Posted on 04/20/2011 12:17:50 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
But how come we never see anyone else's Long Form? I've never even seen my own, despite getting a SS#, a driver's license, a marriage license and a passport.
I'm 62 years old and I always thought my COLB was my birth certificate......but since Obama came along, now I'm wondering if I'm really me!
Doesn’t she have sense enough to know his father was a British subject? This fact has been out there all along. To pretend she is unaware of this is just plain stupid.
Didn’t SSN’s originate with President Franklin Roosevelt?
And even if it wasn't (i.e., the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase wasn't wrongly construed), the "every bit a citizen as a natural born citizens" statement 1) isn't necessary, and 2) doesn't assert that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.
By way of analogy: My adopted brother is as much my brother as a blood brother - but that does not make him a blood brother.
http://www.theobamafile.com/obamacolb.htm
It was widely rumored but apparently no one has seen an actual copy of her COLB, but looking at the link above, pay attention to the comment about Act 96 which permits foreign born children to have a COLB issued up until the 1970’s.
There is no Hawaiian birth certificate
Epic fail!
Strangely, no one in congress has requested proof. They all know Hawaii refused to certify Obama, which explains two different certs by Pelousy. They have to know what the sense of the Senate nonsense was about.
The house leadership could not possibly, NOT know.
So where do you go for Justice? I am still waiting for the pictures of the vandalism when the White House was trashed by the outgoing Clinton administration.
Guess it didn’t happen.
Satan is the father of all lies, he is also the prince and power of this world. Get a grip.
It occurs to me that the way to get urgent messages to Sarah for a heads up on issues she needs to be aware of, is to twitter her twitter gal who has access to her. That is a job for those of you with twitter accts.
It has to be amended because, from what I've seen, did not take the barrack hussein obama until just before he started getting into real-time political runs. His name was Barry when he was born, regardless of where he was born. He was Barry Sotero when he was growing up. Is this not correct?
You're saying Rep. Bachmann is out of uninform?
I've yet to see anyone that cares about the issue disagree that should the primary focus of a campaign against Obama.
I see no good reason at the state level NOT to push for laws requiring proof all Presidential candidates meet the Constitutional requirements to be President, including requiring candidates to prove they were born in the US. Why on earth shouldn't we pushing legislation to enforce Constitutional mandates?
She’s toast
I've never seen this particular point before. Since my wife did obstetrics for years, and I heard stories, this begs the question: What is, in your opinion then, the legal status of a child born to two 16 year old parents? It happens more often than you think.
The US Supreme Court has not decided what it means to be a natural born citizen under Article 2 of the US Constitution.The Supreme Court case of US v Wong Kim Ark only dealt with whether a Chinese-American child born of permanent residents of the US becomes a CITIZEN This case did not decide the issue of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN under Article 2 of the US Constitution.
“The Wong Kim Ark decision was wrongly decided. It’s happened before.”
I agree. However, do you really expect the US Supreme Court to reject the 110 year old reasoning of WKA and remove a sitting President?
This is the deal as it was explained to me by HDOH.
Hawaii is a number of Islands, each of which is a county. Now, the only place where a birth document gets its file number is in the main office in Honolulu. Until then there is no number associated with a record. When a record is received by an office other than the main on in Honolulu, it is noted as ACCEPTED by that office. There are offices on Oahu which are not the main office, and records are ACCEPTED there as well. When a document reaches the main office in Honolulu it is labeled as FILED, because it is given its file number and literally filed.
This difference in notation was important back in the old analog days, when all records were maintained by hand, and had to be physically moved from point A to point B. That took time and the offices had to have some means of noting that a document had reached an office and was in the proper chain of custody for that record.
Today this is not so important, because so much information gets transmitted digitally. Its much much faster now, and that interim transition period no longer exists in the same way.
The terms Accepted and Filed are not all that important today. But in 1961, as well as 1969 it meant this, a record was ACCEPTED by an office, but the record did not have its File number yet. Once the File number was attached, the document was noted as FILED. Remember we are talking about Hawaii here. They don’t worry too much about little details they consider irrelevant like changing accepted to filed. I am not kidding, they really can be just that laid back about things.
In many ways if a record was ACCEPTED at the main office in Honolulu, they would have either noted it as ACCEPTED or FILED, and in that office in particular, the two terms were used interchangeably.
I have gotten into it with posters in the past (not necessarily here) about these two terms. I am here to tell you, that this particular detail is not relevant, and is not referring to anything important. It may seem important to us, who are looking at every little detail. However, we are talking about Hawaii, and these folks didn’t always follow every rule to the letter, and furthermore they really don’t get why people would get their panties into a knot over it anyway. To them literally “it’s minah (minor), we go eat,”. In so many ways, Hawaiians really do not sweat the small stuff, and this is small stuff to that way of thinking.
I am not commenting one way or another on whether this is good or bad. I am not making a judgment about it. I am just telling what I know of Hawaii, and what I specifically learned in speaking to representatives of the HDOH on this matter specifically.
Good point. The issue was NOT "Natural born citizen" it was whether or not he was just a "citizen." They weren't ruling on Article II compliance.
Just a note here, Hawaii recently deliberately changed the name of the Long form ( to the exact same thing as the Short Form. So literally they are BOTH now known as “Certification of Live Birth”. Isn’t that just so precious? (pardon me while I barf). This is why Hawaii is stating that they only give out the “short form” the Certification of Live Birth. It is deliberately confusing. They DO provide the long form, but because they changed the official name, they have made it possible for them to say that they ONLY provide the short form, because they are both named the same. They know the difference. But they are making it deliberately difficult to get them.
I had to jump through some significant hoops to get my long form, and I had to be darned specific as to what I wanted. I also had to talk to Dr. Onaka personally to get it. Which to me is more than just a little outrageous, but there it is.
I knew about that. Most Americans do not. They think that ONLY people born in Hawaii can get Hawaiian COLBs. That's part of the problem we face when trying to discuss this with uninformed people.
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.