But equally, what is your source that the assertion that his sister was issued a certification of live birth comes from allegations concerning the forgery? You have a source for that or is that your assumption?
Posted on 07/26/2009 11:03:19 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
I copied the text below from here without restoring the links it contains.
Credibility of the "Certification of Live Birth"The computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” was first used in November 2001 to allow the State of Hawaii to pull up birth records quicker for people requesting a “birth certificate” in person. At the very bottom of the form are the words, “This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]."
However, despite this written notice on the form, some Hawaii state agencies do not accept the “Certification of Live Birth” as irrefutable verification of Hawaiian birth. There have been numerous cases when the Hawaii Family Court System required more detailed data for paternity suits. Additionally, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands provides the following guidelines to Hawaiian natives applying for Hawaiian Home Lands homestead:
The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
- A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
- A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
- A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.” (emphasis added)
Additionally, the “Certification of Live Birth” is not recognized by many Federal agencies. DoD 5220.22-M, the "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry. “Unified Facilities Guide Specifications,” section 1.5.22.2 allows for a total of 18 different means to verify US citizenship, ranging from a military ID card to even a “Hawaii certificate of foreign birth.” The “Certification of Live Birth” is not on the list of approved documents acceptable for proof of Citizenship.
I appreciate that. I was only pointing out that this number is a reference to another document, which is the document that Obama won't release.
You post the same thing over at DU all the time. Go back over there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4083507#4083911
To be a ‘natural born citizen’ a child must be born in the country of which the parents are citizens.
The term ‘natural born citizen’ was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758, specifically in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay requested the clause be inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.
Jay, considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time, was responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, a term derived from the Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations was written by Emmerich de Vattel. He was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This fame was primarily the result of his great foundational work — The Law of Nations — which he published in 1758. This monumental work applied a theory of natural law to international relations.
De Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution.
The Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
To be a “natural born citizen” one’s parents must both be citizens (native born or naturalized, it doesn’t matter which) AND one must be born within the nation of one’s parents.
“…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law...”
As you can easily understand after reading this, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain were eligible to be President under Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution (McCain was born in the city of Colon, Republic of Panama, and Obama’s father was a British subject). For your information, both men accepted large cash donations from George Soros, who is determined to destroy this nation. A first step to achieving that aim is to render the Constitution a useless rag.
The truly big tip off on that fake COLB is the different font size in the date from the font in the rest of the document. Its all identical on MY Hawaii COLB.
This is a forgery.
(What it means is you are a very bizarre person, mojitojoe. And you just proved it.)
The rooster crows at 3 AM. III
That is very bad etiquette- bringing other threads into the discussions. I'm not sure if the rule is codified or is merely a loose agreement but it isn't done. You don't drag completely unrelated topics from other threads into the argument.
Not everybody believes there is something to this birth certificate thing. That doesn't mean they are evil or even wrong. It just means they're more skeptical of all this. So what?
That is the key question, is it not, assuming the document exists at all.
If the State of Hawaii wishes to issue a document that certifies Maya was born in Jakarta, that's find and dandy. If it instead issues a document saying she was born in Honolulu, then HRC should issue an order immediately lifting all passports issued to persons born in Hawaii.
There was. http://theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm
It belongs to Sun Yat-Sen, the Father of Modern China, who was born in China.
This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, dated March 14, 1904, was issued after Dr. Sun signed a raggedy type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870.
Sun Yat-sen was born on November 12, 1866, to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan county , Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau), not Hawaii, as this document affirms.
We know Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth too, and she was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. You can be born anywhere and get one.
You proved you are an obongo shill long ago. All the way back to 2004 and all you do on FR is defend the other side. Go back and read all of your old posts. You have done nothing but defend the long legged, Marxist since 2004. You defend that fat thing he’s married to also. How do you like it now that your idol is sinking like a rock in the polls. PO
LOL if that is a rule, I don’t know about it and about half the people on here violate that rule if it is one. Your BC statement is lame. I am well aware that not everyone is interested but if they aren’t, why do they try to fight with other FReepers that do. I might add, S was the ONLY poster on FR that sided with Gates.
Savage fell for that?
It might be that he was not born in Hawaii, it might be that he was born in Hawaii but that there is something embarrassing about the details of his birth, it might be that he is hoping to embarrass as many conservatives as possible when he eventually releases detailed birth records proving his Hawaiian birth. If I had to pick one as being most likely, I would pick the last. Still, I want to see this game played to its conclusion, I want the truth.
Untrue. There are many here who have a healthy skepticism of police power to arrest you on your own front porch for yelling.
But what else can I expect from you? You need to get over your obsession with me and get a new hobby. And hang around FR a little longer and get a feel for the place before you spout off.
But equally, what is your source that the assertion that his sister was issued a certification of live birth comes from allegations concerning the forgery? You have a source for that or is that your assumption?
That's only relevant if you be born outside Hawaii and get a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that says you were born in Hawaii. A Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that certifies you were born in Jakarta just means you were born in Jakarta. BFD!
bookmark
BTTT
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.