Trump Attacked for Demanding Obama Birth Docs

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 25 Mar 2011 05:01 PM | Dan Weil

[Red Steel]

Donald Trump’s calls this week for President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate prompted negative reactions from pundits who would like to turn the tables on Trump and say, “You’re fired.”

However, Trump’s comments, made most recently in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, also garnered support from those who wonder why Obama has not supplied documentation of where he was born.

Trump rekindled the longtime controversy Wednesday on ABC’s “The View” when he said Obama was “probably” born in the United States, but he wants the president to prove it with a birth certificate.

As for the critics, Brian Lowry of Variety got personal. “More than anything, Trump looks like a buffoon — an egomaniac hopelessly addicted to the spotlight, floating the prospect of a presidential run to a gullible media to boost interest in himself and ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’" Lowry wrote on the magazine’s website.

“Moreover, he seems in complete denial about the fact that his NBC show crested some time ago. Seriously, 8 million viewers or so is ‘through the roof?’ Only if the ceiling is about three inches above your head.”

David Weigel of Slate magazine took up Trump’s challenge to show him a photo of Obama as a child. “I've seen 14-year-old,” Trump said. “I've seen 13-year-old. I haven't seen early pictures." Weigel’s column includes a photo of Obama as a child that appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 2008.

-snip-

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.

But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.

[jamese777]

What’s up with you?
I don’t fly on Birther Airlines at all, but what’s with your singleminded focus on this topic — determined to defend Obama?

---

I could care less whether Obama is impeached, resigns or is lined up against a wall and shot.

The politics of the issue are such that Obama is STRENGTHENED, not weakened by rumor, innuendo, myth, and misrepresentations. There is an old saying: “If you go to strike the King, you must kill him.”
“King” Obama is not “killed” politically by anything other than irrefutable FACT.
In my humble opinion, birthers have few facts. I challenge the rumors, myths, innuendos, and misrepresentations.
I’m with her:
http://www.cbs.com/video/video.php?pid=LhhXEBv8Y8IY2xzhJ8GmBn22nNDRct_Q

And I don’t believe that she was lying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28W_9feWxBg

[Fantasywriter]

I don’t know what Trump’s deal is, either. I know he’s hurting Obama, and intends to hurt him. I also believe Trump has finagled a way to know what’s on the BC. I don’t attribute magnanimous or altruistic motives to Trump. I do think he is dead set against Obama’s policies and the destruction they have wrought on the USA. So I will wait for this to play out, but I’ll be one-hundred percent behind Trump’s efforts to expose Obama’s fraud in the meanwhile.

[Danae]

LOL

You refuse to examine the evidence and call me a little nutcase??

Pops, go back and eat your cream of wheat. You are out of your league with me.

PS: Ad hominum attacks = fail.

Your argument fails. You fail to read history. You fail to get educated. You are holding onto a fallacy harder than Lindsey Lohan held onto Smanatha Ronson.

Pfffft... off with you. Your cereal is getting cold.

[jamese777]

No James. No one says that. Naturalized citizens are citizens. Their children, if both parents are citizens and they are born under the sole jurisdiction of the U.S. are Natural born citizens. The description you give is a red herring and untrue. Only a person who does not under stand “sole jurisdiction” would say such a thing.

---

I understand where you’re coming from Danae but I think you might have missed all the concern about President Chester A. Arthur whose father was naturalized when Chester was 14 years old.
Some “birthers” accuse President Arthur of hiding his father’s foreign birth in order to qualify.
The following is from the www.birtherreport.com website and was written by “birther” attorney Mario Appuzzo:
“The only exception to all this is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.” Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth.

[jamese777]

Didn’t Trump’s mother get her USA citizenship some years before Donald was born? The parent’s birth place is wiped from consideration of natural born if they, both, are given citizenship befor the child’s birth. I believe the Founding Fathers were intentional as to such cases because they wantedsworn allegience to tyhe USA. It is misleading to just mention place of birth of the parents. My brother and I were in this predicament. I will note that the predicament did not dampen our loyalty and spirit to serve in WWII. My brother died in WWII with those feelings.

---

Yes, you are correct, Trump’s mother was naturalized before his birth.
Different people have different points of view on this issue.
The following was written by “birther” attorney Mario Appuzzo:
“The only exception to all this is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Chester Arthur’s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death. Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.” Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth.

[jamese777]

I must have missed your change-of-address notice posting. When, exactly, was it that you took up residence inside the minds of the Supremes?

“Posts” and “beliefs” don’t trump the Constitution.

Your posts are very entertaining. You’re intelligent, articulate - and transparent. It is odd that you seem to enjoy throwing yourself at the mercy of FReepers who day, after day, after day so excellently eviscerate your feeble, rote arguments. Makes me wonder whether you get to choose threads for entering into debate, or if you’re given assignments based on a specific talent, such as “skilled at meaningless repetition”, or “has memorized standard replies re: HDOH”, or “excellent obfuscation ability”, etc.

One thing’s certain: a talented troll such as yourself provides great opportunities for “Birthers”/”Proofers” to shine in debates - thus daily increasing the number of people who realize Obama is a usurper whose goal is to destroy our Republic.

So - thank you for your valuable assistance to our cause.

---

I’m glad that I could be of assistance to you in building your self-esteem. It’s good to feel good about yourself, isn’t it?

[Danae]

I know who A.L. Hinnman was. I know that he was right, but send off looking in the wrong direction. I did a fair bit of research myself, and have a digital copy of hinnmans book. My article can be found here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5065/pub_detail.asp

I have a great deal more than what is in that article. I have a 28 page paper that includes 3 pages of notations and 4 pages of Biblography. I can post it to scribd if you like, it was a college paper originally.

Hinnman was right, he was jsut looking in the wrong direction because NO ONE KNEW that Atrhur’s father wasn’t naturalized until olde Chet was 14. If Hinnman had found THAT document, Arthur would have been off the ticket with Garfield so fast it would have made supersonic seem slow.

[jamese777]

I know who A.L. Hinnman was. I know that he was right, but send off looking in the wrong direction. I did a fair bit of research myself, and have a digital copy of hinnmans book. My article can be found here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5065/pub_detail.asp

I have a great deal more than what is in that article. I have a 28 page paper that includes 3 pages of notations and 4 pages of Biblography. I can post it to scribd if you like, it was a college paper originally.

Hinnman was right, he was jsut looking in the wrong direction because NO ONE KNEW that Atrhur’s father wasn’t naturalized until olde Chet was 14. If Hinnman had found THAT document, Arthur would have been off the ticket with Garfield so fast it would have made supersonic seem slow

---

I see. Thanks for the link and the interesting discussion of the circumstances.
I’ve always been curious about the use of the term “14th Amendment citizen” as contrasted with Article II, “natural born citizen” in “Obama is ineligible” circles.
For example: http://www.birthers.org/USC/14.html

[kabumpo]

I see the same ears, same facial structure.

[CT]

You are correct. I apologize and stand corrected. I was thinking US Citizenship. And born of the blood and soil. My bad.

[Kenny Bunk]

It's an ill wind that blows no good!

So far, the only incontrovertible progress made on the ineligibility issue is academic in nature. Attorneys Donofrio and Apuzzo have rigorously demonstrated that Chester Arthur was a no-good SOB who knew he was ineligible, paid off a couple of people, successfully hid the facts, and then burned the records.

Unfortunately, thanks to the depredations of Obama, we won't have another 100 years to find out the truth about him. This is causing a great deal of frustration. We have been denied access to the courts for a resolution. No elected official seems to care about the issue, the requisite authorities seem unwilling to use the Grand Jury process for discovery, and there seems scant hope of a Congressional Committee investigation.

Somewhere around half of the populace thinks The Mombasa Moonbeam may be the Messiah. My half of the population thinks he may be the Anti-Christ, and meanwhile the Republic is circling the economic drain, while Ole Scarhead, an ex-attorney who was asked off the Illinois Bar, most likely for the outright lies on the App*, fills out March Madness Cards, heads down to Rio to work on his tan, and issues idiotic statements on school bullying, which unlike Article II, is not found in the Constitution.

Since we have been checked at every turn, is waiting until 2012 to vote against him the only option for his removal? What do you suggest?

*In keeping with your suggestion to stick to the facts, I must state that this is my conclusion only. In exchange for accepting "voluntary" retirement, the Illinois Bar sealed the "OBAMA" records. There may, or may not be a connection to the incontrovertible facts that on that on the publicly recorded Bar App he denied ever using a name other than "BHO, Jr. (or II)," denied using drugs, and denied any traffic violations.

[Danae]

In Obama’s case, the 14th amendment isn't of particular interest EXCEPT for the fact that it DOES speak about what isn't a Natural Born Citizen, and the fact that the case of Natural Born Citizen is different that that of citizen, or naturalized citizen.

We all know what a Naturalized citizen is, one who has renounced their previous Nation and sworn sole allegiance to the U.S.. A 14th Amendment citizen is one who received citizenship through the passage of the 14th Amendment - that group includes the slaves.

Quite literally a 14th Amendment citizen is equal to that of a Naturalized Citizen because Natural Born Citizenship can ONLY be determined at the instant of birth, and at no other time. This is why I believe that McCain's SR 511 is irrelevant. You cannot be declared a Natural Born Citizen. Either you were born under the sole jurisdiction of the United States or you weren't. I believe he was also born under the jurisdiction of Panama, because he wasn't born on a U.S. Military base. If he WAS born on the base, then that would be a different ball of wax.

So a 14th Amendment Citizen was equal to a naturalized citizen which is NOT equal to a Natural Born Citizen. No one alive today has that particular problem. After two generations it was irrelevant.

Ultimately every debate on the 14th Amendment accepted this definition of Natural Born Citizen: A person who was born under the sole jurisdiction of the United States. In order to acheive that state, one had to have parents who were citizens, and be born in their nation. If either of those conditions did not fully apply, one foreign Parnet, or born in another country, then that child had doubts as to their nationality, it could be either or, or it could be both. The founders were striving to make that uncertainty a 100% barrier to leading the armies of the United States, to prevent such a person from ever becoming POTUS.

For good reason. Because otherwise, we would get a “citizen of the world” as a potus who might not have the singular interests of the United States at heart. Golly, and lookie at what we got with Obama. EXACTLY.

Now Arthur by all accounts was a truly loyal American. He didn't have any divided allegiances or ties to other nations in the same way Obama does. But, they are still two birds of the same plumage's. America got lucky in that Arthur didn't betray our nation or her interests. We have NOT gotten so lucky with Obama. The founders were not into trusting to luck or some mythical belief in the inherent goodness of mankind. Hence they sought to prevent an Obama, knowing that in many cases, a man such as Arthur would lead honorably, they were not going to take the chance.

It is a bleeding shame we as Americans have forgotten these lessons. Well, we are remembering now, and for all the worst reasons.

Obama must be removed from office. My preference is in chains. He is a traitor, and an Usurper. If he had led honorably and not repeatedly violated the constitution like his predecessor did, Arthur, I might be inclined to let him resign. But in reality, that really isn't an option, because just as with OholyO, every bill Arthur signed is Void in Constitutional law. Most of those are long gone now. But Obama’s abominations are very much still with us and strangling this nation, and deliberately robbing her wealth to distribute to whom he sees fit.

Chains works well for me. Obama is no Nixon, he is FAR FAR FAR worse. No honorable resignation for him. He should be put on trial for his crimes, a pardon should be forever off the table.

[Kenny Bunk]

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Some news from the 14th Amendment front.

[noinfringers2]

There are two things in your reply for response. 1) I don’t believe mother and father of different citizenships merge either way. My mother, after my non-citizen father died, married a dyed in the wool citizen whose ancestory went back to the signing of ‘The Declaration of Independence’. My mother got her citizenship after testing and taking the oath for allegience. Citizenships were not merged. I believe the references to ‘citizenS’ very common to ‘natural born’ delineates separate citizenships are to be accounted for. This does not remove duel citizenship. 2) The history of Arthur shows how desperate people for power will connive to deceive people. However, that one deception should make all citizens leery of eligibility for POTUSA and not propagate a Constitutionally erroneous deception.There is much to be learned about the impact of ignorance.

[noinfringers2]

There are two things in your reply for response. 1) I don’t believe mother and father of different citizenships merge either way. My mother, after my non-citizen father died, married a dyed in the wool citizen whose ancestory went back to the signing of ‘The Declaration of Independence’. My mother got her citizenship after testing and taking the oath for allegience. Citizenships were not merged. I believe the references to ‘citizenS’ very common to ‘natural born’ delineates separate citizenships are to be accounted for. This does not remove duel citizenship. 2) The history of Arthur shows how desperate people for power will connive to deceive people. However, that one deception should make all citizens leery of eligibility for POTUSA and not propagate a Constitutionally erroneous deception.There is much to be learned about the impact of ignorance.

[TigersEye]

I have to ask though - whose BC is that and why are you posting it on a public forum??

The name is on it and I posted it to show what a real Hawaiian BC looks like.

[TigersEye]

I couldn’t agree with you more. I am also looking forward to the opening/release of Atlas Shrugged. I didn’t know the second one would be an entire year later. Wish it were coming a little sooner than that. Oh well, I guess there was that much time between LoRs movies.

[TigersEye]

Has any court referenced Minor v Happersett but used Wong Kim Ark as guiding precedent to rule that Obama is a natural born citizen? Let me answer that for you: “YES!”

Why didn't you name it and provide a link to more info on it then?

[Brown Deer]

these links disprove every lie the birthers have told

Your links disprove absolutely nothing! SNOPES is total nonsense! STOP posting your mindless LIES!

Barack Obama's parents separated when he was two years old, his father moving to Connecticut to continue his education before returning to Kenya. When the younger Obama was six years old, his mother married again, this time to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian oil manager.

On Mach 15, 1965, when Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, little Barry was supposedly only three years old, not "six years old."


0bama Sr. never lived in Connecticut. After leaving Hawaii, he lived at 170 Magazine Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[maine-iac7]

It's going to be a long wait - a trilogy released at one per year is going to be hard to wait for - however, with one coming this spring - that should get a new layer of people not familiar with Rand to start thinking and making connections with what they see happening in front of them.

Then, they'll want to see the second one - ans if that comes out in the spring of 2011 - and altho’ these are opening in limited theaters - I believe it will soon be picked up by a wider distributor - probably on cable - and also become available ‘on demand’, in Netflix, on DVD, etc.

That means that the meat of it, in the 2012 segment, will be in front of people during the election campaign. That could be VERY good.