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)

[Fred Nerks]

I’ll check it out, but I have read somewhere that he did not graduate.

[Natural Born 54]

Thanks for the info. Little Obie was 5 or 6 when they went to Indonesia so he could have been put on mom’s.

[Tennessee Nana]

Obama Sr was long gone back to Kenya when Obama Jr came back to go to school in Hawaii...

And “divorced” from Ann...

Jr probably used the phony BC claiming Obama was the Dad...thus the “Obama” name at school...

[hoosiermama]

He never finished his PhD. Just his Masters. In economics. Wonder if with his drinking, he just didn’t make the grade.

[mojitojoe]

I always thought that 2nd swearing in was very strange. He didn’t use a Bible either.

[mojitojoe]

I agree, she has changed. Something happened. The old Ann isn’t the Ann we see now. I’m puzzled as to what is going on with her.

[hoosiermama]

That was the only reason for Dreams...
NOPE Not the only one. It made it possible for someone to buy multiple copies and fill BO with lots of money. (money laudering? Pay off?)

[mojitojoe]

Obama Sr was long gone back to Kenya when Obama Jr came back to go to school in Hawaii...
________________
I think there are elementary school pics in Hawaii with the name Obama, but those could be fake since we have no records from the school.

[RegulatorCountry]

Is the 14th Amendment solely about naturalization? (Hint: what part of “all persons BORN...” don’t you understand?)

I'm going to ignore the snide tone, and address the Constitutional Amendment, and any related, statutory law. The Amendment itself dealt with recognizing the rights and obligations of citizenship for a class of people denied that status (refer back to the dicta from Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. for recognition of limitations upon Congress due to enumeration, and also the restrictions upon the Judiciary due to principles established in Marbury v. Madison,pertaining to the Judiciary having no review over Constitutional matters pertaining to the Judiciary itself under the Constitution).

Those rights, again referring back to Osborn and others, cannot be enlarged or restricted, as has been recognized by the Supreme Court and by Congress. The rights of a citizen, regardless of the nature of how that citizenship was acquired, are the same rights that every other citizen enjoys, except as the Constitution makes a distinction. The only distinction the Constitution makes between the citizens themselves, is in the single clause dealing with Presidential eligibility.

The 14th Amendment did not deal with Presidential eligibility, and it did not deal with enlarging or restricting the rights of citizens because it could not do so; it dealt with recognizing and righting an error in denying citizenship to a class of people born here, former slaves.

Whether or not these former slaves, made citizens as a result of the 14th Amendment, were natural born citizens as a result, or not, was not addressed. And, this is correct, per the precedent in the various decisions going all the way back to the removal of the words "natural born citizen" from The Naturalization Act Of 1790," and making that the law as of 1795. Naturalization cannot deal with Constitutional natural born citizens.

The children of these former slaves, however, were not made citizen by Constitutional Amendment, and so certainly were natural born citizens, assuming that both parents were themselves citizens, and that they were born on US soil. And so, the historical wrong was undone and set aright going forward.

So, the meaning of all this, is that you are going to have to contend with original intent, as far as the meaning of the words, no matter how hard you strain at gnats in an odd and somewhat inexplicable (on FR at least) attempt to contort the Constitution itself, a Constitutional Amendment that does not deal with natural born citizenship, and statutory law, into somehow making Barack Obama eligible for office.

It really is cause for amazement, that you go to such effort to that end, here.

What's it to you, if he's deemed ineligible? Do you approve of his being in the Presidency, or what? Sure sounds like it.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/09/21/a_fathers_charm_absence/

SEE FINAL PARAGRAPH PAGE 4.

[Tennessee Nana]

Since the dude who is present in the White House without the ID is definitely not The Ghost who Walks, he has to be someone...

But who ???

[BP2]

Where was Sr. that spring, summer and fall prior to the birth? Was he mia? There are no records of him attending the UofH?

I'm trying to get a firm answer for you on that...

However, in the meantime, here's a valuable source of information I've found that compiles all of Obama’s information as a child. There is a VERY good, extensive background on Obama SR in the beginning:

Barack Obama’s Background (Korean website)
http://kalaniosullivan.com/BO/BOBackground.html
There's photos here I've not seen anywhere else of Obama Sr

there's also
The Obama Timeline
http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

[faucetman]

I’ve reviewed that case before it’s apples & oranges and is NOT relevant. Look someone posted this link earlier. This is the be all end all of the NBC debate. Read it and LEARN

http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm

[faucetman]

not a Cornell website, but a government website

Thank you for confirming that both links have the exact same wording.

My point was that your source wasn’t the BEST source for your info. Why use a liberal college website for your info when you can get it from a government website. You know, go to the source not a second hand source. First hand is better. In this case it doesn’t matter, another time it might. Is factcheck.org one of your premier sites for info as well?

[El Gato]

But, consider--hypothetically, a person born in Hawaii renounces his US Citizenship and becomes an Indonesian citizen; then renounces his Indonesian citizenship and becomes a US Citizen by naturalization proceeding. Is he now a "natural born" citizen?

He isn't. In your example *he*, not his parents, renounced his citizenship. Remember part of my statement was:

No, once natural born, no actions taken by ones parents, natural or adoptive, can change that status.

In the real world, his "Indonesia citizenship was aquired by adoption, but IF he was a US citizen, natural born or not, that adoption did not change his citizenship status under US law and the US Constitution. Of course that IF is 900 Billion dollar, question at hand.

BTW, once an adult renounces his/her citizenship, becoming naturalized is very difficult. One might manage it by marrying some Amazon witch with US Citizenship, but it would still be naturalized citizenship.

[little jeremiah]

I’ve been trying to read as much as possible since last summer and for some reason (there are plenty...) I didn’t totally understand your comment.

My personal opinion is he was born in Kenya and may not even be a US citizen at all.

[El Gato]

Congress can make any law that it deems appropriate and it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether any particular law is constitutional or not.

That is the modern, post FDR attitude, and to some extent the long term attitude of the Democrat party. (Jackson, the first Democrat President, for instance said of the Court: "They have made their ruling, let them enforce it

But in reality all branches of the government are bound by the Constitution in their acts, rulings or no rulings. Why else would the Constitution itself say:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;" (Art. VI) The President has his own oath which is given in the Constitution, this clause just requires some oath to support the Constitution, with the wording left up to Congress.

[hoosiermama]

Korean site won’t let me in.....

[faucetman]

If you haven’t seen this... It’s a MUST read.

PUTS NBC ISSUE TO BED once & for all!!!!!

http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm

MHGinTN posted it

[afraidfortherepublic]

Fred:

Study this letter.Do you notice anything odd about the dates?

The date for receiving her BA in Mathematics seems about right, considering the fact that she had a small child and was being courted and was back and forth to Indonesia in that period. But, then look at the MA? It says that she started the MA in the Fall of 1983 and received it in December of 1963 -- clearly impossible.

The PhD is even odder. It says she started it (presumably) in the Spring of 1984. Makes sense, if she'd just gotten her MA in 1983. (She divorced Soetoro in 1980) But then it says that she didnt finish until 1992. Was she enrolled in the UH for 8 years? Was she working at UH, or some place else?

THe dates in this letter are screwy -- especially the ones for the MA. And I've never heard of a school awarding a degree unless you spent the last year in residence. Maybe a PhD wher you go elsewhere to write your thesis, but not a BA or a MA.