Posted on 09/20/2010 1:33:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Here's a surprise! Hawaii's Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama's Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.
Obama's Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological "coincidences" that obscure AKA Obama's history.
Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) -- and that document was discovered by independent investigators.
This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama's REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name. • Parents or Legal Guardians' names. • Date of Birth • Place of Birth • Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not "lose" the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly "excuse" the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.
This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
What you quoted is consistent with my point. You made it sound like the Supreme Court doesn't review standing, so I showed an example where they do. And so that point remains in each of the posts; there's no evidence that SCOTUS has looked at anything other than the standing issue.
I have no intention of turning this thread into a law book quoting all 71 Obama eligibility decisions that didn’t find precedential relevance to Minor v Happersett.
Then you concede point. Thanks.
You finally found your appropriate intellectual level of discussion, correcting typos as a proof reader. Good work!
My ability as strong reader is destroying more than just your typos ... and considering you didn't catch on doesn't say much for your own 'appropriate intellectual level.'
“Citizens of the United States at birth” do not need naturalization.
Sorry, but this isn't completely accurate. Statutory citizenship at birth is an act of collective naturalization. That's why the subhead INCLUDES the phrase "By collective naturalization." Because of this, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens as defined by the Supreme Court.
“What you quoted is consistent with my point. You made it sound like the Supreme Court doesn’t review standing, so I showed an example where they do. And so that point remains in each of the posts; there’s no evidence that SCOTUS has looked at anything other than the standing issue.”
The law of the land as codified in the US Code spells out precisely who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
“Birthright Citizenship In the United States:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
“Truthfully, I didn’t even remember that Barack Obama was in my class at Noelani until that 1966-1967 kindergarten class photo surfaced, showing Barack and me in it,” Inoue said. “Then my mother found the picture of the two of us together in third grade, in 1969. Otherwise, I probably would never have remembered.”
Thanks for blowing yourself out of the water. I would bet you $1,000 to a stale doughnut, if there were any way to establish it, that she was not only shown the picture, but was told, “Hey, know who that is? That’s Barack Obama.”
And her reaction was, “Huh? I had him in a class all those years ago? Let’s see now, how should I react in order to create the best possible impression of myself?”
If that ever happens, I'll let you know. In the meantime, my point still stands.
No legal distinction has ever been made in any ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States or by a law passed by Congress and signed by a president between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States at birth.”
Minor made the distinction. "The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption." Here's an absolute legal distinction made between natural born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship at birth.
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.