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)
I remember the news story about the reversed EO’s, too. It caused impolite comments at the dinner table that night.
A question, though, why would W wait until the last minute to do this with the weekend obstacle? There is probably a good reason but I can’t think of one.
I’m creeped out just reading it, never mind the audio.
That’s as real as the COLB BO posted on Kos last year ;)
I read a comment somewhere and I am sure he was speaking metaphorically, “I do not know who will fire the first shot in this revolution, but I know there will millions of second ones.”
You can just state I was incorrect in my assessment and I can accept that!
Tell me, already. When is a native citizen not a natural born citizen?
All you are doing is cherry-picking which parts of Section 1401 in Title 8 of U.S. Code that you want to be use!
You apparently cannot apply logic to this enterprise, so I have to conclude you cannot be further reasoned with, and I shall not try to help you any longer.
He's the one (along with Soros) who is pulling "The One's" strings.
. . . the future looks good for Maurice Strong. One UN source suggested that, at the very least, he would like to be made Secretary General of the Millennium Assembly or the People's Assembly. Others suspect that, even at age 68, Strong is angling to be the next UN Secretary General.
You don’t need to tell me, because Red has expressed your argument.
I’ll say to you what I said to him (without the typo):
All you are doing is cherry-picking which parts of Section 1401 in Title 8 of U.S. Code that you want to be used!
You apparently cannot apply logic to this enterprise, so I have to conclude you cannot be further reasoned with, and I shall not try to help you any longer.
Have anyone looked at the Immigration and Naturalization’s rules and regulation which define citizen? Just asking.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Citizenship
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants, who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity. Freedom and opportunity are of the utmost importance in the United States and we wish you the very best as you begin your journey.
Most people become U.S. citizens by:
*
Birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents, or
*
Naturalization, the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship.
Additionally, any child under the age of 18 who is adopted by a U.S. citizen and immigrates to the United States will acquire immediate citizenship according to the Child Citizenship Act (CCA) passed by Congress in 2000.
Please see the links on the right of this page to learn how to apply for U.S. citizenship . Please see the links at the bottom of this page for more information on the paths to U.S. citizenship.
Rights and Responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship
Becoming a U.S. citizen provides you with new rights and privileges. Citizenship also brings with it important responsibilities. For a list of these rights and responsibilities, please see below:
Rights of U.S. citizens
Responsibilities of U.S. citizens
* Vote in federal elections
*
Serve on a jury
*
Bring family members to the United States
*
Obtain citizenship for children born abroad
*
Travel with a U.S. passport
*
Run for federal office
*
Become eligible for federal grants and scholarships
* Support and defend the Constitution
*
Serve the country when required
*
Participate in the democratic process
*
Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
*
Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
*
Participate in your local community
That's a true statement, if I ever read one.
I think we're heading toward a mis-communication here. I don't think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.
Yes, "it's a problem" for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer's intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.
...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government must do on your behalf.
Obama told everyone what he was before he was elected. Too many people simply didn't process what he was clearly saying, i.e. that he is a Marxist/Socialist.
I've said before that the domestic peace and tranquility has already been lost. Many people are still blissfully unaware of this terrible situation, but increasing numbers are fully aware of it, and steeling themselves for something ugly.
The normal equilibrium between left and right - government and the people, is teetering dangerously out of balance. It is already falling out of station, and will soon hit more dangerous lows.
Too bad we can't get them on the MSM to teach the lily livered liberal obots a thing or two.
When FOX turns a blind eye to the constitution, we know we are in deep doodoo and what's with Megyn Kelly siding with Sotomayor.
Guess I won't be trusting her judgment anytime soon.
I think we’re heading toward a mis-communication here. I don’t think that Zero is eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.
Yes, “it’s a problem” for every patriot who understands the clear meaning of the Framer’s intent, in that we must find a way to enforce the proscriptions of our founding document.
You are in effect saying that Chief Justice John Roberts is not a patriot because he swore in Barack Obama as president.
That was a pretty brilliant analysis of the Court’s words, Technical Editor. Well Done.
I personally found the following to be the most important phrases in the Court’s decision:
“Thus, Mr. Craig’s claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court’s dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
See Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 965; see, e.g., Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff’s sole basis for alleging federal jurisdiction was so unfounded and devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).”
you said:
“what SANE PERSON is going to be so STUPID and BRAINLESS as to believe unsubstantiated accusations” (emphasis mine)
You are insinuating that those questioning Obama’s eligibility are insane.
You are straight up calling them stupid & brainless.
Now I would call those insulting comments, No?
Also public opinion is not a court of law. How would you bring a suit if at first you did not speculate, investigate, & postulate?
You are suggesting that until we have “PROOF” we should just “SHUT UP”. Sounds familiar??? Are you a PAID Obama operative or are you just a volunteer?
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.