Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: conservativegramma
Maybe, but the point is we can't 100% be positive Stanley was Obama's mother or that Obama Sr. was his father, without a primary source document.

Yes and no. The DAR, Indian Tribes or most any genealogical based organization will require a primary source document if one is available. Certainly, in Obama's case, one would be available if he was born in Hawaii as he claimed.

However, remember that before the late 19th century, states in America did not even issue birth certificates. These records were kept by local churches in parish registers or even entered into privately kept family records such as a Bible, especially on the frontier when parish repositories were not available.

This is why the DAR, as just one example, will require the certified birth certificates for only three generations and accept as primary source documents other records such as census entries, parish records and even family records after three generations.

If Obama really was born in Kenya, it is entirely possible that he doesn't even possess a government-issued birth certificate, particularly if Kenya didn't require such records.

15 posted on 07/21/2009 9:50:20 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Vigilanteman
Yes and no. The DAR, Indian Tribes or most any genealogical based organization will require a primary source document if one is available.

Ummm, yes and yes. Primary source documents are required in every case, there is not a situation of 'if one is available'. If 'one isn't available' you don't have documentation - simple as that. And you keep searching for that all important documentation for PROOF.

I happen to be a MEMBER of the DAR so I know what I'm talking about! And I can verify for you that when it comes to the 1ST GENERATION, (the entry level applicant for the D.A.R. is referred to as 1st generation) applicants are REQUIRED to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate. They are also REQUIRED to produce a certified copy of their parents and their grandparents birth certificates AND death certificates if these generations have passed. For generations preceding 1910 other records will suffice but they MUST STILL BE PRIMARY source documents! If they can't find one, they are not accepted - PERIOD - until they do find one.

The 2nd and 3rd generations are not the applicant, but they are in the genealogical LINE of the applicant. In this instance of the LDS presenting a family history for Obama, Obama is the 1st generation, not 2nd or 3rd. Therefore his certified birth certificate is REQUIRED to produce a credible genealogy. FYI: Birth certificates have been issued since 1910 in every state....the only exceptions would be someone born PRIOR to 1910 which is why the DAR has the stipulation FIRST THREE generations. No new applicant for the DAR today is going to have been born prior to 1910, they would be 99 years old.

That you know this is clear because you wrote: This is why the DAR, as just one example, will require the certified birth certificates for only three generations and accept as primary source documents..." Exactly, PRIMARY source documents, not secondary!!! But its those FIRST, 3 Generations where Obama fits. HE is the 1st generation for the production of a family lineage and therefore HE is required to have a certified birth certificate. HE is even required to produce certified birth certificates for his parents and his grandparents to have a credible genealogical line!

In pre-1910 situations bible records, parish records, baptism records, probate records, etc. may be used - you are correct. But these records ARE considered PRIMARY source documents! That's where you are wrong. It is absolutely laughable that supposed experts in genealogy like the LDS would accept Obama's word alone on his family history! How absurd! Heresay, family legend, and 'you just have to accept my word on it' doesn't even qualify as a secondary source! An example of a secondary source document would be a published family history, but is always at least based on a primary source that can be cited and then another researcher can verify the source. When you have hearsay which cannot be verified, you don't even have a secondary source let alone primary. More information here on what is and is not a primary source document.

Make sure you have the facts next time. And again I repeat: The Mormon genealogists would know this! They screwed up big time and have now revealed themselves to be non-authoritative and non-trustworthy in matters of genealogy.

19 posted on 07/21/2009 11:37:04 AM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Vigilanteman

THose chances are good that you find you are related to everyone in town...

:)


29 posted on 07/21/2009 5:20:48 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson