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 ...
I can't prove who fathered any of our presidents.
That's why I don't think that the Founders intended that a candidate has to be fathered by a U.S. citizen if the candidate is born in the U.S.
The issue of eligibility for POTUSA is more than just plain/ordinary ‘citizenship’. The Founders explicitly added the requirement for POTUSA to be a ‘natural born citizen’ and they intentionally did this as shown when they only required congresspersons to be just ‘citizens’. All following USA SC decisions are in the original framework set by the Founders.
I can’t prove who Little Barry’s father is either. I was under the impression that is one reason I’m called a birther. It appears you’re a birther too. Welcome aboard.
What’s your theory, btw, as to why Little Barry said he was born in Kenya? Isn’t it interesting how long he stood by that assertion—almost as if he was willing to allow the truth to stand until he realized it would interfere w his presidential aspirations. What’s your take on it?
Do you believe his testimony is really helpful?
Given that Obama is a pathological liar, it’s difficult to put credence in anything he says. I note, however, that when he had nothing to lose he said he was born in Kenya. He didn’t change that narrative until it proved politically inconvenient—a point worth contemplating.
You never did weigh in, btw, on why Obama claimed Kenyan birth in the first place. In case you didn’t notice, it was a sincere question and I am genuinely curious as to your take on it. Thank you in advance.
“Until I see that quote, I will remain convinced that two-parents is what was meant/intended.”
I cannot prevent someone from believing the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, either. You WILL believe whatever you want.
But the FACT is that NBC was a legal term with a known meaning. That known meaning, as the WKA decision discusses at length, meant anyone born within the border of the US, with a few exceptions: slaves (which were property), Indians (members of independent nations within the USA), diplomats, and children born to an invading army.
You can believe dogs are cats if you wish, but the courts are not insane. They will continue to interpret a legal document by the legal meanings of the terms used. And birthers will go on losing.
It isn’t a Great Conspiracy. The reason all 50 states, including states like Oklahoma, Arizona and Utah, ignore you is because you are wrong. All 535 members of Congress do and will continue to reject your ideas. And every court will reject you as well. Because you are not sane. You do not live in reality. You truly ARE “Fantasywriter”...
And so Mr Rogers implodes over the concept of ‘divided loyalty’. Never saw a soil only person who didn’t. Oh well.
“The Founders explicitly added the requirement for POTUSA to be a ‘natural born citizen’ and they intentionally did this as shown when they only required congresspersons to be just ‘citizens’.”
Correct. A SENATOR can be a NATURALIZED citizen. The PRESIDENT cannot be a NATURALIZED citizen. The only difference is that the President must have been born in the USA, and be at least 30 years old, and “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.
1795, Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books".
In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
So the question would be, "How did the Framers inform the citizens of Connecticut that the term natural born had a new meaning?"
http://tinyurl.com/ajnxafe
Had any fresh ‘Bill’ [Clinton] leg tingles lately?
I’m not the one who ‘writes fantasy’...
I have no idea why Obama might have said he was born in Kenya. Maybe it was to get some votes from some group. Maybe the lady described in the prior paragraph told him he was born in Kenya. I really don't know, but what I do know is that Obama doesn't remember where he was born. A person's birthplace can often be proved with witnesses who do remember.
I also know that, until recently, it was impossible to prove (except sometimes by the mother's testimony) exactly who fathered a child and I also know that many of our past presidents were elected after their mothers were no longer available to serve as witnesses.
I don't believe that our Founding Fathers intended to create a qualification that usually couldn't be proved one way or the other.
You’re not the one who understands divided loyalty, either. Your snark would be right at home on Fogbow, though. They are so proud of their snark, just like very young children being proud over learning to use the commode.
Thank you for your thoughts on Obama claiming Kenyan birth. I found them very interesting.
My take on the Framers is that they wanted to avoid de facto divided loyalties. We see how that plays out with Obama as POTUS. He proves their wisdom, foresight and integrity more and more ea. day.
Divided loyalty?
A child is born in the USA to citizen parents. At 6 months of age, they move to Italy. Both parents renounce their US citizenship and become Italians. The child is raised as an Italian.
At 21, the child claims dual citizenship.
At 45, the child moves to the USA. 14 years later, at 59, he wants to run for President.
Can he?
He is a natural born citizen who has never renounced US citizenship. He has lived 44.5 years out of 59 in Italy, He is also an Italian citizen. He grew up speaking Italian.
Does the US Constitution bar him from running? If so, what in the US Constitution prevents him from running?
“”The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be ‘right reason,’ and I think it is law.”
— From Perkins v Elg.
“A child is born in the USA to citizen parents. At 6 months of age, they move to Italy.... at 59, he wants to run for President.
Can he?”
__
Furthermore, the analysis is precisely the same even if for Italy we substitute Iran or North Korea.
Rev Jeremiah Wright was born in 1941 to 2 citizen parents.
Is he Constitutionally qualified to be President?
Is he loyal to the USA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
I see from this post that you miss the point of divided loyalty totally but honestly. In your post re: England I imagined you might comprehend the issue yet choose to gloss over it in order to make your point. Now I see that you sincerely have no clue. Again I am shaking my head. How can this be? If you don’t grasp the issue, there is no way you can successfully argue against it, that’s for sure.
Reminds me of the days during the first phase of my conversion from far left liberal activist to movement conservative. I used to listen to ‘Bill’ Clinton characterize conservatives, and nascent though I was, I was perplexed and very annoyed. ‘Why is he lying about us?’ I wondered.
I later learned he wasn’t lying—at least not on those occasions when he [mis]characterized conservatives and our positions. He genuinely had no idea who we are or what we believe. His ‘mischaracterizations’ represented his best take on us. From the moment I grasped that, I understood why so few liberals convert. They haven’t the foggiest idea what true conservatism/conservatives are all about, and from that starting point their errors only compound.
This discussion w you, Mr Rogers, has similarly opened my eyes/mind. I had previously assumed that at least the more astute soil-only advocates grasped, if nothing else, the main gist of the divided loyalty issue; they simply chose to subordinate it to their soil only beliefs. You’ve revealed they have no earthly idea what divided loyalty really means or why it matters.
Wow. A seismic shift in my understanding of the soil only proponents is, even as I type, underway. This is definitely going to require a bit of thought.
[This is no knock on you, btw, Mr Rogers. When liberals can’t understand something, ninety percent of the time it goes to their ideology. When a conservative can’t understand something along the lines of divided loyalty, it’s just baffling. That’s why I need to think about it. But if you feel you need to lash out or snark, by all means go for the gold. If snark makes you feel better, what’s the harm?]
Btw, if you’re going to interject completely, totally, one-hundred percent irrelevant people into the discussion, let’s go w Bill Ayers. He’s no more pertinent to the concept of divided loyalties that J. Wright, but what the hell. Less letters in Ayers’ name, and easier to type.
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.