Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link
orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid

Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]

Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.

Barry's Kenyan B.C.??

Special Motion for leave

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: armedcitizen; article2section1; awgeez; banglist; barackhusseinobama; barackobama; bc; betrayed; bfrcolbtwawlol; bho; bho44; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; birthplace; ccw; certifigate; citizenship; colb; conman; democratssuck; devilspawn; dreams; dreamscopyright; dreamsfrommyfather; enoughofthiscrap; fauxbama; fraud; greatpretender; hailtothekenyan; hawaii; hoax; honolulu; honoluluflimflam; hopespringseternal; hussein; imom; indonesia; kenya; kenyabelieveit; kenyaman; kenyan; keyes; lgfequalsdailykos; lgfhateschristians; lgfracist; lucyhazfootball; m0mbasa; marxistusurper; mas; muslim; naturalborn; nbc; nothingburger; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obroma; ods; orly; orlytaitz; orlytaitzpatriot; philberg; polarik; potusbogus; prezzot; repository1; rkba; rosemarysbaby; stalinistusurper; suckers; taitz; texasdarlin; thekenyan; thistimeforsure; tinfoilhat; unpresident; usurper; vips; zulu666
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 4,721-4,7404,741-4,7604,761-4,780 ... 12,101-12,105 next last
To: mojitojoe

screenshots are good. PDF’s might be even better. File, print, Adobe PDF, if you have the capability to do so.


4,741 posted on 08/02/2009 11:54:01 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4319 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Where do you see that on the watermark?


4,742 posted on 08/02/2009 11:54:38 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4576 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; Danae; Polarik

It was resolved. Go back and read the thread.
***Copout. The thread is 4500 posts. I don’t have time and won’t read the whole thread. I hope Danae and Polarik bring me up to speed.


4,743 posted on 08/02/2009 11:56:40 PM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4496 | View Replies]

To: machogirl
I thought for sure Hill was a shoo-in for the nomination. Whatever Barry had trumps BC.

Barry got what Hill had -- the support of George Soros.

Sometime in 2006 or '07, Soros switched horses in mid-stream.

Hill, who had money to burn, was caught in a case of the shorts. Meanwhile, Barry had the money machine at his back.

4,744 posted on 08/02/2009 11:56:43 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4723 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
He legally became President on the day the SCOTUS swore him into office. He can only be removed via IMPEACHMENT.

Beg to differ, but this situation is unprecedented in our history. We have to look to how our traditional law functions in similar instances to determine how to proceed if he's found to have committed actual fraud against us.

In any similar instance, I don't believe that any court would find that because a person was elected and sworn in, that that somehow mitigates the fact that they were never entitled to the office to begin with. There is no retroactive immunity from logic and reason in this regard, in my personal opinion.

Only a qualified President can be impeached, per the Constitution. If Obama is proven to be unqualified, and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President, then it just does not follow that he must be impeached. Logically, and legally, I don't believe he can be, as he was never the President to begin with (even though that fact is discovered after the election and swearing in).

Again, I believe that we have to look to how any other fraud of this type would be prosecuted, to divine the answer.

4,745 posted on 08/02/2009 11:56:50 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1937 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

talking about ann dunham not Orly I know she is a member in good standing of the Calif Bar. thanks for standing up for her.


4,746 posted on 08/02/2009 11:57:25 PM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4714 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Just because Brits didn’t use staples in ‘64 doesn’t mean that sometime in the past 40+ years it wasn’t stapled to something.

It's not the Brits I'm talking about, it's their colonial heirs. And it isn't that they didn't use staples in 1964, they were still using straight pins exclusively well into the late 1990's to my personal knowledge.

And it was stapled to something - that's MY point, not yours.

The significant point is that if it WAS stapled to something it would have been stapled somewhere that officials use staples.

Like the USA, for example.

4,747 posted on 08/02/2009 11:58:52 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4728 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

..better twice than never...you have mail


4,748 posted on 08/03/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4739 | View Replies]

To: machogirl
His poor girls when they have to do a genealogy project in school. That family tree is going to have a forest.

There won't be any trees left. Just parched baren earth once he gets through cleaning up with deforestation.

4,749 posted on 08/03/2009 12:00:38 AM PDT by bgill (The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4678 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

more name-calling. talk to the hand.

My info came from the respected magazine, The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/born_under_a_bad_sign.cfm

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/


4,750 posted on 08/03/2009 12:00:54 AM PDT by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4736 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

The point I was making is that the poster’s standard of evidence for even the suspicion of impropriety is too high. Applying his standard would compel us drop the entire matter, as not being worthy of attention.


4,751 posted on 08/03/2009 12:02:10 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1940 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

That’s a lie. That’s what the translators said, not what she said. Stop lying.


4,752 posted on 08/03/2009 12:03:32 AM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4717 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

It quite a list of suers???


4,753 posted on 08/03/2009 12:03:36 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

You are right. The Constitutional qualifications are precise and fixed. No swearing in ceremony can obviate them. If a swearing in ceremony meant that the Constitution could be violated every moment of every day by the swearee, the the President would be placed above the Constitution, and I can tell you that he is NOT. He is subservient to it.

If an individual is not qualified under the Constitution then he CANNOT be President. Ever. At all. And that means that Obama would not have to be removed for the Presidency, as he would NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT AT ANY TIME. All his acts would be void.


4,754 posted on 08/03/2009 12:03:42 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4745 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

Thank you ! Do you feel fairly confident that’s the E.F. Lavender on the Certificate ?

http://www.lifespringinternational.org/newsupdate_dec_04.htm


4,755 posted on 08/03/2009 12:04:35 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4726 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I think it is a story now...or very close to it... Look at how hard the leftists have worked to try and keep this covered up... I.E. they know it is TRUE!
I have my fingers crossed.. I hope this is the smoking gun ;)
4,756 posted on 08/03/2009 12:05:25 AM PDT by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2234 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

What are the odds? How many million to one?


4,757 posted on 08/03/2009 12:05:53 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4755 | View Replies]

To: Danae; Jim Robinson; Fiddlstix; Brad's Gramma

I have decided to stop doing the anonymous donations and just own up to my addiction with a Monthly donation of 30 bucks. It beats the crappola x2 out of world of WarCraft! LOL

~~~~

YAY ! GRRRRrrreat!


4,758 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:11 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4704 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Hi Aruanan!!! Congratulations, you are the 342 freeper to link a 1998 modern, amended version of the Kenyan constitution and misrepresent it as being the 1963 one. BZZZZZT I don't think that's the part that's amended; my reference is described as the 1963 Constitution with later amendments.

You don't think so? If you bothered to look at the link provided for the original 1963 constitution, you would know so.

If you want to know what the constitution said in 1963, maybe you should look at a 1963 constitution, instead of a 1998 amended one.

Besides, the Republic of Kenya was referred to in news articles from 1963 and mid-1964 as the "Republic of Kenya."

Oh Yeah? Got any, other than the 1963 Nevada Palladium Times, those legendary arbiters of truth and experts in international affairs and county fairs?

Hint: The major papers of the day did not refer to Kenya as the "Republic of Kenya" before they became one in dec 1964.

The Republican Constitution of Kenya: Historical Background and Analysis, Chanan Singh, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1965), pp. 878-949 has a lot of good background. It does, though, point out that from the beginning of independence in 1963 Kenya was going to be a republic but that it would go through a short transitional period as a dominion as more and more of the government became ruled by the Kenyan state rather than the Crown. It doesn't say, though, whether or not parts of the government that came under self rule before December 1964 started using "Republic of Kenya"on official records.


Thanks for the citation that totally debunks the idea that Kenya was a republic in December 1963.
It would eventually become a republic in December 1964, but it definitely was not one in December 1963. How could it be, with a constitution that kept the Queen of England the head of state?

Oh I forgot, you never read the 1963 constitution so you missed the part about the Queen of England being the head of state.

How about the history of Kenya listed on official Kenyan governmental websites? Those list the fact that Kenya newly became a republic on Dec 12th 1964, does that mean less than an article from the Nevada Palladium Times?
4,759 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:49 AM PDT by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4694 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I really worry about the direction FR is heading in. There’s nowhere near this much interest in Obama’s health care proposal, which is 100% real and could do serious and irreparable harm to our nation.

I will take exception to this. I am still reading the 1000 page plus "proposal". This is a very difficult document to wade through with references that take you everywhere including Michael Jackson's nose. ;-) I agree about the damage and have been educating others (as is my neurologist wife) about the Stalinist nature of it. I also agree that his is not health care reform, but health care destruction. There is no exaggeration to say this was lifted strait from Nazi Medicine (as was the anti-smoking campaign).

I disagree with your position on the birth issue. The last election was a very well planned coup. The only way to bring down the house of cards is the revelations on who this "potus" really is. I would rather have a constitutional crisis now versus no constitution later. A constitutional crisis may also result in a reversal of every move he has made, except for the bankrupting of our Republic.
4,760 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:51 AM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4701 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 4,721-4,7404,741-4,7604,761-4,780 ... 12,101-12,105 next 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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