[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

See that's where you're wrong, contrary to what you say, you seem to treat the daily show as news. (otherwise you wouldn't have used it as a reference here)

That is flawed reasoning. Once again, I am not saying that Obama is a citizen because of what Stewart said. I am saying that Stewart summed it up in a nice manner. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

And I ignore the major news media, simply because they've ceased to be objective in their coverage, Fox News excepted.

A nice. So you only watch Fox News because they are the only one who is objective. That my friend, is flawed on sooooooooooooooooooo many levels. This is a guess, but I'd say that you only watch Fox because it just so happens that their political bias fits yours, so it seems right. You don't check anything they say. Fox is bias to the right just as MSNBC is bias to the left. If you can't see that, then there is really no arguing with you on it.

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

That's why more people watch Fox News. That's a FACT.

I agree with you; that is a fact. Is it relevant? No, not at all. You are trying to imply that Fox is correct in what they report because more people watch Fox then any other news outlet. Really?

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

And I don't regurgitate anything, I form my own opinions. Are they aligned with the right ? You Got that **** straight ! The only one here not thinking is you my friend.

Well, if you don't, then show me your work outside of Fox to forum the opinion that Obama cannot legally be the president.

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

The only one here not thinking is you my friend. Get you head out of dark places. You might learn something.

Explain. Am I not thinking because I don't agree with what you think? If anyone here isn't thinking, it's you. Nothing personal, but really think about what "you" are saying with regards to Obama not being a legal citizen. I mean, REALLY think about it. As I said early, Steward didn't give out any news; all he did was make a point. I can't be treating the Daily Show as news if I'm not getting any news from it.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

What a hypocrite. Obama's above the law now that he's the prez ? You must keep his picture by your bedisde so he's the first thing you see when you wake up.

Your whole post doesn't make sense. Obama is not above the law. Like I said in the post that you seemed to be replaying to:

Originally Posted by 6stang7

Of all 50 states, none require you to prove that you are a natural born citizen, as defined in article II of the U.S. Constitution, to be on the ballot.

You read that right? Tell me how he is above the law.


I'd also like to point out the I didn't vote for Obama. It's ok though, you can continue to make assumptions that I am a lefty or something just because I disagree with you (who is a righty by your accounts). This is another thing destroying this country. There is no respect for anyone's view points; unless you agree with them. You tell me to think and get out of the dark, yet you're the one who isn't thinking.

[6Stang7]

I'd like to point out that both of you (D.Hearne and strtrcr50) have been answering only what you find convenient to answer. You're both American's right? I mean true blooded American's? You believe in the vision set by the founding fathers? If you are, and if you understand why we are (or were) the greatest nation on the planet, then you'd understand what is wrong with this Glenn Beck's logic. You understand why it is so disgusting if any legal action should ever come from its logic.

[D.Hearne]

That's where you're wrong. The left is the side that preaches "tolerance" yet it's funny that they're the side always looking at keeping the right side's viewpoints from being heard. That happens everyday with the major news media (Fox excepted) If Obama is not above the law, then lets see how long he continues to keep his records hidden. THAT is the point here. Just the fact that he refuses to produce these records for all to see, should raise red flags in your vision. But you ignore them and say that by law he doesn't have to do anything. He's the president, but he's the first one to put down those who don't agree with him. He's only the president to his side of the aisle. He's hell bent on leading this country down the path of destruction. Ever wonder why he's in such a hurry to do that ?

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

That is flawed reasoning. Once again, I am not saying that Obama is a citizen because of what Stewart said. I am saying that Stewart summed it up in a nice manner. There is a difference.



A nice. So you only watch Fox News because they are the only one who is objective. That my friend, is flawed on sooooooooooooooooooo many levels. This is a guess, but I'd say that you only watch Fox because it just so happens that their political bias fits yours, so it seems right. You don't check anything they say. Fox is bias to the right just as MSNBC is bias to the left. If you can't see that, then there is really no arguing with you on it.




I agree with you; that is a fact. Is it relevant? No, not at all. You are trying to imply that Fox is correct in what they report because more people watch Fox then any other news outlet. Really?




Well, if you don't, then show me your work outside of Fox to forum the opinion that Obama cannot legally be the president.




Explain. Am I not thinking because I don't agree with what you think? If anyone here isn't thinking, it's you. Nothing personal, but really think about what "you" are saying with regards to Obama not being a legal citizen. I mean, REALLY think about it. As I said early, Steward didn't give out any news; all he did was make a point. I can't be treating the Daily Show as news if I'm not getting any news from it.

Ok, so if Fox is so far off base, then why is the White House attacking it? Have you ever heard of a President or his staff doing that to a news station?

White House steps up attacks on Fox News

Amid tough approach, Axelrod says officials will still appear on network
The Associated Press
updated 8:21 a.m. CT, Mon., Oct . 19, 2009

WASHINGTON - White House advisers have stepped up their attacks on Fox News, claiming the cable television network is a Republican mouthpiece whose programming "is geared toward making money."

Several critics questioned the wisdom of the move while one of President Barack Obama's top adviser pledged Sunday that administration officials would still appear on the top-rated cable news network.

Last week, White House communications director Anita Dunn said Fox News operates "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama's chief of staff, said, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

In response to the criticism, Fox News executive Michael Clemente on Sunday accused the White House of continuing to "declare war on a news organization" rather than focusing on issues such as jobs and health care.

"The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues," said Clemente, senior vice president of news, in a written statement.

Tough looks at the administration
Fox News commentators Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been strong Obama critics, and Bill O'Reilly has taken tough looks at the administration. Obama avoided "Fox News Sunday" when he visited five Sunday morning news shows last month; three aides carried the administration's message on Afghanistan, health care and the economy this Sunday to ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, but not Fox; and a recent White House blog post accused Beck of lying. Beck has called Obama a racist.

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft Corp. and NBC Universal, owner of NBC News and the MSNBC cable news network.)

Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor and former White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration is trying to demonize Fox News for asking questions officials do not like. He compared Obama's approach to that of President Richard Nixon, who included journalists on an "enemies list."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," Rove said. "And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do."

Appearing on ABC television's "This Week," senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way," he said.

Still, Axelrod said administration officials would appear on the channel. He shrugged off News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's remark to shareholders last Friday that since the White House began criticizing Fox News commentators their ratings have risen.

"You know, I'm not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money," Axelrod said. "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. ... It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view."

Emanuel appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" and Rove on "Fox News Sunday."


Wise move?
Several critics have questioned the wisdom of Obama's approach.

"Whether or not you like Fox News, all of us in the press need to be concerned about the administration of President Barack Obama trying to `punish' the cable news channel for its point of view," wrote television critic David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun.

"I would think that what this reflects is a pent-up frustration or rage at the coverage they get, not only from Fox but elsewhere," said David Gergen, a CNN commentator and former White House aide.

Gergen said he understands the temptation to go on the attack — he's done it himself — but it frequently turns out to be a mistake.

"My experience has been when the White House engages in personal or organizational attacks, it elevates the other side to virtually the same level of the White House, which is not their intent," he said. "It's going to spike Fox's ratings," which are already high this year.

If the White House wants to fight back, it's better to let surrogates do the work, he said.

Among grass-roots Democrats, many think it was important for the president to put his foot down, said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist. Many strongly believe that the president and his staff should have nothing to do with Fox, she said.

But research has shown that Fox has independents and moderates in its audience that the president shouldn't ignore, she said.

"There is room for a more nuanced strategy," she said: Stay away from Beck or the morning "Fox & Friends," she suggested, but an interview with Wallace could be beneficial.

Dunn said the administration still deals with Fox reporters such as Major Garrett in the White House. Obama "has appeared on Fox shows in the past (and) he certainly will appear on them in the future," she said.

White House steps up attacks on Fox News - White House- msnbc.com

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

If Obama is not above the law, then lets see how long he continues to keep his records hidden. THAT is the point here. Just the fact that he refuses to produce these records for all to see, should raise red flags in your vision.

That is just wrong!!!! How do you not see that?!?! By your same logic, I can say: "Just the fact that Glenn Beck has yet to prove that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990 to all of us, should raise red flags in your vision."

Please tell me how you can see that the logic there is flawed and wrong.

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

But you ignore them and say that by law he doesn't have to do anything. He's the president, but he's the first one to put down those who don't agree with him. He's only the president to his side of the aisle. He's hell bent on leading this country down the path of destruction. Ever wonder why he's in such a hurry to do that ?

First, I say he isn't required by law BECAUSE HE ISN'T! I don't get it. It is not required by law to prove that you are a citizen to be on the ballot for president. Period. I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but can you even understand that? I've said that over and over. That IS the law. If you don't like it, THEN FIGHT FOR IT TO BE CHANGED! Arguing that we should do something OUTSIDE the scope of the law because you feel it is right doesn't work. Listen. I'm not saying everything Obama does is right, or is best for the country, OR ANYTHING relating to his politics. Never ONCE have I in this thread. You don't understand what I am saying. Obama is not required by law to prove his citizenship until legally challenged. If you don't understand the strict definition of that, then you don't understand how our country was founded.

You last few sentences are moot to this argument (why he hasn't shown proof of citizenship). I'm not here to argue whether the public option in good or bad or anything else of the sorts. Please, stay on track.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by sphinx

Ok, so if Fox is so far off base, then why is the White House attacking it? Have you ever heard of a President or his staff doing that to a news station?



White House steps up attacks on Fox News - White House- msnbc.com

You answered your own question!!!!!! I don't know whether it has been done in the past, but I can say that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you should look into the possibility that they are attacking a new station BECAUSE OF HOW DECEPTIVE THEY ARE BEING! If you think my logic just there is flawed, then so is yours. I'll let you think about what that leads to.

[6Stang7]

Originally Posted by D.Hearne

So what's up with this ? There some kind of hidden message in that old newspaper ?

You saw the birth announcement for Obama, right?

O let me guess, that is a fake?


No wait, the real Obama was killed and his life stolen by the current "Obama."

Sigh.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

You answered your own question!!!!!! I don't know whether it has been done in the past, but I can say that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you should look into the possibility that they are attacking a new station BECAUSE OF HOW DECEPTIVE THEY ARE BEING! If you think my logic just there is flawed, then so is yours. I'll let you think about what that leads to.

I would say that CBS/Dan Rather were a little more deceptive.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

You saw the birth announcement for Obama, right?

O let me guess, that is a fake?


No wait, the real Obama was killed and his life stolen by the current "Obama."

Sigh.

Meh. I posted a Kenyan birth certificate that was just as believable.

[strtrcr50]

Let me see if I have this right:
While you agree that there are eligibility requirements, you do not believe that a person must prove their eligibility. Their word is good enough. And spending over a million dollars to keep records that would prove/disprove their claim is good because it is exercising their 4th amendment. On an unrelated note, are you equally against DUI roadside checkpoints? While I feel your 4th amendment claim holds no water with 0bama, it certainly applies to roadside checkpoints in my opinion.

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Meh. I posted a Kenyan birth certificate that was just as believable.

Perhaps to someone who wants to believe. Obama's birth announcements are on record at 3 different Hawaiian newspapers and the announcement is placed by the state of Hawaii. The Kenyan birth certificate is a proven fake.

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Let me see if I have this right:
While you agree that there are eligibility requirements, you do not believe that a person must prove their eligibility. Their word is good enough. And spending over a million dollars to keep records that would prove/disprove their claim is good because it is exercising their 4th amendment. On an unrelated note, are you equally against DUI roadside checkpoints? While I feel your 4th amendment claim holds no water with 0bama, it certainly applies to roadside checkpoints in my opinion.

The Certificate of Live Birth provided by Obama is legal proof of birth place. This made him eligible to run and win the presidency. The fact that you want something else doesn't change the legitimacy of what has already been provided.

[strtrcr50]

No matter how much you say it, a certificate of live birth is not sufficient. It's not sufficient to get my nephew into little league. But a birth certificate with an embossed seal is. And the last time I checked, all it took to get an announcement of birth in a newspaper was a phone call to said newspaper.

[strtrcr50]

So bigconig, why do YOU think 0bama has spent north of a million dollars to keep his college application records sealed? What harm would there be in saving a million dollars and allowing them to be released?

[sphinx]

Originally Posted by bigconig

Which Dems are you referring to? One wacky guy from New Hampshire files a subpoena and all of a sudden it's the "Dems". The senate declared, unanimously that McCain was eligible to run just as they did for Obama.

Lets see the times did an article back in Febuary 2008 on McCain's status long before anyone even knew the big zero was going to be a contender.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us.../28mccain.html

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

The difference is, McCain showed his birth CERTIFICATE. 0bama did not. Nor has he still to this point. And he just keeps spending money keeping his college application data secret. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

That is just wrong!!!! How do you not see that?!?! By your same logic, I can say: "Just the fact that Glenn Beck has yet to prove that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990 to all of us, should raise red flags in your vision."

Please tell me how you can see that the logic there is flawed and wrong.




First, I say he isn't required by law BECAUSE HE ISN'T! I don't get it. It is not required by law to prove that you are a citizen to be on the ballot for president. Period. I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but can you even understand that? I've said that over and over. That IS the law. If you don't like it, THEN FIGHT FOR IT TO BE CHANGED! Arguing that we should do something OUTSIDE the scope of the law because you feel it is right doesn't work. Listen. I'm not saying everything Obama does is right, or is best for the country, OR ANYTHING relating to his politics. Never ONCE have I in this thread. You don't understand what I am saying. Obama is not required by law to prove his citizenship until legally challenged. If you don't understand the strict definition of that, then you don't understand how our country was founded.

You last few sentences are moot to this argument (why he hasn't shown proof of citizenship). I'm not here to argue whether the public option in good or bad or anything else of the sorts. Please, stay on track.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

Losing your citizenship

For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.

Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routine-level job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S. policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related sections.

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

Becoming naturalized in another country
Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
By being convicted of committing treason

HE BECAME AN INDONESIAN CITIZEN WHEN HIS MOTHER MARRIED ONE.



His Indonesian School card filled out as a muslim and a citizen.

Originally Posted by 6Stang7

You answered your own question!!!!!! I don't know whether it has been done in the past, but I can say that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you should look into the possibility that they are attacking a new station BECAUSE OF HOW DECEPTIVE THEY ARE BEING! If you think my logic just there is flawed, then so is yours. I'll let you think about what that leads to.

It actually has been done once in the past by a President, Richard Nixon. We all know how that worked out.
What makes you think they are being deceptive? Because no one else airs the same stories? You know if you really feel like they are being deceptive it isn't too hard to verify what they say with a simple Google search.

[sphinx]

Was Sen. Barack Obama a citizen of Indonesia at any point in his life?

That question has been circulating on the blogosphere with increased fury the past few days, since a photograph emerged of Obama's school registration papers as a child in Indonesia – the world's most populous Muslim nation – showing the presidential candidate listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.

An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama's biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia. That would not necessarily disqualify Obama to run for president, but it could raise loyalty concerns.

A 2007 Associated Press photograph taken by Tatan Syuflana, an Indonesian AP reporter and photographer, surfaced last week on the Daylife.com photographic website showing an image of Obama's registration card at Indonesia's Fransiskus Assisi school, a Catholic institution.

In the picture, Obama is registered under the name Barry Soetoro by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. The school card lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His religion is listed as Muslim.

Jack Stokes, manager of media relations for the AP, confirmed to WND the picture is indeed an AP photo.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama later was enrolled at SDN Menteng 1, an Indonesian public school.

Obama's campaign did not return repeated WND phone calls and e-mail queries the past week asking for a clarification regarding the school documentation listing the presidential candidate's citizenship as Indonesian.

Obama spokesmen have stated the candidate is a natural-born citizen amid rumors he may have been born in his father's home country of Kenya, but the campaign has not addressed whether Obama became a citizen of Indonesia at any point.

Obama's American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the presidential candidate was two years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced. Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, and moved to Indonesia sometime between 1966 and 1967.

It was not clear whether Soetoro adopted Obama, either in Hawaii or in Indonesia, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that he did as far as Indonesian law was concerned.

In Indonesia, which was under tight rule in 1967, Obama clearly took on the last name of his stepfather in school registration documents. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, which needed to bear the student's legal name, which should be matched in public school registration filings.

Following his enrollment at the private Assisi school, Obama attended public schooling in Indonesia until he returned to Hawaii at age 10. According to Indonesian legal experts, it was difficult to enroll non-Indonesian citizens in public schooling.

Obama arrived in Indonesia at about the age of five according to most accounts, although it was possible he arrived at the age of six, according to a few sources. If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama at age five or younger, then Obama would automatically have become an Indonesian citizen according to the country's laws in the 1960's, which stipulated any child aged five or younger adopted by an Indonesian father is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.

Lolo Soetoro could have adopted Obama in Hawaii, although such an adoption would not have necessarily been recognized by Indonesia.

Indonesian law at the time also did not recognize dual citizenship, meaning if Obama became Indonesian, then as far as that country was concerned, his U.S. citizenship was no longer recognized by Indonesia. But U.S. law would still recognize Obama as an American citizen.

In a revelation that raised a few eyebrows, Obama last April disclosed he traveled as a college student to Pakistan in 1981.

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college – I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," Obama reportedly stated at a fundraising event.

The senator had not previously discussed any trip to Pakistan, either in his books or in scores of policy talks regarding Pakistan.

Prompted by Obama's statements, ABC News contacted the presidential candidate's campaign, which affirmed that in 1981 – the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University – Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. Obama then went on to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from that country, the campaign said.

Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, said the campaign, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.

Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

If Obama indeed possessed Indonesian citizenship as a child, it is unlikely he retains such citizenship. The country's bylaws require any Indonesian citizen living abroad for more than five years to formally declare his intention to return, otherwise risk losing his citizenship status. The law does not necessarily mean Indonesian citizenship would be immediately lost. The law can be overruled by ministerial order.

Obama's registration in Indonesia under the name "Barry Soetoro" also raises questions as to whether he adopted that name in the U.S. at any time. According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not have any former names.

Was young Obama Indonesian citizen?

[Dusstbuster]

Was one of his parents a US Citizen when he was born?

[Strype]

Did anyone in Hawaii use the word "Negro" in 1961?

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

No matter how much you say it, a certificate of live birth is not sufficient. It's not sufficient to get my nephew into little league. But a birth certificate with an embossed seal is. And the last time I checked, all it took to get an announcement of birth in a newspaper was a phone call to said newspaper.

I don't know where you get this but it most certainly is sufficient. Hawaiian COLB (what Hawaii uses since records were digitized) has an embossed seal on it and is clearly visible in the pictures posted on factcheck.org

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

So bigconig, why do YOU think 0bama has spent north of a million dollars to keep his college application records sealed? What harm would there be in saving a million dollars and allowing them to be released?

All college records are sealed. As far as if he has paid millions to keep them that way, I would need a better source than you or WND

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by Strype

Did anyone in Hawaii use the word "Negro" in 1961?

No..

[strtrcr50]

What are the different types of Birth Documentation in Hawaii
The constitution demands “natural born” so as to mitigate the possibility of "divided loyalties"



Anyone can swear and sign the form to the registrar in Hawaii that they were a citizen of Hawaii and within the previous year gave birth. The individual gives the date/time of the birth and a document record is dually entered. Perhaps someone can inform as to whether you even need to show the baby! Doesn’t look like it from my read of the statute.



http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.htm



One can get a “Certificate of Live Birth” with its minimal documentation. The date of birth can be any date the person enters, This document can be used to then establish citizenship for the purpose of getting a passport, but its lack of physically identifying information found on the "Birth Certificate" precludes it from being useful in proving "Natural Born" status.



The normal “Birth Certificate” has uniquely identifying information along with eyewitness’s (doctor, nurse, orderly) and the specific location so that it is now verifiable and traceable.


Note this dialog regarding the difference in certificates.

A Certification of Live Birth is not a legal document and is explained on this State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website.
Quote
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
End Quote - See
Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands — Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

hmm...

[strtrcr50]

Pay close attention to the following Hawaiian legal statute:

“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

Everybody get that?

As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.

The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a back-alley in Budapest.

How much more proof do you disciples of the Messiah need before you will admit that there are legitimate reasons to demand answers on this issue?

Of course the fact that Obama may have been elected to our nation’s highest office in direct violation of the United States Constitution is not something that would greatly trouble a dedicated Kool-Aid drinker.

...

[strtrcr50]

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN - Atlas Shrugs

But then again, why would I question anything from the man who chooses to associate himself with Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and his czars that only manage to stay in office for a month or 2 before the skeletons come dancing out of the closet. For that matter, why would anyone question the loyalty of a man who'se idea of loyalty to his country consists of surrendering to other countries during negotiations(love that new missile russia has now that 0bama has disarmed the world by disarming America), telling the world how bad America is, and making a priority out of getting the olympics to a city where all his friends will make millions instead of handling Afghanistan.

[strtrcr50]

Funny how all that is being asked for is that the "transparent" administration provide proof that 0 is constitutionally eligible, and instead, they waste countless amounts of money to stonewall.. If I were president and my eligibility was in question, I'd release my BIRTH CERTIFICATE and whatever other records they needed since I have nothing to hide.

[bigconig]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

hmm...

If you're going to quote some looney blogger's site you may want to check the links he includes.

Fater Hank Rand says "A Certification of Live Birth is not a legal document and is explained on this State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website." he provides the following link from Hawaii.gov (which contradicts what he says) Kooks.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.