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 ...
What of the right of the children of ambassadors and agents of foreign countries born in the US to claim US citizenship and “natural born” status? Say the son of a father who is here as a good-will ambassador to train in US schools for the express purpose of applying those skills in his own country’s developing government?
What of the right of the children of ambassadors and agents of foreign countries born in the US to claim US citizenship and “natural born” status?The children of people who are in the United States on diplomatic passports do not automatically get citizenship.
Remember that when a foreign diplomat commits a crime they are deported to their home country with a complaint to their government. Presumably they are tried and punished there.
This became an issue many years back with diplomatic parking tickets. Some foreign diplomats were parking wherever they felt like since they didn't have to pay the parking tickets.
By agreement they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government.
Remember that when a foreign diplomat commits a crime they are deported to their home country with a complaint to their government. Presumably they are tried and punished there.I'll anticipate the anchor baby question. An illegal committing a crime in the United States is first tried and punished here and then deported. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Except for submarines, the Soviets... er, Russians don’t have much that can serve as an escort for anything. Subs don’t make great escorts and their surface fleet doesn’t like to get too far from home port in case they need to be towed home.
If we declare a blockade, it is an act of war to attempt to break it.
As for the Chinese, their navy is not much more capable than the Russians at this time. Besides, their saving those marbles for the invasion of Taiwan. It would do to get them shot up over Iran when their getting ready to start pump oil off the shores of Florida.
If Obama had never traveled to Kenya and campaigned for his Dad's relative, if Obama did not express any longing dreams of his absent father and instead severed all ties -- it might be argued he would be presumed a natural born child of a single-mom. But he did not. His loyalty is from the time of his birth conflicted. His father's citizenship binds Obama to Kenya as much as the US, Obama himself, while a mature adult, has proved that. Thus, Obama is not a full "natural born" citizen even if he was born in the US.
How do you read such a case -- not just Obama, but in similar cases of a child born to a citizen and an ambassador or non-citizen agent of a foreign nation?
Thank you, Fred.
Pinging the list.
I think I mentioned that some weeks and weeks ago.
Could you post a few small animated overlay images as the proof?
by KEITH PHUCAS
***Is this satire?
Not every diplomat or agent of a foreign government travels under diplomatic passport.The diplomatic passport is the key to immunity from the host countries law. See this Wikipedia article for some background....
How do you read such a case -- not just Obama, but in similar cases of a child born to a citizen and an ambassador or non-citizen agent of a foreign nation?
This chart on the State Department web site summarizes the policy of the US government on diplomatic immunity. It shows real immunity is limited to the top levels of the embassy. This immunity is a powerful thing to have and you can bet it's tightly regulated in all countries.
If you entered the country some other way you are subject to all of the laws (ie jurisdiction).
How do you read such a case -- not just Obama, but in similar cases of a child born to a citizen and an ambassador or non-citizen agent of a foreign nation?The child of a diplomat and a citizen in the United States. Good question. I'd bet it's specifically addressed somewhere in the Vienna conventions but I'm not really sure. My guess is the child is a citizen based on the citizen parent but I can't point to a source for it.
The problem with some of the citizenship arguments is they have blow back on all candidates, not just Obama. As David pointed out, McCain almost certainly has Panamanian citizenship. If dual citizenship is a bar we might have to prepare ourselves for president Barr (pun intended).
FDR was born in Canada to American parents. That gave him Canadian citizenship as well as American. Was he technically ineligible?
The United States can control who it gives it's citizenship to. It cannot control who other countries give their citizenship to. Could Putin bestow Russian citizenship on Bush and have him removed from office?
Using these arguments to get rid of a politically undesirable candidate takes our system of elections in a very bad direction. Do we really want to go there?
Sorry, I forgot to ping you on this one.
- - -
FDR was born at Hyde Park NY, USA. That's according to Mrs. Rushby's 5th Grade Class (http://www.mohonasen.org/grade5/P_Rushby/FDR/fdrbio1.htm).
- - -
I'm not one for calling detremining CONSTITUTIONAL requirements "blowback". In fact as a citizen it is a duty to do so, but as a high US Official, or an elected US Senator or Representative, or Judge - it is a sworn obligation.
Yes, indeed it most assuredly the case that I would want this heard, and the issue determined. As a baby born at the very start of the jet age, Obama's case is typical of our modern smaller world and we should not fear but fear itself to make the law clear so as to avoid problems like a recurring, and precedents working further and further out a weak limb.
FDR born in Canada? (why does Hyde Park pop into my mind?) News to me, or do we have another scandal brewing.........
FDR was born at Hyde Park NY, USA. That's according to Mrs. Rushby's 5th Grade Class (http://www.mohonasen.org/grade5/P_Rushby/FDR/fdrbio1.htm).You're so right. My source was the Hollander decision. The judge's reference was to FDR Jr, then considered a potential successor to his father.
I'm not one for calling detremining CONSTITUTIONAL requirements "blowback". In fact as a citizen it is a duty to do so, but as a high US Official, or an elected US Senator or Representative, or Judge - it is a sworn obligation.That's why I said a Constitutional amendment is probably in order to make the requirements clear. We don't want elections fought in the courts before unelected judges parsing vague words.
If there is a real issue then by all means it should be heard. But in these cases (McCain's and Obama's) there is little foundation in either fact or law and I think the courts are being used to harass.
Since the Hollander decision was that Hollander had not standing to present a claim before the court on the issue, that the rest of the Judge’s discussion is moot, and can be given no weight as precedence — it’s actually less weighty than an FR posting, because as a posting we have to Dale Carnegie it up — win friends or influence people — whereas and whereat the Judge had a captive audience and could wind on like a Joe Biden.
that the rest of the Judge’s discussion is mootI didn't reference his opinion, I referenced a fact that he included to support an argument. The mootness of his opinion doesn't negate the fact that FDR Jr was born in Canada and there was much discussion of his eligibility to succeed his father. I wouldn't have included the reference though if I had actually looked at the Jr. It's not strong support for this discussion.
The part of the Hollander opinion that is important is where the judge found the plaintiff lacked standing. I don't see where Mr. Berg has any greater standing than Mr. Hollander.
Or another Justice might argue that the proper remedy was legislative, not judicial.
Of course the ruling went dreadfully against Scott and not only against Scott, but against the whole class of slaves and ex-slaves, and even reached out and grabbed into shackles any negro African!
What wonderful leaps of judgment men make when unbound from the G-d of Nature's law, or rather by pride of legal logic bound in rough irons, unbreakable, to follies of process.
* * *
Under the Constitution, it has been said that the proper place to assert claims against a candidate for not meeting the requirements for Presidency is in the electoral college and in the Congress when it contests the electoral college's decision -- that is when the President-to-be is finally known.
Yet there is a rule of nature against stealing people's time, and against misrepresentation in order to gain money or tangible favor. When a charlatan, mesmerizing or supported by the powerful for their own aims, runs for President I am harmed and you are, too. Our time, our energy, our funds are given through false premise into a cause. Yet because we are members of general class we have no standing to complaint, to demand a stop to it?
There's a break-down in natural law. And Natural Law has it's own defenses and it's own aetheral prosecutorial staff that at some point known only to G-d, Himself -- swing into action. And when they come to bring the charges it's against the nation as a whole.
* * *
Justice Taney was a G-d-fearing man. But he let the process of the logic of law lead us all into breaking natural law in a hideous way. The resultant was a bloodier war than mankind has ever seen, where Death's Syckle swung quickly and up and down the field.
Justice Taney was a G-d-fearing man. But he let the process of the logic of law lead us all into breaking natural law in a hideous way. The resultant was a bloodier war than mankind has ever seen, where Death's Syckle swung quickly and up and down the field.A very emotional argument. Are you suggesting we ditch our system on Constitutional law and replace it with "natures law"? When judgments need to be made where will judges look to find the precepts of this law?
In his first inagural, Lincoln said:
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
Not emotional at all. All our law is founded on Natural Law.
Not emotional at all. All our law is founded on Natural Law.We're into semantics here. What change to our system would you like to right this wrong?
The South was unhappy and tried to use their revolutionary right to address the problem. As you point out it didn't turn out so well.
Short of that there's amending the Constitution which clearly won't be done in time for the election. The best alternative to me is to beat Obama fair and square in a good old fashioned election. It's risky, but possible.
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.