More fog on the subject.

The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
By Jess Henig | factcheck.org

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Of course, this is nothing but a pack of lies as everyone knows that FactCheck is in the tank for Obama, and, I mean, really, Newsweek? The MSM??? If Jerome Corsi says it's a fake, that should be good enough for anybody. Right?

I am indeed very interested in the outcome of the court's deliberations, and will accept their authority on the matter. Everyone else seems to believe that the issue already decided, when the current court has not delivered its opinion yet;
even those who do not have direct access to the evidence!

It would not be the first time that forged documents and complicity have been used to garner native-born citizenship. Why not settle the matter in a legal manner?

It is a legal proof of citizenship, which has been verified by the State of Hawaii. Unless you want to accuse the State of Hawaii of fraud, there isn't much to deliberate upon. What proof do you have that you are a citizen, manning?

Sorry, but the legal proof has not been verified by the federal government--as yet--to my knowledge.

As to my proof of citizenship, it has been verified by every government entity in the path, from State through Federal, multiple times, and by several security agencies, of which I have the proof as well. I can stand up in court and show well-documented evidence of my citizenship. That is a wrong tack to take, Michael--LOL!

You just might know, or maybe not, that the certificate of birth is not the final governing document. Entry into the Registry of
Births is the final authority. That may well be examined by the investigators in Hawaii to remove all doubt as to the provenance of Obama's cetificate.

Why shouldn't the candidate for president have to submit at least the details I did from birth till now? He will have high level accesses I never knew existed.

He provided an electronic copy of his birth certificate, about which there is a question. He has not provided an embossed original--as yet--which he claims now to have in his possession, but has not released it.

This is very simply a question of the Constitutionality of Obama's candidacy. Why is it that you think the court should not examine the evidence and make a clear and complete decision?
That is my opinion.

I find that those who quibble on this point want to subvert the Constitution in this case, or to smear the question over as "tin hat". That is the height of trollsmanship, in my opinion.

That is unacceptable for an American citizen to champion.

Michael, please don't feed the troll.

Oh you're right, thanks for the intervention.

Michael: I have not commented on the citizenship of Obama's Mother. But, if he was born other than in the US, the fact of her citizenship and age is of direct importance under the laws governing native born status at that time.

His mother met the citizenship and age requirements for Barack to be given citizenship rights by birth, even if he wasn't born in the USA, which he was. Unless you want to accuse the State of Kansas of forging birth certificates too.

I am sure that the electronic documents in question, and the expertise of Strata will be useful in the court's deliberations on Obama's true birthplace.

It is a legal proof of citizenship, which has been verified by the State of Hawaii. Unless you want to accuse the State of Hawaii of fraud, there isn't much to deliberate upon. What proof do you have that you are a citizen, manning?

I am also sure that the testimony or depositions of his Mother and others will be of use to the judge.

His mother is dead, as is his father.

I have not seen proof of such vetting, which would likewise be of consideration for the judge.

He has provided proof of his citizenship through birth right, verified by the authority of the State of Hawaii. What do you want, stone tablets being sent down from heaven?

It is sad that this issue has not been addressed properly by Obama himself by furnishing all evidence of his birthplace freely and openly to the government and the public.

He provided his damned birth certificate! What the hell more is there that he could provide? What are you not getting about this?

Michael: I have not commented on the citizenship of Obama's Mother. But, if he was born other than in the US, the fact of her citizenship and age is of direct importance under the laws governing native born status at that time.

Do we have a Constitution or not? Is it the Law of the Land, or is it merely an impediment to those who want this man to be elected? That many voters for Obama, it is suggested, do not care that this provision of the Constitution is violated is a terrible commentary on the state of our union.

As I have said before, I await the courts' decisions, which will hopefully end the matter in a proper legal manner. The US Government is supposed to vet candidates for election to the presidency. I have not seen proof of such vetting, which would likewise be of consideration for the judge.

It is sad that this issue has not been addressed properly by Obama himself by furnishing all evidence of his birthplace freely and openly to the government and the public. We should not be left with the necessity for having self-appointed experts examine what could be a forgery in the first place, the providence of the certificate being a critical question, as well as is the actual registery entry of birth in Hawaii being of essence to the proof. An original birth certificate would be of real value as well.

It is quite proper for the Courts to examine the evidence and to establish once and for all the correct situation prior to the election. I am not surprised at the time it is taking, since there are necessary investigations to be conducted in Hawaii, Kenya, and Indonesia, probably by the FBI.