Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
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.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
but I do not have sufficient proof to say that he is not a natural born citizen.
~~~~~~~~~~
NO ONE does .. conclusively .. yet.
If you can say that you know he’s an enemy
of freedom and of the USA and still look at
the mountain of doubts and suspicion created by
his sudden appearance on the political
scene as a ‘star,’ after being hand-picked
for his ‘04 DNC speech
his service in Congress of 150 days, before he
decided to run for POTUS, and mostly campaigned
all the rest of his term until the election,
compounded by the complete purposeful
concealment and/or suspicious versions
of all his total life history and documents,
his magnetic lifelong draw to marxists,
radicals and anti-establishment types
(if not downright subversives) of America,
his admission that his father was a citizen
of the UK when he was born,
the sudden life-and-death financial catastrophe
RIGHT before the election,
the $750M+ he received in campaign donations,
with all the credit card defaults removed so
that millions were raised illegally from
foreign sources,
all the counter-intuitive anti-American behavior
and actions he’s taken since he was inaugurated,
AND ON AND ON AND ON .... the true mortal
enemy of our freedom.
If you can absorb all that and much more
and still imply that because *you* don’t
possess the truth ... that the hunt for the
truth’s not still worth fighting for .. then
you *should* probably start your own thread
for like minded folks or hang around other
forums that don’t care that much about the
truth.
All the uninformed, apathetic sheeple and libs
believed Dan Rather’s foul garbage about the
Pres. Bush’s National Guard record, too.
Guess who blew that one to smithereens ?
FReepers don’t give up.
I know...but it gave them time to do the deed....Bush wrote them late Friday afternoon...they had until Noon on that Tuesday. They had the time...to access what was needed. Bush wouldn’t have taken those steps for nothing...
Would they be omitted because Bo reversed them immediately...Before there was even time to enter them. The offices were closed over the weekend.
"But people here refuse to accept the U.S. statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (in other words, a NBC)." You are now asserting that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. That is not proven but you spittle it like it's settled law.
"I was hoping the KBC was real. Alas, it was not." And you assert that like the original paper Orly has has been exposed as a forgery. It has not, yet you assert that like it is settled. I'd say you're working for the Axelgreasy side, pretending to be a neutral Freeper ... and ridiculing freepers all along the way, you are.
BTW, do you think this is a real Kenyan BC?
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-authentic-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
I remember calling my sis in Michigan and telling her....and she called me back when she heard BO had reversed the orders.....There were other orders too that he didn’t reverse.
Too bad we couldn’t get a company that has a job posting that requires you to be a natural born citizen in order to apply! Thhen a person that has 1 US parent and 1 foreign parent applies for this position. The company then denies that applicant on grounds that they are not natural born. The applicant then sues the company stating they are natural born and a judge would need to decide this case to determine if this person is or is not a natural born?
What do you think? hahaha
My head is just spinning with ideas cause this is so darn frustrating!
That was one that was produced from the website where you could just fill in the information and create your own.(did one for George Washinton too) and IIRC linked to KOS or DU .
Wait! Was that atrick question, Kevmo?
Kevmo is DU
I remember too...I was working at a job from 10-8PM...45 mins to and 45 mins from that job so it was really hard to keep up with it all. Yes, Rahm raced to reverse those EO’s...HA I believe it was too late, records were already accessed by whomever needed them. Once, BO was sworn in; it became illegal to access those records.
That’s what the case was about today, trying to get a judge to state just what one is....Even though he said the guy didn’t have a case, he removed the “prejudice” the lower court ruled and gave a fairly good explanation of the three terms.
2 In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and arecoextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the“natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen,
and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.
The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S.,22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-
28 (
“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).
All I can say is you don’t sound too upset about all this. And awfully sure with all kinds of assertions like only a candidate has standing to present a case, and so on.
“Word jugglery” comes to mind when I read your responses.
We just don’t know what we don’t know.
I’m certainly not going to speculate
anything like that of Pres. Bush, whom
I dearly respect, admire and miss very
much.
The leakers in govt are typically the
lib, anti-Bush/anti-pubbie sources in the
ranks of the Congress, WH, CIA, FBI,
DOD, etc., and they don’t leak stuff
that’s positive for our side... it’s
negative and has been known often to be
fabricated.
You can clearly see the spin machines at
play here with this WH. The Dems are
historically involved in grand conspiracies
.. our side is typically not.
Bwahahahahaha ... ya hear that, Kevmo, yer DU (does that stand for ‘Done up’ or ... LOL)?
He was absent for that visit, but I
think he recused himself from a case.
I could be wrong tho.
Axelrod, I'd say he's a paid Axelrut funky.
Link On February 25, 2004 Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced a bipartisan bill (S. 2128)
************************************* From http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/New_Initiatives.htm:
New Initiatives to Eliminate the Natural-Born Citizen Requirement in the U.S. Constitution By John Yinger October 7, 2004
On October 5, 2004, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate held hearings on proposals to eliminate the natural-born citizen requirement in the U.S. Constitution. The hearings were convened by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chair of the committee, whose Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, S. J. Res. 15, would make naturalized citizens eligible to run for President after they had been citizens for 20 years (and met the other requirements in the presidential eligibility clause). The same amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives, H. J. Res. 104, by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who testified at the hearings.[1]
Several other proposals also were presented at the hearings. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Barney Frank (D-MA), and Darrell Issa (D-CA) spoke about The President and Vice President Eligibility for Office Bill, H. J. Res. 59, which would allow anyone to run for President once they have been a citizen for 35 years. This amendment, which was sponsored by Representative Vic Snyder (D - AR)
and co-sponsored by Representatives Conyers, Frank, and Issa as well as Representatives Ray LaHood (R-IL), William D. Delahunt (D-MA), and Christopher Shays (R-CT), is worded so that the citizenship requirement replaces the age requirement. The 14-residency requirement is retained.[2] This amendment was first introduced on 6/11/2003.
The key difference between these proposals is the time-of-citizenship requirement. One of the witnesses at the hearing, Dr. Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation, urged the Senate to set a time-of-citizenship requirement that would ensure the loyalty of a presidential candidate. I believe, and said so at the hearings, that this approach is a mistake. A time-of-citizenship requirement does nothing to ensure loyalty. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying a loyal candidate. Indeed, as I explain in my testimony, the natural-born citizen requirement has exactly the same flaw, which is key reason why it should be eliminated.
In my view, the best time-of-citizenship requirement should be decided on the basis of fairness, not on the basis of the illusion that a longer time is more likely to ensure loyalty. One approach, which seems reasonable to me, is to say that a naturalized citizen should have to wait as long as a natural-born citizen for the chance to become President. Because a natural-born citizen must wait 35 years, from birth until he or she meets the age requirement, this approach leads to a 35-year time-of-citizenship requirement, as in H, J, Res. 59. Fairness arguments could also be made, no doubt, for the 20-year time-of-citizenship requirement in the S. J. Res. 15 and H. J. Res. 104.
Although elimination of second-class citizenship for all naturalized citizens would require a constitutional amendment, full citizenship for foreign-born adoptees, a subset of naturalized citizens, might be achieved through the Natural Born Citizen Act, S. 2128, introduced by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). [3] This bill, which was defended by Senator Nickles at the Senate hearings, provides a definition of a natural-born citizen that includes foreign-born adoptees. If it were passed and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, it would allow foreign-born adoptees, but not other naturalized citizens, to run for President. It is not clear whether this approach would be accepted by the Supreme Court.
More information on the hearings, including statements submitted by the witnesses, can be found at http://judiciary.senate.gov/[Dead Link]. My written statement can be found at this site or at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/JYTestimonyOct_o4.pdf My oral remarks can be found at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/WrittenStatementOct_04.pdf.
BUT, I am alarmed that there were attempts to make this change back in 2003 and 2004, which surely would have been unconstitutional. Don't these lawmakers THINK? This was just a sop to a lobby -- parents of adopted children brought home from overseas orphanages -- Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc. Why should we create a 2-tiered system of naturalized citizens where adopted children can run for President and natural lchildren who movere with their alien parents cannot? Good grief!
Our biggest problem is that something like half of the country has compromised their integrity as American citizens, and support Obama’s virtual coup d’etat, and his Nazi agenda.
The rats control all of the most important power centers of our government, and they’re all complicit in the Obama deception.
The so-called Republicans don’t have the brass to stand up to the enemies of the Constitution, and are standing mute with their tails between their legs.
If the flame of freedom is to remain lit in this country, it will be up to The People to make it happen. I’m convinced that we patriotic Americans are on our own.
Thankfully, we’re not alone. I firmly believe that we are actually in the majority. When the inevitable spark ignites the flames of rebellion, we’re all going to have lots of company. I believe this with every fiber of my being.
It's not a "problem" for anyone who understands the clear language and intent of the Framers.
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.