Skip to comments.Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
And Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has indirectly confirmed that Obama, instead, presented TWO forgeries (the short-form and long-form) as if they were genuine. Neither can be genuine, since Onaka indirectly confirmed that the birth record they have for Obama is legally NON-VALID.
IOW, Terry Lakin was right all along. Ibana CANNOT prove that he is qualified to act as Commander in Chief, and his orders thus ARE unlawful. It is Obama, not Lakin, who should have sat in jail - although for a LOT longer than 6 months!
Which is probably why the judge ruled that Obama’s ability to Constitutionally act as President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of Obama’s orders. Not whether Lakin had to obey the orders even if they were unlawful. Whether the orders are LAWFUL. She is claiming that someone not qualified by the Constitution or by the War Powers Act to give combat orders can still give lawful orders.
What a crock!
Oops. OBAMA cannot prove that he is qualified to act as CIC. (Fingers placed wrongly on the keyboard)
Sad part is that we had a lot of PhonyCon Liberals who attacked Lakin and supported Obama on the Eligibility issue.
Lakin has a lot more backbone than his critics.....many who people consider “conservative” and “Great American”. Lakin is the real Great American....not the PhonyCon liberals in the so called “conservative” media
Hope the film brings in money for Lakin and his family
He had the moral courage to stand up for what he believed. He was attacked by liberals and by so-called conservatives.
The bigger picture also needs to be told, and that is that the media personalities were threatened with the loss of their careers and the potential loss of their own lives or the lives of their family members if they reported accurately on Obama’s eligibility problem.
2008 was literally a coup, and Lt. Col Lakin was in the front line protecting and defending the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. While “conservative” personalities had a gun held to their heads they made fun of Lakin, knowing all along that he was doing what his oath required.
Terry Lakin is a Christian man who strongly resembles his Lord - Christ, who also received not only whipping but mocking, spitting, and hissing from Satan and from the very people who were being saved from Satan by the sacrifices of the One they mocked.
Terry Lakin was not able to save this country, but it wasn’t because he failed to try. Though the rest of us haven’t given to the extent that he did, we have done what we could and been mocked and despised for it. The death of this country is not on our hands. One Day the truth will be known; some of us eagerly look forward to that Day.
“LTC Terry Lakin was ordered to submit 5 birth certificates when he received his order to be deployed to Afghanistan.”
Odd. I deployed there in 2007 without showing a single one...
In fact, I’ve deployed all over the world, and all it took was my military ID. And if someone asked me for my birth certificate now, they would get a computer generated one. I actually do have a paper copy somewhere from my Mom’s files, but it is over 50 years old and in poor shape.
Did Lt Col Lakin refuse his pay check from the military? Did he refuse orders to show up for work? Nope. He only refused to deploy.
He had no legal case, which is why, in the end, he pleaded “Guilty”...
This the very amazing aspect of Lakin’s case/situation. That there was no well known radio or TV or internet person taking up on what Lakin had rightfully wanted addressed is a huge mystery. To/for me something stinks about all these people who profess/act like they want Obama gone but just snipe around the edges. I suspect money is involved. I gave to Lakin’s support and am glad for it.
Off topic, I would like to ask you this Mr. Rogers. Do you believe Barack Obama is a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen?
“Do you believe Barack Obama is a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen?”
If born in the USA, yes. If not, then no. That is the law, and has been unchallenged since the Wong Kim Ark case in the late 1800s.
If someone wants to challenge him based on birth outside the US, then they need proof BEFORE starting a court case. Courts do not exist to do investigations.
Once I would have started I would have been refusing all orders: if the chain of command is broken at the top, then there is no authority in those orders. It would be like cutting the hose at the faucet, the rubber becomes empty, devoid of the water it normally carries. (There is actually a very specific case where orders would be valid: if they are directly pursuant the Constitution [ex. Art 4, Sec 4].)
‘If born in the USA, yes.’
Even though Obama Jr’s father was a British Subject?
If born in the USA, then the citizenship of his father doesn’t matter. That was the point in WKA: that citizenship comes from birth in the country, and that is both NBC & 14th Amendment at the same time.
Here is a link to the WKA decision:
Here is the argument the state used to try to convince the Supreme Court that WKA was NOT a citizen:
I can’t provide a link because I haven’t seen it electronically, but last Saturday I read the decision regarding WKA that was appealed to the Supreme Court. The lower court rejected the rather novel argument that the wrong standard of citizenship had been used for our entire history, and that the Roman idea should prevail instead.
Normally you would be correct, here you are not: you see in a military case there are stronger compulsory process/powers for the accused [that is, investigation] precisely because of the constraints imposed upon them by orders (and the consequences of acting on them when illegitimate).
It was touched on, IIRC, here.
“If born in the USA, yes. If not, then no.”
U.S. Citizenship can be lost for those born in the U.S with a U.S. citizen mother and a foreign national father.
See U.S. Supreme Court, Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Vance v. Terrazas
Appellee, who was a citizen of both the United States and Mexico at birth, subsequently obtained a certificate of Mexican citizenship after executing an application in which he swore allegiance to Mexico and expressly renounced his United States citizenship. Thereafter, the Department of State issued a certificate of loss of nationality, and the Board of Appellate Review of the Department of State affirmed. Appellee then brought suit for a declaration of his United States nationality, but the District Court concluded that the United States had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that appellee had knowingly and voluntarily taken an oath of allegiance to Mexico and renounced allegiance to the United States, thus voluntarily relinquishing United States citizenship pursuant to § 349(a)(2). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Congress had no power to legislate the evidentiary standard contained in § 349(c), and that the Constitution required that proof be not merely by a preponderance of the evidence, but by “clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.”
577 F.2d 7, reversed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 444 U. S. 270, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 444 U. S. 272, filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in Part II of which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 444 U. S. 274. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 444 U. S. 270.
...right up to the moment when he changed his plea to guilty and testified, under oath, that his orders were legal and that he had known they were legal when he disobeyed them.
Not sure I agree with the “hosts were threatened” theme.
George Noory had a number of people on his Coast to Coast show discussing Obama Eligibility. Note that Noory and Coast to Coast is owned by same company as Rush’s show. Bill Cunningham and Rusty Humphries also discussed the Birther issue. Cunningham now has his own syndicated TV talk show.....so obviously he was not harmed
The fact is that a lot of PhonyCon Liberals posing as “conservative” attacked Birthers....and gave cover to Obama. They were not forced to do so.
Yes, someone who deliberately gives up US citizenship CAN do so. How that affects this discussion, I do not know.
“Appellee, Laurence J. Terrazas, was born in this country, the son of a Mexican citizen. He thus acquired at birth both United States and Mexican citizenship. In the fall of 1970, while a student in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the age of 22, appellee executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality, swearing “adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic” and
“expressly renounc[ing] United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America. . . .”
What makes you think that?
“Normally you would be correct, here you are not: you see in a military case there are stronger compulsory process/powers for the accused [that is, investigation] precisely because of the constraints imposed upon them by orders (and the consequences of acting on them when illegitimate). “
Nope. sorry, but I spent 25 years in the USAF, and there is not some special powers of discovery given over to accused military members.
You cannot accuse your neighbor of embezzlement, and then use discovery to see his bank records. You first need some EVIDENCE. Otherwise, you will never get to the discovery phase.
Of course there is [evidence], it's in the way things have been shuffled. (Butterdzillion has some good investigative material, evidence of microfiche tampering IIRC.) If you are given an order, which might not be legitimate you have the opportunity to challenge its validity, the LTC did this (he was basically told "shut it" by his superiors) -- this in itself is indicative of malfeasance possibly covering up ineligibility. -- Moreover, the "birth certificate" released on the white-house's website was a forgery, that too is indicative of ineligibility.
The interesting thing is how much [almost] EVERY challenge has been shot down, not due to lack of evidence, but "lack of standing" which means that it didn't matter how much evidence they had.
1 - Standing is required in ALL cases. No court will hear a plaintiff who lacks standing. And if any harm you claim to have suffered is the same that everyone else in the country suffers, then you have suffered no individual harm - and thus lack standing.
2 - Lack of evidence is not proof of conspiracy.
3 - I’ve had commanders tell me to shut up many times. It isn’t “indicative of malfeasance”. It just means they think your complaint is stupid.
4 - A picture posted on a website is NOT evidence, in the sense of a legal document. Almost every photo I’ve posted on the web has been altered, normally to improve its quality.
Hawaii has maintained that Obama was born there. As long as the state of Hawaii is willing to claim that, you aren’t going to get a court to investigate the original certificate.
Butterdzillion is a patriot and good-hearted person. But honestly, her idea of proof and mine differ considerably. Her theories will not get a court to order Hawaii to produce any original documents.
“Greeley native Lakin was reportedly warned off his suit by sympathetic lawyers to no avail. Lakin has teamed up with the American Patriot Foundation, the group behind a website called safeguardourconstitution.com. He is the highest-ranking active duty officer to publicly challenge Obamas natural-born citizenship and he seems intent to play a game of chicken with the president.
If they court-martial [Lakin], it will be huge, said American Patriot Foundation Spokesperson Margaret Hemenway. They will risk making a martyr of him.
Eventually, Lakin ditched the pee-poor legal advice he had received, and got a lawyer who was interested in protecting him. His argument was ridiculous, and his obeying all orders except deploying a contradiction.
The courts have denied standing to even those who clearly have standing: Alan Keys, for example.
2 - Lack of evidence is not proof of conspiracy.
I didn't say only lack of evidence, but evidence of tampering in archives as well.
3 - Ive had commanders tell me to shut up many times. It isnt indicative of malfeasance. It just means they think your complaint is stupid.
Funny, but to tell him to shut up when requesting the verification of the legitimacy of his orders is, bluntly, idiotic. -- But, hey, I was basically told the same thing when I observed that if Obama were found ineligible it would be the duty of everyone in the Army to remove him (the oath is to the Constitution, not a person or group of people); that was a big factor in my deciding to -get out: it was obvious to me that my commanders had no interest in upholding their oath.
4 - A picture posted on a website is NOT evidence, in the sense of a legal document.
Actually it is itself fraud ("an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual") and should itself open the door to investigation.
Hawaii has maintained that Obama was born there. As long as the state of Hawaii is willing to claim that, you arent going to get a court to investigate the original certificate.
Really, then couldn't they confirm which hospital it was? I mean two different hospitals have been claimed... also, what about the backing-off of the governor [?] after elected? What about the grandmother claiming to be at his birth in Kenya? (There's just way too many inconsistencies.)
His argument was ridiculous, and his obeying all orders except deploying a contradiction.
That's true -- once I'd challenged the legitimacy of one order, I would have challenged the legitimacy of ALL subsequent orders.
“Yes, someone who deliberately gives up US citizenship CAN do so.”
A native born U.S. Citizen with two U.S. Citizen parents CANNOT be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality unless they show they have naturalized or otherwise acquired citizenship in another country. The U.S. has bilateral treaties with many nations and with the U.N. where the U.S agrees it will not leave a former citizen stateless.
A native born citizen with two U.S. Citizen parents must obtain citizenship or demonstrate the ability to naturalize in a foreign country in the near term or they will not be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. This is why only a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS. A Natural born citizen is a U.S. Citizen at birth with two U.S. Citizen parents.
A U.S. Citizen at birth with one U.S. Citizen parent and one foreign national parent can be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality if the SoS determines the dual citizen has conducted themselves in a manner to indicate by a preponderance of the evidence the individual has renounced their U.S. Citizenship. See Vance v. Terrazas (1980); SCOTUS.
In Obama’s case, his mother notified the State Department she and Barry planned to stay in Indonesia indefinitely on her passport renewal. The State Department doesn’t ask for a return date because they have idle curiosity. The State Department was determining intent to maintain U.S. Citizenship.
Furthermore, Obama’s mother amended her passport renewal in 1967 to notify the State Department a family member previously included on her passport would have to be removed because he had naturalized in a foreign state. Obama’s Indonesian school record, dated Jan 01, 1968 is further prove Obama naturalized in Indonesia.
SoS Dean Rusk had all the necessary information he needed to justify issuing Obama a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968. SoS Rusk could not have issued Obama a Certificate of Loss of Nationality if it would have left Obama stateless.
Mike Zullo, commander of the Cold Case Posse, confirmed that threats were made. Doug Hagmann came out with the story initially, saying that he had a signed statement by one of the talk show hosts telling how the on-air personalities were told that their careers were over and their lives and their loves ones’ lives were questionable, if they or any of their guests talked about Obama’s eligibility problem. He gave a 3-hour radio interview to Laurie Roth where he shared additional information about the evidence he has, and then he went quiet on the story. I have an inside source who says he went quiet on the story because one of his informants was killed and he was concerned for another one. I gave Mike Zullo the information from Hagmann and he confirmed that the secretary we were concerned about had fled the country in fear. He also said that he was aware of others.
I’d have to see the timing of the discussions of the eligibility issue, what was said, and the media and distribution companies, to sort out what was going on with Bill Cunningham, Rusty Humphries, and Coast to Coast. Two threats were made by the time Hagmann gave his report - one in October of 2008 and another sometime between the election and March of 2009. At some point the Alinsky plan kicked in, where rather than ignore the issue the idea was to mock it. After that, it was established that nobody was going to take the issue seriously so that isolated people who addressed it would never be able to create a big movement and would drop it. I’m thinking here of Mark Kuhner, who was able to vet the issue because he has a contract that guarantees his independence of content but dropped the issue pretty quickly when it wasn’t able to go anywhere.
The same thing happened with the courts. Once the judges had made enough kangaroo-court decisions, even people who cared about the issue deeply pretty much realized the fix was in and figured they should invest their energies elsewhere.
As I’ve said (elsewhere if not here; hard to remember what I’ve said where), 2008 was literally a coup. With the media and the judges taken out, resistance became largely futile - or at least that was the belief by a lot of people, which led to circular firing squads - where “conservatives” were too busy shooting each other down over whether it was futile and harmful to “conservatism” to try to confront the corruption of the media and courts on the 2008 coup.
I believe if we’re willing to overlook a coup of that magnitude, then we’ve just kissed the country good-bye. And it sure does look like the country - and all its checks and balances - are slipping away right under our noses while all our efforts to stop it are..... futile. Because we already kissed the country good-bye...
He did what his lawyer told him to do. And his lawyer knew the fix was in when the judge ruled that an order is lawful even if it doesn’t meet the requirements of the law. (IOW, it’s lawful even when it’s not in compliance with the law....)
From that point on, nothing anybody did mattered. The takeover of the military was complete. And we’re seeing the natural consequences now, as we watch the patriots being either purged or killed.
I have to tell you, the domestic enemies are the ones that hurt the worst. If Lakin had been captured by Al Qaeda and had gone on tape saying he was wrong and was being treated well, etc..... we would all have known what was going on. In this case it was traitors within our own MILITARY that broke him down by the reality of his futile situation.
I’m not going to stick around to talk about this. I see the usual apologists have appeared like they always do when Orly or Lakin come up, and I know from experience that I can’t stomach the hissing from the pit. I rest confidently in this: one Day every person will bow to the truth and every person’s work will be seen for what it is. I eagerly await that Day. Until then, each person will continue to do and be what they are, until the day that is revealed to them and all the rest of us.
Does the military hierarchy exist to do investigations as to whether orders are lawful? (Not whether the orders have to be obeyed, but whether they are lawful).
What responsibility did the military have once there was evidence that the man at the top of the chain of command had committed crimes to cover up his documentation (which we now know, from registrar Alvin Onaka’s indirect confirmation, is legally non-valid so that there are no legally-established birth facts for Obama)? Specifically everybody at Lakin’s level or higher - the ones he appealed to for answers - whose oath was to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, which Obama would be if he hid who he was so he could hold office unlawfully (which we now know he did).
When the judge shifted to say that orders are lawful even if they don’t comply with the law, we were in the process of providing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity - that the statements by Hawaii officials didn’t mean what people presumed they meant. That included information about Virginia Sunahara, the alteration of the 1960-64 birth index to include non-valid names, statements from HDOH workers that Obama’s records were treated differently, etc. The day after I was put in contact with Lakin’s team, to work on providing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity, my husband had sparking right next to his engine; the sheathing either all decayed uniformly at the same time or else it was cut. Within days my daughter’s computer - which I was using because mine had been fried about a month earlier - was hit with a massive trojan that totally fried it.
And then shortly after that the judge ruled that nothing we came up with would matter anyway. The order was lawful even if Joseph Stalin had ordered it - as long as Joseph Stalin had taken an oath of office (that he would have been breaking even in the act of taking...).
Dang it, I just said I wasn’t going to engage on this. I’ll just offer the parting question again - already knowing that the answer I’ve been given before is “nothing”: What, exactly, is an officer supposed to do, in order to keep his oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, when that enemy is in the White House? And why would an officer be required to take that oath if there is no lawful way for him to ever actually keep it? Does the US military really require that its officers lie when they take an oath? Is that the behavior they require from men of honor, worthy to serve and represent the US flag?
Lord, give me the strength to walk away from this and leave these questions to the consciences of the people who read this. Make me willing and able to shake the dust off my feet rather than waste time doing what only the final Day will ever be able to accomplish with those who are willingly deceived. Amen.
If a military officer is concerned about the legality of his orders, he should ask the legal officer. I’ve done this. During GWB’s time, we had some enlisted who refused to deploy because GWB was not the ‘real’ President. A military lawyer talked with them, and explained they would deploy or do hard time. They deployed.
No ethical lawyer would have advised Lakin to refuse deployment. Lakin was a sucker, played for a fool by people who didn’t care a rat’s rear about him.
Nor is there any evidence that Hawaii is lying when they say Obama was born there. Your idea of proof differs dramatically from a court’s. You are a patriot and have excellent intentions, but your ‘proof’ would get you laughed out of court.
No child can lose US citizenship by the actions of their parents. See:
It takes a lot of work, even as an adult, to lose US citizenship. Barry spending a few years in Indonesia as a kid does not, in any way, rob him of full US citizenship.
He obeyed orders while the lawfulness of orders were supposedly being researched by his superiors. That’s the proper protocol. You obey the orders, then request an investigation into the lawfulness of the orders.
His superiors left him in limbo. Dereliction of duty. I’m biting my tongue to not say what I want to say right now, and my computer screen is about ready to melt from the heat.
Combat in Afghanistan can only be authorized by the President - acting as President. That’s according to the law that Congress passed authorizing the CINC to use necessary force in response to 9-11-01. If Obama failed to qualify, the 20th Amendment would forbid him to “act as President” but would instead give the authority to Joe Biden - who did NOT agree with the “surge” in Afghanistan.
That is the case regardless of whether the President-elect became President or took the oath of office. Even if he WAS the President because he was certified as the electoral winner and the beginning of the term began, and even if he fulfilled the OTHER thing that is required before assuming Presidential duties (the oath of office) - he still cannot “act as President” until he actually qualifies.
Judge Lind based everything on the certification of the election and the oath of office. She claimed the orders were lawful because Obama took the oath of office. But the 20th Amendment says nothing about the oath of office. The oath of office is irrelevant to the 20th Amendment. If the President elect fails to qualify by the start of his term of office, he cannot “act as President” (even though he actually BECOMES President then) until he DOES qualify.
And to this day Obama has NEVER qualified. The HI state registrar has revealed that he CANNOT qualify unless and until his non-valid BC is presented as evidence and birth facts are legally determined. As it is we have no idea when, where, or to whom he was born. We literally have NO IDEA who this guy even IS.
Salaries can lawfully be paid without a Presidential order. A “surge” in Afghanistan that is against the wishes of the person who is Constitutionally required to “act as President” (Joe Biden) CANNOT be lawful - since it is in violation of both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
So there are 2 justifiable reasons that the refusal to deploy is different than the other issues:
First, the others were while his chain of command was SUPPOSED TO BE (!#$@#@@#$%) finding answers for him so he didn’t have to be on his own regarding what to do; and
Second; the other orders don’t specifically depend on the CINC’s lawful authorization, according to the actual laws. The authorization for the use of force specifically required the CINC (the one “acting as President”) to authorize force. Anybody here knows that if Dick Cheney had gone against GW Bush and authorized the use of force against Iran (for instance), nobody would be cool with that. Well, if Joe Biden is really the one who is Constitutionally-authorized to “act as President”, then this would be the same situation. Lakin deserved to have clarification, and NOBODY - none of the stinking chain of command that’s supposed to be so HONORABLE - would even clarify it for him.
I better shut up now or I’ll say something I regret.
I need to walk away from this. I care too much about this, and I need to be able to just wait for the Day when the truth is all revealed.
I’m not even going to read this. If I read it I will want to respond and it’s pointless to respond.
I tell myself exactly that at least fifty times a day.
Arrogant Communist Tyrant Hussein Obama File: BOOK.
There wasn’t much to research. Everyone knew the orders were legal - just as everyone knew GW Bush’s order to deploy were legal.
It isn’t up to the military to decide who is President. That is banana republic time...
When the Congress, US Supreme Court, and all 50 states are unanimous, it isn’t up to Lt Col Lakin OR the enlisted I knew to pretend otherwise. Our elections do not fall under military review. Lt Col Lakin could have resigned, but he chose to disobey instead.
Yes, Obama qualified. It is up to Congress to complain otherwise, and all 535 members of Congress say you are wrong. It is up to Americans to throw Barry out of office, and unhappily, a majority of Americans want him there. The military can’t read World Nut Daily and decide to overthrow the President.
That is, I do read the threads at FR...but usually responding is pointless.
My husband tells me it at least 100 times a day. lol
I keep thinking there might be somebody with an open mind who is just now paying attention.
If they want to know anything I can help them with, they can Freepmail with questions.
Of course not! You shut your eyes, cover your ears, chant “la la la” and live in your own fantasy world. But you don’t get to make everyone else live there...
CCPS, what makes you think the man in the WH is the son of the Kenyan 0bama?
Since all his docs are forgeries, how do you know who his father is?
Mr. Rogers likes to think that foreigners can drop kids on US soil and they’re natural born citiznes and spews the same idiocy on these threads, and has for years. Why he does this is anyone’s guess.
There are no issues of standing in a military court martial. It is a civil law concept only.
There are also no issues of standing on the criminal side of our legal system.
Challengers to Obama’s eligibility proclaim allegations of criminal activity like forgery, fraud, identity theft and altering official documents yet they only use the civil courts to press these claims; Very strange.
Unfortunately there’s no evidence that Obama ever had U.S. citizenship to lose. And under WKA, his parents did not meet the subject clause requirements. Quit trying to confuse people with your ignorance.
“Mr. Rogers likes to think that foreigners can drop kids on US soil and theyre natural born citiznes...”
Because the US Supreme Court says it works that way - that that IS the meaning of “natural born citizen”. If the highest court in the land says that is the meaning, every other court will agree. You have no case.
In a criminal case, such as a court martial, the STATE is making the accusation, and the STATE has standing. In this case, the STATE had standing to accuse Lakin of refusing to obey lawful orders.
A DA could accuse Obama of forgery or fraud, but none has done so. Either everyone in the country is part of the Great Conspiracy, or all the DAs are incompetent...or the birthers are simply wrong.
“And under WKA, his parents did not meet the subject clause requirements.”
Every court, every state, and 535 members of Congress think you are an idiot who cannot read a court decision.
At some point, birthers need to ask themselves WHY they lose every time they go to court. Is it a Great Conspiracy? Or are they just wrong about what the law says...
Mr. Rogers, are you a member of the Fogbow forum? Please be truthful with your answer.
You quoted Perkins v Elg and stated a parent cannot renounce the citizenship of a child. In this case, Elg’s father renounced his U.S. Citizenship after returning to his native country of Sweden.
After turning the age of majority, Elg requested a U.S. passport as a U.S. Citizen and received one. She returned to the U.S. and lived as a U.S Citizen. Later, she was denied a U.S. passport upon renewal application because the SoS had determined she was no longer a U.S. Citizen.
SCOTUS ruled the father’s renouncement of his U.S. Citizenship did not have effect on his child while she lived with him in Sweden. The U.S. SoS did not allege Elg was a dual citizen. Elg never claimed to be a citizen of Sweden. Elg could have been stateless if the SoS’s actions were upheld. Consequently, she maintained her U.S. Citizenship.
In Obama’s case, as with Terrazas, he was born in the U.S. with one U.S. Citizen parent and one foreign national parent. Both Obama and Terrazas were dual citizens at birth. All dual citizens are a risk of Loss of Nationality if they move out of the U.S. and participate in acts deemed to have renounced their U.S. Citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the Secretary of State.
As opposed to Elg, where the SoS did not establish Elg was a dual citizen, the SoS did determine Terrazas and Obama were citizens of another country before the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was issued.