18 Responses to “Great news. Your activism and pressure helped. Eligibility bill passed the first read in the house and went to judiciary committee”

1. Guadalupe Lynch
   February 14th, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

   Revoke your citizenship! THIS realy burns me up! These people are malicious! Each and everyone of us (your supporters) must commit to do SOMETHING to expose these scoudrels and
   bring them to justice. If everyone of us did one thing, letter writing, call in to radio talk shows, blog, blog blog, meet with our representatives, put up signs on our front yards, or other ideas that we can come up with, MAYBE we could begin to expunge these varmin from the tainted white house.

2. MichaelN
   February 14th, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

   Orly,

   E-mail me from a secure e-mail address.

   I have something important that will help with your request for assistance.

3. Parenthesis
   February 14th, 2011 @ 10:39 pm

   What bill? Two bills are dead already.

   And are you suggesting that SCOTUS give an advisory opinion to a state legislative committee so that a law will pass constitutional muster?

   Can SCOTUS give advisory opinions?

4. Susan Allen
   February 14th, 2011 @ 11:23 pm

   This is great news on the Bill Front!!!!

   Keep the pressure up in AZ.

   But we have to go to all of the state reps in all of the states and ask to please join the states that have chosen to uphold America’s natural-born citizen requirement.

   And to please cosponsor a bill that will require candidates to produce documentation to establish that the candidate does meet the natural-born citizen requirement.

   Please go to your state legislatures and send them a request to cosponsor such a bill and to join the states that have chosen to up hold America’s natural born citizen requirement.

   Here is link to all of the state legislatures…Please copy and paste the link.

   The Rep contact info email addresses are available copy and paste the email addresses into your own contacts so you can reach many.

   Also I will post the AZ link happy emailing!

   Susan Allen

   https://www.constructionweblinks.com/Organizations/State_Legislatures__Organizati/Finding_Tools__State_Legislatu/finding_tools__state_legislatu.html

   AZ

   https://www.azleg.gov/

5. Phil
   February 15th, 2011 @ 12:31 am

   Orly:…Oh, man, it looks like Obo is so stressed about his “Nemisis on the Premisis–(YOU!!!)” LOL!), that he’s “flipping out”! Or he’s just trying to get you upset!!

   You are here “LEGALLY!!!” While he’s NOT! All his resume/persona has been created for him!

   Is he really SANE? He and his walkin’ “DNA-Freaks” are thoroughly “Death Warmed Over”! Their souls are Dead! They are a “clear and present danger” to all of America!

   Orly, I’ll write something to you later, on some of your post! And I will endeavor to make contact with our legislature, on the Eligibility issues!

   And you are driving “Osama-Bama-His-Mama” out of his mind!!! Good! I pray that you will be successful…! They are “burning” their souls! How “un-human” can these “walkin’ ‘cadavers'” become?

   Gee, I wonder if these are the kind of “creatures” that “burst into flames” IF they are owned and controlled by E-V-I-L…? Why? Cause they may be straight from hell?

   More coming…!
   Friend, Davey Crockett…

6. Florence Stone
   February 15th, 2011 @ 12:40 am

   Orly, just this Jan, a judge in NY ruled on the definition of ‘natural born’ and ‘native born’ and he CONCLUDED that Obama was NOT a ‘natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires. I will have to find the link for you.

7. Florence Stone
   February 15th, 2011 @ 12:47 am

   https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2659181/posts
   Strunk v Paterson (Obama)-1st time since 1824 Judge has opined what NBC is. Concludes Obama not NBC.
   Via Chris Strunk; The first time anywhere in the USA since 1824, that any Judge has opined on what Natural Born citizen is and concluding that BHO Jr. is not NBC.

   This affidavit will be notarized tomorrow and duly served by two days mail upon Justice Schmidt and the State in regards to the appearance on a personal and confidential basis with the intent that Plaintiffs understanding of the record of the hearing be entered into the court record enabling further action by Plaintiff when the Order shown as Exhibit C is entered and forwarded by the State to Plaintiff.

   That I am producing a duplicate for Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. so that she may forward it to the SCOTUS in her action presently there. -snip-

8. Florence Stone
   February 15th, 2011 @ 12:49 am

   https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2659181/posts

9. Alec
   February 15th, 2011 @ 4:19 am

   If they revoke your citizenship, then they might support you for pResident! Be sure to post a Hawaii Photoshop COLB on the internet to prove you Natural Born status.

10. free music
    February 15th, 2011 @ 4:22 am

    i equal it Great tidings. Your activism and pressure helped. Eligibility bill passed the at the outset read in the edifice and went to judiciary committee | Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire at present im your rss reader

11. speedy
    February 15th, 2011 @ 8:25 am

    Unfortunately, three RINOS voted with two dems and voted against it. Rick Martin was one of the ones who cosponsored the bill and flipped and voted against it. I hope that it gets passed in the rules committee. We really need some kind of state laws to make sure that our president is a natural born citizen and not a fraud like the usurper.

12. Steve
    February 15th, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

    Have you ever read Rogers vs Bellei especially the lst part which give results of decision.

    I tried a copy and paste but it did not work and I tried every which way.

13. Steve
    February 15th, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

    Finally got it.
    Steve

    3. Apart from the passing reference to the ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution’s Art. II, s 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: ‘(A)ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States * * *.’ This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to ‘(a)ll persons born or naturalized in the United States * * *.’ As has been noted above, the amendment’s ‘undeniable purpose’ was ‘to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure’ and not subject to change by mere statute.Afroyim v. Rusk,
    387 U.S., at 263, 87 S.Ct., at 1665. See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94
    (1908). Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was ‘declaratory of existing*830 rights, and affirmative of existing law,’ so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned.United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688, 18 S.Ct., at 472. Then follows a most significant sentence: ‘But it (the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment) has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

14. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    February 15th, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

    things are never what they seem

15. MichaelN
    February 15th, 2011 @ 11:50 pm

    Orly,

    Please get this to the committees.

    Most of the proponents of jus soli use the Wong Kim Ark court’s holding, (as opposed to the decision) based on Lord Coke in Calvin’s case, where they concluded that a child of an alien, visiting, temporarily is an English ‘natural born subject’ so therefore a US Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is one who is born of an alien, as long as they are born in USA.

    But if you read Calvin’s case, where Calvin was deemed a ‘natural born subject’ of England, you will find that Lord Coke actually said:
    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by PROCREATION and birth right”

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

    This was NEVER mentioned in the WKA court.

    A reading of Calvin’s case proves that sanguinis was ONE of the TWO essential elements to qualify a ‘natural born’.

    Quite the opposite to what the WKA court held.

    It proves an error in the holding WKA court and this error has festered and grown ever since.

    Bottom-line is that sanguinis IS essential in English common law & not only soli for ‘natural born’.

    The very legally educated framers with their very learned and comprehensive knowledge of English common law, must have seen this holding of sanguinis and soli in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, and the principle of sanguinis and soli was applied in the USC Art. II for a US ‘natural born Citizen’.

    Given the clear intention of the framers to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim, the TWO element qualification principle was a perfect fit.

    Maybe a writ of error is in order to be filed with SCOTUS, particularly to correct the Indiana decision in Ankeny case and maybe to correct WKA holding (not decision).

    Striking at the heart of the festered error, like the WKA case would be a step toward stripping back the error from its origins.

16. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    February 16th, 2011 @ 2:59 am

    The statute under which Rogers v Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was later changed. I don’t think it helps us

17. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    February 16th, 2011 @ 3:06 am

    I believe we will need one of the states to pass the law, for the controversy to develop and then bring it to SCOTUS. So far they refused to touch it and I am ready to scream. I don’t know how to make them take it in any other way

18. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    February 17th, 2011 @ 10:25 am

    it was amended and is going back into committee in an amended form

Leave a Reply