Your belief of what a Christian would do or not do are very different from mine..

To my a Christian would not suppress the lives of other people, nor support a sinful and evil predator of children.

Nor would he support the concentration of power into a small select group of people while suppressing the rights of other groups..

A Christian would not repeat lies which he can not support as truth. He would not accuse others if he had no proof that his own statements were correct.

He would not be insulted when his opinion was challenged and demand proof when he has none..

Intolerance is the tool of the devil and never something that Jesus would do..

As to what you think about Muslims and all the other groups which you defame, Nearly every word I have seen printed about them by you and your fellow right wingers is false..

The orange man may have ended the Johnson act for you. But When you become political, you leave your religious shelter in the minds of most Americans,..

You can not, with integrity, then shelter behind your religious standing to defend yourself..

Your belief of what a Christian would do or not do are very different from mine..

To my a Christian would not suppress the lives of other people, nor support a sinful and evil predator of children.

Nor would he support the concentration of power into a small select group of people while suppressing the rights of other groups..

A Christian would not repeat lies which he can not support as truth. He would not accuse others if he had no proof that his own statements were correct.

He would not be insulted when his opinion was challenged and demand proof when he has none..

Intolerance is the tool of the devil and never something that Jesus would do..

As to what you think about Muslims and all the other groups which you defame, Nearly every word I have seen printed about them by you and your fellow right wingers is false..

The orange man may have ended the Johnson act for you. But When you become political, you leave your religious shelter in the minds of most Americans,..

You can not, with integrity, then shelter behind your religious standing to defend yourself..

According to https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/studentid.asp " :

that ID card:

(a) is "not a real Columbia University student ID issued to Barack Obama (under any name) in 1981; it’s simply an altered version of a Columbia University ID card issued to another student in 1998" ;

(b) "couldn’t possibly have have been a Columbia University student ID issued to Barack Obama in 1981, as the digital ID card format it uses wasn’t introduced at Columbia until 1996" ;

and:

(c) "is obviously a forgery, as the photograph it bears is not a picture of a 20-year-old Barack Obama from 1981; it’s a picture taken several years later, during or shortly after Barack Obama’s time at Harvard Law School (1988-1991)".

Also: The matter of Obama's birth or citizenship has been put to the courts many times. Here's one of the results, which I think is probably a typical result of those cases:

'Hollister v. Soetoro

'On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[43] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[26] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[44]'

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation for that and other such cases.

I'm more interested in the philosophy, ideas, and manner of a politician. Why would I even care where a president or candidate was _born_, while some such candidates or presidents are provocative to start unnecessary wars (Bush II and Trump), or administratively responsible for covert operations to overthrow governments and arm foreign governments (Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal)? Alongside such things, circumstances of birth are much less significant. Regarding Obama, the man was obviously very involved in the United States for a long time (that's true, even if your claim were true, that he'd been born somewhere else). Even if he _had_ been born somewhere else, I'm more interested in his ideas than where he was born. Here is what Obama said: "Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter my citizenship." (That was at the February 2010 National Prayer Breakfast, according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Barack_Obama%27s_response ).

Some posters on this topic (but not you in this post) have called Obama a Muslim as though that were a derogatory term or even relevant to anything. That's one of the reasons I haven't paid much attention to this topic in the past. I haven't paid much attention to this topic of Obama's birth and citizenship, firstly because I don't think birth and citizenship are as important as involvement and ideas, and secondly because I see many of the people who argue against Obama's birth and citizenship are the same people who spout a lot of ethnocentric, xenophobic nonsense, such as opposition to Muslims or Islam in a way which is merely stereotyping. It would be just as easy to oppose Christians, who as a group have sponsored as much violence, torture, and other terrorism as anybody. But we should not oppose Christians as a whole in that shallow way, just as we should not oppose Muslims in that way: it's a wrong kind of generalizing: a stereotyping.

Your post was better than theirs, I think, but still doesn't pass muster with things like snopes and wikipedia, and, even if you were right, it would still be about mere citizenship, of a person who obviously is more involved in the U.S. than most common citizens are. So find something wrong with his ideas or his philosophy or his policies: those are the more significant topics.

The person who says an idea is often less important than the idea itself. That's particularly true when the person is President, whose ideas have far-reaching effects. Argue the ideas.

-John, Dec. 17, 2017