<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><A title="United States v. Wong Kim Ark" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark"><U><FONT color=#0000ff><EM>United States v. Wong Kim Ark</EM></FONT></U></A><EM>,</EM> 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen. <BR><BR>Tom<BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:33:59 -0700<BR>> From: ophite@gmail.com<BR>> To: no.weatherman@gmail.com<BR>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Natural Born Citizen: Evasion You Can Believe In<BR>> <BR>> NW --<BR>> <BR>> My post must have gotten cut off, because you didn't answer this part:<BR>> <BR>> Loud assertions aren't an argument. How does Obama's citizenship<BR>> status differ from our Presidents' up to Andrew Jackson?<BR>> <BR>> Could you do that, please?<BR>> <BR>> -- ACS<BR>> <BR>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM, No Weatherman <no.weatherman@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> > ACS:<BR>> ><BR>> > I'm pretty familiar with basic lawyering, thank you. That's why I<BR>> > wrote "good lawyering, bad politics." I'm also familiar with Berg's<BR>> > nutjob 9-11 vandal theory (they were vandals, correct?) And anyone can<BR>> > go back and trace the NBC status of our presidents, as you have<BR>> > apparently done to your credit. That's why I asked you to please "tell<BR>> > us why you believe the fathers inserted the NBC prerequisite and why<BR>> > you believe Obama won't answer the question."<BR>> ><BR>> > You ignored my first inquiry while answering my second. So let me<BR>> > enlarge upon it. Why did the fathers insert this requirement and how<BR>> > do you believe Barack Obama can prove he qualifies?<BR>> ><BR>> > I don't know the answer to these questions and I'm not ashamed in the<BR>> > least to admit it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing — but<BR>> > there's lots wrong with not knowing and pretending otherwise.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > On 10/8/08, Andreas Schou <ophite@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:41 AM, No Weatherman <no.weatherman@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> >> > ACS,<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Your founding fathers argument is obvious but it doesn't answer the<BR>> >> > point and your jus sanguinus argument adds no light either.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Loud assertions aren't an argument. How does Obama's citizenship<BR>> >> status differ from our Presidents' up to Andrew Jackson?<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> > And rather than jingle with you on the dance floor all day long,<BR>> >> > please answer the question and tell us why you believe the fathers<BR>> >> > inserted the NBC prerequisite and why you believe Obama won't answer<BR>> >> > the question.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Obama won't submit to discovery from a nutjob (who, incidentally, is<BR>> >> also trying to sue the Bush family under RICO for causing 9/11) if he<BR>> >> can win on summary judgment. Basic lawyering.<BR>> >><BR>> >> -- ACS<BR>> >><BR>> ><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR></body>
</html>