Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 10/28/2009 12:51:53 PM PDT by Jean S

Edited on 10/28/2009 12:53:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

See link.

Related thread:

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; news; nuckinfuts; orlytaitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 last
To: Non-Sequitur

Actually it was Indonesia. Sorry about that.


151 posted on 10/29/2009 9:13:46 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Unseal the lock box containing every document pertaining to Obama's life, TODAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"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


152 posted on 10/29/2009 9:14:07 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"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.

153 posted on 10/29/2009 9:32:37 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
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.

154 posted on 10/29/2009 9:34:29 AM PDT by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
...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

155 posted on 10/29/2009 9:37:19 AM PDT by conimbricenses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: bustinchops
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.

156 posted on 10/29/2009 10:00:34 AM PDT by browardchad ("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact." - Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


157 posted on 10/29/2009 10:28:49 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Unseal the lock box containing every document pertaining to Obama's life, TODAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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.


158 posted on 10/29/2009 10:34:58 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Unseal the lock box containing every document pertaining to Obama's life, TODAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Excellent photo! A picture says a thousand words.


159 posted on 10/29/2009 10:39:39 AM PDT by NorwegianViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

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?


160 posted on 10/29/2009 12:12:09 PM PDT by PenetratingMndFlame (http://www.penetratingmindflame.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DB
Eventually the truth will come out, whatever it is. And history won’t be kind to those who were wrong. A bit like global warming being caused by CO2.

I agree. Unfortunately, in the meantime, Obama will remain in office, wreaking havoc on America while those challenging his constitutional qualifications are dismissed as loons. The left has neatly marginalized those questioning Obama's citizenship as 'birthers' and the public seems to accept the concept as one of right-wing desperation and - to the consternation of some - has greeted it with a yawn.

Eventually discovering that Obama didn't qualify for the office of president based on his place of birth outside the U.S. would be little more than maddening irony when America has already fallen under the weight of his Marxist schemes to destroy our economy and tear down our institutions. Too late for recriminations when all you can say is 'I told you so'.

161 posted on 10/29/2009 2:16:34 PM PDT by Jim Scott (Obama LIES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
What proof do you, O’Reilly or anyone have that it is bogus?

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly but I will refer you to post #160.

I agree with others that responded to my post of 10/28 on this issue -I don't have the time to reply to all - that the election of Barack Hussein Obama and a Democrat party voting majority in congress has placed our beloved country in very real danger of being effectively destroyed.

I wholeheartedly agree that Obama's qualifications for the presidency are wanting on multiple fronts, even if his place of birth proves to not be a legal obstacle to his ascendancy to the Oval Office. However, the thread is about the 'birther' issue and I responded to that.

A quick review of any of my previous posts related to Obama's presidency over the past months will demonstrate that I need no instruction in why this man is a looming disaster for America and it's people.

I simply don't view the Obama birthplace issue as having any traction with the general public. At this point, I see it becoming a political side show with no real influence on anyone's thinking and precious little chance of harming Obama's ability to remain in office. Like many, I can find numerous questions to ask about Obama's background but the time for that has essentially passed. He is not going away and calling him an 'illegitimate' president may feel good but it's preaching to the choir, much as the left cried about George W. Bush's presidency being 'illegitimate' based on ultra-narrow margin of victory that the left disputed for years afterward, to basically no avail.

George W. Bush was harmed by many things during his 2 terms in office, including his own inability to effectively respond to the endless attacks on his policies and his motivations but Democrats calling his 2000 election 'illegitimate' was pretty far down the list. As compelling as the 'birther' movement is to some conservatives, I seriously doubt that Obama will ever be brought down by this strategy.

162 posted on 10/29/2009 3:07:31 PM PDT by Jim Scott (Obama LIES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Thanks for the nice welcome. I’ve been here again (was a member for 3 years approx. ‘99 - 02) about 6 months now and written a couple thousand posts. I’ve seen a number of the threads you referred me to.

Best regards.


163 posted on 10/29/2009 3:18:18 PM PDT by bustinchops (Teddy ("The Hiccup") Kennedy - the original water-boarder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: PenetratingMndFlame

There is no actual on point cite on that page to any Federalist paper concerning the natural born Citizen clause. Your assertion remains BS. You can’t cite to any actual Federalist paper on this because it ain’t there.

The rest of your little screed pertains to who Congress has decided is naturalized at birth by statute. Congress has the power to say who may be naturalized and how. It does not have to power to redefine words.

I have not wagered money on the matter of usurper Barry’s lack of eligibility to serve as President.

Hope this helps.


164 posted on 10/29/2009 4:32:44 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Plummz

I said explicitly I was not a constitutional scholar and attributed the arguments to real scholars who were discussing the accusations of a few who said McCain and Dodd weren’t eligible to be president.

It was not a partisan debate.

I have no desire to go thru the Federalist Papers just for this minor point, tho it might be invigorating after all these years.

What your argument seems to say that the constitutional term of “natural born” means what YOU want it to mean, i.e., born within the territory of the U.S.

The writers of the Constitution were precise when they wanted to be and fuzzy when they wanted to be.

I actually have never heard from a person who makes the leap from ‘natural born’ to ‘born within the territory of the U.S.’ Many believe the Constitution is clear on the point to state explicitly that it defines a person as eligible for the presidency only if that person was born within the yada yada, but you’ve obviously read the document. How do you make that leap? I’d be interested in reading the argument. One is obtuse, one is crystal clear. “Natural born” doesn’t mean anything to mean.


165 posted on 10/30/2009 4:48:51 PM PDT by PenetratingMndFlame (http://www.penetratingmindflame.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: PenetratingMndFlame
I said explicitly I was not a constitutional scholar

If you're going to admit upfront you have no idea what you're talking about; that is a good indication that you have no business posting anything at all -- unless you just like to hear yourself type.

I have no desire to go thru the Federalist Papers

Then stop making things up about them.

166 posted on 10/30/2009 6:13:57 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

“(no answer)” came the stern reply.


167 posted on 11/11/2009 5:02:17 PM PST by Dick Holmes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-167 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson