"You Americans are sooo funny!"
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 wonder if he left marks on her arm?
Good find; I have read the article but have never seen the photo before. FRED NERKS will know.
Quite the sourpuss .. LOL
There are a couple of things that bother me about that photo. Would you have a look at these areas blown up:
1. His hand on her arm. Her arm is not proportioned correctly. Look at where the hand is, look at her upper arm and then where her hand sticks out below his hand in the shadow. What happened to the rest of her arm? (be sure to enlarge to look)
2. In the space between father and daughter (water and shoreline in background), there is a blurry area right next to dad. Look at the sun glint on the water in particular. This is the sort of thing that happens when a clone brush is used - water is difficult - and the ripples in the water are showing the same thing as well as not “lining up” in that area.
3. His hand on her arm looks too big and like it belongs to an older man and the fingers look puffy whereas the other hand shows slender fingers.
Anyone agree?
(with these people, I am automatically suspicious so I had to look)
Nice image, I have one much smaller, appears to be legit.
I sometimes wonder, just how strong is that resemblance, I guess it's in the ears...
As I’ve noted before....that guy on the left , Stanley Armour Dunham, dollars to donuts, is his REAL father...not his alleged grandfather. His mother WILL turn out to be a Kenyan girlfriend of Stanley.
Sometimes it skips a generation, myself, I look the spitting image of my grandmother, and nothing like my mother.
Just going back through the thread and had a question. Is the microfilm roll that shows the Nordyke twins’ birth announcement from the same location/library/whatever as the microfilm roll of Hussein’s announcement?
Back up at #8788 it states - “The citizen-journalist was in search of the birth annoucement for the Nordyke twins, but did not find it. She also reports that of all the boxes of microfiche for the Honolulu Advertiser in that year of 1961, the box containing the weeks of Aug. 1 to Aug. 15th, was the only one showing signs of being opened before her arrival.”
Uh, btw microfiche is a rectangle of plastic less than half the size of a piece of letter size paper and is stored in an envelope. Microfilm is a long strip of plastic (whatever the film is made of) that is rolled up onto a reel and is stored in a box. So, which is it? Microfiche or microfilm? From the markings on it, it appears to be microfilm.
It’s those markings I have questions about. If the only box that appeared to be opened was the one containing Hussein’s announcements, then why is it that the twins’ announcement (located in the next box after Hussein’s) so covered in scratches? The scratches usually occur through handling and it being run through the viewing machine multiple times. Of course, my question is mute if the twins’ was from a different source location. Any idea where each box is located?
You catch on fast, lol. That's exactly how we would have done it back in the day.
I've asked this before an no one has answered, maybe no one knows, but there is money in those reels and genealogists beg for such info. The newspapers had to have made copies and mailed them around the country to various libraries. So, has anyone found them outside Hawaii? They should be out there somewhere. Of course by now they could all have been switched out with the fake copy.
It also appears he’s wearing a ring in both pictures. Throughout the years, he changes his bling. Yeah, there are lots of pics with that jacket. He’s also one to update his wardrobe season to season and year to year. Both also appear to be of the same age and facial weight.
A lot happened in ‘83 for the msm to be dead silent about. Sr. died the year before. The kids get together to claim the estate. Sarah rants that Mark is the only one entitled to it. Stanley Ann happens to be in Kenya. Hussein is there. David dies in a motorcycle accident. Old village man freaks because Hussein is the spitting image of David (date of freakout unknown and whether it happened or not is if Dreams is believable).
Later pictures show Hussein with a head scar. Mark ain’t talkin’ ‘bout nuthin’, even his age, and Sarah along with the rest of the village has been put under a gag order. Hmm, we need more pictures.
What’s that in his hand? A man purse?
Does the t-shirt say “Kentucky where the horses are”? Who sent that back from Kentucky? And what’s that thingy at the bottom of the righthand sleeve?
The boxer lived in Miami, was he still there at the same time?
interesting
Question, what are Documents #2, and #3 in your post, how do they relate to Obama??
I ran across some comments in the link below doing research on “HRS 338-17.8” that appears at the bottom of the last document you posted. The commentor here raises questions about it (when you get the page, click twice on More Comments button, go down to about 2/3rds the way down.:
Can anybody check to see when this “HRS 338-17.8” was enacted? Was it in 1982?
Text of comments here; I don’t agree with the commentor that WND et al are “birthers”,
I’m just wanting to check on that last document….
The copy of the supposed “Certificate of Live Birth” for Barack Obama (to which you provide a photobucket link) is a complete fake. How can I be sure? At least four reasons (listed below). I would also like to note that the person who prepared this fake birth certificate likely has committed a crime, by forging an official document.
(A) The document cites a statute that wasn’t enacted until 1982, 21 years after Barack Obama was born.
Take a look at the bottom of the “Certificate of Live Birth.” It cites a statute: “HRS 338-17.8”. I went to the statute, as printed in Hawaii Revised Statutes (”HRS”):
“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
Do you see the bracket at the end? That reference to “L 1982, c 182, Section 1” means that HRS 338-17.8 became law in 1982. In other words, it could not have been typed on a 1961 birth certificate, because the law did not exist until 21 years later.
(B) Madelyn Dunham’s signature misspells her name.
The signature is missing the “e” in “Madelyn”. Kind of odd that she would misspell her own name, isn’t it?
(C) The Dunham’s street is not correctly spelled.
The Dunhams lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. But the “Certificate of Live Birth” has an “l” in place of the “i”. This might not seem significant, but for the fact that the two Honolulu newspapers that published Department of Health vital statistics records both had the address correctly spelled. And here I will cite a birther source, “World Net Daily” so you don’t allege that I “made up” the newspaper announcements, or that fact that the newspapers simply printed exactly what they were provided by the Hawaii Department of Health: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI...
In other words, how did both newspapers get it right, if they were publishing notices based on a birth record that got the name of the highway wrong?
(D) The Director of the Hawaii Department of Health confirms Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
We also know this document is a fake because the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health has issued a statement unequivocally confirming that, based on documents in the State’s files, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Expand »
Registered
bearclaw 1 month ago in reply to ellid
Yes, there are so many problems with this document:
(1) I haven’t seen Madelyn Dunham’s signature, but one thing that was drilled into children (particularly girls) of that age was penmanship. The signature looks way too sloppy for someone who attended school in Kansas in the late 1920s and the 1930s.
(2) How is it that she would know the precise minute when her grandson was born in Kenya, but not have a clue where in Kenya it occurred?
(3) The signature of the registrar in Box 21 is completely illegible, likely as an attempt to make sure no one could compare the name against a list of Department of Health employees from that era.
(4) There is a typewritten date in Box 20, and no date in Box 22. On the Nordyke certificates, both boxes are filled, and the date in both boxes was done by a date stamp.
(5) The file/index numbers in the upper right corner are missing.
(6) The date in Box 5 is written as Aug. 04. It is not customary in the U.S. to put a “0” in such a date, and that doesn’t match the way the date was done for the Nordyke twins (Aug. 5).
But my favorite flaw, really, is the reference to the statute that wasn’t enacted until 1982.
It is so surpassingly strange that birthers will accept documents that are so obviously flawed, but a certified COLB in exactly the form used by the State of Hawaii, photographed from every angle, is a “fake.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Iy8i61DmAg&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP
FOR THOSE WHO STILL BELIEVE ZERO’S ELIGABILITY TO BE POTUS IS JUST A ‘BIRTHER SCAM’, BE AWARE THAT THE NET IS CLOSING:
Posted 05/01/10 Read all 34 comments +14 raves
“...as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.
“A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S. She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.”
It should also become obvious from reading this why the issue is so important.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4...
Earlier this week a special report was issued by the Northeast Intelligence Network on the many problems involved with providing proof that Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution for Presidential candidates.
Today, the chief investigative officer for the Northeast Intelligence Network, Douglas J. Hagmann, has issued Part II of his series on this issue, and has determined that there is ‘no proof’ that Obama meets the eligibility requirements as set forth by the Constitution.
Hagmann is not without his critics. In fact, in the days since the publication of his initial report, the Obama apologists have come out of the woodwork to attack, smear, and denigrate the character of the investigator, who, by the way, has been hired by many Fortune 100 companies to do top-level investigations.
In responding to those critics, Hagmann says the following:
In the first part of this investigative report, background was provided to identify the core legal and constitutional arguments in the matter of Barack Hussein OBAMA II’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. Using my investigative experience, I performed this investigation in compliance with the same “industry standards” that apply to performing background investigations of individuals selected for corporate positions by Fortune 100 companies.
Hagmann uses the very same standards that Fortune 100 companies pay him large sums of money to use in his investigations for them in order to arrive at his conclusions concerning Obama eligibility. If these standards were insufficient, one can safely conclude these large corporations would not be willing to unitize his services.
But the issue at hand is the conclusion reached by the investigator regarding Obama eligibility:
It is the conclusion of this investigator that Barack Hussein OBAMA II has not only failed to provide proof of eligibility, but has and continues to fight efforts to release the proof necessary to confirm that he is legally eligible to occupy his current position as the president of the United States.
As Hagmann points out in this second report, the Constitutional standard is ‘proof’ and not ‘evidence.’ Candidates for the office of President must PROVE their eligibility by submitting the required documents. This was never done by Barack Obama. The ‘certification of live birth’ which Hawaii claims is on record and which certain websites have reproduced does not meet the standard of ‘proof.’
In addition, Hagmann notes that many of those who support Barack Obama know full well that he has never met the Constitutional standard for Presidential eligibility.
How do we know this?
Obama supporters who are well aware of the standard of ‘proof’ of citizenship attempted to get the standard changed so that candidates such as Obama would have no problem meeting the eligibility requirements. If, as they claim, Obama is indeed eligible, then why would they make such a big deal about the need for changing the Constitution back in 2005 with regard to the standard for Presidential eligibility?
Hagmann makes this stunning revelation:
...as early as 2005, some individuals presently serving in his administration appear to have known that the eligibility issue relative to his citizenship might become a future problem.
A twenty-six page article written by Sarah P. HERLIHY was published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, Volume 81:275 titled “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.” The date of publication is 22 February 2006, although the article appears to have been written by HERLIHY in late 2005. As the title implies, the author argues that Article II of the U.S. Constitution inhibits “globalization” of the U.S. She further opines that the provision is discriminatory, outdated, and undemocratic. On page fifteen of her article, HERLIHY references several hypothetical arguments that bear an eerie likeness to the not-so hypothetical implementation of policies we are witnessing under the OBAMA administration.
Thus, it is clear that many close to Obama, and who now serve in the Administration, knew full well that their candidate would have a problem with regard to the eligibility issue.
Hagmann further notes the difficulty of getting documentation from Nancy Pelosi, the one who ‘certified’ Obama as eligible. He reports that there are discrepancies and suspicions galore regarding the manner in which Pelosi went about pushing through Obama’s candidacy, and to date, she has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that shows a vetting process into Obama’s background and required documentation.
The implications of this information are, indeed, scandalous. Hagmann has more, and that information will be reported as it becomes available.
You!Join the discussion! Leave a comment. Add Photos & Videos
Hairline is pretty much the same too. Nose is similar, although with BHO's nose in the air like that it doesn't appear as much so as in other photos, especially when the "grampa" photo is of a bit older SAD. Same with the chin/jaw, which is also similar, but made to appear less so by the Il Duce pose of BO.
Indeed, our great niece looks very much like my wife's sister, her grandmother, except in coloration. Grandma was a blue eyed blonde girl, and not much older than great niece is now when I first met her. (12 verses 10). But grandma had a "thing" with a "Mexican" fellow (her second husband, although not so for long) and her grandaughters have dusky complections and the younger one who looks like her otherwise has a mass of dark black beautiful hair, and dark eyes.
OTOH, for some reason, my brother's son was the spitting image of me from about age 8 to 14 or 15. Not so much anymore, although there is of course still quite a bit of resemblance.
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.