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; 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 1-50 ... 6,951-7,0007,001-7,0507,051-7,100 ... 11,751-11,798 next last
To: rxsid

7,000


7,001 posted on 08/05/2009 4:35:06 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6997 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Congrats on post #7000!


7,002 posted on 08/05/2009 4:35:40 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7000 | View Replies]

To: NJ_Tom

It was snagged around 6 am.

Apparently someone bad snagged it much earlier.

I have *no* idea what time it first got posted on her site.


7,003 posted on 08/05/2009 4:36:35 PM PDT by Salamander (Like acid and oil on a madman's face, reason tends to fly away..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6943 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I pulled the damn contentious things.

If somebody wants them, they can mail me.

The stupid “messed up one” is already being posted on other blogs and I can’t find a way to inform the blog owners of the error.

I made 2 comments on the blog asking them to pull it [18 comments already existed] and when I went back, ALL the comments were gone but the image is still there.

WTH is up with that?


7,004 posted on 08/05/2009 4:42:08 PM PDT by Salamander (Like acid and oil on a madman's face, reason tends to fly away..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6957 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

I’ve been on a number of work days, today 5AM starting shift. So I cannot wade through this huge post as it develops. But cursory viewing through the six thousand comments shows so much disparity of views and so many variant documents on this issue I am at a loss to stay current. But that is OK. At least some of you good folk are in the position to keep tabs on latest developments regarding zero’s birth status.


7,005 posted on 08/05/2009 4:43:55 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6420 | View Replies]

To: Plummz; LucyT
Wrong. The term “natural-born citizen” comes from the Law of Nations, not British common-law. We went to war with Britain in 1812 because we disagreed with English common law’s definition of a natural-born subject.

Well the war of 1812 is a little down the road from Blackstone, the historical common law, and even the drafting of the U S Constitution.

7,006 posted on 08/05/2009 4:44:36 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6992 | View Replies]

To: David

And the drafting of the Constitution explicitly used a term from the Law of Nations, and not the common law. Now that you know, hopefully you will stop spreading the misinformation you did above.


7,007 posted on 08/05/2009 4:52:41 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7006 | View Replies]

To: David; 9YearLurker

OK David, according to your article last July, the after 1952 birth clause in the 1986 statute, applied only to ‘honorable service’ in the military and not to the general statute. I did indeed wonder this based on the construction of the paragraphs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts
“I also want to note that (g) continues with the language: “Provided, That any periods of honorable service . . . “ which concludes with a separate effective date clause making the provision retroactive: [”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 . . . . “] The retroactive date applies only to the “periods of honorable service” clause and has no application to the Obama issue.”

This is helpful to me (others?).

Then clearly, the statute that applied to Ann Dunham and BO, if born in Kenya would deny him citizen at birth status, let alone NBC status.
**********************

“I don’t know why you think it is a small possibility that he is not a US citizen. Let’s reverse it—when and under what law did he become a US Citizen?”
+++++++++++

That was actually 9YearLurker’s comment. But your response has been very helpful, and combined with the link to your essay, I hope this has helped others figure out, that if BO was born in Kenya, he has little chance of being a ‘citizen at birth’ let alone a NBC as per the US Constitution.

I’m glad to see this laid out. Thank you.


7,008 posted on 08/05/2009 4:54:26 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6991 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

Yes, I think at the very least he’s hidden enough to reveal that he’s basically a fraud and a communist. That’d have legs because he’s revealed so much already in his first 200 days.


7,009 posted on 08/05/2009 4:58:20 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6988 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“The whole point of the term “Natural Born Citizen” is to emphasis that the citizenship did NOT arise by way of a law or statue. Therefore, while an anchor baby may indeed be a “citizen” by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, they could not be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”, at least in the way the term was described during the time of the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. Again, otherwise the framers would have been intent to adopt Hamilton’s suggested requirement.”
+++++++++++++++

And as I’m seeing more and more clearly [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040753/posts] the applicable statutes don’t even grant BO ‘citizenship at birth’, let alone NBC. As David opines below, he very well may not be a citizen, as the fraud perpetrated was that he was born in HI, so why would he have naturalized?

From there, we get a non-US citizen as POTUS, if it can be proven that he was born in Kenya.

Wow. I’ve inherently known all of this, or tended to believe it based on zero’s obfuscation, but seeing it laid out is just incredibly damning.


7,010 posted on 08/05/2009 4:59:04 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6994 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Just a reply to let you know I saw your post. This thread has moved so fast, and grown so large, that this reply is going to land about 3,000 posts downthread.

It’s nearly impossible at this point to make a timely reply to any posts in the 4,800 range.

So, just saying’ hi!


7,011 posted on 08/05/2009 5:06:01 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 4811 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

The truth is this isn’t going anywhere. Obama isn’t going to be turned out of the White House because of a problem with his birth certificate, said problem which may or may not exist at all. 69 million votes is 69 million votes.
++++++++++++++++++

I tend to agree with you. But this weakens BO, as there are all these lingering doubts as to what he’s hiding. That in and of itself is a good reason to soldier on, on this issue, to, as you say, peel away some more of those 69 million votes.

Also, it’s a foundation erosion on his more insane socialist agenda.


7,012 posted on 08/05/2009 5:07:49 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6996 | View Replies]

To: widdle_wabbit

“a handful of comparable documents showing “Republic of Kenya” in use ten months before it became part of their constitution.”

I checked the link you provided and could not find the above sentence nor photos of such documents. Can you tell me where to find them?

By the way, love your name!


7,013 posted on 08/05/2009 5:13:26 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6920 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

I tend to agree with you. But this weakens BO, as there are all these lingering doubts as to what he’s hiding. That in and of itself is a good reason to soldier on, on this issue, to, as you say, peel away some more of those 69 million votes....

I agree with you. But I also feel if there was validated proof of him being a non citizen and the news media finally got into a news frenzy to cover the story like they did Monica Lewinsky or Watergate, maybe just maybe enough citizens would be mad enough to march in Washington and force him to resign. Just as the Russians marched in Moscow a few years back.

I know it is a long shot. But who would have thought that people would stage tea protests and go to yell at their Congress critter over health care?


7,014 posted on 08/05/2009 5:17:33 PM PDT by Hang'emAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7012 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

““Sir Edward F. Lavender Source(s): Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library

Sign up just to post that? It’s your only post so far after signing up today.

While interesting, it needs expansion. It’s a might on the cryptic side. “

I found this comment interesting, even if from a new user. I googled it down and it cam from a comment on TexasDarlins blog.

TD Blog post by lev8mysoul:
“I asked a british history buff I know if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961. He called me up a few minutes ago and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender”
Source(s): Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library”

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/both-of-these-birth-certificates-could-be-real/#comment-109526

I tracked the poster back to this blog.

http://uscanblog.wordpress.com/

He/she doesn’t look like a crank. The posts on USCAN blog are very intelligent and thoughtful. Any thoughts on this of how we can confirm or refute it?


7,015 posted on 08/05/2009 5:18:23 PM PDT by Askwhy5times (http://bloggingredneck.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6965 | View Replies]

To: freedommom
I’m done. I’m going to the beach.

... sigh ...

I can totally understand his disappointment in his fellow Americans, for their lack of financial support. But, maybe he could have been just a bit overt about it, and made it clear to visitors that good will don't pay the bills.

He had already proven his worth to many thousands of people. All he had to do was open his mouth, and the bucks would have come rolling in, thanks attached.

JimRob is in the exact same position, but he somehow managed to avoid unreasonable pride, and let folks know that it takes financial support to keep the doors open.

7,016 posted on 08/05/2009 5:21:26 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 4839 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

“DU is hysterical about Orly being charged with perjury or fraud or misrepresentation. BS. She has not submitted this to the court as a bona fide. She has asked the court to authenticate. BIG DIFEFFERENCE. This lady seems very smart about legal rules and maneuvers.”

You know, I don’t believe how much negative publicity this lady gets even from the conservatives! This is so unfair. Maybe she hasn’t done all things as competently as someone else might have. I have no idea, this is not within my competence to judge. But to call her a nut? She doesn’t deserve it.


7,017 posted on 08/05/2009 5:23:52 PM PDT by Mimi3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6823 | View Replies]

To: Andy from Chapel Hill

I was able to track down the person responsible for this post

“I asked a british history buff I know if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961. He called me up a few minutes ago and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender Source(s): Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library”

I called them on the phone and left a message I also sent email. We will see if she responds to my inquiries.


7,018 posted on 08/05/2009 5:30:26 PM PDT by faucetman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6889 | View Replies]

To: Technical Editor

The following is an excerpt from Leo Donofrio’s online site ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Please note in the second paragraph the Supreme Court says “...The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that...”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

*****************************

So, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.

The Constitutional Congress used Emmerich de Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, as their primary source for constructing our constitution. That is the source of the ‘natural born Citizen’ definition.

Donofrio argues convincingly that SCOTUS must make a determination on this issue of natural born citizenship. I concurr.


7,019 posted on 08/05/2009 5:31:49 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6923 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I thought you were replying to #6966.
This scenario scares me!!
Is there any way this could happen!!!!!!!!!
freedommom
Since his arrival at the White House, Barack Obama has been touted as `King of the World’ rather than USA president.

As King of the World, does Obama really need born-in-USA status? On the occasion of their president’s 48th birthday yesterday, Americans still don’t know for certain from where he came, only where he is leading them.

There was a mammoth picture of the Birthday Boy on display outside the White House, but no pictures of him pursing his lips to blow out the candles on a birthday cake, which may have served as a reminder that this is a president already well on his way to blowing out the lights of the Free World.

Thus far the only `proof’ of Obama’s murky past comes from the romantic version of his life as spun in his book, Dreams of My Father.

Some people’s dreams are other folk’s nightmares.

Global citizens and Kings of the World find home at the United Nations, which operates as a law unto itself.

When Obama emerges to his rightful throne as King of the World, will his missing birth certificate and school records be swallowed up by UN diplomatic immunity?

The long-awaited debut of Obama at the UN is happening right on schedule. Obama will chair “a special meeting of the U.N, Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”. According to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, that meeting will take place on Sept. 24 during the annual summit of the U.N. General Assembly.

There is no doubt that the sovereignty of the US, notwithstanding, the United Nations is a law unto itself.

A pig sty of corruption, and a body that blows its time on incessant talk while people die in genocides, the UN is also the main source of this summer’s “you’re all going to die” pandemic predictions that have yet to lead to the public panic needed to invoke martial law.

Most fittingly to some, UN headquarters originated on the grounds of an abattoir where screams of animals being led to slaughter could be heard, as a “gift” from Rockefeller family money.

Diplomatic Immunity, which could only have originated at the UN, has created virtual untouchables. According to Reader’s Digest, “The UN rarely gets much done, but somehow its officials are still too busy to park legally. Between 1997 and the end of 2002, foreign diplomats racked up more than 150,000 unpaid parking tickets—totaling a staggering $17 million. But thanks to diplomatic immunity, the city has no power to collect.

Is it a foregone conclusion that the UN granted Obama the unassailable right to be a law unto himself, with or without the personal documents proving who he really is?

BHO began identifying himself as a “global citizen” even before election. Perhaps rather than coming off as grandiose, he was really telling the truth.

UN-bestowed diplomatic immunity has protected other high rollers in the now all but forgotten Oil for Food Scandal.

Some of those high rollers are now part of the Obama team of czars. Paul Volcker, charged by personal friend, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to investigate the scandal, only added to the level of frustration.

UN Poster Boy numero uno, Canadian Maurice Strong who accepted a $1 million cheque courtesy of oil-for-food main player Saddam Hussein (although he contends he did know at the time the money came from Hussein) went on to invest in the Chery car company, stated intention of which was to bring America’s auto industry to its knees with the likes of Obama bagman George Soros.

Soros has close ties to former UN Deputy Secretary General Baron Mark Malloch-Brown.

Is Obama thumbing his nose at Americans who want to see his birth certificate because he knows his back is covered by UN diplomatic immunity?

Is there a Grand Plan keeping the the most anti-American president ever elected in the White House?

Barack Obama is a self-admitted global citizen who can do whatever he wants to America, and just like the organization which foments for One World Government that spawned him, is really a power until himself.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13403

SEPT 24TH YIKES!!

7,020 posted on 08/05/2009 5:33:20 PM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7016 | View Replies]

To: Prince of Space

Can you remember the source, what publication interviewed her or someone who knew about this fact?

It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time.


7,021 posted on 08/05/2009 5:35:38 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6951 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The fact that Bernard Barker, Vergilio Gonzales, Eugenio Martínez, Frank Sturgis, and James McCord were apprehended at the Watergate is not what caused the potential impeachment and resignation of Nixon. Nixon was not involved in the burglary, and likely knew nothing about it when it happened. What the main issue was, was the coverup.

If Obama’s handlers put false documents up on the “Fight The Smears” site, and Obama went along with it and contrived to keep details of his eligibility covered up, then there is a problem.

Don’t look for the Democrat House to bring impeachment articles, since they are themselves in it up to their ears. And they have strong biases concerning the matter.


7,022 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:05 PM PDT by LeonardxCross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein

SCOTUS said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama - the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his NBC status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are - in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.


7,023 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:06 PM PDT by The Viceroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6939 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce

In 1968, Eldridge Cleaver was asked for his BC by the California Secretary of State to determine his eligibility. He was not yet 35. Apparently, other states were not so thorough as his Peace and Freedom Party got 35,000+ (.05%)votes in that election.


7,024 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:07 PM PDT by bjorn14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6945 | View Replies]

To: All

Regarding pence and cents, you know what I am thinking? Suppose I wanted to make a forgery of the birth certificate. What would I do? I would certainly do research regarding the form itself, the coat of arms, the stamp, the paper, the typewriter, etc... But it would never occur to me to print the price on the form. Why? Because I’ve never seen a price printed directly on a document, so I would think of putting it here.

By the way, yesterday someone made a very good comment about the pence (I wish I remembered what post or which thread). It was historically common in England to charge 7 and a half shillings for all the documents. It was a standard price. This amount used to be called an “angel” at some point. This person even quoted what might have been a literary text. So it’s quite possible that Kenya borrowed this quaint tradition.


7,025 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:08 PM PDT by Mimi3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6957 | View Replies]

Alan Keyes was on the 2008 Presidential ballot in 3 States (CA,CO, FL) and had write in status in four others. I don’t think he would have standing in IL Senate race because the Constitution doesn’t require Senators to be citizens only residents of the states they represent. So, theoretically a Green Card holder could be a Rep. or Sen.


7,026 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:12 PM PDT by bjorn14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6974 | View Replies]

To: freedommom

As “King of the World,” Obama will turn our economy into a worldwide welfare system.


7,027 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:13 PM PDT by surfing_the_red_wave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6966 | View Replies]

To: TChad

I had to get a duplicate copy of my son’s FL birth certificate for him to get a passport. The certified copy looks like the original BC, and has the date the certified copy was made with the signature of the registrar, and the raised seal affixed. I read on the blogs on resistnet that Orly had had this one authenticated prior to filing the papers with the court on Saturday, and still needs to get it certified as authentic. Was Hillary’s trip to Africa already planned, or was this a “spur of the moment trip on Monday”?


7,028 posted on 08/05/2009 5:36:13 PM PDT by worried grammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

It appears to coincide with the divorce between Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. She supposedly accused him of abuse and went for full custody of Jr. and some are saying the birth certificate would have been necessary for the custody proceedings in the divorce. I’m only passing on what others have blogged, as I don’t know, but it sounds plausible to me.


7,029 posted on 08/05/2009 5:37:53 PM PDT by worried grammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The copy I printed out says the certified copy was generated on February 17, 1964, which would coincide with the final decree of divorce dated March 20, 1964. Where did you get a generated date of August 1964? Is there more than one Kenyan BC floating around???


7,030 posted on 08/05/2009 5:37:53 PM PDT by worried grammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

I found the author of this post and she emailed me back today. She confirmed that she indeed did as described in her post. She seemed on the up & up to me. Posts all over the internet definately conservative & anti obama. Not an obot. I believe her.


7,031 posted on 08/05/2009 5:42:25 PM PDT by faucetman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7015 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
...the only problem is that it states “President elect”. It seems to apply before the President is sworn in.

I believe that this is splitting hairs to a degree that the Constitution can't withstand. Lawyers have turned the clear meaning of that beautiful document to mud for a long time now, because of it's non-legalistic language.

Lawyerese is the gateway to tyranny, where our Constitution is concerned.

It's pretty clear to me, that the Framers clearly intended that if a President was ever found to be unqualified, then the Vice President would act as President until such time as a new President qualified for the office. Very simple.

I would argue that this phrase from Amendment XX applies even after the swearing in of the President.

"...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;..."

7,032 posted on 08/05/2009 5:44:09 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 4870 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
My take on this is that it’s a forgery.

4,875 posted on Monday, August 03, 2009 4:11:03 AM by nikos1121 (praying for -13) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

You come late to this thread on Monday afternoon, and decide that it's a forgery after having read only 25 posts?

Interesting.

7,033 posted on 08/05/2009 5:49:56 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 4875 | View Replies]

To: worried grammie
Was Hillary’s trip to Africa already planned,

Would Obama give Hillary the proof that she was scammed out of her presidency? Not likely.

I wonder how long the Taitz document authentication will take.

7,034 posted on 08/05/2009 5:50:00 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7028 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I believe that the term President elect was a reference to the personality involved. What else would you call the person involved but what he was? It was a way of identifying certain who should serve. There was only one President elect.


7,035 posted on 08/05/2009 5:51:31 PM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7032 | View Replies]

To: Diggity

Sorry meant Vice President elect.


7,036 posted on 08/05/2009 5:52:45 PM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7035 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

I’m 3 days late and 2500 posts (and growing) to go.

I just don’t have the time to sit and read for hours at a time but when I do - it’s begun to seem that many are showing up to raise the same “Kenya wasn’t a Republic” and language problems that were refuted, oh, I don’t know- about 2000 posts ago?!!

But that’s just me.


7,037 posted on 08/05/2009 5:52:54 PM PDT by TruthNtegrity (RIP Tony Snow. - praying for his family and friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4501 | View Replies]

To: TruthNtegrity

Kenya called itself a Republic, long before it was proclaimed to be one by the British government.


7,038 posted on 08/05/2009 5:55:10 PM PDT by fanfan (Why did they bury Barry's past?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7037 | View Replies]

To: TChad

I have always considered that the reason Clinton didn’t bring this up was because Obama’s Chicago thugs dug up enough dirt on her that she kept quiet.

Just imagine if the entire turth were to come out about the criminal Clintons.

John


7,039 posted on 08/05/2009 6:02:29 PM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7034 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Splitting hairs......I don't believe the founders would have ever envisioned a barry and his cohorts.

"I would argue that this phrase from Amendment XX applies even after the swearing in of the President."

And I would argue it doesn't. It explicitly states "President elect"....what happens after that should be nothing less than the asshole being led out of the White House in handcuffs by the MP.

7,040 posted on 08/05/2009 6:06:42 PM PDT by NoGrayZone (Where's The Birth Certificate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7032 | View Replies]

To: Albertafriend
Some time ago a poster, EngineerChief,

I think you mean Chief Engineer.

7,041 posted on 08/05/2009 6:21:10 PM PDT by Alice in Wonderland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6934 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
I also found a number of anomalies that shout, "Forgery." It's a government document saying the birth happened and that a birth certificate exists -- or pretty much like Obama's bogus Hawaiian COLB.

Ron, I've got to say that I am very disappointed in your analysis of this document, particularly since you haven't released any sort of forensic report, as of yet.

Of all people, you should know that legitimate COLBs exist. The mere existence of this CCRB does not in itself indicate "Forgery", as you so boldly proclaim.

And that's another thing. Why do you proclaim that this is a forgery, then go on to say in your post that you and your "group" are continuing to study it? Makes no sense.

You made your name here as someone who could puzzle out fraudulent details from computer images, yet nothing in your post relates to anomalies you may have found in the image that cause you to doubt the authenticity of the document.

Instead, you quote findings from people in your "group", whoever they are.

It appears to me that you've made a premature definitive finding in this case, and that is going to hurt your credibility with Freepers. It's simply not professional. You really should know that.

Very disappointed...

7,042 posted on 08/05/2009 6:24:18 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 4121 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

You missed it by 4 seconds! Well, you can try agign in the morning at 8000. *smiles*


7,043 posted on 08/05/2009 6:25:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7001 | View Replies]

To: worried grammie

I think this Kenyan birth certificate to-do may be a red herring. After reading an article on www.wnd.com, I would like to see the public records of the marriage and the divorce of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. I’ve been looking at pictures of President Obama and Malcolm X—there is a definite resemblance between the two. And, I looked further and compared pictures of President Obama’s younger daughter and Malcolm X’s third daughter and the resemblance (especially around the mouth) is uncanny.


7,044 posted on 08/05/2009 6:35:38 PM PDT by whynotfacts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7029 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
As I've said that whole passage was very carefully crafted to allow one man (Alexander Hamilton) to run for the Presidency if he wished.

Forgive me. I've been reading this thread for 4 days and my head is spinning. But, wasn't it the OPPOSITE case? The law was written so that Alexander Hamilton COULD NOT run for President?

1.Birthplace: Nevis, British West Indies

7,045 posted on 08/05/2009 6:35:45 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6996 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
"Cleaver was 33 years old"

SO... How old is OBAMA???

7,046 posted on 08/05/2009 6:35:51 PM PDT by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6976 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine; Polarik
You have mistaken the intent of Polarik’s post. He is not endorsing these views. I beleive that he is merely assmebling the observations of others.

He has told me that he cannot form ANY opinion on the authenticity of the document without another like it, of known provenance, that can be used for valid comparison.

John, I agree with you almost 100% of the time, but on this, you are mistaken. Polarik clearly called this document a forgery (in bold text, no less) in his very first post to this thread.

I had seen his post earlier in the thread, and didn't comment, but Horry's reply to Polarik made me go back and take another look.

If you look at Polarik's statement, it doesn't even include one iota of digital image analysis, which is what he's built his reputation on here.

I've got to say that I'm mighty disappointed in Polarik for prematurely stating that this document is a forgery before issuing a complete finished report. I told him so tonight, as a matter of fact.

7,047 posted on 08/05/2009 6:39:56 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 4943 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No. I have repeatedly made the point that there is an inconsistency in the claim that many make that both parents have to be citizens before their children can be natural born citizens.

Apparently are a bit too dense to follow what I have written so you assume it is lies and nonsense.

To wit: If both parents of a natural born citizen have to be citizens, then by definition Barry is not a natural born citizen. If Barry was born in Hawaii then, at best he is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If Barry was born in Kenya, then he is not even a citizen. In the case of Barry being born in Kenya, then it is the case that Sasha and Melita Obama are at best citizens but not natural born citizens.

In other words, if you believe it takes two US Citizens to produce a natural born US citizen, then if Barry’s Kenya birth is proven, then you must also accept that Sasha and Melita will never be eligible to run for POTUS.

What pray tell, is the lie or controversy in that?


7,048 posted on 08/05/2009 6:40:05 PM PDT by FreeAlaska32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6933 | View Replies]

To: BP2

As a genealogist I find these words to be very telling,

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.

1. She said vital records, plural, meaning there is more than one document. Could suggest a name change or adoption record that would be included with the birth record.

2. She is NOT saying that SHE is verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii. She says that she has seen the VITAL RECORDS VERIFYING Obama was born in Hawaii.

However, the birth records could have been amended.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html


7,049 posted on 08/05/2009 6:42:58 PM PDT by Jonah Vark (birth records may be amended http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6799 | View Replies]

To: whynotfacts

welcome


7,050 posted on 08/05/2009 6:44:49 PM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7044 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,951-7,0007,001-7,0507,051-7,100 ... 11,751-11,798 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