I have to say this much for Donald Trump, even though I do not know if he really intends to make the run for POTUS, he is certainly hitting hard on the subject of the obsfucation that you have faced since 2008.
In this letter to the editor in the New York Times, Trump hits back at one of his critics. It is actually a very good response, and it shows that Trump is listening to those who have questions about Østupid’s origins. Trump is merely asking the questions that have been asked since before the 2008 Presidential election.
From what I am seeing so far Donald Trump is concentrating on the “place of birth”. He has not addressed adequately the issue of parentage with regard to what makes a Natural Born Citizen.
Donald Trump is the son of a woman who was born in Scotland. Now to some that would mean questioning whether or not he was NBC. However, Trump’s history is a good study of the situation. The same is true for Senator John McCain.
John McCain was born in Panama to American citizen parents. The reason that he was born in Panama is that his father was on military deployment to the base in that country. However, being born in Panama did not automatically mean that John McCain was a citizen of Panama by the mere fact of his birth. This situation is covered by Vattel as one of a child born to diplomat parents, and he is in fact a Natural Born Citizen due to the special circumstances of a temporary posting. It would have been a different story if John McCain’s parents had become semi-permanently domiciled in Panama, and then you would have a good case for questioning his eligibility to be POTUS.
Donald Trump on the other hand, was born in the USA in a district of New York named Jamaica. Even though his mother was born in Scotland, she was naturalized by the time that she gave birth to Donald. Thus, Donald Trump meets the definition of Natural born citizen because he was born to citizen parents.
In the letter the Donald made some really good points as he pointed out that the use of “birther” is derogatory. Well I for one agree, because it is like people applying that term to someone who is not even a citizen of the USA. It is ridiculous. The Donald brought up many issues that have been circulating for quite a while with regard to the lack of evidence of a birth in Hawaii.
However, he could gain more traction by placing some focus on the Indonesian years, as well as on the fact that according to Østupid, who uses the name Barack Hussein Øbama II, his father was a Kenyan, who was a British citizen in 1961, and as a result Østupid was given British citizenship because of his father. The facts are that Øbama sr never intended becoming a US citizen, and therefore rulings from cases such as Kim Wong Ark do not apply. Besides that case does not deal with eligibility to be POTUS.
On this same subject it was always my understanding that to be POTUS you had to be born of citizen parents. It had always been my understanding that my cousins who live near Detroit were not eligible because their mother, my aunt, was not a citizen of the USA when she gave birth to each of them.
The obsfucation with regard to what is meant by Natural Born Citizen seems to be something that is more recent. It seems like the attempt to change the definition has been to protect Øbama. This does not explain why even people like Rush Limbaugh simply refuse to address this aspect of the issue.
If you want to know more about what Donald Trump knows then here is a good link: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/update-from-meeting-at-trump-tower.html