These regulations safeguard information that, if disclosed publicly, could subject the claimant to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state actors in the event that the claimant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the claimant's family members who may still be residing in the country of origin. Moreover, public disclosure might, albeit in rare circumstances, give rise to a plausible protection claim where one would not otherwise exist by bringing an otherwise ineligible claimant to the attention of the government authority or non-state actor against which the claimant has made allegations of mistreatment.

Talk about a case of shooting yourself in the foot. Great job, Einsteins.

You read my comment at the top, Bit?

Of course.
Did you see Floyd's response?
He's right.
Given who runs that place, such manipulation wouldn't shock me at all.

And even assuming the doc is legit, which I doubt, (Why the hell did it take so long for this to get answered? Took time to fabricate?) that still doesn't answer the question of giving up his citizenship for that Indonesian school.

And he's not??

No.

Hope that helps.

Seriously, there are multiple perfectly reasonable reasons to oppose an Obama presidency, and I think that JJ and Verdon have proved that here. But that's all boring and what not, so let's keep pretending that Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya/Canada/Malcom X's vagina.

That said, I will give Joyner credit for allowing Rodney Dill to contribute here after his parents have clearly told him to go to bed.

Yeah, well there is that, isn't there? That nagging question...

You read my comment at the top, Bit?

By the way, you may be the only person in America who gives a damn what Peter Schweizer of the UK Daily Mail has to say. You and Lady Lynn de Rothschild, of course

So, I'm supposed to ignore a source because you don't like it? Or perhaps this is about the ideas which you can't argue against, as easily as you can attack the source?

And he's not??

Yeah, well there is that, isn't there? That nagging question...

By the way, you may be the only person in America who gives a damn what Peter Schweizer of the UK Daily Mail has to say. You and Lady Lynn de Rothschild, of course.

Examnples abound;

We see Obama's tax returns since 2000, and we find his giving amounted to less tha 1% of the millions he's made.

We see Joe Biden, who made millions in the last two years, gave a grand total of $3300 to charity. A Democrat thinks charity is the work of government.

Yet, as you note, we see Democrats screaming the government should do more. Clearly, a Democrat thinks charity is the work of government.

Peter Schweizer, of UK's Daily Mail, said last June:

George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. ‘One sometimes gets the impression,’ he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, ‘that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England’.

Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.

This is a shock to me not at all, except possibly that someone did get charged under hate crime laws for printing it in what’s left of the UK. Schweizer, goes on:

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.

The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.

Outsource it to where? Why, to government of course. The left feels it’s doing it’s part if they’re paying into a system ostensibly designed to maintain the poor at a minimum standard of living and solve all their problems. The fact that the government systems the left think so highly of does not do so, matters not at all. Don’t bother the left with mere facts.

And let's look at what the left considers 'chairty'...

Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry - the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation.

Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center - but barely a penny goes to needy people.

The ideas of the left surrounding charity are completely nihilist. Supporting the poor and the needy is government work, to the left. Charity, they view not as supporting non-government engines that actually help the poor, but rather to these, charity is supporting political groups that support their own worldview.

And so, Obama's family member sits in a rat infested slum in Boston, from whom his campaign has already accepted money to help him get elected.... ON the record it comes out to around $260.

And even leaving aside that she is an illegal alien, which by definition makes her a foreign national and thereby the political donations illegal, there seems to me a moral lesson here, and therein an answer to your questions.