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.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
The judge who unsealed the divorce records of Obama’s opponent in his Senate race stated that the public had a right to know - regardless of the damage it would do to the son.
I don’t think Jack Ryan’s divorce records were the public’s business but certainly the same reasoning makes revealing the birth certificate mandatory.
It became independent on Oct. 17, 1963 via an agreement between Prime Minister of Kenya Messrs Jomo Kenyatta, and the Prime Minister of Zanzibar M. Shamte nearly TWO months earlier than the rest of Kenya declared independence on Dec. 12, 1963. The Muslims in the ten-mile strip seemingly called themselves the "Republic of Kenya" in 1963, before the rest of the country was officially known by the same name on Dec. 12, 1964:
Frankly, I am at a loss what to make of your post to me.
I don’t know what I don’t know that you think I know, that is different from the facts that I can find by clicking the first green “Introduction” on the web page you suggest.
I followed your links and found that I was presented with a set of facts about Kenya’s recent history, none of which is at odds with what I think I know, but my knowledge does not extend to the level of detail presented. Nevertheless, I found nothing surprising or at odds with what I think I know, and especially not at odds with any public statement.
So, what’s this all about, anyway?
Me either. By that logic we should just ignore all his wild theories and conspiracies, but ignore the ONE thing that hasn’t been settled.
Glenn? Have you fallen into the “I don’t want to be seen like THOSE crazy kooks” bucket?
WOW excellent work!
Some say revolution is brewing .... here. Can you feel it ?
Seen these ?
Protest Rally - for Obama Town Hall, Bristol, VA
McCaskill Town Hall Meeting in St Louis
Lloyd Doggett's meeting on Obamacare in south Austin, TX, 1 Aug 2009
Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"
Check out Congressman Chaka Fatah (D-PA) reporting to his masters .. the guy in the suit in the front row on the phone.
Wonder if the suits guarding the podium from the citizens are armed... could they someday be Black Panthers? Is this really our America ??
Think the natives are getting restless .. ?
It’s been posted here numerous times.
3. January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
If you were born between January 13, 1941 and December 23, 1952, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States. You didn’t have to do anything special to keep your U.S. citizenship.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen, that parent must have lived in the United States for at least ten years prior to your birth, and at least five of those years must have been after your parent reached the age of 16. To keep your citizenship, you must have lived in the United States for at least two years between the ages of 14 and 28 (called a residence requirement). However, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, if you were born after October 9, 1952, your parent still had to fulfill the residence requirement in order to pass citizenship to you, but your own residence requirement for retaining U.S. citizenship were abolished. If your one U.S. citizen parent was your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules applied if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time.
Just noticed your screen name. Funny!
You make Ruby’s point: no one disputes that a Republic did not exist in law until the revision of the constitution in June 1964.
The sole point we are making is that despite the non-existence of a republic de jure, in law, it is not only conceivable to to think that people referred to the interim Kenyan state as a republic from the fall of 1963 onward,
BUT we have multiple newspaper articles from Oct. 1963 onward showing that people around the world referred to Kenya as a republic, even though it was not one de jure.
The great importance of no. 5160 is that it is from the London Times and the source of the terminology is Kenyatta’s interim government and it is at the time of the decision to go independent. Other evidence was from local newspapers in small towns in the US showing that exchange students were referring to themselves as from the Republic of Kenya. That’s valuable, but not as important as 5160.
What this shows is the foolishness of the debunkers who took general political status dates from encyclopedias etc. and pontificated that because Kenya was not de jure a republic until June 1964 (or, more commonly, people say, Dec. 1964), therefore the term “Republic of Kenya” could not have been used before June or Dec. 1964.
That is a faulty conclusion to draw from genuine facts.
It is a fact that Kenya became a republic either with the revised constitution of June 1964 or the recognition of the republic by England in December. That is a true fact.
But it does not follow from that fact that a certificate issued by a government unit in Kenya in February 1964 COULD NOT POSSIBLY have used the term “Republic of Kenya.”
No, Kenya was not yet a republic. But you simply cannot conclude definitively from that that the term could not have been in use.
And now we have contemporary evidence showing that the term was indeed in wide use.
That’s a pretty good blow against the whole December 1964 issue.
So to clarify...Mombasa, as a part of the Coastal Province officially referred to itself as being a part of the Republic of Kenya in early 1964?
Once trust is lost, “dropping it” is the worst possible solutiuon
If Beck said this, he is missing the point- it’s not about the BC.
It is about trusting the integrity of the man in the Oval Office - and all those who put him there and who protect him from logical, honest, easily-answered inquiry
Mombasa wasn’t under Zanzibar’s sovereignty, they were under Kenya’s as the British government paid for the lease (or tribute as they called) it of the 10 mile strip including Mombasa for nearly 75 years before Zanzibar ceded the 10 mile strip. The civil records would have been under Kenya since Kenya had jurisdiction over the area they LEASED.
It’s like if you rent an apartment or house and have to list your address, you would list the place you reside and all activity would be on you. Not the landlord.
Goog’d by google? - How surprising....
Just like in America. We *were* a Republic long before the world recognized us as such.
ping
Personally, I think all the personalities on Fox have been told to zip it about this. Fear of the Fairness Doctrine? One of Ailes’ personal quirks? Who knows.
Not just early 1964, but mid to fall of 1963.
It would be better to say that Mombasa, while leased to the British, was nominally under the Sultan of Zanzibar’s sovereignty but was actually under British government, authority, control etc.
Sovereignty is the broader, more abstract concept. By “leasing” the coastal strip, the Sultan retained, in name only, nominally, the sovereignty (he had to have it else he could not “lease” operative control to someone else). But he leased, ceded, control, de facto, on the ground administration, to the British.
So in terms of people’s perception, Mombasa was “part of Kenya.” On paper, nominally (and I’m sure people were aware of this, but at a secondary level of awareness), it was still under the Sultan’s sovereignty.
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.