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.

[Raycpa]

There is a special law regarding Hawaii that makes everyone born there before statehood a citizen.

§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

[toldyou]

U.S. Citizenship by Birth or Through Parents

http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html

[Timeout]

I still say it would be worth someone checking out the old microfiche files at the Honolulu library.

Newspapers generally published birth notices provided by the hospitals. Find the birth notices for August, 1961...probably in the Honolulu Advertiser. If he was indeed born in Honolulu at that time, his name should be there.

[bvw]

Every American can be and should be when needed, an Admiral Benbow. That, btw, is one reason why America won the Revolution. Each soldier and sailor in that war fought as if the whole of the war came down to his (and sometimes a her) own ability to carry through the action. Whether actions were the arm bearing of the Continental Army, Navy, Marines and militias, the ink pushing of the founders, the financiers and the Congress or oratorical spirit-raising of the parsons and men like Tom Paine. Even the timely unsual action such as the Tea Parties or exotic thing to be done - such as the widow of Bordentown who drew the Hessian commander away from his post.

For every General Washington needed men like a simple backwoods-man Rodgers-Clark, an old indian fighter militia general like Herkimer, a able-writing drunk like Paine and so many unknown to this day sailors and captains of boats to stand up and take totally independent action in order to win. Washington never spoke down to or ignored the value of these independent actions of individuals and small groups operating on their own authority but with all the alacrity and carry-through of a Benbow.

There is a war today for this country, for this ideal of Liberty, like in those days, one fought by ideas and spirit as much a war actions.

Let every able man and woman join to the battle, and not shy from it for excuses of seeming impolite or being embarrassed. Benbow was an embarrassing man, too.

[Lynne]

“David, yes there appears to be some smoke, but the date filed is not it. I was born on such and such a date and the date mine was filed was 14 days later. It all depends on how long the orginal information gets to Health Dept Vital Statistics to be filed. “

My original Certified BC has the filed date as 5 days BEFORE I was born!! This was just a typo, of course, but Motor Vehicles rejected it. I was only 17 and I started crying, and some guy felt sorry for me and went into the back room to talk to the supervisor. It turned out the supervisor knew my uncle and that my uncle had a brother with a daughter. They let it go through. The certified copy I have now, that I obtained directly from the courthouse copy, has the correct dates on it. The point is, is that even a certified copy may have innocent errors on it.

[David]

I’m convinced the boy in the school photo is the same as the boy with mother and father by the christmas tree:

http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/29/news/art4bx.jpg

I do not agree with you--his mouth is narrower; his body frame is thinner; his cheek bones are closer together and more pronounced; his hairline is different; and his face is thinner. But, to be fair, in this school picture you post here, Obama is also older.

Although the pictures of the brother when he is older maintain their contrary characteristics.

[Lynne]

Wasn’t that communist Frank Davis (?) very friendly with the Dunhams? Wonder what the FBI has in its files?

[David]

If it is effective for births after 1986, why include language that contradicts the effective date?

I have no idea. All I can tell you is what the the statute says and what the effective date clause says.

That particularly material originates in a Technical Corrections Act which implies to me based on my experience with Tech Corrections bills in the tax area that the original statutory intent was not to apply the 1952 date which was already in the statute but rather the 1986 effective date and the original bill drafter did not get the language and Congress did not want to further amend the statute because it would make it more difficult to read correctly so it provided for the 1986 result in the effective date. But that's just my speculation, based on similar experiences in the tax area.

[David]

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Only place in the statutory material you have posted there is any room for difference with the legal analysis I have set forth is here. So the issue is when Sec. 309(c) of the Immigration and Nationalization Act became effective--or with respect to what class of persons it is effective.

Sec. 309(c) was initially codified as 8 USC Sec. 1409. And the language was adopted at the time of the 1986 or 1988 Act. Similar language in earlier versions was applicable only to pre 1952 births and thus not to Obama.

I have given you the statutory material that clearly sets forth where the effective date is to be found; found that statute; and copied into the post the effective date which is persons born after November 1986 which makes it inapplicable to Obama.

Note also that would force him to admit that he was born outside and to rewrite the record of his parent's marriage.

And if we have misread or misapplied the effective date clause (and Sec. 309(c) is somehow retroactive to apply to Obama) which I have seen nothing yet that says we have, his claim to citizen ship arose not at the time of his birth but fifteen years later when Congress adopted Sec. 309(c) in its present form--thus he clearly was not by any remote interpretation a "natural born" citizen any more than Arnold Shwartznegger.

[FreedomProtector]

wonder why drudge hasn’t picked up on this yet....

[FreedomProtector]

LOL

[David]

There is an interesting fact on the Smith Birth Certificate, filed on your #2059.

Yesterday evening, I suggested a time line for birth in Kenya that had Ann arriving back in Honolulu through Vancouver and Seattle on the 6, 7, 8 of August and immediately making a birth filing with respect to Obama. I think that because I credit the note on the (fake) birth certificate that the information was "filed on" that date.

Received a response that said the filing date on the certificate might not be the date it was actually delivered to the officer but rather the date the officer got around to looking at it.

Went back and looked at the several other birth certificates with "filed on" dates and all of them were filed on the same date as the purported birth.

Here, on the Smith Certificate, the date is the "date accepted by the state registrar" which is five days after the birth date set forth.

At some point we could make inquiry of the Hawaii Department of Health about the use of the two different filing notes; when they were used; and when the typical filing date is.

[David]

Of course he is a US citizen...but needs to be a NATURAL born citizen to qualify as President.

No.

I believe there is a record that raises a fair inference he was in fact born in Kenya and if so, he is not a US Citizen under any statute or theory I have yet seen or heard.

[DrC]

Drudge is in the tank for Obama. I sent him links to this thread days ago...

[SE Mom]

wonder why drudge hasn’t picked up on this yet....

---

There are a few possible reasons.

1- He thinks this entire story is nuts and wants no part of it..

2- Several people have suggested he’s an Obama supporter..

3- He’s waiting for bloggers to do the hard work before a siren goes up..

[FreedomProtector]

i believe that drudge is pro-life....I think it is more likely that is it related to 2 items 1) drudge's perception of the credibility of the story 2) holding fire for the best possible shot...

[FreedomProtector]

see 2096... given my belief that drudge is pro-life...hard to believe ‘2’

[PhatHead]

Drudge is pro-life. As I recall, that is why he left his gig at Fox news - they would not allow him to broadcast that stunning photo of the tiny hand reaching from the womb to the surgeon’s finger during pre-natal surgery. He did post the photo prominently on his web site.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 does not say that the president must have been born in the U.S., it says that he must be a “natural-born citizen.” You are correct that Congress cannot modify that constitutional qualification, and that that Obama bill saying that the children of military personnel should be deemed “natural-born citizens” is legally meaningless, but the fact remains that constitutional scholars for many decades have interpreted the clause to mean that the president must be a citizen at birth (thus, “natural-born”) as opposed to becoming a citizen later on (”naturalized”). What matters is what U.S. law says when the person is born.

BTW, Barry Goldwater was not born in a state, he was born in Arizona in 1909 when it was still a territory, and no state kept him off the presidential ballot in 1964; George Romney (Mitt’s dad) was the child of U.S. citizens born in a Mormon commune in Chihuahua, Mexico, and his foreign birth was not an impediment to his 1968 presidential run (he was on the ballot in the GOP primaries); and Albert Arnold Gore was not born in a state, either (he was born in the District of Columbia), but no one questioned his eligibility during his 8 years as VP nor when he ran for president in 1988 and 2000.

Regarding John McCain, he was born in the Canal Zone, which was a U.S. territory, and federal law stated that a person born in the Canal Zone that had at least one U.S. citizen parent would be a U.S. citizen at birth; unlike babies born outside the U.S. with one citizen parent, the citizen parent of a child born in the Canal Zone did not have to have lived a certain number of years in the U.S. in order for his child to be a U.S. citizen at birth. Of course, both of John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens and had lived all of their lives in the U.S. (except for time abroad while in military service, which, according to federal law, is counted as time residing in the U.S.), so John McCain would have been a U.S. citizen at birth even had he been born in the middle of China.

One point that should be clarified regarding U.S. military bases and embassies located in foreign countries. While they are usually described as “sovereign ground” of the U.S., they are not U.S. territory for purposes of U.S. citizenship laws, and a child born in a U.S. military base or embassy abroad is subject to the same rules for determining U.S. citizen at birth as a child born outside of the military base or embassy. Children born in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, for instance, are not U.S. citizens unless their parents meet the citizenship and residency requirements applicable to children born in any other foreign land.

[David]

1409(a) not 1409 (c) was ammended

No. Although that may be the source of the interpretation and technical problem. It was redesignated (c) and the language was in an earlier version of Sec. 309 but with different applicability provisions and all that was changed was the designation and the application date. Which as you point out earlier makes no sense with a November 1986 effective date but that appears to be what the statute says.

The applicable effective date clause cited above applies to all amendments to Sec. 1409.

CPA's typically do great statutory legal work, why would I be surprised.