Orly Taitz - Response to Bill O' Reilly's smears "It is time to protest FOX NEWS"

YouTube ^ | 10/28/09 | Orly interviewed by Steve Cooper 10/28/09

[Jean S]

See link.

Related thread:

Orly on O'Reilly coming up on Fox - (After an hour of teasers, no Orly)

[DoughtyOne]

"If his parents renounced his citizenship and declared him a Malaysian citizen, I’m not convinced he’s in like Flynt when he comes back."

It's been detailed here on FR in various discussions. US law does not allow parents to renounce the citizenship of a minor child, period. They can't do it.

Even as an adult, you have to go through a process. You can't do it accidentally.
<>As a matter of being accidental or not, there is a bit of logic here that I find troubling.

If what you say is true, a child could be born in the U.S., leave the very next day, live in a terrorist cell in Pakistan for forty plus years, then return to the United States 42 years later, and be sworn in as President that same day.  However unlikely that this would happen, it still could happen if your claim is true.  For that reason, I have to state that I find it difficult to accept your premise.

"Futher I simply dismiss your assertion that his birth record questions exist only in the land of Kooksville.

In fact I would assert that making such a claim is in and of itself kook blather."

Well I didn't make that claim, so I'm not going to worry about it.  Okay...

There are kooky questions, and there are non-kooky questions. But if you want serious questions taken seriously, don't lump them in with the kooky ones.

Who is to determine what is kooky or not?  James Carville thinks every question that has come to my mind about Obama is kooky.  You may think half my questions are kooky.  Someone else will think all my questions are reasoned.  Serious questions are serious questions no matter where they are found.

There are always reasoned answers to even the kookiest of questions, so dismissing them is pointless.

[dalereed]

Fox should kick Oriley off the air, he’s not fit to even be called an american!

[bustinchops]

Exactly. Who sent Orly? Why Orly? Why did she insinuate herself into the issue?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Probably more than you. I’m a monthly donor and I donate extra during most freep-a-thons. How about you?

[Non-Sequitur]

Who sent Orly?

What if she decided to go all on her own?

[Non-Sequitur]

and btw, welcome to the Free Republic!

Conimbricenses has been here for two years.

[Non-Sequitur]

We know very little about his movement to Malaysia, and it’s requirements for schooling and how this period may have impacted his citizenship.

OK, I'll bite. Just when the heck did Obama go to Malaysia?

[Brown Deer]

Welcome to the Free Republic! I would like to recommend that you read the following threads, where you will find some very informative information. Enjoy your stay and remember the golden rule.

[stockpirate]

There are plenty of Obama supporters here on FR. Sad thing is the mods sometimes just allow them to stay and cause disruptions.

[Cicero]

parsy, who is not a snob

[DoughtyOne]

Actually it was Indonesia. Sorry about that.

[mlo]

"If what you say is true, a child could be born in the U.S., leave the very next day, live in a terrorist cell in Pakistan for forty plus years, then return to the United States 42 years later, and be sworn in as President that same day. However unlikely that this would happen, it still could happen if your claim is true. For that reason, I have to state that I find it difficult to accept your premise."

Since when does the ability to get a bizarre result, mean something isn't the law? :-)

These sorts of scenarios have been posted many times. They all incorporate the strange notion that actually getting elected President is a trivial after-thought. It isn't. Such a person would still have to win an election. And frankly, if the people of the US voted for such a person, well, we get the government we deserve.

But there's another important point to take from this. Not every ill result is prevented by a law. Just because something bad can happen doesn't mean it's illegal. Two different things.

From the State Department's web site, which also contains a link to the US statute:

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:

[...]

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

[mlo]

"Who is to determine what is kooky or not?"

Are the 9-11 Truthers kooky? They have detailed, thought-out, "scientific" explanations for their beliefs. Should we take them serious? How about people that deny we landed on the moon? They have very detailed reasoned explanations too.

Birtherism is much more like those beliefs than not. It doesn't rely on the facts as we know them, but on distortions of those facts, on misreading the law, on historical revisionism, crackpot internet "analysts", and a blind acceptance of anyone and anything that appears to support Birtherism. That's not the kind of thing that deserves seriousness, and it's why the media doesn't give it any.

As I said, if you want the media to address serious questions about Obama's past, you shouldn't lump them in with birther stuff. Even if you can find a few of those real questions somewhere in the mass of the birther belief system, if you insist the media take birthers seriously you are going to be disappointed.

[conimbricenses]

Well, the question of who sent her is a very open one. Her political involvement history is virtually unknown prior to the mid 2000's.

She started making several very large campaign donations in 2006. One was to the incumbent Republican congressman in her home district. A second was to Joe Lieberman. A third was to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, of which Hussein would have been a direct beneficiary as a sitting Democrat senator.

Then in 2008 she suddenly turned full-fledged Republican.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373000/posts

I'd like to see what her voting history and primary participation records are.

[conimbricenses]

...which would also mean that I've been here for longer than the beloved and fanatically worshiped Orly has been a Republican. Back then she was still donating to Hussein via the DSCC.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373000/posts

[browardchad]

Exactly. Who sent Orly? Why Orly? Why did she insinuate herself into the issue?

Supposedly, "Pastor" Wiley Drake got her involved in a lawsuit originally filed by Gary Kreep. Then, down the road, Drake turned on Orly and requested that Kreep represent him in the Barnett v. Obama case.

It's hard to keep track of the nuttiness, but I've never seen an explanation of how or why Drake came to know her. He's a Christian (who openly admits praying for Obama's death), and she's Jewish, so they didn't meet in church, that's for sure.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your post. It was informative and solid.

I would agree with your comment re: bizarre results vs the actual law too.

As for some charismatic figure emerging from a foreign body of people, so popular and adored that he could hoodwink our populace, I’m not completely convinced that Obama isn’t in some loose way emblematic of that type of scenario.

His image of ‘savior’ was more important than anything else about him to those who voted for him.

And yes, we do (at least part of the populace does) get the government we deserve.

[DoughtyOne]

IMO each belief group has to stand on it’s own. I believe answers being what they are, the 09/11 truthers are fringe.

Some aspects of the birther belief group are fringe. Other of their beliefs are not.

I’m not going to side with those who wish to dismiss the birther movement because I believe there are too many important issues to just dismiss the citizenship question outright.

I am not convinced he was born in Hawaii. To my way of thinking, dismissing his grandmother’s comments is also fringe.

Look, the media will never address Obama’s past. It makes no difference if there is justification to do so or not.

We both know that.

[NorwegianViking]

Excellent photo! A picture says a thousand words.

[PenetratingMndFlame]

Please see “http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823";

Note LAST bullet point of current U.S. law of various scenarios that establishes who is a natural born citizen, which makes Obama one, if the allegations were true that he was born abroad and not in Hawaii: “Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).” His mother certainly meets that criteria of being the establishing parent.

The site starts with Constitutional section of natural born, goes on to Federalist Papers saying term is undefined, and with courts starting off saying it is undefined, and then goes on to describe how both federal courts and Congress legally defined ‘natural born.’ Listen, I think Obama and most liberals ought to be arrested for perjury or whatever for falsely declaring their allegiance to the Constitution when they were sworn in, but let it be settled that Obama qualifies for the presidency as a natural born citizen.

This legal Web site says:

“U.S. Code definition

Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time).”

Read the rest of the site if you want to follow the gyrations, but again, the Founding Fathers knew they were leaving it up to Congress to define ‘natural born,” and never said ANYWHERE it meant being born within the U.S.

Didn’t we wager a million dollars on this?