Posted on 06/09/2011 1:51:48 PM PDT by rxsid
Having a sugar daddy prince, being a long time member of the Choom Gang and men's bath houses has benefits.
The 14th ammendment was not intended to address the subject of Natural Born loyalties. It was solely intended to convey citizenship and attendant voting rights to persons lawfully born within the US.
Many people are lawfully born here that are not Natural Born. The child of a soldier born on a military installation would qualify, as long as both parents are citizens; that has never been in question.
“According to the Post and Email article, the researcher (FR’s own Ladysforest?) did get access to the marriage indexes and saw two entries for Stanley Ann, one for her marriage to Obama and the other for her marriage to Soetoro. Maybe you should ask her for the photos which she claimed she took?”
Actually, she didn’t take the picture. She did post the picture taken of a typed Grooms’ index which you can read about at the link below. Once again, you are confusing this index with the ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN INDEX which shows the volume and page number where the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE is filed. As Beckwith has said several times, too much out there is bunk unless it’s backed up with original documents (and at this point in time I wonder if even those can be trusted, i.e. LFBC). This sort of index can easily be tampered with and as you are well aware of has been the problem with all records surrounding this family. Show me the CERTIFIED COPY of the MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE and I might consider it as proof after it’s been buckhead-ed by FR.
Both.
This might be helpful:
http://www.progenealogists.com/sourcetypes.htm
“It is important for genealogists to understand the meaning behind the terms original vs. derivative, as well as primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary source information... Furthermore, the terms “original material” and “derivative material” confusingly combine 2 separate conditions. These two conditions are:
1) The physical description of the document
a. original
b. copy of original
c. derivative
2) The state of the information within the document
a. primary
b. secondary
c. tertiary”
The link gives examples of each and parallels much of what we’re dealing with here. The further away from the orginal document or event, the less reliable the information is. Think of it as the childhood game of Telephone where one person says something (the original or primary information) but after it goes through several persons (primary, to secondary, etc.) it becomes so far removed from the real deal that it’s garbage. Garbage is what much of the newspaper articles and internet postings are because no one cares enough to document their sources.
Some reading I did a year or so ago indicated that Hawaii's peculiar policies regarding birth documents were the result of it being an Island state. Children would sometimes be born aboard ship in transit, and it was customary to list place of birth as their next port of call, likewise, many people moving to Hawaii from Foreign Countries would want their children to have all the privileges of being an American Citizen, so they could easily be induced to support an extremely liberal "get in the door" policy while at the same time supporting a "Don't let anyone look at our docs too closely" policy.
I have also read in the last few months, a claim that Hawaii has long been running a scam selling American Citizenship" for the purpose of enriching those people in charge of issuing the papers. Nowadays you have to take everything you read with a grain of salt but the notion actually seemed plausible to me. I've read a lot about the "laid back" atmosphere of Hawaiian's in General and their bureaucracy in particular, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they didn't see anything wrong with not checking too closely on the claims of foreign immigrant children, as to where they are born.
In any case, there is an unpleasant aroma (of corruption and/or incompetence) coming from our 50th state.
I think most people understand that NBC status is a combination jus soli vs jus sanguinis (territory vs blood). Despite the seeming simplicity, there have been many views opined which reach different conclusions.
In terms of the situation of military children, there are different views. Donofrio (Natural Born Citizen) holds that such a birth would not confer NBC status to military children. In fact, he did not believe that either McCain or Obama qualified as a NBC. I have heard of situations where military personnel were informed that their children would not be NBCs if they were born abroad and that some women delivered their babies in the US to avoid this possibility.
If there were a simple solution, Obama's eligibility would have been resolved, one way or another, by now. But with a Supreme Court that, for example, has created brand new rights (e.g., abortion) without any reference to the text of the Constitution, you can't rule anything out, especially for its liberal branch.
You are misreading the page. That says to “SEE PAGE 51” for endorsements.
The ORIGINAL index books are completely off limits to the public. Rather, it is up to the Director to make the call - and guess what? Both researchers, TsunamiGeno and Interrogator did ask, and both were refused.
I’ll look through my stuff and see what other marriage related index images are there. Interrogator is the one that captured the images.
I will add any additional ones that I have to the bottom of the original post.
Thanks for the link. It looks to be quite useful.
I would say that I would go to a third level, where conflicts between documents are resolved based on the forensic characteristics of the data and how it agrees/disagrees with other documents. The amazing thing about the Lucas BC was that, despite its numerous detractors, it had the exact same birth date as was revealed in the “new” Obama BC. This information was not on the Obama-provided “COLB.”
Additionally, the provenance is helped immensely if the individuals listed on the document were real and indeed had the official role as outlined in the document at the time it was created. This is true of both the Lavender and Smith birth records.
I just don’t think that, in general, many authorities are going to let you paw through additional documents. Many places have them microfilmed or whatever, and then put out of reach. I know our county title records are all computerized: the average person will not get access to the underlying documents. I am not even sure that any party can get access to the documents unless possibly via a some sort of court order.
Orly’s Taitz’ subpoena is for the actual physical document that was generated 50 years ago. I think I can say that most of us hope that her subpoena is honored and that it turns out to be the fact that Obama was indeed not born in Hawaii.
For the rest of us, dealing with copies and derivatives is what we end up having to deal with, and have to figure out what trust factor we apply to the records which we have. A big part of the world that I live in has to deal with “Data Cleansing,” where we apply rules to help determine the true value of a data element. Most of the time, we do not distribute the original, uncleansed, data throughout the organization. This is just a (potential) shortcoming that we must learn to deal with. Hopefully, enough trust has been acquired to make the rest of the organization feel comfortable with this fact.
In my state, I can go to the City Clerk’s office, fill out a form, pay $12.00 and can get an official copy of a marriage license, with these restrictions:
“If one of the parties was born out of wedlock, only the bride or groom may obtain the record and positive identification will be required, such as a driver’s license. Also, these cannot be mailed to a post office box address.”
Is it Hawaii’s policy that you can’t get certified copies of marriage certificates?
Is the only thing you can get from that bunch are those “index” listings?
******
Certain items on this form bother me:
1. Aug. 9, 1961. Stay expires.
2. Aug. 4, 1961. Obama supposedly born at KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL.
3. STRANGE COINCIDENCE? Is it just a coincidence that Obama's birth date of Aug. 4, 1961 is just a few days BEFORE date that stay expires, Aug. 9, 1961?
4. NO CHILD LISTED? Did Obama senior LIE when he did not write that Obama junior was born on Aug. 4, 1961?
5. Or,worse, is it possible that Obama junior was not born yet by Aug. 31, 1961, the date stamped on the form, and that is the reason why Obama senior did not list Obama junior on the form?
6. PERJURY: Did Obama senior commit PERJURY by NOT listing Obama junior and his other children still in Kenya at this time?
7. OTHER CHILDREN IN KENYA: Did Obama purposely NOT list his children ie Kenya because he knew that if he did, he would be questioned about his wife in Kenya and he was scared that would be denied an extension because he would be considered a bigamist by United States immigration officials?
8. OBAMA JUNIOR NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE? Is it possible that Obama senior deliberately left Obama junior's name off of the form because he knew that he would have to provide a United States birth certificate to prove that Obama junior was born in the United States, bit Obama senior knew that there such long form birth certificate did not exist?
9. ADVISER STATEMENT: Obama senior goes to the trouble to get a statement from his college adviser dated Aug.31, 1961 so that it would help him extend his stay in Hawaii, but he does not bother to get a statement or birth certificate that Obama junior was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, just a few days before Obama senior's stay expired on Aug. 9, 1961. Strange. Very strange.
10. To me, this Obama senior immigration form raises more questions than it answers.
NOTE: Can anyone find out what is under the blacked out item where Obama senior listed his wife's name? Thanks.
SHOW ME!
Interesting, another mind-game? As POTUS he wouldn't have needed a birth certificate to obtain that passport, would he?
This is ALL you get to see in Hawaii, the INDEX. Do yourself a favour and read the information, and stop posting opinions without a source:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/its-a-date/
Maybe when the Birther cause was taken over by people who had no clue about fountain pens and manual typewriters WND reconsidered their own position.
There is no PROOF of anything here. Only what those liars Dunham and Obama may have told INS at the time, OR what those liars in the records office in Hawaii may have told them.
It was commonplace for the Hawaii records office to lie about foreigners having been born in Hawaii. It means nothing, without better documentation.
At one time, people born outside Hawaii may have been able to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth by deceiving officials, but that's different from the records office actually lying about who was and who wasn't born in Hawaii.
Outside the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program it hasn't been established that the ordinary birth records of the state were more fraudulent than those of other states or that it was "commonplace" for Hawaiian officials to lie about who was born there.
What reason would Hawaiian health officials have had in the 1960s to lie about where one child not different from thousands of others was born?
You're right that this doesn't prove conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii, but then what would end all doubt at this point?
It's not a matter of coming up with some incontrovertible evidence that would prove to all where he was born, but a matter of the weight of evidence on each side and this adds a little more weight to the argument that he was born in the United States.
Kenya was/is a very poor, violent place. The scenario presented an opportunity. But not everyone learned their script perfectly...there were members of the extended clan who were present when Onyongo Obama read the kenyan's letters to them. He was the only one who could read, remember?
And that's where the 'he worked for an oil company and married a white woman' came from, as did the 'he had a son in Hawaii'... but what's missing are the DATES!
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.