On Oct 30, 12:48*pm, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...
On Oct 30, 12:01 am, "sanity" wrote:





"BobR" wrote in message

....
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document

Posted: October 26, 2008
9:54 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

WorldNetDaily

snip
Get the book that started it all, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation,"
autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store for the
amazing low price of just $4.95.

Sounds like someone is plugging a book. You getting paid per copy sold?
Obamas birth certificate has been proven a true and original document by
the
highest sources but the losing Repubs won't stop at anything to create
doubt
and fear. A bunch of LOSERS
Name those sources!

Purple lips himself?

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the certification of live birth is proof that Obama was born in
Hawaii. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate
because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth
certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved
that you had money in the bank. The certification has now been
accepted by at least one court.

Then, IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his
mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not
shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those
files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961.
But they have nothing.

I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother
understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a
relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case,
it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior,
Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his
birth certificate in his file. They are thus confirming the
certification. And, they have no reason to lie.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been
accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in
Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born
citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule
that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the
“evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is
abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning
“questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen”
are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been
demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given
the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that
Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an
investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office
of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/conten...obamasuit.html

In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further
and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama
was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born
anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course,
but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was
AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can
find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and
sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth
throughout.)

Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is
unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the
state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of
vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the
internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way.
Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from
the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is
an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there
could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed
that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate
and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence
that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a
natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information
on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the
birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama
was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all
citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is
not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law
that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate
and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For
instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a
passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the
COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native
Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court
held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in
Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact.
The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born
in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and
relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time
provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at
birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the
United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is
an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less
than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of
fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in
Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he
became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British
colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject
whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act
of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
“British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the
provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of
this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by
descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth,
Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in
Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to
a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an
Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its
independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI,
Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December,
1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British
protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December,
1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th
December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a
British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but
for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection
(1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya,
Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via
subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK
status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen
via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in
1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits
dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for
children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan
citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country
automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally
renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to
Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has
ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to
Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama
renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in
order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of
his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court
held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can
strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952
Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and
355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to
Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US
citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other
actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and
establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the
adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship.
The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is
irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that
traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his
citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr.
Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we
reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim
or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.)
Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an
American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you
with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The
court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly
unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of
the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue”
and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort,
fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to
believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the
birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB
would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt
that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the
contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated
internet rumors.”