Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

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)

[Red Steel]

Only the Supreme Court can decide if you’re right or I’m right. Agreed?

If not me, would you believe what a recent opinion of Appeals Court Justices that Native Born Citizens are distinct from Natural Born Citizens as far as the US Constitution states. Agreed?

[April Lexington]

There are evil people in this world that work at a very high level. To them, governments are a joke. They have the ability to blackmail just about anyone these days. It is likely they had the goods on Bush and McCain. Our country was created to try to fight this evil.

[STARWISE]

Hannity did Barack Obama’s Friends

Scroll down this youtube channel, and
you’ll see all the segments listed, plus
much more.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BarackObamaUS&view=videos

He also did a segment on Maj. Cook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBog4QAu19E

[hoosiermama]

Sound like the one the teased buy never happened.
What in the ______is going on here?

[hoosiermama]

Red I posted it to him.........nothing.

[MestaMachine]

Wasn’t GW. It was his father. The entire time GW was in office, he tried to do right by this country, but he could go so far and no farther. GH Bush and Clinton have had a relationship since clinton’s Arkansas days when Bush the elder was head of the CIA.
The son protects the father, and the father controls the son.
Longer story, but that’s the nutshell version.

For the record, I STILL believe that the clintons have set this entire thing up and that obama is only following a script. I believe he was born in Kenya and the clintons have the records to prove it.

[hoosiermama]

My fingers are getting sleepy....If anything really exciting happens give me the 3:00 AM call.

[Red Steel]

I sent you a little FReep mail note. :-)

[Blu By U]

I understand your beliefs.. I’m not trying to change them..
—

Actually, I can’t say that I know any man/president down to my core. I think it’s wise to judge by what a man does not what he says.

[Lancelot Jones]

The “people” will see the NBC issue as a technicality and won’t care.

...and that is the saddest part of the whole thing. The people are not only ignorant of the Constitution, but they perceive it to be an archaic, meaningless document with very little relevance in today's world.

The "people" will buy onto Obama's interpretation of the Constitution as being a "charter of negative liberties", and will laud each and every violation of the document that he carries out.

It is a bizarre world indeed when I find myself agreeing with Bill Maher...we are a stupid country.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[STARWISE]

Interesting article and background piece
before Alito’s hearings. And it’s all
still true today of the Dems’ vicious
tactics and lies.

______________________

Cultural divide visible in Judge Alito hearings

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/76740

[Lancelot Jones]

***Lancelot Jones has figured out a way to post alongside a cool Knight-in-Shining-Armor. That’s exciting, so I thought I’d go ahead and ping you & bump the thread.

I am a relic from days of old.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[MHGinTN]

I bet you’re popular at Renfests.

[Technical Editor]

“If not me, would you believe what a recent opinion of Appeals Court Justices that Native Born Citizens are distinct from Natural Born Citizens as far as the US Constitution states. Agreed?”

Sure, I’d like to see it. In the citizenship cases I’ve read from the Supreme Court, native born, natural born, and citizen at birth have been used interchangeably within the decision. I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent. It was just a passing phrase that conveyed that the writer wasn’t giving an opinion on whether what he said should be applied to Article II, Section 1.

[STARWISE]

I am.

[1035rep]

From Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”
BTW, Obama narrates the audio book, very creepy.

“I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance pullets.”

Obama takes the guess work out of his view on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Obama in a public radio interview in 2001

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers and the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.

Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

[Red Steel]

Sure, I’d like to see it. In the citizenship cases I’ve read from the Supreme Court, native born, natural born, and citizen at birth have been used interchangeably within the decision.

I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent.

They never did. SCOTUS over the years did not use native born and natural born in the same context. They always have made a distinction between the two...and you are lying. In all Supreme Court cases they never called 'native born' of foreign born citizens and 'natural born' to US citizens born on US soil as the same. They don't mix them up and they never have. I'm being redundant but you can read some more redundancy below.

The 10th Court of Appeals opinion, as of about 2 days, have said in unequivocal words that you are wrong.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf

Excerpted the key statement -- “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

Shall I interpret for you? ... Let see if you can get it right.

[shield]

Thanks.........

[Technical Editor]

Thank you, Red. Please read what I’ve written carefully, and let’s discuss our differences amicably, regardless of how much we disagree. Okay with you? Thanks.

---

I will comment on the text you posted to me at the end of my post. That text comes at the end of text in the footnote that I want to discuss first.

The following is in footnote 2 on page 6 (he’s quoting from Osborn v. Bank of U.S.):

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”

TE says: Above, the writer is naming two types of citizens. Is that right? Those two are: “the native born and of the naturalized person.” Agreed?

“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

TE says: The writer now uses the word “difference,” saying, “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is,” which indicates he is referring to a “difference” between the two previously named types of citzens, the “native born and of the naturalized person.” Is that right?

TE continues: Thus, the writer’s complete statement is that the only difference between the “native born and of the naturalized person” is “is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

TE further states: But look what he’s done: He’s brought in a third type of citizen, hasn’t he? Instead of saying “is that only the ‘native’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Right? But ... But ... Wasn’t he beginning a sentence that told us the difference between the following two types of citizens, which he had originally named (see the first paragraph quoted above): “the native born and of the naturalized person”?? Wasn’t he doing that?

TE concludes: Thus, his statement makes no sense at all unless, to him, “native born” and “natural born” mean the same thing. Isn’t that right?

---

Now to the text of footnote 2 that you quoted: “ “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

TE says: That text is a further quote from Osborn that comes after the text I quoted above from Osborn. This text, in effect, summarizes or presents the thrust of the text I quoted above.

TE says now: Thus, your text example, and the text that I quoted above, appears to support my position that “native” and “natural born” in fact *do* mean the same thing. That is, Circuit Judges Kelly, Briscoe, and Holmes appear to agree with my interpretation.

[Red Steel]

It comes down to this.

All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.

[jamese777]

It’s not a “problem” for anyone who understands the clear language and intent of the Framers.

---

It most certainly IS a problem for anyone who thinks that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be the 44th President of the United States under the provisions of Article Two Section One and that he shouldn’t have been sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts.

[Technical Editor]

“All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.”

How can that be the case? Did you find fault with my logic and my conclusion that the court in Osborn equated “native” and “natural born”?

If you found no fault in my logic and my conclusion, then you agree that the court in Osborn was saying that “native” and “natural born” are the same and that the two of them are different from “naturalized citizen” in that only the “natural born” (which the court is saying means the same thing as “native”) is eligible to be president.

So how can you now say that “all Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens”?

[Technical Editor]

I gotta to to bed, but I’ll check back tomorrow.

I am open to being mistaken about what I conclude; I have no problem with abandoning a position if I am proved to be in error. So if I am missing something, I really would appreciate your explaining it. Good night!

[Kevmo]

Someone posted it to me at America’s Debate. I thought it looked interesting.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showforum=97

[Kevmo]

What the freep is your problem?

I don’t recall seeing you around here.

[Kevmo]

troll alert

[RegulatorCountry]

"Dazzling with BS" only works for just so long, Technical Editor.

Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. dealt specifically with whether the right to sue was the same for naturalized citizens as native citizens. There are numerous cites from this that negate your attempt to specifically enumerate and therefore restrict allowable, Constitutional types of citizen to language used in Legislative Acts. You conflate enumerated powers of the Legislative, in determining a uniform law of naturalization, and the attendant forms of citizenship governed by Legislative Acts, with Constitutional citizenship that is not governed by Legislative Acts.

A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.

So, the Constitution makes the distinction. What distinction does the Constitution make, regarding citizenship and eligibility for the office of President?

You know the answer to this, and false equivalence does not evade the specific language. It's been made clear to you, that the native, indigenous and natural born share a trait, that being born of the soil, jus soli.

And yet, there is the specific term of art utilized, under the Constitution, not due to an act of legislation, to make a finer point of distinction, for those who would be President, as the Constitution prescribes. That term of art is natural born citizen. Yes, natural born citizens are indigenous, and are natives. A square is a rectangle, too, but a rectangle is not always a square. This is the logical fallacy to which you've either fallen prey, or have cynically chosen to espouse, in order to confuse the issue.

I've seen enough of your efforts here, to come down squarely on the side of your having cynically chosen to espouse fallacious interpretations in order to confuse the issue.

[Red Steel]

Lets take a look at another recent opinion(s), the Senate resolution proclaiming McCain a US Natural Born Citizen. Senate Res 511. As you need help.

The key statement. "From the Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it"

So the Senate says McCain born to US citizens [that's plural] and born under the jurisdiction of the United States in the Panama Canal zone.

In other words 2 US citizens who are under US jurisdiction by law.

And the Panama Canal Zone under US jurisdiction.

You see, even Lib Leahy who introduced Res. 511 sees it. McCain was not under the jurisdiction of another country by birth or soil. Although there is some dispute if McCain was born within the jurisdiction of the country of Panama.

As pointed out by this Senate Resolution, 2 US citizens on US soil.

You can't say in a Senate resolution saying you are NBC being born to 2 US citizens and under the jurisdiction of a US military base [soil]. And then turn around by arguing out the other side of your mouth saying that a citizen born on US soil and who has 2 foreign nationals as parents or even one parent who passes on his foreign citizenship be taken seriously saying that citizen is also an NBC.

It's not the same; a contradiction.

[Red Steel]

Say hello to former trolls Michael Michael and Koyaan for me sometimes I miss their posts...Nah, but say hello.

[Red Steel]

So how can you now say that “all Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens”?

RegulatorCountry gives the answer why this is so.

A link for your convenience or look a few posts above. I don't want you to miss it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=8377#8377

[Natural Born 54]

I remember the news story about the reversed EO’s, too. It caused impolite comments at the dinner table that night.

A question, though, why would W wait until the last minute to do this with the weekend obstacle? There is probably a good reason but I can’t think of one.

[Natural Born 54]

I’m creeped out just reading it, never mind the audio.

[SE Mom]

That’s as real as the COLB BO posted on Kos last year ;)

[GregNH]

I read a comment somewhere and I am sure he was speaking metaphorically, “I do not know who will fire the first shot in this revolution, but I know there will millions of second ones.”

[jcsjcm]

You can just state I was incorrect in my assessment and I can accept that!

[Technical Editor]

Tell me, already. When is a native citizen not a natural born citizen?

[Technical Editor]

All you are doing is cherry-picking which parts of Section 1401 in Title 8 of U.S. Code that you want to be use!

You apparently cannot apply logic to this enterprise, so I have to conclude you cannot be further reasoned with, and I shall not try to help you any longer.

[Faith]

Re your post 8339---

He's the one (along with Soros) who is pulling "The One's" strings.

. . . the future looks good for Maurice Strong. One UN source suggested that, at the very least, he would like to be made Secretary General of the Millennium Assembly or the People's Assembly. Others suspect that, even at age 68, Strong is angling to be the next UN Secretary General.

[Technical Editor]

You don’t need to tell me, because Red has expressed your argument.

I’ll say to you what I said to him (without the typo):

All you are doing is cherry-picking which parts of Section 1401 in Title 8 of U.S. Code that you want to be used!

You apparently cannot apply logic to this enterprise, so I have to conclude you cannot be further reasoned with, and I shall not try to help you any longer.

[Author2]

Have anyone looked at the Immigration and Naturalization’s rules and regulation which define citizen? Just asking.

[Author2]

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Citizenship

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants, who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity. Freedom and opportunity are of the utmost importance in the United States and we wish you the very best as you begin your journey.

Most people become U.S. citizens by:

*
Birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents, or
*
Naturalization, the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship.

Additionally, any child under the age of 18 who is adopted by a U.S. citizen and immigrates to the United States will acquire immediate citizenship according to the Child Citizenship Act (CCA) passed by Congress in 2000.

Please see the links on the right of this page to learn how to apply for U.S. citizenship . Please see the links at the bottom of this page for more information on the paths to U.S. citizenship.
Rights and Responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship

Becoming a U.S. citizen provides you with new rights and privileges. Citizenship also brings with it important responsibilities. For a list of these rights and responsibilities, please see below:

Rights of U.S. citizens

Responsibilities of U.S. citizens

* Vote in federal elections
*
Serve on a jury
*
Bring family members to the United States
*
Obtain citizenship for children born abroad
*
Travel with a U.S. passport
*
Run for federal office
*
Become eligible for federal grants and scholarships

* Support and defend the Constitution
*
Serve the country when required
*
Participate in the democratic process
*
Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
*
Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
*
Participate in your local community

[Windflier]

“I do not know who will fire the first shot in this revolution, but I know there will millions of second ones.”

That's a true statement, if I ever read one.

[Windflier]

It most certainly IS a problem for anyone who thinks that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible...

I think we're heading toward a mis-communication here. I don't think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.

Yes, "it's a problem" for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer's intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.

[Windflier]

From Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”

...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government must do on your behalf.

Obama told everyone what he was before he was elected. Too many people simply didn't process what he was clearly saying, i.e. that he is a Marxist/Socialist.

[Windflier]

... it's the voice of the people that stirs the pot enough until notice is unavoidable. And something IS happening .. there's too much of a convergence of chatter about this.

I've said before that the domestic peace and tranquility has already been lost. Many people are still blissfully unaware of this terrible situation, but increasing numbers are fully aware of it, and steeling themselves for something ugly.

The normal equilibrium between left and right - government and the people, is teetering dangerously out of balance. It is already falling out of station, and will soon hit more dangerous lows.

[patlin]

It was great to hear from your elders on this topic.

Too bad we can't get them on the MSM to teach the lily livered liberal obots a thing or two.

When FOX turns a blind eye to the constitution, we know we are in deep doodoo and what's with Megyn Kelly siding with Sotomayor.

Guess I won't be trusting her judgment anytime soon.

[jamese777]

I think we’re heading toward a mis-communication here. I don’t think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.

Yes, “it’s a problem” for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer’s intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.

---

That’s why we have a Supreme Court, to determine the Framer’s intent in the instances where their intent is not crystal clear. The framers also established the constitutional amendment process to revise their own work in future eras. It will be for the current or for future Supreme Courts to decide whether the 14th Amendment revises Article Two/Section One. Is a Citizen at birth identical to a Natural Born Citizen? Obviously, in the case of Barack Obama, that is the interpretation that prevails.

You are in effect saying that Chief Justice John Roberts is not a patriot because he swore in Barack Obama as president.

[jamese777]

That was a pretty brilliant analysis of the Court’s words, Technical Editor. Well Done.
I personally found the following to be the most important phrases in the Court’s decision:
“Thus, Mr. Craig’s claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court’s dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
See Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 965; see, e.g., Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff’s sole basis for alleging federal jurisdiction was so unfounded and devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).”

[GregNH]

It most certainly IS a problem for anyone who thinks that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible Thought Police in da house...

[faucetman]

you said:
“what SANE PERSON is going to be so STUPID and BRAINLESS as to believe unsubstantiated accusations” (emphasis mine)

You are insinuating that those questioning Obama’s eligibility are insane.

You are straight up calling them stupid & brainless.

Now I would call those insulting comments, No?

Also public opinion is not a court of law. How would you bring a suit if at first you did not speculate, investigate, & postulate?

You are suggesting that until we have “PROOF” we should just “SHUT UP”. Sounds familiar??? Are you a PAID Obama operative or are you just a volunteer?