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)

[x]

Even the punk'd birth certificate that floated up yesterday has more plausibility than the birth certificate he's shown from Hawaii thus far.

Actually not. Given the cost and difficulty and unlikelihood of a pregnant middle-class American woman flying to Kenya in 1961 to be with her man's disapproving father and his other wife and children, Hawaii looks like a safer bet.

And really, how much evidence is there for this Kenyan story? Just a minute or two of tape that Ron McRae says is Sarah Obama claiming that she was present when Barack Obama was born. Born where? In still primitive conditions in Kogelo? Or hundreds of miles away on the other side of the country in Mombasa?

And Ron McRae hasn't exactly proven himself to be the most trustworthy commentator in the world. How about waiting for a more reliable translation of the tape? And what else is there? Anything more than what a few hucksters and fraudsters have cooked up?

I'd like to see the birth certificate too, but there really isn't any real evidence for the Kenyan story at all.

[little jeremiah]

I hope so. At least I think I hope so.

[pissant]

I don’t see a pic at 7544

[little jeremiah]

Some sneak through with multiple screen names....

[Lancelot Jones]

In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”

Not at all true, in fact, quite the opposite.

According to the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen is identical to a "person born" citizen:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

So, if "persons born" or "naturalized", are citizens enjoying all "privileges or immunities" alike, BUT naturalized citizens CANNOT become President, then it stands to reason that being that "person born" citizen is not sufficient qualification on its own to meet the Constitutional standard for the Presidency, and there is a third, and higher class of citizen who attains citizenship via something other than being born in the United States. That is the "natural born citizen"...a person who attains citizenship as a birthright, rather than as an effect of simple geography.

That citizen's birthright comes to him or her as a legacy from citizen parents (plural).

That fits perfectly well in with Vattel's definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.

The debate over Obama's birth certificate is a distraction, and a smoke screen designed to hide the real issue...Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a citizen.

The answer is clear and unquestionable...he is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President by virtue of his father's lack of American citizenship, birth certificate be damned.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[faucetman]

“NATURAL BORN” is NOT THE SAME as just being BORN in the U.S. WHAT IS SO DARN HARD ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THIS?

It is a ###***SPECIAL***### requirement for PRESIDENT.

It is a ###***HIGHER STANDARD***### than just being born here.

“Natural Born” is a specific, one of a kind, LEGAL Constitutional “TERM” used ONLY to refer this special requirement for president. It has it’s own clause.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let me try a BEER analogy, something at least guys might understand.

You go into an establishment that serves adult beverages. You order a Budweiser. The “server” (god I HATE that term) gives you a Bud Light. You immediately complain, “This won’t do, I want a Budweiser”. The server returns and sets down a Budweiser Brew Masters’ Private Reserve. Again you complain, “This won’t do, I want a Budweiser”. The server returns and sets down a Budweiser NA (Non-alcoholic version of Budweiser developed for the Middle Eastern market. Also available in Green Apple and Tropical Fruits versions).
You become FURIOUS and DEMAND that you will NOT accept anything other than the one, the only, the very specific type of beer you ordered. While they were all BEER, while they were all Anheuser-Busch products, and they all had the name Budweiser on the label, (and they probably were all very good beer), THEY JUST WERE NOT THE SAME THING. When it comes to my BEER (president), I INSIST on the REAL THING.

[faucetman]

What document is the top example from? The one that clearly says “maiden” and has no stain

[pissant]

Bingo

[GregNH]

Well, what we DO need is a law, or a Constitutional Amendment, that makes it mandatory for a candidate for President to submit documentary proof of citizenship to an independent board before he’s put on the ballot. It would take a constitional amendment and I am not ready for one of those just yet. Besides, when this is over do you think it will ever happen again?

[faucetman]

WND said: “WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be IDENTICAL.” (Caps added by me).

refer to post #7617 for links

[Natural Born 54]

lj - The inaccuracies at WND bother me, too. While what you suggest is possible, I really don’t think libs care much what WND publishes. What he is presenting is confusing and disturbing to the conservatives that read his site and that’s bad enough, especially on top of Coulter, etc. poking fun at the “birthers”. (Ann’s article dumping on the birthers is on WND, too.)

Does anyone here have the ability to get Farrah to correct his stories and the images he is using? Neither article containing the wrong facts and pics has the ability to post comments so the only way to change it is for Farrah to do something.

[GregNH]

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries: EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together: EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time. I can't take credit for this but feel important to pass along.

[STARWISE]

I cut and pasted the posts from Andy From
Chapel Hill from Sun. 8/3/09. He had saved
the pdf. I changed zero, enlarged, posted it
on the thread.

http://tinyurl.com/npc2vx

Posting timeline, further info below.
__________________________________

To: RummyChick

Starwise is helping me get the Federal Court PDF submission file to the board.

It is E.F. Lavender

Clear as a bell.

Thanks, Starwise!

232 posted on Monday, August 03, 2009 5:48:40 PM by Andy from Chapel Hill

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=232#232
_______________________________________________
***Another point of interest from Andy

---

Is this really it? (re: possible Obama’s Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link
Monday, August 03, 2009 3:43:55 AM · 4,867 of 7,905
Andy from Chapel Hill to truthfreedom

I posted this sometime last night to another thread:

I once was a Director of a British PLC company and learned quite a bit about their bureaucratic and idiosyncratic ways.

Virtually every Brit I worked with used their first two initials and then their last name as their “business” name. Therefore, the “E.F. Lavender” and the “M.H. Miller” are EXACTLY the way the Brits sign their name or refer to themselves in business correspondence. They would never sign it “EF Lavender” or “M. Miller” or “M H Miller” or “Eric F. Lavender”.

The spacing and punctuation are EXACTLY CORRECT, based on my experience.

This is one of the first things I looked for to see if it was a fake. Maybe ask Snugs for verification?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=4867#4867

[Tennessee Nana]

Your 7822

Documents for baby Obama to get on the plane in Kenya..

What did she use ???

[hoosiermama]

Just thoughts....
BO cannot be certain that he has scrubbed EVERY document: every copy of his BC etc etc etc.

Who’s to say that the FBI/CIA isn’t involved in this?

A. Pissant downloaded a large number of articles re: the BC right before this came out. (Remember thinking when there’s a lot of flack, we’re over the target.)

B. The Canadian Press wrote an article about how information was being surpressed way back to before the election because talking heads had been threatened if they mentioned the BC. They said they had documentation. They promised more information would soon be released.

C. Neither A or B could have been accomplished by some kid in his parents basement.

D. Bo would have that power. He would have no reason of knowing if a document given to Orley was authentic or not, unless he faked it himself. He’d be searching just like us, if he thought it was authentic. He’d try to destroy it and Orly if he thought it was real. IF he faked it himself, he’d wait until Orly was actually in court to expose her.....Let the authenticators expose her.

E. If he didn’t know it was authentic than the only others with the power would be the CIA, FBI etc. They could be setting up a “sting” operation with the Canadian news as bait or Orley’s BC as bait or both...Goal is more than exposing then BO’s BC, Something bigger...much bigger.

[RegulatorCountry]

I can't take credit for this but feel important to pass along.

Welcome to Free Republic. You're preaching to the choir, here.

If you click on a particular screen name, you'll be able to review posting history, under "in forum."

[hoosiermama]

follow the links back. It’s there. But is the one that was messed up when it was cleaned up.

[Lancelot Jones]

The Framers seemed to have a great affinity for capitalization of sometimes seemingly random words...that does not mean however, that they WEREN'T referring to Vattel's book in the passage you quoted.

Here is a textual transcript of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

As I said, they appeared to be big fans of seemingly random capitalization

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

[RegulatorCountry]

They were capitalizing nouns. Not random at all, just archaic.

[little jeremiah]

Well, I am hoping that Farah is creating this confusion for a good reason. If it is merely mistakes, they are fairly egregious mistakes for an online news site.

And I disagree with one point - 0bama and his team of fiends do indeed care about the opposition. Did you see the article from Canada Free Press (I think that’s the name) about 0bama’s team shutting a talk show host up with legal threats before the election? And IIRC more than one news venue or host. 0bama means to shut up the opposition entirely. The are concerned about voices of opposition. They’re trying to make all opposition look orchestrated, funded by rich backers, violent, wingnuts, racist, something. Painting the opposition like this rather than ever addressing the concerns is standard policy for leftists in general and 0bama in particular.

I think he is very concerned about what WND writes, even websites like FR - note the huge number of recent trolls on FR. They have teams all over the internet. ANd now we’re supposed to send email addys and phone numbers to the White House of people who oppose Hellth Care.