I think Orly's most pizzed because she's only briefly mentioned by Spickard.

Dr Taitz is really an awful human being, full of hate. I guess what incensed her most was that the good professor called the birthers "irrelevant".

She is the most striking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have seen. In this instance she is obviously unable to understand the difference between the professor's analysis, based on a career of historical research, and her moronic ideas.

Well while the article is critical of the birfers, we on this board know, through research, that Spickard is simply wrong as to his premise. If he had done a little bit of research he would know that in 1961 when POTUS was born Anne was not old enough to transfer citizenship to him HAD he been born in Kenya (which of course he was not). While it is great that there are voices out there who are critical of the birfers, it is important that those people who are wrong are corrected by us REGARDLESS of whether or not it fits our scenario. I do believe that Spickard needs to be corrected and pointed towards the research that has been done that will lead him to the truth.

JMHO

Agreed, Britty, and there are other inaccuracies as well: McCain's eligibility was questioned in 2008; that was the whole reason for the Senate resolution Obama co-sponsored. And, to my knowledge, Ron Paul himself has never questioned Obama's eligibility, though plenty of his website posters and other followers have.

i don't really agree. In my opinion, the more mainstream media articles debunking and ridiculing the birfers, the better. I think anti-birthers should be cheering Mr. Spickard on, not nitpicking that he got some details wrong.

Suzie: The part that he got wrong may be a detail, but it makes the whole premise of the article incorrect. He is arguing that the birth certificate doesn't matter because Obama would be a natural born citizen no matter where he was born because his mother was a US citizen. That's not correct. His mother was too young at the time to have conferred citizenship on her son if he had been born overseas (which he was not). The birth certificate matters.

Note that Orly's criticism does not pick up this problem with the article. Her criticism is nonsense.

That would only have been the case if Ann Dunham had actually resided in Kenya (leaving aside the fact that baby Barack wasn't born outside the USA). If, as the wild-ass story goes, Ann Dunham went to Africa to give birth, she wouldn't have been a legal resident of Kenya, but only a tourist.

I speak as an ex-pat American who has given birth to two children overseas. The "5-years after age 14" rule applies to American residents of foreign nations, not American tourists/temporary visitors (Ann Dunham never lived in Kenya). The rule exists to prevent children born to American citizens who live abroad from in turn passing American citizenship on to their children, when the time comes, without having ever lived in the States themselves.

Imagine this scenario: a pregnant 16-year old American girl who lives in Seattle goes on vacation across the border in Vancouver, goes into labor and gives birth in Canada. Do you honestly believe that 16-year old mother wouldn't be old enough to confer her American citizenship upon her baby simply because she delivered the child while she was visiting on the Canadian side of the border?

The nitrous-addled dentist takes up the cause of another paper terrorist:




Here is an Opinion and Order (attached to a complaint against the judge who wrote it) describing how poor, poor Mr. Trod-Upon Schied has been denied his civil rights because his friggin 600-page garbage dump was dismissed. It seems that Orly took a page out of his book about how to craft a legal complaint. And a "Judicial Misconduct Complaint" too. Also.

It seems that Mr. Schied is upset that his criminal conviction in Texas came to light and he was terminated from his teaching job in Michigan. Funny that he failed to disclose the conviction and even certified on the school district's disclosure form that "I, represent that .... I have not been convicted of, or pled guilty or nolo contendre (no contest) to any crimes". Oops!

Lola thank you for the clarification of that point. So I was wrong and the writer was right.

Thanks. I saw Orly's random post demanding people file complaints against a random judge (whose last name appears to be of Middle Eastern origin -- in Detroit! Shocker!). I figured it was just another Orly rant against someone she suspects is an Arab, which it really was.

Indeed, she may take some pointers from this nutjob. My favorite in your link was that Judge describing Plaintiff's "Motion to Require Court to Read Every Word of Every One of His Filings" (paraphrase). Bets on whether Orly files one of those in the near future?

Holocaust, Shmolocaust, it's all about ORLY!

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=117404


I like this part.



She's just as awful as Corsi. She wants the media to spread her bullshit lies as truth. Fuck that and fuck her.

The letter she's quoting was written in 2006 by Steven Silberberg of New Rochelle, NY, not Steven Spielberg of Pacific Palisades, CA.

Really? Orly got something wrong? I'm stunned!

I have a sneaking suspicion Orly has a minute by minute fantasy of all the kudos and acknowledgments she should get on Oscar night. Maybe has the color of dress already picked out too, also.

What a stupid woman.

Orly's channeling Elizabeth Warren?

Is there any caselaw on this? I had a conversation with Tes about this exact topic, and came away thinking it was unfair to penalize the poor shopping teenager. I'm not sure i could find the conversation here anymore as her posts are gone.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=118015

And she posts this why? Did someone fill-out and send the form in for the dog, committing voter registration fraud? What is the issue with a blank registration form? They're free for the taking.

I don't know the caselaw, but I know what I was told face-to-face by a State Department official at the US Embassy in London, because I specifically asked when I took my sons to get their US BCs and passports.

How much more offensive could that opportunist witch be? When someone who claims to be Jewish trivializes Anti-Semitism and capitalizes on it for his or her own selfish motives, it is outrageous. I don't think there is such a thing as ex-communication in Judaism, but I, personally, am kicking that odious ne'er-do-well OUT, whether I can or not. (And plan to post that on her stupid website, a comment she will, of course, never let through.)

I agree with Lola.

American citizenship laws tend to the inclusive side. Also, in many cases, that interpretation would leave the child of the teenage tourist stateless.

Citizenship laws have changed over time, especially regarding foreign birth. Since children born abroad are not born or naturalized on US soil, they are not considered to be covered by the 14th Amendment (Roger v Bellei). And thus, reasonable constraints may indeed be placed on such children. In fact in the early 1800's due to a poorly formulated law, children born abroad to US citizens may not have been US citizens at all.

Over time, citizenship laws have changed to reflect the changes of their time. Presently there is still a difference between a child born out of wedlock, abroad to a male and a female citizen parent. So to turn to your scenario, it depends on the circumstances of the mother if she could or could not confer American citizenship to her child, if her child is born abroad.

Which is exactly what has been stated here by many. She certainly met the ten-year requirement, but at the time of Obama's birth (assuming foreign birth in Kenya) she would not have met the 5 years after age 14 requirement to confer citizenship.