Just curious what others might think.
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)
Just curious what others might think.
Very interesting autumnraine. This is starting to add up. Thanks for the info.
One thing colonial Africans excelled at, the plum jobs for those who received schooling, was to become a bureaucrat, in a uniform, and their jobs depended on rigid bureaucracy and paper stamping. I traveled in Africa in the 90’s and suffered through this at every stop. I even had to change into a skirt to be able to enter Malawi (no slacks for women)
Only VIP expediting “might” get someone through the system without “proper documents”
Assuming Dunham traveled to Kenya and yada yada yada. Her passport records would show this. Maybe Brits still have copies of customs entries showing which foreigners passed into and out of Kenya in 1961. I do not doubt it. They still have paperwork from the revolutionary war! And one of my ancestor's scalps the Brit army paid Indians for, in a museum warehouse somewhere.
“Look at the entire image “reversed”, especially the bottom paragraph and how the entire text just goes right across the creases without any alteration. It’s almost comical.”
Yeah. That was the part I posted because of the suspicions I had.
For a ‘folded’ document, the text is just a little to straight and evenly proportioned. And the characters should be ‘faded’ the same as the creases and they’re not.
Reversing the image I noticed the same thing you did.
Comical and pathetic.
If you are NOT foreign born, you are a NBC.
+++++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
That has *not* been settled in SCOTUS case law. Especially with respect to dual citizenship - either British or Indonesian. I’m not sure if the SCOTUS will have the courage to touch this - so we’re just hurtling forward (as Obama and handlers would like) into uncharted territory - with the great arrogance of a WH involved in a cover-up.
Remind you of anything?
busted
Maybe this was one of the newer typewriters and the typist reverted to the older typing system for a moment.Yes, that makes sense, actually. If this is a forgery, the forger must have known and done this deliberately. Quite remarkable…I used to play around a lot with old typewriters when I was a kid, but this trick wouldn’t have occurred to me.
I’ll be damned. Look at that!!!
The PRINT is ON TOP of the signature.
I LOVE FREEPERS!!!!
Someone made a comment yesterday on just what Freepers can accomplish when we need to and dangit, they were right.
You make an interesting point. However, I am completely at a loss as to why you would think she would have to do that? Why couldn’t she simply get a COLB from Hawaiian Health officials?
ex animo
davidfarrar
It’s also on top of the ‘folds’ in the paper.
Folds are faded. Print is not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1019#1019
Hmmmm. I think the Photoshop analysis shows that the Bomford BC is a fabrication . . . . but I wouldn’t put a lot of weight on the overprint of the type over the signature. Sometimes inks act funny together. Watery fountain pen ink might not saturate where there is already printer’s ink. Or there might be show-through of the denser ink. Just sayin.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
+++++++++++++++
Nationals, citizens VS. “Natural born citizen” as a requirement of being the POTUS and VPOTUS. SCOTUS case law is unsettled in this matter.
As an illustration, please think about this - is a child of two illegal aliens born in San Diego qualified (natural born or statutory citizenship granted?) to be the POTUS? What about one citizen and one foreign national - same question - natural born or statutory citizenship granted?
Is that person even “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
The whole point of the natural born citizen law was to prevent people with foreign loyalties (like people with dual citizenship and parents with split loyalties - like Obama) from becoming POTUS to the detriment of our great nation.
From Minor v. Happersett:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
she was a naive idealist who thought Obama Sr’s African family would embrace her liberal white anti-American revolutionary self with open arms ... kumbaya
I think she intended to go native and deliver in Kenya- when she recognized he was a bigamist and his family hated her white guts and would never accept her, and that being a minor African “wife" to a muslim in a polygamous marriage and in a culture where men were freely accepted to bang anyone they looked at... was not so glamorous after all..the "emotional cruelty" of her "marriage" began when she landed in Kenya and found out she was nothing but a minor trophy
She tried to get home to Mama - but being heavily preggers, instead got to a Brit-run colonial hospital and then back to Hawaii (or Seattle?) as fast as she could
Then Granny Madelyn tried to erase the Kenyan episode and assure the kid would get citizen benefits with a fake COLB registration... and even though through 1962 "Anna Obama" kept telling her friends O Sr was going to come for her and the baby... and tried to follow him to Harvard- he never came back or even acknowledged her until she ambushed him at Honolulu airport- O's only picture with his Royal African "father"
Here is the coat of arms for South Australia in 1958. Clearly it is NOT the crest used on the Bombard COLB.
Can the original source be posted?
I disagree with your assessment that it was an acknowledged mistake. These were the founding fathers that were involved with 1790 ..there was much debate over the bill in the House for days. Then there was a Final Subcommittee with 10 members to make a final bill. Then the Senate got it and debated it and on and on and on...then there was a 5 day period where it was debated by the Senate Committee. Then the bill passed.
During the House debates all kinds of things were proposed. Land restrictions, removing office holding restrictions. This is why it had to go to a 10 member Committee in the House.
The debates were long and many amendments were brought about in this whole process. There were many in the House that were not happy with the bill that came out of the Committee.
Sheesh..does this sound anything like today’s Congress???
Washington had asked them to come up a Uniform rule and they did.
The next act was done during the French Revolution. They were worried about violent revolutionaries coming to America and being able to vote.
The next two acts put in notice limitations and higher residency requirements.
It is well discussed with Historians that they also want to squelch immigrants who would vote for Jefferson’s party.
So don’t just assume it was a procedural error as many have claimed or it was a mistake.
The times changed drastically between the two Acts and they changed the law. The fall of the Bastille and the Diamond Necklace Affair had happened before 1790 but that was just the beginning.
It was a bloody time and our Founding Fathers took that into consideration in the 1795 Act.
Without those two influences, the phrase may have stayed in..but it did not.
It has been noted that much of the debate in those early years of Congress were about land holding rights and office holding rights.
Some of the things you see in Congress today are things you would have seen back in the beginning of Congress. Knowing that, don’t just assume everyone thought it was a mistake. It could very well have been a compromise in a Committee in order to get the bill passed.
All you know for sure is that it disappeared in the 1795 Act.
Wow, there is a shadow from the folds, but the type isn’t showing any sign of distortion. Completely flat text against the folds in the paper.
I do believe the Bombard is a fake.
I was all set yesterday to think ‘what are the odds’, but I don’t think so now.
Oh yeah, and someone mentioned that the Bombard birth certificate was uploaded in July... I sent an email one time from three weeks earlier. All I had to do was change the date on my system and the date on the server showed that date and time. If someone is familiar with HTML on websites, could this be the same? Like if I changed my date and time to April 2, could upload something to my website and it would say uploaded April 2? Just curious.
I know that typeset bothered me all night! That Smutz font was designed to look like OLD TYPEWRITER, but that four is so distinct...
So where do you think Obama was born, N00b ???
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.