[rxsid]

There appears to be a glaring problem with Klayman's argument:

Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, Appellee Obama was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United States, and a father who was a Kenyan citizen.

Unless Klayman believes that Barry was born sometime late 1963 or later (1961 isn't listed in the appeal other than by inference), then why would Klayman state that Barry was born to a father who was a "Kenyan" (in 1961)...when "Kenya" hadn't gained their independence yet in 1961.

He should have stipulated that Barry was born to British subject father.

[Seizethecarp]

In 1961 Kenyan citizen = UK subject and in any case BHO Sr was a non-US citizen father...if he was the father. It was Barry's own campaign that stipulated, supposedly against interest, that the children of BHO Sr. were governed by the UK’s 1948 BNA.

Meanwhile Barry is now claiming on his campaign website that his mom was “single” when he was born, thus in public negating any “governing” by the 1948 BNA which doesn't govern illegitimate children (or children of bigamous marriages). The campaign even tweeted out this stupid statement which at a minimum makes his mom and dad liars.

Perhaps he could see this NBC challenge coming in FL and was trying to preempt it...or baiting constitutionalists because he believes independents will feel sorry for him.