jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (59 posts)

Would you have preferred Hilary?

  1. Charles James profile image82
    Charles Jamesposted 6 years ago

    During the Democrat primary campaign many on the Right of American poltics displayed an amazing hatred of Hilary Clinton, and Obama was seen by some as a better choice because he was not a Clinton. My question is, having seen Obama in action, do you now wish Hilary had been elected as US President instead?

    1. DannyMaio profile image58
      DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      YES!!!!! I actually voted for her in the primary. she acts more presidential than he does! she was ready to quit last week because of Obama and made the USA look like fools in the eyes of Britain and France. He could not even ride on her coat tail!

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hilary Clinton made the US look like fools in the eyes of Britain and France and yet you'd rather have her as President!

        Strange boy.

        1. DannyMaio profile image58
          DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yeah OK The french president is known to have pushed Obama into libya, your not worth the time please. ridiculous!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Take more water with it, would be my advice.

        2. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          John I must not be feeling well , I agree with you.

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see what the difference would be...they're both socialists but Hillary hides it better ... so for me it doesn't matter any democrat is equally bad.

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image84
      Stevennix2001posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would've preferred John McCain because of his military experience.  We needed a president with military experience to handle the wars we're fighting overseas, as it's plainly obvious O'Bama might be way over his head right now.  Don't get me wrong, Barrack's done some good things in office, but it's clear he doesn't fully grasp how to handle wars.  If McCain would've gotten elected, he would've done a much better job handling them.

    4. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Neither.
      She's simply power-hungry, and, like Colin Powell, would sell her own soul to push her agenda.

    5. proactrdv profile image66
      proactrdvposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I was divided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but I certainly do feel after seeing Mrs. Clinton Perform as Secretary of State, I am convinced that she could have made a good President. I think one of the overhanging questions that were in a lot of peoples' minds is would it have been a ghost Presidency with Bill at the helm? I do think she could have held her own.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Hilary Clinton is Obama's Secretary of State. What is the difference between the two? I see none.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Heck yeah! I've always been a Hillary gal.
    In 2008, however, Bill was seen as a liability. People had had enough of family regimes. That applied to the Bushes and also the Clintons.
    It's amazing to me how many people now have buyer's remorse on Obama. Why didn't these people have their eyes open in 2008?
    Then again, why didn't people have their eyes open through not 4, but 8 years of Bush/Cheney? roll

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "they're both socialists but Hillary hides it better". They are both capitalist corporate fascists.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They are capitalist corporate socialist fascists.
      Or maybe it's corporate socialist capitalist fascists.
      Oh wait, they are capitalist socialist communist fascists, yeah, that's the one! lol

    2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      bureaucrat capitalists, fascists, socialists, mixed it all include imperialists.. LOL

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        *doh* I knew I forgot one! IMPERIALISTS!
        lol lol lol

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    If Hillary was POTUS the health care bill would have been much better than the one Obama was able to push through.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh please! She tried it once and failed, thankfully!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        She wasn't even in office when she tried it before.
        That's like fighting with both hands tied behind your back!

    2. DannyMaio profile image58
      DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      holy cow I agree with mighty mom!!! wow and I can not believe you admit that obamas health-care bill is flawed. I'm impressed

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Imagine that! lol
        And I can't believe you like Hillary Clinton!
        See -- there is life beyond stereotyping!

        Of COURSE the health care bill is flawed!!
        At first I thought he was nuts trying to push it through so quickly. Now I see the wisdom of his strategy. Had he waited till year 2 it would have failed completely.

        1. DannyMaio profile image58
          DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          now mighty that does not make it right. we need healthcare reform but not this disaster.  as far as Hillary, yes I do like her and wished she was our president. I voted for her in the primary. I did give Obama a chance but he is totally not what we need, making things much worse and After Bush we needed someone who knew how to get the job done on every level. and Hillary would have been the person.

  6. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Obama was able to push through." Obama got what Obama wanted, a corporate mandate
    for private profits otherwise known as fascism.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Is that how you see Obama's healthcare bill?
      I must be misunderstanding you.
      Do you mean a government mandate (not a corporate mandate?)
      Please explain. My brain is fuzzy today sad

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy." From Wikipedia, if that counts.

  8. DannyMaio profile image58
    DannyMaioposted 6 years ago

    from Berg Attorney PA

    Response to BadFiction’s The Indonesian Citizenship Myth –

    In response to badfictions “The Indonesian Citizenship Myth – Part 3, badfictions makes the following statements, which I again, I completely disagree with.  So,  I will again respond accordingly.

    Badfiction states “In either case, anything that affected Stanley Ann Dunham’s citizenship after Barack Obama was born would not change Barack Obama’s citizenship.”

    Not so, as I have disputed in Part 1 and Part 2, I will again dispute here as well. Section 318 of the Nationality Act of 1940 revised 1952 does nothing but talk about a child’s expatriation as a result of their parents actions.

    As said time and time again by us, we believe that Soetoro/Obama was legally acknowledged and/or adopted by Lolo Soetoro. As stated in my previous post, which I have pasted below.

    Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

    The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.

    Moreover, the Indonesian School Record shows the name of the child as “Barry Soetoro”; Citizenship: Indonesia; and Parent: Lolo Soetoro, M.A. The Soetoro Divorce shows the parties of the marriage having two (2) children, one under the age of eighteen (18) and one over the age of eighteen (18) (Soetoro/Obama) who was a full time student. See divorce papers below. In divorces, you do not name a child as the child of the parents, like in the Soetoro Divorce, unless the child is legally the child of the divorcing parents. In otherwords, if Lolo Soetoro was only a step-parent with no legal ties to Soetoro/Obama, then Soetoro/Obama would have never been named in the Soetoro Divorce.

    Article 4 of The Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930 says “a state may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also posses”. What this means is Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and therefore neither did the United States. Under Indonesia law, once Soetoro/Obama became an Indonesian State Citizen by virtue of adoption and/or legal acknowledgment by Lolo Soetoro, he (Soetoro/Obama) could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. If he did that, the government of Indonesia would have those records. If he did not do so by age 21, Obama is to this day still considered an Indonesian citizen by that country. His place of birth or the nationality of his mother is irrelevant; Indonesian law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention on 1930.

    Next, badfiction states “2) Records in the Honolulu newspapers at the time announcing the birth” However, what is left out here is private investigators went out to the resident in the newspaper announcements, only to learn that Barack Obama, Sr.; Stanley Ann Dunhum; nor infant Soetoro/Obama ever resided at the address. In addition, anyone can call in a birth announcement, anyone. No one has been able to verify exactly who it was that called in the birth Announcements of Soetoro/Obama.

    Badfiction again addresses the Indonesian School record, In fact, badfiction says “3) The Indonesian School Record that the birthers cite as proof of Indonesian Citizenship, Adoption, and Religion, ALSO gives a birthplace of Honolulu, Hawaii. If they accept that document as Prima Facie evidence in other matters, then logically they should also accept it for birthplace as well”

    However, I have stated many times, once Soetoro/Obama acquired his Indonesian citizenship it did not matter where he was born. However, I would like to further my statement. As said many times, we believe and it appears that Soetoro/Obama was in fact born in Kenya and his birth was registered by a family member in Hawaii, thus he obtained a “Certification of Live Birth”. So it would seem that was the reason, Soetoro/Obama’s birth was listed as “Hawaii” on the Indonesian School Record. In addition, Stanley Ann Dunham may have told Lolo Soetoro that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii, the birth place of the child was not checked by the Indonesian Government, only the name and citizenship status to ensure the child’s name matched that of his father, and his citizenship status was Indonesian. Again, Lolo Soetoro, M.A. was listed as the parent of Barry Soetoro on the Indonesian School Record.

    Now, badfiction raises the issue of the interview with Sarah Obama, Soetoro/Obama’s grandmother. We received the tape of the conversation and the translation of the Interview with the phone records from Bishop Ron McRae, as well as Affidavits from Bishop Ron McRae and as noted in the affidavits Brother Kweli Shuhudia, who conducted the actual interview. There is no reason Bishop Ron McRae would not tell the truth and we have not been given any reason to doubt him I undesrstand badfiction obtained the audio and transcript from other locations, however, I am disturbed at the fact that the link is NOT of the transcript provided to us and we have NO idea who the person is that transcribed the one on the scribd link nor what audio was used for the transcription. This is concerning because it is not honest for anyone to state that this “supposed” translation on scribd is of the actual audio of the telephone interview. The scribd link referred to by badfiction is based on speculative statements of the supposed “translator” used in the document and again we do not know what audio was used. The audio says otherwise. The person this scribd linked document has as “Ogombe” is actually another grandson of Sarah Obama, of course this was left out. In the audio after Sarah Obama said yes that Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya and she was present for the birth, there is scuffling in the tape and you can NOT hear what is being said, nor can you understand it. Next, Sarah Obama’s grandson who is helping with the interview translation states “no no no Obama born in America” there is other statements made by this grandson that are very difficult to hear. It was NOT Sarah Obama making those statements and the “shock” was due to the fact that Sarah Obama told Bishop Ron McRae of Soetoro/Obama’s real birth place in Kenya. That is why Bishop Ron McRae stated when he went out to Kenya in December he wanted to meet with Sarah Obama and see the birth place of Soetoro/Obama. You may also recall, after this interview, police were stationed at Sarah Obama’s house and no one was allowed to interview her.

    Badfiction next assumes when I mention the registration of birth in Hawaii that I am talking about Hawaii Statute §338-17.8. Badfiction is correct in what that statute states, he is in wrong in his assumptions. §338-17.8 is a 1982 Revision and does not apply to Soetoro/Obama’s registration. The law that applied at the time of Soetoro/Obama’s registration of Birth in Hawaii is the 1955 Laws, Chapter 57 “Vital Statistics”, Section §57-8 Compulsory registration of births; §57-9 Local registrar to prepare birth certificate. These sections are outlined below.

    “§ 57-8 Compulsory registration of births”

    “Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. [R.L. 1945, s. 3100.09; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s.9.]

    And

    “§57-9 Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.”

    “(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

    “(b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall nto be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [R.L. 1945, s. 3100.10; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 10.]

    I have asked our webmaster to post the above laws. As you can see from the laws that apply to Soetoro/Obama’s registration of birth; if the birth was not attended by a Physician or Midwife, the parents or anyone having knowledge of the birth, are who fills out the birth certificate or supplies the information to the registrar who in turn fills out the birth certificate. This means a child could have been born anywhere, and the parent only has to claim the child was born in Hawaii. In addition pursuant to §57-18 a person’s birth can be registered up to a year after the actual birth. See also Part II. Certificates of Hawaiian Birth, §57-40 Issuance; procedure.

    A poster on the blog who goes by the name “Greg” also stated that Soetoro/Obama’s name was never changed because Hawaii never recognized it, that Hawaii was aware that they lost a citizen (Soetor/Obama) in 1967 however that citizen returned in 1971 (I’m not quoting him word for word, just summarizing his statement). However, my rebutal was how would Hawaii have known Soetoro/Obama left and how would Hawaii know when that child returned, if he returned. In addition, others stated that if Soetor/Obama was in fact legally acknowledged and/or adopted Hawaii would have been aware of it. I disagreed with them and said not necessarily. Pursuant to the 1955 statutes, Chapter 57, §57-23 Adoptions, it sates:

    “§57-23 Adoptions”

    “(a) In case of the adoption of any person born int he Territory, the bureau of public health statistics, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the board, shall prepare a supplemental certificate in the name of the adopted person…”

    As you can see, if the legal acknowledgment or adoption which took place in Indonesia was never submitted to Hawaii, Hawaii would never know about it.

    Now, badfiction next states that Hawaiian statute §338-20.5 mandates that the true or probable country of birth must be stated and shall be known as the place of birth and the date of birth. Badfiction then states that §338-20.5 is statute enacted in 1982. Note to the readers, §338-20.5 was enacted 21 years after Soetoro/Obama’s birth. Badfiction then states “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth and then says this law was passed in 1979, amended in 1990. Yes badfiction, it is a 1979 statute amended in 1990 and a 1982 statute, not applicable to Soetoro/Obama’s birth or registration which took place in 1961. I do not see in the statute anywhere that it is retroactive, thus it is inapplicable to Soetoro/Obama. The Hawaiian statutes of 1955 are what is applicable to Soetoro/Obama.

    Badfiction then states “So there is no evidence that the State of Hawaii would issue certificates to people born out of state before  HRS §338-17.8 was passed.” Yes there is badfiction, see the 1955 Hawaiian Laws above.

    Next is the issue of Maya’s birth being registered in the State of Hawaii and a Certification of Live Birth being issued by Hawaii. Just like Soetoro/Obama, if this is the case the Hawaiian Laws of 1955 would apply as Maya Soetoro was born in 1970, so all the parent has to do is state the child was born in Hawaii. But, badfiction claims this came from “techdude”. Not so badfiction. See “The Obama File” at http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaFamily.htm. It states”

    “Obama’s half-sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro, was born on August 15, 1970, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Anna registered her birth as “born in Honolulu” shortly after her birth, as well. Maya would have a State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB), just like the one Obama posted on the Internet.”

    “Maya would also attend the private Punahou School.”

    “It was Maya, who has said that Obama was legally adopted by her father, Lolo Soetoro, and Maya also said, ‘There was always a joke between my mom and Barack that he would be the first black president.’”

    The Obama File at http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaFamily.htm also states:

    “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.”

    “According to Indonesian legal experts, only Indonesian citizens could attend state-operated public schools.”

    And

    “‘The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children’s citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship. They are prohibited from attending public schools and must attend private, international schools, which usually are more expensive.’” and credits this information to the U.S. State Department.

    You can also find this information in The Obama Timeline by Don Fredrick located at http://www.colony14.net/id41.html or in his book sold at Amazon and located at http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Timeline-Bi … amp;sr=1-3

    Lets see what else badfiction has to say. Badfiction next goes into the Department of Home Lands (DHHL). I raised this issue and we filed the information supplied by the DHHL in the Hollister case early 2009. A copy of the DHHL book we used when citing the information in the Hollister is located on our website at http://obamacrimes.com/?p=419 “Obama Crimes responds to BadFiction – Part 2a. The only reason we raised this issue was because DHHL stated in the booklet:

    ““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.” [emphasis added]

    “When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your request form, please fill in “For DHHL Purposes” in the “Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy” section. (See example on page 6.)” [emphasis added]

    Badfiction is attempting to argue that the DHHL only pertains to heritage. My point is and was if the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is not sufficient to prove Hawaiian Heritage, then why should “we the people” accept an image of a Certification of Live Birth as constitutional eligibility to serve as United States President? We should not. However, Badfiction goes on and on about the DHHL and other statutes enacted in 1982, missing the entire point of our arguments. It should be noted, after we filed the references to the DHHL booklet in the Hollister Case, Hawaii rushed and amended its requirements to buy lands in Hawaii on or about June 2009.

    Badfiction then states “Hague Convention of 1930, Article 1 “It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals” Therefore, US law would be used to determine US citizenship.” Wrong again, Soetoro/Obama lost all U.S. citizenship status when he became a citizen of Indonesia, thus Indonesia Law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930, see above also.

    Badfiction for the third times states “Second off, Chapter 13 states that all citizens have a right to an education. It doesn’t say anywhere that non-citizens are prohibited from one.” So badfiction, for the third time I too will reiterate the Indonesian Constitution which you are using was revised in 1989, so it is not the genuine Indonesian Constitution of 1945, next as you point out the Indonesian Constitution states ALL CITIZENS, It does not say every child, it does not mention non citizens, etc.

    Next, badfiction cites “the book (jstor.org) “New Indonesian Marriage Law: A Mirror of Indonesia’s Political, Cultural, and Legal Systems,” by June and Ronald Katz” and badfiction states Islamic law rules. WRONG. Badfiction then uses laws revised in 1974, which I do not see where these laws are retroactive and thus do not apply to Soetoro/Obama. However, the unfortunate part is what badfiction has posted as their response confuses the readers. Nice attempt badfiction.

    Badfiction again goes into Indonesian Law versus U.S. Law. Badfiction states “Nor could Indonesia step in or interfere with the laws of the United States, since Obama was a natural-born citizen of the United States under US law. Again, the Hague Convention of 1930 also states that “It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.” and “Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State”. However, badfiction is missing the point, missing the facts and confusing the laws. In fact, badfiction has it all backwards. As I stated above:

    “Article 4 of The Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930 says “a state may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also posses”. What this means is Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and therefore neither did the United States. Under Indonesia law, once Soetoro/Obama became an Indonesian State Citizen by virtue of adoption and/or legal acknowledgment by Lolo Soetoro, he (Soetoro/Obama) could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. If he did that, the government of Indonesia would have those records. If he did not do so by age 21, Obama is to this day still considered an Indonesian citizen by that country. His place of birth or the nationality of his mother is irrelevant; Indonesian law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930.”

    Badfiction also raises the issues regarding a legal “acknowledgment” which we claim was signed by Lolo Soetoro acknowledging Soetoro/Obama as his birth son or adopted Soetoro/Obama. Badfiction seems to think that only biological father’s acknowledge their children and then cites the Asian law digests that talk about the Indonesian laws pertaining to a legal acknowledgment signed by an Indonesian citizen father and a foreign mother, in this case regarding the legal acknowledgment, the foreign mother would be Stanley Ann. In fact badfiction goes on to state “Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were married. Therefore, this would not apply. The context seems to be talking about the biological father acknowledging paternity anyway, not a stepfather.” The fact that Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann were at one time married doesn’t matter. We are unsure whether Soetoro/Obama was actually adopted or if a legal acknowledgment was signed. If Lolo Soetoro signed a legal acknowledgment then he is telling the Indonesian Government that he is the biological father of Soetoro/Obama, so badfictions arguments fail. A lot of men who are not the biological father of children have signed legal acknowledgment forms claiming the child as their biological child. Regardless, the Indonesian laws regarding an Indonesian Citizen male acknowledging a child pertains to Lolo Soetoro if Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Soetoro/Obama instead of adopting him.

    In my last response (The Indonesian Citizenship Myth – Part 2), I stated “Interesting enough, next badfiction attempts to use the filings in the Strunk Case in D.C. He cites out what the U.S. DOJ states in their court filing. It is important to note, the document that badfiction linked to is nothing more than “Affirmative Defenses” and “General Denials” which is common practice in all civil litigation.”

    Badfictions response to me on this part three is “True. However, I will point out that under that practice, the agency in question has to affirm if they hold the information in question in their records. To cite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, III (Pleadings and Motions), Rule 11: (cornell.edu)”

    I must point out, in the Strunk Case where he references the Governments Answer of the lawsuit on behalf of Soetoro/Obama, the Government does NOT say they affirm that they hold any documents. Badfiction points out regarding the above rule that the agency would be required to do so, but again, they have not. Also, please note, several posters who disagree with us continue to say that with the Strunk case, the United States  State Department admits in their filing that Soetoro/Obama is in fact a U.S. Citizen. This is NOT true, the State Department has never said any such thing and they certainly have NOT filed anything in any of the court cases. Badfiction then goes into the Federal Rule regarding the requirements of affirmative defenses and answers. The attorney who prepares the general denials and the affirmative defenses can do so based on what they have been told by their client. Unfortunately, clients don’t always tell the truth.

    Badfiction again brings up the Indonesian school record, claiming it does not prove anything except what was provided to the Indonesian public school. Not so badfiction, your statement is completely wrong.

    Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education) – ** it does not say all children are entitled to an education, it specifies “all citizens” **. The Indonesian school record, indicates that Soetoro/Obama’s name is “Barry Soetoro;” his nationality is “Indonesia” and his father “Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    Badfiction then says that I should not read things into what he is saying. I can only take what you say badfiction at face value. Below I posted what I stated in our response to badfiction in the Indonsian Citizenship Myth – Part 2

    My response:

    “It just gets better. Badfiction now states that the Indonesia school record is considered prima facie evidence. He then states it does not prove citizenship. I beg to differ badfiction, what does the front of the document say? Yes, it says child’s name is Barry Soetoro; citizenship status: Indonesian; Father, Lolo Soetoro, M.A.

    Now what exactly is prima facie evidence? Prima Facie evidence is a latin legal term which means Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question. prima facie is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. After the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the Defendant, in this case Soetoro/Obama. A plaintiff can also establish a prima facie case by “offering evidence adequate to create an inference”. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.

    Badfiction is incorrect, the Indonesian School Record is prima facie evidence all right, but not just the fact Soetoro/Obama attended the Indonesia School, which Soetoro/Obama admits. It is also prima facia evidence of Soetoro/Obama’s name; citizenship status; and father’s name which indicates either a legal acknowledgment or adoption.” End of my response to badfiction in “The Indonesian Citizenship Myth – Part 2.

    You see badfiction, you stated that the Indonesian School Record on its face is prima facie evidence. I responded accordingly stating that if the document itself is prima facie evidence, everything on that document is prima facie evidence and I stand by it. If that is not what you meant, then that is a different story.

    Badfiction goes on to say “I do understand why “paralegal” – and Berg – are so strongly defending their theory on this. Much of their claims – even down to the “Soetoro” name – are based on the Indonesian citizenship claim. Not only their claims, but those birthers who have borrowed/stolen Berg’s arguments (such as Dr. Orly Taitz, and Stephen Pidgeon, since much of their original cases are word-for-word copies of Berg’s claims)” My response to badfiction is Thank you.

    In all fairness to badfiction, reading of the Laws is interpretation. When you work in law, you understand and you look to see how the Court’s previously interpreted the laws you are questioning. This is why we also have Appellate Courts and the United States Supreme Courts. It gets even more difficult when you are dealing with other Countries laws as well. But badfiction, we worked with an Indonesian Law Firm to assist us with the Indonesian Laws. In addition, we do not speak the language in Indonesia, so we had to rely on the Indonesian Law Firm to translate the Laws into English to ensure we understood them.

    I too appreciate badfiction’s courtesy in our debate over the issues. However, contrary to what badfiction believes, we have proven our case!

    Soetoro Divorce p 1-5

    1955 Hawaiian Laws, Chapter 57 Vital Statistics[1]
    Posted January 10, 2010 by admin.

    1. AnnCee profile image70
      AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Obamafamily website?

      The page cannot be found
      The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

      Please try the following:

          * Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
          * If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
          * Click the Back button to try another link.

      HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
      Internet Information Services (IIS)

      Technical Information (for support personnel)

          * Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 404.
          * Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About Custom Error Messages.

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Do you mean a government mandate (not a corporate mandate?)" Government mandate,
    you must buy insurance, for the purpose of enriching corporate owners, as small class of people.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I agree. A lot of people "worried" about that.
    I don't think Hillary Clinton could EVER have a ghost presidency.
    But even if Bill had a heavy hand in her policies, what's so bad about that? The guy is brilliant. He's well liked overseas and here (Bush Sr. seems to prefer him to his own son).
    And he left office with a budget surplus.
    So really, having Bill Clinton at Hillary's side would be bad... how?

    1. DTR0005 profile image81
      DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think Hilary would have done ok... maybe not better, but no worse. Though she is white and that might have helped...loll

      1. Peter Owen profile image60
        Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I think Hillary would ave been worse. She is the ultimate politician and mainly wants people to like her. The job she is in now is really getting to her since it is the first time she has had to work in her life rather than just talk aimlessly.

        1. AnnCee profile image70
          AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You think she wants people to like her?   I never got that about her.

          1. Peter Owen profile image60
            Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I do. When I met her in Chicago.
            I will say she is much better than  she used to be. People like her a lot more now that Obama has been in office for a while. They are thinking exactly what started this thread.

            1. DannyMaio profile image58
              DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I met her too, she is very nice. I was in a private room without the media and she was genuine with some kids she was playing with. It was sincere and she really is a very smart woman.

      2. AnnCee profile image70
        AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think she would have been more effective, more hands on.

        Obama 'delegates' the presidency for which he is no way prepared.

        Hillary would have gotten as much push back as Obama gets but for different reasons.  The shrill woman syndrome comes to mind.

      3. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Race card , typical.

        1. DTR0005 profile image81
          DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well maybe, but let's not ignore the obvious - he is black, he has a funny name, and he comes from a state in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If he had been white with the name "Barry Gillencutty" and he had been born in Chickenscratch, Texas do you really believe he would have garnered this much negative press?

          I hate above all things the "race card," but there comes a time when you can't just ignore that "race" might indeed be an issue. I am not saying it's the principle issue, but face it: when he stands in front of American, he doesn't "look" like your good ole boy American bumpkin that most Americans feel confortable staring at. I think it would be the same thing with an oriental, an hispanic - anyone other than the white-bread standard...

          1. tony0724 profile image60
            tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah it has nothing to do with his crappy policies ! It's all about his skin color. You sound like a Huffington Poster. I thought you might be smarter then that.

  11. AnnCee profile image70
    AnnCeeposted 6 years ago

    Hillary doesn't hate America as much as Barack Obama does so that's a point in her favor.   She's further right and less waffley than McCain.  I would have voted for her over McCain/Palin.  I voted M/P over the big 0 though.

    1. Peter Owen profile image60
      Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      good thought. Though I can't decide if BO dislikes America or just Americans. Either way he won't protect it or them, don't know where he stands on  most issues now that he has finally stopped campaigning - took him long enough. He simply doesn't want to offend anyone and so takes no good stand on any important issue - thus he pleases noone.

      1. DannyMaio profile image58
        DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        true! agree with your statement 100%

      2. DannyMaio profile image58
        DannyMaioposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I met her at the Huntington Townhouse, your from long island Mr. Owen you should know where that is.

  12. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Hillary has always worked! Don't you remember her infamous gaffe as incoming First Lady? She said something to the effect, "I could have stayed home and baked cookies..."
    She took a LOT of flak for that.

    I agree with you, tho. The job is getting to her. If it wasn't, I'd be shocked. Lot of tension to deal with from all sides as SOS.

    1. AnnCee profile image70
      AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, sheesh, can you imagine carrying the water for this callow president?  I'll bet she grits her teeth every time she sees him flopping down the stairs from AF1.  I'll bet she has nightmares about his grin.

      Did you see how she had to back pedal fast today on Assad as reformer.   Gad, how'd you like to be scolded by that gaggle of clowns in the White House?

  13. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Yeah, until "they" made her prove her Caucasianness! lol

  14. profile image61
    froggywentcourtinposted 6 years ago

    In actuality, I was going to vote for Clinton in the 2008 primary but was talked out of it and I am glad I did. Anything is better than the eight HORRID years we had under a rouge president (W) that went through a surplus like a drunken sailor on shore with one condom!

    1. Peter Owen profile image60
      Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe so, but then Bill didn't create a surplus, he inherited it by the work of George Sr.

      1. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        touche Peter.My beef with Bill was not taking out Osama Bin Laden when he had him in the crosshairs. I think this might be a completely different world.

        1. Peter Owen profile image60
          Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If I recall, he ok'd the dumping of a bunch of rockets on a village in I don't remember where, and then went on TV to say we dealt a major blow to Al Quida. Turned out we got nolhing but a bunch of thatched huts, which he would have known from the satellite videos. politics rules over character again.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Clinton was president for 8 years.
        The point is that after 8 years he did not leave W with a deficit.

        1. Peter Owen profile image60
          Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't disagree with that. And Obama is now taking it to new heights.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't disagree with that, either.
            New heights ... or new depths?
            But it seems that once you're in the hole it's a heck of a lot easier to keep digging than to fill the hole. There's got to be a "principle" about that (you know, like the Peter Principle).

        2. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks to a republican congress!

      3. profile image61
        froggywentcourtinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        When Clinton left office, there was the surplus. That rouge of a president decided to spend us into a war that is quickly becoming this generation's version of Vietnam. The outgoing Clinton admin even gave the Bush admin that was incoming the heads up on Bin Laden and what happened? NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. BIG FAT HONKING GOOSE EGG and Bush had the never to say "Mission Accomplished?" We still have not found Bin Laden or the WMD's that Messiah Bush proclaimed to be the Gospel and we are trying to get out of the hell that W so lovingly created for the American people. Granted, we were attacked but we should have taken Bin Laden out sooner when given the chance.

  15. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Hil has more leadership skills in her little finger than BO has in his entire body. I don't hate Obama. In fact, I think he's a genuinely nice guy, but he's in way over his head, and it shows.

    I don't think Hillary would be nearly as polarizing, either. I voted for McCain, but I would have loved a McCain/Hillary or a Hillary/McCain ticket! They're good friends, you know. She probably would have made John SOS.

    BTW, I met Hil, Bill, Al, and Tipper at a Democratic fundraiser. I liked the Clintons but didn't care for the Gores.

  16. Charles James profile image82
    Charles Jamesposted 6 years ago

    Thank you for all the thoughtful contributions - verging on erudite.

    I cannot help thinking that if Hilary had been elected, that by now folk would be saying that Obama would have been better.

    1. Peter Owen profile image60
      Peter Owenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very true. We knew Hillary pretty well, having to look at her for years. BO was the unknown, presentable, well spoken, uplifting newcomer on the scene. He was such a breath of fresh air during the campaign.  Distressing that it all turned out to be hype.

  17. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    They're the same.

    You think it actually matter which set of DNA is in the oval office?

    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Bush: increased spending and undeclared wars. Obama: increased spending and undeclared wars.

    wake up.

  18. BillyDRitchie profile image61
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    I honestly think Hillary would be President today if she had treated the campaign trail for what it is as opposed to a victory lap.  She just assumed the nomination was hers for the taking, and of course we all know what happens when you assume....

 
working