Now if Obama has a birth certificate from a hospital, that’s a pretty definitive answer to the questions being asked. So all he has to do is stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide it and simply put it out there for all to see.

After all, he does claim to have a hospital birth certificate, doesn’t he?

Of course if he has one of those other birth certificates he sure as hell wants to keep it hidden for obvious reasons. Put that together with his pretty interesting history outside of the U.S. and you have the real makings of a Constitutional challenge to eligibility.

Bottom line: Just show us the birth certificate.

The Kenyan ‘Certified Copy of Registration of Birth’ that Orly Taitz has presented to a United States Court has another flaw besides the Republic of Kenya.

The document also refers to the Coast Province.

Here is a link to the wording of the Original ‘Independence Constitution’ for Kenya that was adopted on December 12, 1963.

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=kenya+constitution&d=76459756816915&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=55af887d,b34d8210

Chapter VI of that Constitution established ‘Regions’, one of which was the ‘Coast Region. There was no ‘Coast Province’ at the time that the Orly document was supposedly signed. It was officially known as the ‘Coast Region’.

That document is a fraud.

NOTE:

I stated previously that the only reason that I could think of that the 7s 6d might appear at the top of the document would have been a reference to the fee paid. That may not be the case. That number may indicate the location in the official records where this particular document would have been registered.

But….who cares. There was not a ‘Coastal Province’ on February 17, 1964, and there was no ‘Republic of Kenya’ on February 17, 1964. That was the date when this document was allegedly created, and the official names on the document are clearly bogus for that date.

The Place of birth on the Certificate is Mombasa. That is going to complicate things because Mombasa was part of Zanzibar in 1961. It was ceded to Kenya on December 12, 1963 when Kenya became an independent nation.

This is the funny part. Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963 and nowhere in their original Constitution did they call their country a Republic.

That did not happen until a year later when they amended their Constitution and became the ‘Republic of Kenya’. See Post-Independence history on the following page:

http://www.kenya-information-guide.com/kenya-history.html
.
.
.
.

Now, why would the ‘Certified Copy of Registration of Birth’ that was signed by the Deputy Registrar on Feb 17, 1964 have imprinted on it ‘The Republic of Kenya’ when ‘Republic’ did not become part of its name until the Constitution was revised 10 months later?

Here is the link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Look at the top left corner of that certificate.

It reads 7s 6d

Does anyone here know what that means?
.
.
.
.
.
Well, considering the fact that Kenya has a history with the British, the obvious reference is to the unit of currency. 7s 6d in the British currency system of that time would refer to 7 shillings and 6 pence. The British had not yet changed to the decimal system for their currency in 1964 so the British ‘Pound Sterling’ was still in use. The British Pound Sterling consisted of 20 shillings, with each shilling being 12 pence (pennies).

7s 6d would have been 7 shillings and 6 pence, which would have been 7 and a half shillings. That would have referred to the cost of obtaining that document. There is no other reason for 7s 6d to appear in the upper left corner of that document.

There is only one problem with that.

The Kenyan currency of that time (1964) was not the British Pound Sterling. It was the ‘East African Shilling’, which can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_shilling

The East African shilling was in use in Kenya from 1921 until it was replaced by the Kenyan shilling in 1966. The East African Shilling is a decimal currency that contains 100 cents (which is abbreviated with a c not a d)The British Pound Sterling was not the unit of currency in Kenya in 1964. In fact, the British Pound Sterling wasn’t even the unit of currency in Kenya at any time during the entire 20th century.

Having a decimal shilling as their currency would have meant that the British currency numeration (Pounds, Shillings, Pence) would not have been used. That 7s 6d does not belong on a Kenyan Birth Certificate, whether it was issued in 1924, 1964 or 2004. There is no need to use that currency nomenclature for a decimal currency.

Looks like Orly Taitz may have paid good money for another piece of toilet paper.

In response to your QUESTION in post 41.

Obama is the President until he is removed from office, by either impeachment, resignation, death, or the end of his term.

The Judicial power of the United States does not include the ability to remove a President from office, and to tell you the truth, I would not want to give SCOTUS that power.

As he is the President, he has all the Constitutional power that is granted to the President. Therefore, the Sotomayor nomination only depends on the consent of the Senate. If the Senate confirms her appointment, then she will be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court until such time as she is removed from office, either by impeachment, resignation or death.

As to your assertion that Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ because his father in a Kenyan citizen, you are listening to uninformed people and believing what they tell you.

If you wish to know whether a person who was born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen, all you have to do is read the Opinion of the Supreme Court that was handed down in 1898. In the U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court rules that a person born of two Chinese parents on U.S soil was a citizen at birth. In the opinion, the court had this to say:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
.
.
.
.
This decision was handed down over 110 years ago. It is clear that the term ‘natural born citizen’ as it appears in the Constitution was based on the English common law. That is what the framers knew and understood. Any person born in the colonies was a ‘natural born subject’ of the King as long as they were not the child of a foreign Ambassador or an alien enemy of hostile occupation.

If you hold an originalist view of the Constitution (Justices Thomas and Scalia for instance), then one of the things that you understand is that the common law meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ will be frozen by its inclusion into the fabric of the Constitution, and cannot be changed by mere legislation. In other words, the ‘natural born citizen’ clause has the meaning that it had at the adoption of the Constitution, and can only be changed by Amendment to the Constitution. Legislation cannot be used to alter its meaning.

Are you understanding any of this??

I fully understand the concerns that you brought up in your post, but Obama is Constitutionally the President until he is removed from office.
.
.
.
.
To give you a little something to think about. Thirty years ago, I had to bear the burden of standing ‘Nuclear Deterrent’ watches while in the Navy. When the alarms went off on the system that I stood watch over, it meant that an ‘Emergency Action Message’ was being sent from ‘National Command Authority’ via the ‘Joint Chiefs of Staff’ to all ‘Alert Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines’.

Fortunately for all of us, those messages (which I was required to ensure the transmission of) were all drills. If any of them had been real, our Ballistic Missile Submarines would have launched their Poseidon Missiles deep into the Soviet Union.

Please note. Nowhere in that message did it say ‘Congress’. In fact, if we had to have relied on the Congress to authorize a retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union at that time, the Soviet Union would have known that they could have laid waste to us with a first strike, and our Nuclear Deterrent would have been meaningless. Yet….the Constitution only authorizes the Congress with the power to ‘Declare War’.

Should I have refused to send those ‘Emergency Action Messages’ on the grounds that the Congress had not authorized them?????