Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

3 cheers for Orly Taitz
WND ^ | 3/16/09 | Joe Farah

Posted on 03/16/2009 10:08:22 AM PDT by pissant

Southern California attorney Orly Taitz has emerged as a constitutional heroine in the fight to establish – albeit late – whether Barack Obama is even legally eligible to serve as president of the United States.

On Friday, she took the bold step of presenting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts with a WND petition of some 330,000 names calling on all controlling legal authorities to do just that.

And she did it before 800 people at the University of Idaho where he was speaking.

I have to tell you, this lady is rapidly becoming one of my heroes.

This question of eligibility is quite a story – or, should I say, non-story.

Anyone who dares mention it is now demeaned as a "birther."

I'll accept the title, if a "birther" is anyone who believes the Constitution really means what it plainly says about the president needing to be a "natural born citizen."

The insults won't stop me or WND from covering this issue as we have throughout the campaign and since the election. It's not going away – not until we see the complete birth certificate instead of the certification of live birth, and get some answers to questions of obviously growing concern to millions of Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: barackobama; berg; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; british; certifigate; citizenship; colb; conspiracytheories; constitution; coverup; democrats; democratscandals; donofrio; doublestandard; eligibility; hawaii; ineligible; kenya; larrysinclairslover; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; obamatruthfile; orly; orlytaitz; scotus; taitz; truthers; wnd; yougogirl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-222 next last
To: pissant
What?? You mean you BELIEVE this conversation took place. You mean she actually said yes, she was present at Obama’s birth.

The conversation took place. However, she never said she was present at Obama's birth, as is plain from the full transcript posted further up on the thread. She very clearly indicated that he was born in Hawaii, and that she was present in Kenya.

Of course, you would not know that from reading Berg's version transcript because he cuts it off just before the conversation gets to the point where she explains herself fully.

121 posted on 03/16/2009 3:42:47 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Regardless of the affidavit of one of the participants, you spew your nonsense.


122 posted on 03/16/2009 3:54:45 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Regardless of the affidavit of one of the participants,

You mean the affidavit that McRae admits was fraudulantly signed?

you spew your nonsense.

I believe my own ears before I believe an affidavit signed under a false name.

123 posted on 03/16/2009 3:56:07 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Woops. I meant 1963, not 1963. Sorry for the typo.
124 posted on 03/16/2009 3:57:48 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

McCrae filed a false affidavit? Who knew? he might want to retract it.


125 posted on 03/16/2009 3:59:28 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: pissant
McCrae filed a false affidavit? Who knew? he might want to retract it.

No, some guy claiming to be the translator in the conversation filed his affidavit (the very same one you pasted above) under a false name, as McCrae has admitted. An affidavit filed under a false name is fraudulant by definition.

126 posted on 03/16/2009 4:03:35 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Who said it was fraudulent? McCrae? Link please.


127 posted on 03/16/2009 4:06:07 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Who said it was fraudulent? McCrae? Link please.

McRae's affidavit, page 5, paragraph 2:

"Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelists (sic) with our ministries throughout Africa traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home...

So your "smoking gun" not only turns out to be heavily edited, removing the parts where Sarah Obama repeatedly denies that Obama was born in Kenya, it's also supported by one affidavit that the other supporting affidavit tells us is fraudulently signed.

128 posted on 03/16/2009 4:18:37 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Who said it was fraudulent? McCrae? Link please.

McRae admits Kweli Shuhudia is not the real name of the man who filed the affidavit:

Accordingly, on Thursday, October 16, 2008 Reverend Kweli Shuhudia (actual name temporarily withheld to protect his life), an evangelist with our ministries traveled to Kogello and located Ms. Sarah Obama at her home, see the attached email attached as Exhibit “4″.

From here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2140233/posts

An affidavit filed under a false name is fraudulant.

129 posted on 03/16/2009 4:22:15 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Spanky, you think John Doe’s can’t have affadavits? LOL. Got pound sand.


130 posted on 03/16/2009 4:22:48 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

No, it is not necessarily so. Only for Obama pole smokers it is.


131 posted on 03/16/2009 4:23:51 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Spanky, you think John Doe’s can’t have affadavits?

As a matter of fact, they can't.

132 posted on 03/16/2009 4:24:10 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Yes, necessarily so. The person signing it swears the information contained therein is true. The name under which it is signed is part of that information. If the name is false, then the signer is by definition giving false testimony, thereby invalidating the entire document.

There is good reason why testimony from anonymous witnesses is not admissible.

133 posted on 03/16/2009 4:26:40 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Google “affadavit john doe”. There are scads of em.


134 posted on 03/16/2009 4:29:04 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

You’re out of your league here, spanky.


135 posted on 03/16/2009 4:29:40 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: pissant
You mean you BELIEVE this conversation took place.

No, I don't.

136 posted on 03/16/2009 4:30:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Good, then you’ve established yourself as an official Obama troll chick.


137 posted on 03/16/2009 4:31:44 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I always thought CA a tough bar exam.


138 posted on 03/16/2009 4:40:48 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Good, then you’ve established yourself as an official Obama troll chick.

Any one who pokes holes in your balloon is a troll guy.

139 posted on 03/16/2009 4:56:19 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
I always thought CA a tough bar exam.

Those who go to actual law schools apparently don't have any more problem with the California bar as their compatriots do with the bar exam in the other states. Pass rates for first time testers runs between two-thirds and three-quarters.

140 posted on 03/16/2009 4:58:16 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-222 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson