If you actually read up on Obama and his situation you might find out that the rumors people are spreading are simply just that. Rumors with no bearing.

Straight from HAWAIIAN state gov…

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0041.htm

Look at (b)…
Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

ANY certificate issued by the state is evidence.

Also a quote for you that you obviously dont know about…

Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate”. Another fact that refutes this specific claim is that the law allowing foreign-born children to obtain Hawaiian COLBs didn’t exist until 20 years after Obama was born, while Obama’s published COLB says his birth information was recorded four days after his birth in 1961, and explicitly states that he was born in Honolulu.

Another note…

Obama isnt the first president that had parents of dual citizenship. Look it up…

Natural Born
Natural born citizenship is the acquirement of citizenship at the moment of birth.

There are only two types of natural born citizen:

1.Native-born is being born within the territory of the state or commonwealth under the principle of jus soli,
2.Attaining citizenship through the parents’ citizenship status under the principle of jus sanguinis.

Jus Soli

The principle of birthright citizenship gained through being born within a country is called jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”). It isn’t dependent on the citizenship of the parents.[2]

In the United States the principle of jus soli goes back to before the creation of the Constitution. Territorial birthright citizenship was first formally established under English common law in the 1608 case of Calvin v. Smith (77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608)) whose decision was based upon the feudal relationship between a king or lord with their subjects in the early English feudal system.[3]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution confirmed this birthright citizenship in the pertinent part of Section 1,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [Note 1]

It has been presumed that any person born within the territory of the United States, including the children of illegal aliens, are granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. [2] The only exception is for foreign diplomats’ and officers’ children.[4 and Note 2]

Jus Sanguinis

The other natural born citizenship birthright is called jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”). Jus sanguinis is based on having an ancestor or parent (often the father), who is a national or citizen of the state.[2]

Jus sanguinis has even a longer history under English common law than jus soli. The concept of jus sanguinis dates back to at least 1351 when the statute de Natis Ultra Mare (25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1351)) was passed. This statute became necessary due to King Edwards III’s overseas military campaigns. The statute goes beyond just granting citizenship to the children of those in the King’s service, to include “all children born beyond the sea whose fathers and mothers were at the faith and ligeance of the king of England, and provided that the mothers had gone outside the realm with the permission of their husbands, could inherit, i.e., that they were subjects.”[5]

The concept of Jus sanguinis did influence the creation of the Constitution in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1790 ((1 Stat. 103) March 26, 1790) clarifies this type of natural born citizen by declaring that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Thusly the act establishes the United States citizenship of citizens’ children, who are born abroad, without the need for naturalization.[Note 3]

Congress again confirmed jus sanguinis citizenship birthright in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)) “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” While this leaves out the term natural-born, it does declare them to be citizens by-birth through their parents and therefore do not need the process of naturalization to become citizens.

Its really a moot point since it seems he was in fact born here. Now if your willing to call all the elected officials liars then so be it. Just because you dont allow yourself to believe does not make something the way you want it.

and here are the newspaper announcements…

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

Next we’ll hear how this was a consriracy started in 1961.

You both are fools that should not be allowed to post misinformation as you have and Fishhead, you are basically ignorant.

Obama had a Kenyan father – therefore he was a british citizen. There is also no bona fide certificate that states Obama was born in Hawaii, only that he was born and, since both parents were not American citizens, there is no way in hell obama is anything but an illegal alien put in office by a bunch of psychopathic dumber than dirt sons of Satan.

Also why not check medical records from Ann Dunham (his mother) to see where she had her son…

the birthers are just gullible suckers.

Obama Birth Registration Filed in 1961 But not ultimately Accepted

CDR Kerchner

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

CDR Kerchner