Ok. But all Article II says is “natural born.” There seems to be some argument as to exactly what qualifies one to be “natural born.”
***I see you didn’t click on the link I provided. So you sign up here a couple of days ago and start bloviating about something that you haven’t even come up to speed on. OK. That usually means there’s Ozone in your Future.
But according to Berg’s lawsuit, that matters a great deal. Berg argues that if he is or ever was an Indonesian citizen, or even a Kenyan citizen by virtue of his father’s citizenship, that disqualifies him as being “natural born,” and that his being born in Hawaii is irrelevant.
***He might be right. I just happen to think the likelihood of this particular argument winning the day is about 2% while the birth certificate (Proven to be a forgery) knocking Obama around will be significantly higher.
But if that doesn’t matter to you, then why does it matter whether he was born in Hawaii or not?
***Because if he was born in Hawaii, he’s natural born. If he was born in Kenya, he’s a naturalized (ahem, illegally naturalized) citizen and he’s disqualified in the constitution. It’s just as if someone were to prove he’s 30 years old — he wouldn’t meet the age requirement.
I’m just trying to make sense of what you’re trying to say.
***I don’t get that impression. I get the impression you’re trying to steer the conversation to Berg rather than address the very, very, very simple (and as yet unanswered) question of WHY hasn’t Obama produced a birth certificate just like McCain did?
What I am up to speed on is Berg's lawsuit. That is what this article is about. And that is what I was discussing.
He might be right.
Well at least you acknowledge that Berg argues that it matters.
I just happen to think the likelihood of this particular argument winning the day is about 2% while the birth certificate (Proven to be a forgery) knocking Obama around will be significantly higher.
Fine. And I just happen to think that the claims made by Berg in his lawsuit make the birth certificate a non-issue
Because if he was born in Hawaii, he’s natural born.
But Berg argues that his Indonesian citizenship trumps whatever status he may have had as "natural born" by being born in Hawaii.
If he was born in Kenya, he’s a naturalized (ahem, illegally naturalized) citizen and he’s disqualified in the constitution.
But I haven't seen any evidence that he was born in Kenya. Whereas I have seen evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Both the photos of what Obama claims to be a certification of birth issued by the State of Hawaii and giving a date of birth of August 4, 1961, and the photo of the Jakarta school record which states he was born in Honolulu and also gives a date of birth of August 4, 1961.
I don’t get that impression. I get the impression you’re trying to steer the conversation to Berg...
Trying to steer the conversation to Berg? The subject of this article is Berg's lawsuit. The title says "US State Department Subpoena Denial in Obama Eligibility Suit." The subtitle says "Update on latest information from Berg v. Obama regarding eligibility for POTUS."
So if I am trying to steer the conversation to Berg, it's only because that's what I was led to believe this conversation was about.
...rather than address the very, very, very simple (and as yet unanswered) question of WHY hasn’t Obama produced a birth certificate just like McCain did?
A couple of reasons.
First, because it wasn't the subject of this article. The subject of the article was Berg's lawsuit.
Second, I can't answer that question. Nor do I see that anyone but Obama can answer that question. Anything else is just speculation. And speculation doesn't get one any closer to any meaningful answer so I don't see the point.
Personally I'd be curious to see his full form birth certificate. But speculating about why he hasn't produced it isn't going to get me any closer to seeing it nor provide me with any answers.