters can catch a snipe, too. I do seem to recollect that I was "Order of the Snipe Arrow" or something like that.
I'm pretty sure that I come from a family where we learned to convince even the people who set up the snipe hunt as a joke that there really are snipes, and that gee yes we did catch one, and yet had to let it go because the mother snipe came lumbering up and took little jimmy as hostage, and he wouldn't be here alive unless we had freed the baby snipe and drove the two of them away.
Thanks for including me in your thoughts.
Since I haven’t heavily involved myself in the issue I can only approach this from what I would call a common sense point of view.
I believe that your views are more in line with reality than the witch hunt that is trying to prove Obama isn’t constitutionally eligible.
At this point the only thing that would derail Obama is by someone coming out inside the Hawaii State Govt that would say they were part of the Obama birth certificate forgery. Minus that.. there is no there there as they say.
As you say for the “conspircy” people.. I would more buy into dirty tricks of getting the brillant people in Conservative blogs to waste all their time on something that isn’t there then I would buy into the fact that Obama isn’t eligible.
IMAGE and data from website for the record:
The embedded EXIF file information dates the image file from March 12, 2008, while FactCheck claims vaguely that the shot was taken "recently"
Mounds are so delicious.
http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20089295&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6
Born in the U.S.A.?
By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
08/25/2008
... Sean Smith, Obama’s Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.
The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Recently, FactCheck.org staffers "touched, examined and photographed" the original birth certificate kept at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago and concluded the document is genuine.
(LOL!)
"The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.," FactCheck.org staffers concluded. Sean Smith, Obama's Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.
The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
...for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
... Sean Smith, Obama’s Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.
The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
If that part of the story is correct, a joint investigation by the U S Attorney's Office and the Federal Election Commission ought to bring the issue to a head.
I have long been of the view that in the final analysis, the political establishment will not take the risk of Obama's election if he is not eligible to serve. For the reason that his election under those circumstances would expose each of his legal acts as President to immediate challenge in Federal District Court under circumstances where the plaintiff will have significant economic interests at risk and resources to mount an effective attack.
All it takes is a single Federal District Court judge to permit this kind of investigation which could well result in a Constitutional crisis that would interrupt the continuing ability of the U S Government to function.
As long as the issue can be swept under the rug with irrelevant disclosures like the recent FactCheck publication, it doesn't have any material impact on the electoral process. But refusal to bring the issue to a head before the election risks continuing function of the government after the election.
Particularly the case under circumstances where both candidates are exposed to the same risk.
Bump
08/25 bump
Particularly the case under circumstances where both candidates are exposed to the same risk.The McCain issue is nonsense as well. The court disposed of it recently primary based on lack of standing to bring the suit. See ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss in Hollander v. McCain
McCain's lawyers argued that Congress is the place for these issues to be resolved.
If that part of the story is correct, a joint investigation by the U S Attorney's Office and the Federal Election Commission ought to bring the issue to a head.Whoops, I forgot this part. The Hollander decision provides all the reasons that the courts have no jurisdiction in the Berg case as well.
But in reality, I think we're making this too complicated. I've come to believe the "natural born" clause refers to C-Section babies. At the time of the framing of the Constitution a C-Section probably left the kid a little touched in the head. Natural birth was better.
Do we know if either of the candidates were born via C-Section?
McCain's lawyers argued that Congress is the place for these issues to be resolved.
No.
Court just held no standing--that's a procedural ruling; nothing to do with the merits. Probably wrong; but not going to be reversed before the convention either.
Similar cases are pending against McCain in a number of other jurisdictions--one would guess that one of them may find a federal district judge who is interested in the case.
Further, and more important, none of these cases are decisions on the merits of whether or not McCain is eligible to serve as President under Article II, Sec. 1--and, if he were elected, every time during the entire term of his office that he takes any act contrary to the economic interest of a person with sufficient resources to pursue the issue, the offended person will have an immediate direct remedy at the local courthouse.
And enough of these cases will find more than one federal judge who is interested in the issue--and have the potential to bring the constitutional process of the federal government to a halt.
I doubt that the political establishment is likely to let it get to that point--we will see.
In McCain's case, it is clear that he is not eligible--he was born in Panama, a citizen of that country, subject to its sovereignty from the day of his birth.
Congress has nothing whatever to do with the issue whatever Mr. McCain's counsel might argue--the issue is a pure Con Law issue to be resolved by the first court that has jurisdiction to render a final verdict.
B)The signature stamp and date stamp look equally clear, yet it is impossible to bring out anything more than a spotty and amorphous blob, which people like Koyaan, RayAus, etc. "hail" as proof of its "authenticity."
If I ever posted that, I'd be laughed off the planet
There is no reason, whatsoever, for the signature stanp to be that way, EXCEPT if it were a forgery.
C)The embossed seal in the photos shows up 3,000% percent clearer than that almost totally faded embossed seal on the FactCheck image. Not only is it faded, but only 1/2 to 2/3 of it show at all. Compare that to every other COLB run through image enhancement, and it's only the FactCheck/Kos image that looks this way.
Court just held no standing--that's a procedural ruling; nothing to do with the merits. Probably wrong; but not going to be reversed before the convention either.But doesn't Congress have the specific duty in the Constitution to supervise the election. This is different than a Marbury v. Madison constitutional review since Congress is specifically given the duties of managing the election. The challenge should be taken up when the electoral vote is accepted. After the inauguration it would be up to Congress to impeach as well. The court cannot remove a president.
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.
In McCain's case, it is clear that he is not eligible--he was born in Panama, a citizen of that country, subject to its sovereignty from the day of his birth.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.
McCain clearly has dual-citizenship but I just don't see where that makes him ineligible.
I'm normally completely opposed to amending the Constitution but in this case I think it makes sense to clarify the issue. Something along the lines of non-naturalized.
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.