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.

[Calpernia]

Looks like jellybean has zeroed in on some good data on the Obama Sr. and mistery boy in the airport info:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040486/posts?page=2678#2678

[Cyropaedia]

No one is saying that she has to be on the campaign trail with. She just has to be a little more accessible to the press. All he his other relatives has spoken with the media.

Hell, even McCain's 90-something mother has been talking to the media.

Obama's grandmother should be allowed to talk to the press. Especially after her grandson tossed her under the bus in front of the entire country.

[davandbar]

“The new John Rodgers Terminal was dedicated August 22, 1962,”

So the picture was in that terminal ... around Christmas 1971.

I AGREE WITH YOU REGARDING THE DATE/PHOTO ISSUE. HERE IS AN EARLIER POST FROM THIS THREAD FROM BIGLOOK:

Friday, July 04, 2008 6:28:52 PM · 1,019 of 2,686
BIGLOOK to davandbar; Spunky
“My eyesight is normal but my memory is excellent......I’ve only walked past the Overseas terminal at HNL dozens of times...”

The question is ‘are they leaving Hawaii or is she there to pick him up?’

Both look to fresh to have just gotten off a long flight from overseas. Besides the area is the ticketing counters and check in, not Customs and Baggage Claims which is on the concourse below. I suspect one or both were leaving.”

If BIGLOOK has been to the terminal several times and recognizes it, then this picture must be of the new terminal (opened in 1962).

Unless, perhaps, BIG LOOK recognizes it from dozens of trips PRIOR to 1962.

ALSO, KEEP IN MIND, THESE COMMENTS WERE MADE WELL BEFORE THERE WAS A DATE ISSUE. WE WERE STILL TRYING TO CONFIRM WHICH AIRPORT THIS WAS - SFO OR HNL. AND, WE ONLY HAD THE “WEDDING” PHOTO, NOT THE OBAMA I AND II PHOTO.

SO, I’M SURE THOSE PHOTOS ARE FROM THE NEW TERMINAL OR IS BIGLOOK WRONG?

I THINK THE BC ISSUE IS MORE QUESTIONABLE THAN THE PHOTOS.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

All:

Reference post #2593.

This post shows a copy of McCain’s birth certificate.

I replied to that post saying:

“The birth certificate states ‘place of birth,’ ‘Colon, (Republic of) Panama,’ and not Coco Solo, Canal Zone (U.S. territory).”

On the other hand, everybody is jumping all over BO for the possibility he was born in Kenya.

Why is McCain being given a pass?

We now have solid proof McCain was not born in U.S. territory but Panamanian territory; but nobody is making a fuss over it. It is all about BO.

Down with both of them.

[Calpernia]

Since you are the one clarifying for BigLook, Biglook cannot be wrong ;)

[Calpernia]

>>>Why is McCain being given a pass?

McCain gets no pass from me. This is an Obama BC thread. Hence the focus pertaining to here only.

If you go back to my post with the BC on it, it is hyperlinked to my blog with the Court Complaint posted on it. It is in text as well as a downloadable PDF.

[davandbar]

I don’t know who or where biglook is, but I have been following this thread (and occasionally commenting) from day one. It was just today that I remembered that comment from biglook because I was REALLY impressed that he could make out the writing (white background / black lettering) on the wall behind obama/stanley from the photo posted. Biglook made that comment about being at the airport and it seemed to confirm that it was hnl instead of sfo. He seemed credible. I guess he ultimately needs to confirm whether he was in the airport before or after 1962 in order to get a positive ID on the airport (old or new).

[Cyropaedia]

Wrong. McCain has never tried to hide the fact that he was born in Panama. Or even Colon. That is stated on the Birth Certificate.

Both of McCain's parents are U.S. citizens. His father was active duty military personnel. His mother was a military dependent. The UCMJ recognizes J.S. McCain as a natural born citizen.

Most importantly, there is an actual registration number visible on certificate!

Why can't we be allowed to see the certification number on Obama's CoLB...??

[bvw]

There *is* a problem with the certification that Obama's own website has posted. What has been put out so far isn't valid for any purpose, that's a fact. A fact because it was tampered with, at least in reproduction, as the serial number is cut out, not to mention any seal and signing are too obscured to read. And the resolution is too low to say much else, unless you are a very talented document imaging expert. If they have a real one, sealed and signed, they have not yet shown it. What they put out is then at least, being such a poor image -- a modified, limited hang-out. And that's a fact, too. Why? There's no reason they could not have put out a much better image, and it was -- well, either mean or dumb -- to put out an image of an official document without clearly showing the seal and the official signature.

Fact 1: Not a valid document. "Any alterations invalidate this certificate" -- the Certificate Number is cut out, that's an alteration -- invalid.

Fact 2: A modified, limited hangout. Only one poor quality image, back not shown, seal and signature hardly discernible and totally unreadable. Not the "whole truth", a half truth at best.

* * *

But it is a forgery -- beyond almost any reasonable doubt. That is per the Atlas Shrugged/techdude analysis above.

That's a problem beyond the problem of a "modified, limited hangout".

It was stonewalling, it was the modified, limited hangouts that resulted in Nixon's resignation.

And it should be so -- that we should not accept half-truths of a candidate for president any more than lies.

* * *

Your own narrative storyline re Obama's conception and birth is good too. But so is David's. Fact is that while they both make some similar level of narrative sense consistent and cohesive with known facts and testimony and reasonable inference of motives and patterns of behavior (imo), we don't have the facts to say to and surety whatsoever which is true. Nor can we even assume that Obama himself knows what the facts are. He only heard a legend. The legend of his own birth. That's true for all of us, we have a legend of our birth. Except, fortunately for us and unfortunately for Obama -- and horribly sad for him, so I think, in his considerations and ponderings of the matter, per the between the lines subtext of that poem, perhaps -- many of us have photos, films, multiple pieces of official documents and receipts, multiple living witnesses telling consistent stories. We know the truth. I think it may hurt him very much that he does not.

[Calpernia]

Agreed

[Calpernia]

There is another point concerning McCain too. If there is a technicality about being born off the base, U.S. Ambassadors have the power to grant natural born status to MIL babies born en route. We never heard if that happened or not.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

I am glad you posted McCains birth certificate on this thread.

I thought it gave me a pass to comment on it.

You should have been clear and said it was taboo.

[wideminded]

He seems to have blanked on the year when he was 11. Either that or he made up the Watergate part of his mainland trip.

[Calpernia]

I don't think it is taboo. Adding the BC here shows a contrast. I am just saying, it is more than likely not being commented on thoroughly because there are forum guidelines at FR to start a new thread when a topic is changing course. Nothing more.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

P.S.

But then, it was not you who started this thread. It was wonderful SE Mom.

(Talk about self appointed king of the hill and making the rules. LOL!!!)

My best regards to you.

And thank you again for McCains birth certificate.

More to come.

[meia]

What has been put out so far isn't valid for any purpose, that's a fact.

Even if the number were not blacked out, it still would not be a valid document because it is an image of the birth certificate. The other Birth Certificates being shown are not valid either. The only valid document is the actual physical copy of the certificate.

[bvw]

Yep!

[Political Junkie Too]

The other thing I noticed from the secong paragraph is that BIGLOOK made a comment about the customs and baggage claim being on the concourse BELOW. Didn’t someone upthread say that the old one was single story and the new one is two stories?

I made that comment as a supposition based on the layouts of today's airports. Today, because of elevated jetways directly to planes from concourses, departures are on the second level and arrivals are routed down to the street level for baggage claim.

Back then, when you had to walk out to the tarmac to use external stairs to board a plane, departures were on the ground level, and baggage claim may have been in another building entirely. I've even been in old regional airports where baggage claim was a rack in the corner of the tarmac where baggage handlers would just put bags on a multi-shelf rack for customers to pick up.

I was browsing through the other photos at this site, even looking at photos from the 1950's and 1970's for clues to the inside of the ticket lobbies. There are a few dedication photos that show a corner of an inside, with an angled ceiling that doesn't look like the wide-open high-ceiling of the photo of the 1960 old terminal (which looks like the same counters as in the Obama photo).

-PJ

[Calpernia]

I will safely assume that SE Mom supports seeing the contrast between the two situations also :)

[Calpernia]

Your name fell off the ping. Might have been the brackets in the freeper name.