Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

orlytaitzesq.com ^ | 8/2/2009 | rxsid

[Houghton M.]

Can a judge in Hawaii grant a divorce to a marriage that took place in Kenya because the groom was a bigamist and could not legally marry in Hawaii? How would there be a marriage needing dissolution in Hawaii if they were married in Kenya?

Just askin’—curious.

[Vendome]

and your post was correct

[null and void]

Faulty reasoning. The Venn diagram does not lead to the conclusion you assert.

(Forgot to ping you to #7463. Sorry)

[MHGinTN]

You appear to have assumed McCain people put a forgery up, when we are more inclined to believe those trying to discredit Juan the McINsane woul dbe the natural source. And have you already forgotten the wording in Leahy’s senate resolution? ... Go back and read it ... Leahy’s ‘whereas’ indicates that Leahy’s committee saw soemthing substantiating that assertion, that McCain was born on the base properties.

[BP2]

Bump to dat.

A Kenyan marriage certificate wouldn’t have been added to Hawaiian databases, would it?

And a Kenyan birth certificate wouldn’t be visable in any database either ... just in an archive folder or vault somewhere at the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office — if it was, in fact, retained before granting a Hawaiian COLB

[Author2]

Obama could have been born on the steps of the White House, but because his father was not a U. S. Citizen and his mother was not old enough to confrere citizenship, he is at best just a native born citizen, but defiantly not a Natural Born. His actions of sealing his records and refusal to produce them lends sufficient suspicion as to his legitimacy.

[Sirlancealot]

Hi all, newbie here. I’ve been following this stuff with great interest.

WND is now reporting that the KBC is likely fake. They are showing a pic of a “Kenyan Government” birth certificate.

My question is: If the Kenyan document is a “certified copy” of a birth “registration”, and not a copy of the actual birth certificate, could what we are seeing still be plausible?

In other words, could the format of the “registration” document be different than that of the “birth” document, since there is three years between the two?

[rxsid]

A far more appropriate comparison, would be to compare ANOTHER certified copy of registration of birth from 1964, instead of one from 1961. As we all know, these types of documents change all the time. A LOT happened in Kenya between 1961 and 1964.

Case in point on changing of "birth docs" just in HI, here:

1904

1961

1978

[Bigh4u2]

So does that mean that WND lied when they said they compared the Kenya certificate with others they found and it matched?

So which lie is which?

The first story? Or the ‘new’ story?

[Mojave]

You will have to note that the globalist/internationalist Meese offers nothing more than his own opinion.

Actually there are approximately one hundred additional contributing Heritage Foundation scholars listed in the text. But thanks for your baseless opinion.

[hoosiermama]

Sir Edward F. Lavender has possibly been confirmed as the registrar in Mobasa in 1961?)

[null and void]

You are assuming that the definition of natural born citizen requires birth on US soil.

It may or may not, depending on what the Supremes eventually get around to ruling.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly considers off shore birth to American citizens on government business qualifies. This law was replaced in 1795.

The 1975 law is mute as to 'natural born citizen'...

[PeaceBeWithYou]

...is it possible that missing page 11 contains a copy of the original Marriage Certificate of Stanley Ann and O Sr. and not Barry’s Kenyan Birth Certificate ?

It's also possible it was used as proof of the marriage.

[hoosiermama]

The paper Orley has only refers one to the original copy of record. IMO WND was comparing the two...as someone said apples to oranges.
When we get the original it may look like what they show. OTOH Mombasa was a separate small area that had belong to a neighboring country and may have different looking documentation for it's various transforming eras.

[null and void]

*shrug* I'm not a lawyer (Although I play one (badly) on FR...) but, I believe that the court errs on the side of accepting the validity of a marriage, indeed I know two separate lesbian couples getting divorced, even though legally they couldn't be married here.

I'm inclined to believe that Hawaii would recognize a valid Kenyan marriage, at least long enough to end it!

What happened in 1964 I couldn't say for sure, but imagine the public outrage and liberal hand-wringing that would happen if a Saudi moved here with his four wives, and the American courts refused to let wives 2-4 into the country!

[rxsid]

That's the nature of dual citizenship. Being "governed" by two countries.

[MHGinTN]

Draw two large circles on paper. Inside one draw a smaller circle fully inside the larger and label it '14th Amendment', and perhaps another circle and label it 'Naturalization Act of ____', etc..

In the other large circle draw a smaller circle completely inside the larger and label it 'natural born citizen' and beside but not inside yet another small circle we will label in a second.

The two large circles represent the categories 'Naturalized citizens' and 'Non-naturalized citizens' or in the sense found in Wong Kim Ark, 'non-native and native citizens'. In the non-naturalized circle we would find a circle for 'anchor babies' but these would not be found inside the smaller circle labeled 'natural born citizens' since the founders used that more exclusive phrase to have a meaning of parents citizenship AND place of birth.

[null and void]

You appear to have assumed McCain people put a forgery up,

I am assuming that the McCain camp accepted the veracity of that document. They never responded with a "valid" document to the contrary.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for posting your thoughts.