[lucysmom]

I disagree, I have provided information that you might not consider sufficient, but it was aquired by lawyers on current litigation, and to their mind, is sufficient to place before the court. I shared it with you, and you find it insufficient. I will not, and do not expect to satisfy everyone, but so far, your the only one who feels it is insufficient.

Would these be the lawyers that repeatedly have their cases dismissed because they don't meet the most basic criteria, that is, standing?

No, I'm not the only one who thinks the use of a nickname is proof of adoption or legal name change. (Do you think "Scooter" is Libby's legal name?)

Obama is not qualified to be President because his father is not a US Citizen, and never was. He was or was not adopted is ancilary to the fact that his father was not a US citizen. At the VERY BEST, he is a naturalized citizen. Personally, I think he is an illegal alien, just like his aunt who is living in DC and has been the past 12 years, and on the public dole to boot.

The trouble is that Obama has never claimed that his father was anything more than an absent sperm donor and a citizen of GB and then Kenya. If that were sufficient to keep him out of the Oval Office, you wouldn't need these ancillary issues to pump up your premise that he doesn't qualify.

[etraveler13]

For your first statement, it is obvious to anyone that reads the judges dismissal statements that the cases are not being dismissed because of the merits, but technicalities.
For your second statement, your just being obtuse.
His father is not a US citizen, therefore Obama is not a Natural born citizen, therefore he does not meet the qualifications for the office. Period.
That IS sufficient for him not to be POTUS.

Just because a car thief steals a car, Possession does not equal Ownership. The fact that the thief has eluded the police, or they do not pursue him, does not make him less guilty, or NOT a thief....you ken?