That is also where you place made up bullsh*t replacement birth certificate records, of which Obama was very likely a recipient.
Hawaiian officials refuse to eliminate the distinction by their carefully chosen verbiage.
And you tried claiming to FW that I'm the one invested personally in these topics due to some supposed issue with some family member. The accusations you make against me again are shown to be pure projection.
Is that a "No"?
Well it is the least idiotic explanation for why you would be an willfully ignorant fanatic regarding the topic. Perhaps I was being too kind.
Perhaps you're just intent on Justifying Obama and Illegal Immigrant "Anchor Babies", because there seems to be no objective explanation for your determination to remain misinformed on the topic.
And that birth certificate -- the one showing BHO as father and S.A. as mother with a birth at Kapiolani on August 4, 1961 -- was a replacement for one saying . . . what? Onaka verified that the information on the WH LFBC copy "matched" the information on the "original record on file." The WH LFBC gives signature and registrar dates of Aug 7 and Aug 8, 1961. You're lacking a theory as to how or why there would be a replacement as of that date. Speculation that Lolo adopted him would mean only that the "original" with BHO as father was replaced at a later date. But that still leaves the "original" with BHO as father, SA as mother and a birth at Kapiolani on 8/4/61.
Is that a "No"
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births. My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
there seems to be no objective explanation for your determination to remain misinformed on the topic.
And on what point am I misinformed? I'm calling your bluff again. You can't name a point I haven't already demolished.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
Your supposed "authorities" not saying what you claim? Ditto.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect. On your contrary view you offer squat, just your usual "it's is axiomatic." The only thing axiomatic is you're consistently in error.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement? Call me an historical babe in the woods if you wish. You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research." You're a poseur. An idiot. It's too easy to expose your fakery.