Skip to comments.Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link
Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsidEdited 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)
Ooops .. . ping to my post and thank you.
The White House operates an Internet War Room of paid and unpaid posters that have infiltrated both left and right discussion websites FreeRepublic and Daily Kos were mentioned. The purpose of this network is specifically to marginalize the legitimacy of the birth issues.
Maurice F. Strong, PC, CC, OM, FRSC (born April 29, 1929, in Oak Lake, Manitoba) is one of the worlds leading proponents of the United Nations’ involvement in world affairs. Supporters consider him one of the world’s leading environmentalists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role in globalizing the environmental movement.
To listen go here: 8109
When you search by using the name Maurice Strong, you get the real answer as Plummz has found out. So the puppeteers are Soros and Strong (Undersecretary General of UN) and Obama is the puppet. Frightening article at link.
I read the article in Canada Free Press. With all the ratting and all the scare tactics, this is just a symptom, and one I think has a purpose. The people behind all of this are threatening average people. Not just news reporters and networks. Look at the SS investigating the Joker fax in Washington. Saying death to all Marxists is not at all something that anyone should be doing.
be that as it may, just look out for more and more indirect messages, where if youare exercising your 1st amendment rights, then you are intrinsically THREATENING the powers that be. Indeed I can see why they would take any questioning of their AUTHORITAH, it is the right of Americans to point out when any group is crossing the line. Be it political personages such as congress and the White House, or other groups who use violence to suppress the rest of us. The Black Panther video from the election comes to mind. Things are going to get a lot worse I am afraid.
Average people are going to be made afraid to speak their minds.
Why would anyone in the Bush Administration help Obama ‘make this go away’? I find that part of this story very hard to believe, unless they discovered it after Obama was already elected and were afraid of mass riots. Even then, it is hard to believe, because Obama treats Bush like crap at every opportunity he gets.
I don’t buy this story...yet.
Thanks for the ping. It bear watching for sure, but I have a hard time believing that that many news companies and people would just go along with being blackmailed and threatened. One or two..maybe. But not all of them.
Will have to wait until this evening....Hope it will come through on this dial up.
One question as you listen...
Have they turned this information over to either the men in red or the men in black?
Mass riots when 50+% of Americans suppotrt Obama?
Not totally correct. They made a short commented on the Berg case. They would not see his case without a lower court's judgment.
Buffet, Soros, Strong and their ilk arent, as the mainstream media would have it, new age old men able to see through the mist of crystal balls. Theyre influential powerbrokers in the corridors of power, enabled by vast personal wealth, and hard at work as agents of change. If we arrest/convict them can we take all their money? It sure would help pay off the National dept.
God Bless our Canadian friends!
Have you listened to the show yet? I haven’t had a chance. Just curious if they give a reason that the Bush Administration would have gone along with this whole thing? It is kind of strange to remember the financial meltdown last fall and all of the strange things Bush was doing..like he had a gun to his head or something.
I traveled on my older sister’s passport in 1955, BUT in 1961 I had MY OWN U.S. Passport. In 1955 she was only 8 yrs/11 mos old, I was 5. Must be 5 was too young and 8 or certainly 11 was old enough for your own passport back then.
In 1961 I had my own U.S. passport. I ALSO was on my mother’s French passport. Why she did this I don’t know. She was a French citizen at that time. (no presidential asperations for me).
Anyway, because of this we were held up by immigration. I almost didn’t get back into the country. They sure didn’t like that I had TWO passports and that I was on that foreign passport. Finally they let us off the boat.
While I agree with what you say, I don’t agree with your conclusion. BOTH are relevant. The supreme court already decided by NOT HEARING several case that they aren’t interested in getting invoved in this issue. The “people” will see the NBC issue as a technicality and won’t care. So if we want to get rid of Obama, before voting him out of office, it has to be the birth certificate/not a U.S. citizen issue. Getting rid of BHO ASAP & PDQ is SOP.
you can’t be serious...
that is the whole point...the problem IS the political class...not the parties.
They both play this game and look the other way when one of the parties is significantly threatened...
“Seriously, the term natural born citizen was specifically removed for the 1795 version.”
Just poking in here.
What does that mean .... “specifically removed” for the 1795 version?
Can you point to a link with some enlightenment?
The 1790 act & the 1795 are Immigration Acts to define citizenship of immigrants and their children.
Natural born citizens require no law as their citizenship status at birth, they just are because they owe no allegiance to any country other than that of the USA.
***by the reason of soil and by the US citizenship of parentage(parents(both) whom were already US citizens)***
I dont want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. But, I refuse get out of the way so those with experience can clean up the mess.
Sen. Barack H Obama; US Senator 2007-Nov 2008, I served 22 months in the US Senate where I repeatedly went along with Bush! Don't believe me, just go check my voting record!
hahahahahaha, I luv it when a politician makes it so easy!
Article II, setion 1, clause 5, says what it says. A term used nowhere else, for no other purpose. Yet you just want to dismiss it like it doesn’t exist or is just the same as sometho=ing else. NO IT ISN’T> It is SPECIFIC to the president, and OBAMA can’t qualify. END of STORY.
IN this area.....Radio program too.
Yep, never use two words when eight will do, as James Madison was always fond of saying.
Absolutely! There is NO impeachment for a President who was ineligible. Simple arrest.
I guess we all suspected this already, but it is comforting (or discomforting) to have it confirmed by people with documented affidavits.
Thank you and I concur. I kept poking my slider ahead to get through all of the commercials. All I can think is that it's a way to fill 3 hours. Drip. Drip. Drip.
But, I was pleased to get the names of the stations and heartened to know that some of these lawsuits are still alive.
Sorry..but I am serious. I don’t believe for a second that there is that deep of a conspiracy involving members of the Bush administration(unless they were dem moles to begin with).
I DO believe that Obama is hiding his BC...and a whole lot of other records,but for what reason.. is not clear yet. Here is what I do know..The Truth Always Rises To The Surface and it will here too.
No. They gave no reason. That was mentioned in the middle of Hour 2 just before Judi McLeod signed off. They said "members of the Bush Administration and even George Bush, himself". I didn't know what to think.
As a result, following the Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), he turned to the common law. Operating according to jus soli, English common law declared that all children born within the king's realm were subjects of the king except those born of foreign ambassadors or of alien enemies occupying part of the king's dominions, since such children could not be said to be "born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King."
Common law doctrine, Gray asserted, was simply adopted by the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change that situation; it merely reaffirmed it in such a way as to overturn Taney's Dred Scott ruling that limited United States citizenship to whites. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included for two reasons. First, it emphasized the common law exceptions of children of ambassadors and occupying armies. Second, it excluded "children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law".
SO, who CAN define "Natural born citizen", once and for all?
It SHOULD be Congress. However, in nearly 30 such attempts to define the phrase since the 1870s, such codification has NEVER made it out of committee. Additionally, with more than 17 Amendments to the Constitution since 1789, including 5 Amendments (12th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th) that deal directly with the office of president, no attempt to define "Natural born citizen" has ever been attempted. Even when Congressman Abercrombie slipped "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii" in the non-binding H.R. 593, he stopped short on defining Omama as a citizen, and certainly NOT a "Natural born citizen".
Because of the Legislature's OBVIOUS inability to come to an agreement on this subject, the Supreme Court seems as the only neutral body that can decide this question. In the same way they finally defined "to keep and bear arms" in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), they are the only body that can resolve the matter on how the Framers defined "Natural born citizen".
You post info from a marijuana source website and expect me to believe it?
. This is not just in:
And "But "advised Mr. Craig to seek leave to amend his complaint"
Although he didn't rule for the plaintiff he did offer an opinion. Natural Born Citizens are NOT Native Born Citizens.
Sounds like BS to me. That kind of stuff just gives the ‘birther’ movement a bad name imho. We should just stick to the facts. The facts are that Obama has not released his real BC..he is hiding many other records that should have been vetted. He may have never been eligible to begin with, because of his father’s citizenship.There are constitutional issues here at stake. End of argument. The rest is just silly talk, unless there is solid proof put on the table.
Words mean things. Precision in writing is a virtue. People can understand what you mean.
Just Judi McLeod's article in Canda Free Press so far and the Laurie Roth radio links further up on this thread. She says that more information will be released next week. They are being really careful about this.
Just got back from the range. Feeling MUCH better, scumbag.
About a year ago I listened in on one of Ed Hales radio shows and even through the radio I knew he wasn't being truthful. I say that because I'm wondering- as you were listening- if there was anything you heard that gave you pause- that gave you a sense that you were hearing the truth or not?
To me- this is the single most frightening claim to come out of this whole exhausting year of COLB investigations. If it IS true- then it really needs to be brought out ASAP- and security given to the people involved. If they really have documents proving these claims- the implications are beyond belief and it's time some grownups with guts stood up and said ENOUGH.
I will say that both guests were being cagy. But, it came across as if it were to protect themselves, as well as their informants. The comment about the Bush Administration set me on my heels, but after I thought about it I realized that I had noticed the same things — a bend-over-backwards effort to be solicitous and gracious to the incoming President.
Did I mention that most of these threats occurred during the period after the election and before the inauguration? McLeod and Hagmann have spent the intervening months chasing down corroborating testimony.
In 2007, Obama voted with his fellow Democrats 97 percent of the time. In 2006, his score was 96, and in 2005, he again netted a 97 percent rating.
It’s certainly ramping up.
Hard to not sit down and check FR many times a day...
I would assume that some on the Bush team wanted to make nice with the incoming administration for their own career advancement, to stay on the in crown in DC, perhaps paid, perhaps afraid - eunuchs - perhaps were always on the Dems side.
Hard to take you seriously with this at the site to which you linked: “SEE OUR MARIJUANA SEED GUIDE FOR THE BEST STRAINS”
At this stage in the affirmative action bastard's time in office, having openly threatened citizens fro opposing his Marxist policies, the possibilities of actual major riots is much diminsihed. People were under a spell whicvh has now been broken by the revelation that this Marxist prick is more than willing to attack the citizenry to get his way ... and that will not stand so long as the scumbag hasn't got the army to enforce his hellish dreams from his father, the father of lies, a murderer from the start.
Something is blocking the archied show. Can’t get it to open ... ‘Internet explorer cannot open this page’
“Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage” is what one gets when clicking on any of the three hours. The obamanoid slugs have slimed it!
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.