Replies

Yeah, the evidentiary aspect may prove problematic. It SHOULDN’T, because the burden should clearly be on Obama to establish eligibility for the highest office in the land, but we all know that liberal judges don’t mind playing fast and loose with both spirit and intent.

Yes, proof will rest squarely on Obama's shoulders:

- snip-

"The legislative history of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.

Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen

Barack Obama readily admits the following facts:

He was born in 1961.
His mother was an American citizen.
His father was a Kenyan citizen.

To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:

He was born on American soil, and was not subject to any other jurisdiction;
He was naturalized pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.

At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:

A Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) purportedly from the state of Hawaii;
The affidavit of an Hawaiian official who claims that he has seen a “birth certificate.”

While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.

Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness."

-end snip-

Summary Of Arguments

The Official Birth Name of the Next President of the United States

According to the birthing record documents which the next President of the United States has had published on the internet, his legal given name at birth was Barack Hussein Obama II.

It has been reported in the press this week that the next President of the United States intends to be sworn in as Barack Hussein Obama, which is clearly not his legal birth name.

I am sure that Chief Justice Roberts, before he swears in Obama as President of the United States, will personally review an actual vaulted copy of the original long form of Obama's birthing records which the State of Hawaii, Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, MD has publicly announced that she has on file.

It would be shame for the Chief Justice Roberts of the United States to go down in history as the first Chief Justice to incorrectly swear in a new President of the United States by not using his full and correct name even if he was not born in this country.

This is what a Copy of a Certificate of Live Birth (some data redacted) issued by the State of Hawaii, Department of Health in July 1962 for the Birth of a male child in February 1962 on the Island of Oahu looks like. Note the State of Hawaii, Department of Health official embossed seal and official signatures of the then Director of Health, Leo Bernstein, MD and the then Registrar General, Charles G. Bennett. The State of Hawaii officials’ signatures and the date the document was issued are underlined in red. This document is a photographic copied image. It is a black background document with white letters which clearly were created by a 1962 typewriter. A document similar to this is what most of the lawsuits about the record of birth of Obama are asking to be released for public viewing.

Other copies of this long form of a Certificate of Live Birth, which have a green background and show a date in 1963, have been published on different web sites. These images are based on a Certificate of Live Birth which would have been created at a hospital and but had not yet received and processed by State of Hawaii, Department of Health.

The following statement has been attributed to the current Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino, MD and the current Registrar General per their joint press release on October 31, 2008: in part: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

Their complete public statement clearly made no references to the key data to be found in #6 boxes and well as the supporting data as in the #7 boxes in the first image. Box #16 shows the birth place of the mother. Box#15 shows the age of mother. Box#14 shows the race of mother. Box #11 shows the birth place of the father. Box #10 shows the age of father. Box #9 shows the race of father. (In the modern secular world this person would also be known as the sperm donor.)

Box #18a shows the signature of the Parent or Other Informant who states that “I certify that the above stated is true and correct to the best of my knowledge information”. This person is effectively signing for the right to name the new born. Box #18b shows the date of this signature.