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)

[real_patriotic_american]

We are getting closer to that too!

You wrote-
“He can not be impeached since he is not President. He would be arrested.”

[MissTickly]

NO, not at all. Be open to what I am doing:

I am trying to build justification for the disclosure provision I cite, based (in all honesty with you) on the efforts of Obama to marginalize the right and paint them a racists and of course ridicule them.

Can you imagine the colossal BACKFIRE that would be if I used his propaganda in order to gain access to his records, citing HIS safety.

Also, notice the last material of support I offer. From the blogs at politico. It’s worse than hate groups—the left are talking about civil war.

Now, if you didn’t read the whole thing, I wrote about my motivation, not that I had to, but because I want to be fair to all sides. Quite honestly, I focus on the inflammatory left throughout. I take blame as an independent for the disclosure, if granted, and just like that—the right is no longer marginalized on this issue. Someone on the left is, me. And I state what drove me clearly. Please read it all.

Also, read it with an open mind and very carefully. I tried to create the perfect opportunity, for all parties, to grant my request and save face.

I hope I was fair. I meant to be—because the left IS MORE responsible for the racism, race-baiting, threats, and hate. I put it on record, although I used the so-called ‘expert opinion’ about the right-wing in my formal request.

I am trying to solve this peacefully. And not ALLOW you guys, take the blame. I made this request. Not you.

But, in all honesty, I did it for all of us.

[DMZFrank]

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”

[SaraJohnson]

Thanks so much for the information PowerPro. Can anyone judge the a guy who is rightfully fearful for his life after the other dead people...

The other dead people: Obama’s homo music director pal in his “church” who as murder and the murdered man who was cooperating with the FBI in the investigation of the passport break in?

[autumnraine]

Hey guys, I am sure someone else has mentioned this before? Maybe? Anyway, I was reading the Lolo/Ann divorce to see what day they were born and noticed in the divorce papers that "mother and child are US Citizens while father is Indonesian citizen". I know that Ann was older, but Maya was not born in the US... anywho, I started questioning whether a child born abroad to a dual citizen is an American citizen.

Then I found this original constitutional amendment from 1790, look on the top of the page and it explicitly discusses Natural Born Citizen of a child born 'beyond the sea..."

And the children of citizens of the United States born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens. PROVIDED: That the right of citizenship did not descend to persons WHOSE FATHERS HAVE NEVER BEEN RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

Now to get a definition of "resident" because Obama Sr was here on a student visa;

http://www.immspec.com/us-student-visas.htm

The U.S. Government permits people who are not American citizens or U.S. green card holders to study in the USA. Any person WHO IS NOT A U.S. RESIDENT can apply to study in America. The person has to obtain a student visa before he or she can start a course of study in the U.S.

Anyone want to reassure me that I'm not crazy and there is something here?

[txoilman]

You are correct in that according to Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution a person must be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen (NBC) to be eligible for POTUS. A NBC is a person that is born on American soil to parents that are U.S. citizens.

In mathematical terms:

1 (both parents are US citizens) + 1 (born on American soil) = 2 (qualified per the constitution to be POTUS).

For OBAMA we have:

0 (both parents are US citizens) + 1 (born on American soil) = 1 (not qualified for POTUS)....

0 (both parents are US citizens) + 0 (not born on American soil) = 0 (not qualified for POTUS.

Therefore, it does not matter where OBAMA was born. He is not eligible for POTUS because his father OBAMA Sr. was born in Kenya and was a British citizen.

[nathanbedford]

You know, your post is #5330 in an ongoing thread the overwhelming thrust of which is to get to the truth. Yet the Wall Street Journal endorses and reproduces a link to an article that says that conservatives "latch" onto this birth certificate. We have not "latched" onto anything we are subjecting the document to the most rigorous examination within our power.

I defy Wall Street Journal or anyone else to produce a liberal blog that displays even the smallest portion of the intellectual honesty which is thriving here on Free Republic. It is high time that the Wall Street Journal exhibited a degree of intellectual rigor and honesty.

[autumnraine]

Ahh, thank you voveo! I haven’t seen that section and I will file away for future reference.

[autumnraine]

That’s why Dr. Taitz is heading to London this week.

[SaraJohnson]

Thanks palmer. The basis of your opposition was not clear to me. You have a ligit. question. Lots of ligit. information in all ways... Which leads me to the conclusion - we don’t know one way or another! Dang! Let’s keep our minds open and see what comes out in the long run.

[autumnraine]

From all I read on the New Black Panther sites the other day (after Jerry Jackson’s case was dismissed and he had derogatory comments about white people on his myspace), the NBB is not happy with Obama either.

[CedarDave]

It was 14 and the law in 1961 was 5 years after the age of 14. She was 18 (almost 19), so she did not qualify to pass citizenship on.

That may have been the law in 1961, but current law says "a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year."

US CODE TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1409, Children born out of wedlock

Now if there was a change in the law from 1961 to present, I wonder what actions a person would have to take to make his citizenship retroactive to birth??

[SaraJohnson]

Someone suggested to me that they are ethically or legally compromised. I wonder...

Anyway, when we find them out, we need to hang them in the public square so that all the elitist “citizens of the world” can see what happens when Americans deal with traitors. They respond to the Muslims who put prices on their heads.

Meghan McCain, if you are reading this, don’t worry your little heady about your back America stabbing daddy! Just have lots of good sex; find a date! and leave the rest up to the adults. Be cool and have fun, Meg!

[autumnraine]

Another issue with needing a birth certificate (a real legal valid one from Kenya) is that Barack Obama was a JUNIOR or II. How many times even recently have we seen Muslim father’s take their children overseas and get a court order over THERE saying they get custody? Being that Obama JR’s name is the same as his father, the burden of proof that she is his mother would be harder based just on testimony. The Kenyan birth certificate has her name, so she could legally say “He is my son and I want custody”.

Obama Sr turned out to be a deadbeat anyway, but she couldn’t take that chance I wouldn’t think. I wouldn’t have.

[pissant]

Exactly. If this Kenyan BC is a forgery (likely) than so be it. If Obama turns out to be Hawaiian born, good for him.

The only thing 98% of us want out of this ordeal is proof. It is simple, it is easily obtainable, it is cheap ($10) and it will end speculation, one way or another (not counting the Donofrio/Apuzzo argument about NBC, which has nothing to do with the birth certificate).

If anyone is at fault for Certifigate, it is Obama.

[DMZFrank]

The facts have to be established by SOME formal trial procedure. The putative Executive Branch cannot be tried by the Judiciary, even though Hussein is in all likelihood a fake ass counterfeit usurper. The FACT of it must be established using the only constitutional method to remove a POTUS, the Article I Sec. 3 impeachment process, and or the XX amendment.

None of this changes the fact that I would enjoy dragging him from the Oval Office by his big jug ears.

[SaraJohnson]

It has always been this way among the limo liberals in both parties. They hate us for getting uppity with their fake authority!

[rolling_stone]

keep looking..that is inoperative changed 1795.

as for Maya, by the time she was born Ann was old enough and had enough presence in the US to pass US citizenship unlike for Obamination.

[2harddrive]

5,356 comments in 34 hours! Is this a new record?

[hoosiermama]

TIred? Many freepers are....Remember they would have been using the European system of dating not 08/03/09 but day then month then year. 03/08/09

Not sure what you’re getting at, but look at it again with that in mind.