Posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:11 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Attorney Orly Taitz vowed to shove everything she had concerning Barack Obama’s evidentiary problem at last week’s eligibility challenge in front of Indiana’s election board. Taitz, whose airline ticket to the hearing was purchased by a concerned citizen presented evidence of a “stolen social security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate!”
She told WND reporter Bob Unruh that Indiana just removed their Secretary of State Charlie White for his discrepancies with voter registration irregularities over “minor” problems. Taitz said our sitting president’s eligibility problems are major in comparison.
But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.
Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery!
The law says: ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.
One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements!
Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
As I posted in the other, similar thread, this law applies only to those born abroad. If Orly has proof of Kenyan birth, it works, but otherwise Orly hasn’t really bothered to read the law, or hasn’t understood it.
There is at least a suggestion out there that BHO was born in Canada.
There are suggestions that he was born in Canada, born in Kenya, etc. I can personally suggest that he was born on Mars. The problem is that none of these suggestions are backed up by good evidence. Without evidence, this goes nowhere. Posting this as if it was new and startling simply makes Orly look (even more) incompetent.
I wish I understood what keeps the birthers going? The “natural born” clause is seen as little more than a technicality to the ruling class.
No matter WHAT the evidence, the US Court system will NOT allow the embarrassment, riots...and even civil war, that might ensue if Obama’s presidency was ruled illegitimate.
We haven’t had a country with “rule of law” since FDR’s time at the closest. Judges make law as they think it suits them...and the power elite...and the Constitution doesn’t limit them.
The efforts made to try to “PROVE” O is not “natural born” really should be focused on electing a Republican this time...or our country is seriously doomed—economically, socially, and as the recent scuffle has shown, even regarding religious freedom.
I haven’t heard this birther talking point in a long time. I assumed they all got the hint that it was completely wrong.
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.