Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26
Yes it does. While he was a student, he resided legally in the state of Hawaii. That makes him a legal resident. Of course, he was not a permanent resident, but a resident nonetheless.
Those, and the Annenberg Foundation (via the Annenberg Public Policy Center and factcheck.org). One of the arguments that some folks seem inclined to attempt to substitute for rationality here seems to be that the TV Guide mogul's widow's organizations' hired flacks said that X was true, so therefore X must be true. (Hey, whenever I need to do some analysis on an important issue, I always look to TV Guide to "guide" my analysis and "guide" which facts I take as premise-- doesn't everyone? (sarcasm off)).
Also, the Annenberg Foundation is a heavy proponent of increased gun control legislation, which says much of what one needs to know about who Obama's friends are and what kind of respect Obama and his friends at Annenberg have for the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and citizens who choose to exercise their Constitutional rights.
When Obama admitted on his website that he lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21, I noticed tht he did not mention anything about his Indonesian citizenship.
I've assumed that Obama still retains his Indonesian citizenship since he remains mute on the issue. Oh, so many potential problems that may creep into Obama's future.
I don't think that was what the conversation is about. That branch of the discussion only applies to people born outside the US.
For people born in the US, the 14th Ammendment specifies that they are are citizens. So if Obama was born here, what does a discussion about the powers of Congress have to do with anything?
You expect the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics to lay out their security provisions? Yea, right.
I hear yeah. They are trolls and the place is infested with them always at the birth certif threads.
I am only avoiding getting banned getting into it with them because this is what they want. They hijack anoy of the borth certif threads. You never see them anywhere else. Have to keep fighting. ;-)
If you read what I replied to, the claim is very specific. A doctor should remember the babies they deliver. But even doctors have chimed in and said that is bogus.
As for the race and name things, consider this:
1) Babies are named after delivery and doctors may never even know the baby’s name if they don’t pay attention to such things.
2) At birth, unless both parents are there, it could easily be unknown what race the father is. Many mixed race babies do not look mixed at birth but develop pigment later. Even with some pigment, the mix could have easily been assumed as white mother/Hawaiian father given Obama’s skin tones. That certainly would not have raised any eyebrows.
Lots of reasons to question Obama, but the doctor not coming forward is not one of them. Especially since he’s dead. We’re better served sticking to the real issues, like forged COLBs and the like.
You were trying to make something of the fact that no evidence has been offered to the court when no court has reached a point of needing any. Now that's illogicial.
Nothing was illogical about the question I posed to you.
If Obama has an honest man, on his own volition, with no order from the court, or demand from others, he would offer his birth certificate to a court of law to clarify to where he was born.
The question I want you to answer. Why has Obama not shown his Birth Certificate in court of law? Do you know? Do you have an opinion?
The one spouting balderdash is you.
From the nationality act of 1952 (which was in effect at the time):
From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by -- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ...." You can read the full text here:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_66Statxx_TitleIII_Chapter3.pdf
I have no clue. I did not want to push the issue. Jim R here at FR is a good guy and he is flying to DC to fight PorkULus. I give him a lot of credit - he really cares.
I disagree with his policy but I do not want to get banned because I want to fight the O vermin. FMN is a creep.
"Never do what your enemy desires, for this reason alone - that he desires it" - Napoleon.
That text is in full agreement with what I said.
You must have comprehension problems.
I try to look at these types of threads daily to keep up and appreciate all the information from everyone. On another thread (probably the one you are referencing) Frantzie pointed out to me the Alinsky methods used to confuse, rile up everyone, etc. I felt a little foolish about not being able to see this for myself. Guess I don’t get out much.
I know because of FReepers like yourselves I won’t make that mistake again!
A hearty Thank You!
Yes. It's very simple. No court of law has asked him for it.
It one does, he will show it.
"I didn't just provide my opinion. I provided a decision by the United States Supreme Court that specified what was excluded by "under the jurisdiction".
"Is this correct? This is what the author of the 14th Amendment said:..."
"Congressman John Bingham v. mlo"
"Who to believe?"
Misrepresent things much?
It is not the congressman vs. me. As I clearly stated, I provided an opinion of the United States Supreme Court.
And as you also know because it has been pointed out many times, the quote from the congressman is not the law. It is simply a quote from a congressman's speech. The congressman was clearly wrong since what he says was clearly written in the constitution is not there. Most of us know that congressmen are not perfect. Not even old dead ones. Most also realize that things they say in speeches are not the same thing as laws.
As the Supreme Court wrote in the quote I already provided, those excluded by the "under the jurisdiction" phrase are the children of diplomats and of invading foreign armies. Anyone else, if born in the US, is a natural born citizen.
Maybe we will not get banned if we just respond to their drive:
“Save us the Alinsky-Obama doubletalk”
Just that to avoid wasing our time with their garbage. One of the morons writes paragraphs of doubletalk nonsense. His initials are ST.
As for the certificate that was produced satisfying eligibility, we really don't knwo the answer to that question because (as far as I know), no court has addressed it - the cases were dismissed without addressing the merits (as far as I know). What I do know is that a picture on a website is pretty weak evidence of anything, if admissible at all, even with supporting statements from “Factcheck”. If any of these cases when forward, then that certificate would be examined by experts from both parties AND the “vault” would be opened. Then the courts would decide whether or not eligibility has been met.
Again, just pointing out that the issues are not so clear cut as some make them out to be. Enjoyed the discussion.
sorry for my typos - I posted in haste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
