Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
http://www.commandertaffy.com/thestory ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; birftards; bookreview; congress; entertainment; lakin; media; mediabias; naturalborncitizen; notnews; obama; officersoath; teaparty; terrylakin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-350 next last
To: ROCKLOBSTER

How are you going to prove the paternity of this lady you’re trying to pass off as Obama’s sister? ;-)


251 posted on 02/16/2013 4:37:19 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

26 states plus the District of Columbia have laws which require electors to vote for the candidate who wins a majority of that state’s popular vote. 24 states have no such restriction.
So it’s not IF a candidate wins the popular vote, it’s WHERE a candidate wins the popular vote. Saying that the popular vote is only a point of interest is a bit of an over-statement. It is determinative in 26 states plus the District of Columbia.
Saying that Barry Obama won two “landslide” victories with 67% of the Electors in 2008 and 62% of the Electors in 2012 greatly inflates the reality of his narrow popular vote victories. I’m not giving him that kind of a mandate.


252 posted on 02/16/2013 6:17:32 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Yeah, they’re not exactly a family...more like an unincorporated community of bastards.

But there seems to be a lot of them.


253 posted on 02/16/2013 7:09:44 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Why did the SecDef not file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of all his officers who didn’t know whether to obey orders from Obama, or from Joe Biden? Did the SecDef just take it in his own hands, to interpret the 20th Amendment? I thought the military wasn’t supposed to do that.

Perhaps because the SecDef was satisfied that Obama was the president? Thought that that was up to the voters and Congress and that they seemed to have made a decision? Doesn't matter. Doesn't have anything to do with the charge against Lakin.

But in any case, you haven't answered my question: what's the alternative? How does the military operate when any officer can refuse their orders because they doubt the president's eligibility? Do you really think that would work in practice? Can you answer that?

254 posted on 02/16/2013 8:03:35 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The answer is that the situation could have been avoided if the candidate had been properly screened when he announced.

It is not the fault of officers who question, it is the fault of the democrat party, the sec of state, the electoral college, the congress, the ussc, and indirectly, the media.

Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.


255 posted on 02/16/2013 8:12:07 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
It is not the fault of officers who question,...Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution.

So you think the military can function if any officer is permitted to disobey orders because they question whether the president--the person voted for by the Electoral College, confirmed by Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice--was "properly screened" or not. Interesting.

256 posted on 02/16/2013 11:36:29 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

It is up to the commander in chief to establish credibility. You wouldn’t follow orders if your commander was illigitemate. That’;s what nazis do. In the face of a system which has broken down why would ou participate in what is possibly one of the largest frauds in the history of the world.

How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?


257 posted on 02/16/2013 11:42:03 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Here’s another thought on the way to bed.

If 1,000 or 5,000, or 10,000 officers had acted honorably in an obvious constitutional crisis, the questions would have been answered.


258 posted on 02/16/2013 11:47:35 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Having served in the USA Army in WWII and had my exposure to duties and obligations as a low level enlisted ‘servant’ overseas, I have formed a number of opinions on such cases as Lakin’s. First of all I believe Lakin’s oath as an officer is to the Constitution not to the POTUSA as it is/was for us lowly dregs of enlisted/drafted men. I accepted the burden of military law as did my brother who was killed on Okinawa. Secondly, I have come to believe there is a higher duty to the Nation and It’s body of laws and foundation than sheep like adherence to leader worship at any level especially when there are legitimate questions as to the leaders eligibility and history. Thirdly, I have tremendous respect for the service of all service persons but I will not submit/relinquish my duty as a member of this Nation’s society to any group, including any military service, as to getting facts if not truth about any part of government.


259 posted on 02/17/2013 12:04:44 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“”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.”

The decision to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. State Department to a dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. and effectively renounces their U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence is discretionary. See SCOTUS opinion, Vance v. Terrazas (1980).

Congress wrote major changes to the INA after SCOTUS issued its opinion in Vance v. Terrazas. To date, most Secretaries of State decide to maintain a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when it comes to issuing a CLN. For example, it’s unlikely SoS Hillary Clinton would issue a CLN to a 5-year-old dual citizen who moved out of the country with a parent who informed the State Department they did not plan to return to the United States. SoS Clinton maintain a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for issuing a CLN. In other words, Clinton had doubts the 5 year-old would never want to return to the U.S. and live as a U.S. Citizen.

On the other hand, SoS Dean Rusk maintained a lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence for issuing CLNs. A 5 year-old dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. with a parent who informs the State Department they have no intention of returning to the U.S. would be issued a CLN. SoS Vance continued SoS Rusk’s standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and it was upheld by SCOTUS in 1980.

When the minor who has been issued a CLN during their minority chooses to return to the U.S. and recapture their U.S. citizen, the State Department will honor the request within 6 months after reaching the age of majority (18 years-old for Obama, 21 years-old for Steinkauler). Obama moved back to the U.S. in 1971 and chose not to recapture his U.S. citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday. The age of majority was 18 during Obama’s lifetime. The age of majority was 21 in Steinkauler’s lifetime. Obama chose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen in 1983 at the age of 22.


260 posted on 02/17/2013 4:34:42 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“The decision to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. State Department to a dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. and effectively renounces their U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence is discretionary. See SCOTUS opinion, Vance v. Terrazas (1980)....

...On the other hand, SoS Dean Rusk maintained a lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence for issuing CLNs. A 5 year-old dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. with a parent who informs the State Department they have no intention of returning to the U.S. would be issued a CLN. SoS Vance continued SoS Rusk’s standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and it was upheld by SCOTUS in 1980.”


No, a 5 year old dual citizen who moves outside the US never has had his citizenship revoked. The case you cite reads:

“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. . . .”

That was a TWENTY-TWO year old who swore a statement revoking his US citizenship, NOT a 5 year old who moved overseas!

A post like your is simply dishonest. You are LYING. You cannot use a case involving a 22 year old who swears a statement renouncing US citizenship to show a 5 year old loses citizenship when his parents take him to another country.

Another lie: “Obama moved back to the U.S. in 1971 and chose not to recapture his U.S. citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday.”

He had never lost his citizenship. He returned to the USA at age 10. He has lived here ever since as a US citizen. He was not here on an Indonesian passport using a visa.

So again, you are lying about the FACTS. No other birther on the forum that I’ve encountered has acted so dishonestly.


261 posted on 02/17/2013 7:24:51 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.”

Is that what you would have said when the enlisted in a squadron I was in refused to deploy because GWB wasn’t properly elected President, and therefor didn’t have the right to order them into combat?

Did officers have a right and duty to refuse orders starting 20 Jan 2001 because GWB didn’t REALLY win Florida, but instead was imposed on the USA by a cabal of unelected justices voted him in 7-2?


262 posted on 02/17/2013 8:01:06 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

“How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?”
__

That’s a good question. But I don’t want to find out when I’m under enemy fire that the soldier standing by my side is not going to shoot back because he believes the President to be ineligible. Neither do I want to learn that, if I am wounded, I will be treated by a less experienced doctor who arrived on short notice because the doctor who was scheduled to deploy had refused to show up at the last minute.

Anyone who doesn’t want to serve under the Commander-in-Chief is free to resign. Those who remain in uniform have an obligation to their buddies to fight by their side and heal their wounds, regardless of their personal beliefs.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very clear on this point when it states (Article 90) that “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

Even Lakin’s first attorney knew better than to claim that an order to report to one’s commanding officer’s office or to board a plane was anything but an “otherwise lawful order.” (If you’re curious, the preceding paragraphs of Art. 90, which you can find at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm, explain in detail what that means.)

From the military justice point of view, this was an open-and-shut case.


263 posted on 02/17/2013 8:58:00 AM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian; BigGuy22; Mr Rogers; butterdezillion
It is up to the commander in chief to establish credibility.

To whom? People voted for him, the Electoral College voted for him, Congress confirmed him, the Chief Justice swore him in. Whose opinion outweighs theirs?

How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?

You can't. You resign.

The thing I don't think you and butter understand is that that what you say should have happened in this case establishes a principle and a precedent for what should happen in every case, like that of the guy in Mr Rogers' squadron. Between the two of you, you're calling for a military where, if the CinC wasn't "properly screened" and hasn't "established credibility," an officer can follow orders and draw a paycheck up until the time they're ordered to get on a plane (or, presumably, into an MRAP or HMMV), at which point they can refuse on the basis that they're not convinced the commander is legitimate. If that's not what you want, then please elucidate the principles that would distinguish Lakin's case from others.

264 posted on 02/17/2013 9:25:28 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Two honorable officers went to prison.

Please don’t tell me the litany of accomplices to the fraud.


265 posted on 02/17/2013 9:48:15 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone. That’s WHOM


266 posted on 02/17/2013 9:49:57 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

I agree officers should have resigned en masse


267 posted on 02/17/2013 9:51:20 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Ah but the evidence is that bush did win. You did follow the recounts including the Miami herald.

There was plenty of time before Iraq to make an informed decision to resign.

If you truly believe the cic is illigetimate, you have a ,oral obligation to get out before killing people or ordering it.


268 posted on 02/17/2013 9:55:17 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Really? So a President needs to go to every member of the Armed Forces and show them his birth certificate? He needs to show every member his Electoral College count? He needs to argue to every member that his birth certificate isn’t a forgery?

Hawaii says Obama was born there. John McCain & Sarah Palin accepted Obama as eligible. The voters accepted him as eligible. The Electoral College voted, and all 535 members of Congress accepted their vote as valid. The US Supreme Court accepted it. Every facet of government, including all 50 state governments and all foreign governments, accept that Obama is legally the President.

But any member of the military can disobey a legal order by claiming the President isn’t the real President - either GWB in 2000, or Obama in 2008?


269 posted on 02/17/2013 9:56:21 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Don’t be ridiculous. The people and court listed in my first post should have done their jobs screening him.


270 posted on 02/17/2013 9:58:21 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

YOU say GWBush won. I guess you trust the judgment of the Miami Herald. But we had enlisted guys who did NOT accept that GW Bush won. They believed it was a stolen election, and that the US Supreme Court committed fraud in their ruling, and that GW Bush’s team managed to distort the evidence.

Now you say that if someone believes Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and that the government of Hawaii is lying, then they can disobey otherwise legal orders.

A conspiracy by GW Bush to sway the Supreme Court is more plausible than a conspiracy involving all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress and the US Supreme Court...heck, there was even a challenge to the Electoral College vote in Congress against GW Bush. There wasn’t one with Obama.


271 posted on 02/17/2013 10:02:41 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; morphing libertarian
Really? So a President needs to go to every member of the Armed Forces and show them his birth certificate? He needs to show every member his Electoral College count? He needs to argue to every member that his birth certificate isn’t a forgery?

I was thinking more like a Geraldo Rivera-style trip to the vital records storeroom. Everybody trusts Geraldo, don't they?

272 posted on 02/17/2013 10:11:02 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I said they should resign rather than follow a faux commander.


273 posted on 02/17/2013 10:13:23 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
"The person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone."
__

Do you mean that literally? That everyone, 100% of the population, must be convinced that the candidate is eligible? That all it takes is one doubter in the entire country for a candidate to be ruled out?

I don't think you'll find 100% of the U.S. population agreeing on anything, and I hope you'll agree that no nation can be run on that basis.

You may feel that our current system -- freedom of speech and of the press, election by the people (through the Electoral College), acceptance by the Congress of the vote, the ability of Congress to impeach, etc. -- is inadequate to deal with ineligible candidates.

But it's hard to believe that you're serious about requiring that it be proved to everyone. There will always be doubters over any proposition that anyone can come up with.

Remember, the Founding Fathers wanted only eligible candidates to be President. But they also wanted the People to have their choice as much as possible, and they were very leery of giving anyone the power to block the People's choice.

They did give that power to the Congress. Whom else would you like to see it given to? Judges with lifetime appointments? The military?

These are difficult questions to answer when writing a Constitution. I think our Founders did a good job, but I'd be interested to know how you would have done it differently.
274 posted on 02/17/2013 10:14:46 AM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
The people and court listed in my first post should have done their jobs screening him.

You mean these people? "...it is the fault of the democrat party, the sec of state, the electoral college, the congress, the ussc, and indirectly, the media." They think they did their jobs. You're claiming they didn't, which means you must have some standard in mind that they didn't meet, and someone to enforce that standard. No? Again, I think you're overlooking the practical implications of what you're proposing here.

275 posted on 02/17/2013 10:15:26 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

You are either very ill informed or just want to kill time.

The sec of state knew of the allegations but did not ask for birth certificate as cal did with Eldridge cleaver.

How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.

I’m tired of the topic. Read the other threads for more background. I’m not interested in being a tutor.

You believe in blind allegiance. I don’t.


276 posted on 02/17/2013 10:22:27 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Never said or meant any such thing. Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those .

I’m tired of the blind allegiance folks hear and spinners like you.

I’m out.


277 posted on 02/17/2013 10:26:22 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

“Perhaps you can list how Obama proved his eligibility during the campaign and what the ussc ruled about it. Most people would abide by those.”
__

I can tell you how I personally became convinced of his eligibility, but I’m only a single voter. I can’t speak for what convinced the Democratic Party, or the other voters, or the vast majority of the press and the Congress, etc., etc. They have to speak for themselves.

But they clearly have made their decisions on whatever basis they considered appropriate, and you are right — most people are abiding by them.

If you wish to describe adherence to the Constitution as blind allegiance, of course that is your right.


278 posted on 02/17/2013 10:33:51 AM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

“I said they should resign rather than follow a faux commander.”

I will grant that. If someone really believes the President cannot issue orders, and that the orders issued by all the President’s subordinates are illegal, then they ought to resign rather than disobey.


279 posted on 02/17/2013 10:41:18 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.”

From the viewpoint of the US Supreme Court, they have. The WKA ruling in 1898 went into great detail concerning the meaning of NBC. The specific HOLDING did not, since WKA wasn’t running for President, but the ARGUMENT is unchanged, and has never been challenged in court prior to Obama. All lower courts are already using WKA as precedent, so there is no need for the US Supreme Court to make it binding with a specific holding by accepting another case.

A ruling doesn’t need to be BINDING to be PERSUASIVE.

“Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority or advisory precedent) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.

In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent#Persuasive_precedent

As long as the lower courts are all united in being PERSUADED by WKA, the Supreme Court doesn’t need to accept a case to make it BINDING.

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi


280 posted on 02/17/2013 10:51:04 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian; Mr Rogers
The sec of state knew of the allegations but did not ask for birth certificate as cal did with Eldridge cleaver.
How many times has the ussc refused to define NBC in the last five years.

I know how you think the system failed last time. I've heard all the complaints. What I'm trying to find out is what you want to replace it with. So (1) you want the USSC to define NBC. (Of course, as Mr Rogers points out, lower courts are acting as though they already have; and since the current Court hasn't accepted any cases, they seem to think they already have too.) And (2) you want the various Secretaries of State to ask for birth certificates from every presidential candidate. That seems like a perfectly fine idea going forward, but it doesn't get Col. Lakin off the hook this time.

281 posted on 02/17/2013 11:10:47 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; morphing libertarian

Just FWIW: I’d favor a federal or state law requiring anyone who ran for President to waive their privacy rights concerning birth certificates, schools, medical and tax records. I’ve written my legislature in Arizona about it, but no bill has gone very far.

It seems to me that voters ought to be able to review records that might influence their choice. But I’m a minority view on that, it seems. Certainly the POLITICIANS don’t want to go there!


282 posted on 02/17/2013 11:23:00 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

“Never said or meant any such thing.”
__

And that was my point, wasn’t it? That when you said that “[t]he person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone,” you didn’t actually mean that the person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone? It’s an absurd statement, as I pointed out.

The candidate is required to convince many decision-makers of his or her eligibility (voters, Congress, etc.), and in this case, Pres. Obama has clearly done that. He hasn’t convinced you, but there will always be some who remain unconvinced.

So, I ask again, in a case like this, where the candidate has convinced all of the Constitutionally relevant decision-makers to their satisfaction albeit not to yours, what mechanism would you like to see in place to override their decision? Do you want the People’s choice to be thrown out by judges with lifetime appointments? By the military?

You haven’t answered that one at all.


283 posted on 02/17/2013 11:40:18 AM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: All

Here’s something to think about. Some posters—including some *very* active posters—on FR, agree 100 percent w the extreme-liberal, conservative-loathing, Obama-loving, repulsive [referring not to them as human beings but to the filth, hatred and overall nastiness they routinely spew] posters at Fogbow.

Do Fogbowers ever agree w conservatives on anything? Do they advertise their agreement (w conservatives) on the Fogbow site, and attack their fellow liberals who disagree w conservatives (on at least the points in question)? Do Fogbowers trash, mock and demean their fellow liberals for not towing the conservative line [in at least certain cases]?

Or is this a one-way street? I.e.: is it the case that on FR conservatives who disagree w the Fogbow take on Obama eligibility get berated, misconstrued and generally put down, but no similar phenonmenon occurs on Fogbow?

Here’s a related question. If the extreme liberals on Fogbow are right about questions related to Obama’s eligibility, what else are they right about? Could it be they are right across the board, at least in the eyes of those FR posters who agree w them on other major issues? Maybe the aforementioned FR posters [i.e.: the ones who agree so strongly w Fogbowers on matters of eligibility) need to examine the rest of the progressive platform. They may find themselvs agreeing w large swaths of it.

Just something to think about.

[For the record, I fall into the category of those who strongly disagree w the very rigid Fogbower orthodoxy re: eligibility. Their ideological blinders led them to a fundamentally flawed conclusion, but they will cling to it with a death grip till their last gasp. To do otherwise would lead to actually disccussing issues and questions related to Obama’s legitimacy, and that a Fogbower simply cannot do and survive.]


284 posted on 02/17/2013 2:26:39 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

One can come to the conclusion that the Birther analysis is mistaken without any reference whatsoever to DUmmies, The Fogbow or any other leftist site.


285 posted on 02/17/2013 3:21:00 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Or one can also come to the conclusion that rigid Fogbow orthodoxy on this issue is mistaken. One cannot do that on Fogbow, however, and survive. Increasingly it’s impossible to do so on FR as well. Disagreeing w the Fogbow analysis and conclusion will these days get a conservative hounded, berated and mocked/snarked on till hell freezes over.

Answer this one question. Why would any conservative continue to post on a conservative site where their choice is to either tow the Fogbow line or be relentlessly attacked and/or ridiculed?


286 posted on 02/17/2013 3:32:06 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter; Mr Rogers

I’ve only visited Fogbow once and that was at least a couple of years ago. The place doesn’t interest me. They have nothing to say that I think I could engage with. From my brief visit, I would say they are mistaken on many, many issues but more importantly, they’re not relevant. Not to me anyway although it sounds like the same can’t be said about yourself.

If you decide that the honest and scholarly opinion of Mr Rogers who, as I understand it, has several decades of experience as a military lawyer and is a old-time freeper of good standing is wrong merely because it co-incides with opinions expressed by a bunch of other people that you’ve got issues with and not on the merits of his arguments then you’re not thinking straight.


287 posted on 02/17/2013 3:45:04 PM PST by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
There were only two persons under consideration in Ankeny v Daniels, John McCain and Barack Obama. The three judge panel had already discussed Senator McCain’s eligibility and they then moved on to discuss Barack Obama.

Sorry, but this simply is NOT an accurate characertization. They talked about the plaintiffs' argument although the court lied and contradicted themselves. They did not discuss Obama's specific eligibility.

Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.

No it's not. If it was, his name would have been mentioned. And I've already given the direct quote which showed the only legal pronouncement which was that they perceived a disagreement between the plaintiffs sources and the Supreme Court statements on NBC, and concluded it was enough they didn't have to "accept" the plaintiffs argument as true. This decision NEVER says Obama is eligible for office. They only ruled that the governor of Indiana could not be held liable to vet eligibility of candidates. READ THE DECISION and what it actually says.

The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.

The decision says nothing about Obama being born in Hawaii.

The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions.

It has been used, but incorrectly and inaccurately. There's NOTHING in the Ankeny decision that makes Obama eligible for office.

“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

I've already shown by footnote that the Ankeny court contradicted this statement and said the Wong Kim Ark decision does NOT make anyone a natural-born citizen in accordance with Article II. It also noted that the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. There's is NO legal precedent in Ankeny to make Obama a natural-born citizen. The other courts you have mentioned are trying to rely on dicta form a state appeals court, but they are ignoring that the Supreme Court itself unanimously cited Minor on Article II eligibility as all children born in the country to citizen parents.

288 posted on 02/17/2013 3:48:36 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The WKA ruling in 1898 went into great detail concerning the meaning of NBC.

The WKA didn't go into great detail about the meaning of NBC at all. NBC is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times and the last time it is mentioned is when the court affirmed the Minor definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Then, thanks to YOU, we learned that the Supreme Court affirmed in 1913 in Luria v. United States that Minor and NOT WKA was the legal precedent for Art. II eligibiliity.

289 posted on 02/17/2013 4:00:31 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

I have had disagreements and discussions w both liberals and conservatives. In my experience a true conservative can, w rare exceptions, disagree w a fellow conservative w’out attacking or mocking that individual. Maybe a liberal can too, but I’ve seldom seen it. Mockery, snark and implied motives [i.e.: claiming to know another person’s motives when you don’t] are the default ‘debate’ tactics of liberals.

It’s impossible to have a productive discussion w anyone, liberal or conservative, who ‘debates’ that way. Why these tactics should be practiced or encouraged on FR is not a question I can answer.


290 posted on 02/17/2013 4:02:59 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Natufian; Fantasywriter

I’m not a former military lawyer. I was a WSO/EWO, flying in F-4s and various F-4s. I had never read a court case prior to getting involved in discussing Lakin. I spent most of my career deployed 5-6 months each year, and I found it offensive that someone would take the military’s pay, but not deploy.


291 posted on 02/17/2013 4:39:28 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thank you for your service.


292 posted on 02/17/2013 4:41:20 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“The WKA didn’t go into great detail about the meaning of NBC at all. NBC is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times and the last time it is mentioned is when the court affirmed the Minor definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”

Which is proof you are nuts. No sane person reads WKA and concludes they didn’t address the meaning of NBC. Nor will any court ever descend to that level of nuttiness.

Here is a link to the NBC decision, so anyone who wants to read it for themselves can:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Also see:

page 382

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nyc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA991&dq=the+federal+reporter+volume+71&hl=en&ei=0GGtTv7wI-iniQLa5I3bAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wong&f=false

And the Appellant’s brief to the Supreme Court:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

Luria:

“The case was heard upon an agreed statement and some accompanying papers, from all of which it indubitably appeared that Luria was born in Wilna, Russia, in 1865 or 1868,

and came to New York in 1888; that he entered a medical college of that city the next year and was graduated therefrom in 1893;

that he applied for and procured the certificate of citizenship in July, 1894;

that, in the following month, he sought and obtained a passport from the Department of State, and in November left the United States for the Transvaal, South Africa, arriving in December; that from that time to the date of the hearing, in December, 1910, he resided and practiced his profession in South Africa; that he joined the South African Medical Association and served in the Boer war;

that his only return to the United States was for four or five months in 1907, for the temporary purpose of taking a postgraduate course in a medical school in New York, and that, when entering that school, he gave as his address, Johannesburg, South Africa.”

That has nothing to do with Obama or birthers.

They only cite Minor to say:

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”


293 posted on 02/17/2013 4:59:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

No thanks needed. I loved it and would dearly love to go back in and start flying again...but they think I’m getting OLD! Can you imagine that?

Sigh...

Grey hair and bifocals suck.


294 posted on 02/17/2013 5:01:08 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Pilots are a breed apart. I do not and never did have the nerves for it. Put me in a high stress, high tension situation that requires quick, cool-headed decision making and, the best I can do is offered a fevered prayer to God for help. Not the reflexive response you want in a good pilot at all. ;)


295 posted on 02/17/2013 5:22:33 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Any person of any age with dual nationality who moves out of the country is at risk of being issued a CLN for acts considered forfeiture of U.S. Citizenship.

Terrazas renounced his U.S. Citizenship by statements made to Mexican authorities to keep from being expelled from a Mexican university. The U.S. SoS issued a CLN to Terrazas even though he told U.S. authorities he had not intention of giving up his U.S. citizenship and he told Mexican authorities whatever he had to keep from being expelled.

Obama was issued a CLN after his mother notified the State Department her son had acquired Indonesian Nationality and she planned to stay in Indonesia indefinitely. Obama was given the opportunity to recapture his U.S Citizenship until 6 months after his 18th birthday.

If a dual citzen minor cannot be issued a CLN, why does the U.S. State Department issue a notification letter to minors who have been issued a CLN informing them they have 6 months to recapture their U.S. Citizenship?

IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP

Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20.

296 posted on 02/17/2013 6:28:10 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“Obama was issued a CLN after his mother notified the State Department her son had acquired Indonesian Nationality...”
__

You are aware, I trust, that the State Department is on record saying that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia?


297 posted on 02/17/2013 6:39:31 PM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Having a possibility under law that someone could reject their citizenship before 18 years of age isn’t proof that it has ever been done.

For example:

“There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to have renounced citizenship for purposes of avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in some cases, applicable on certain income for up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship, Internal Revenue Code, section 877), which in theory can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. However, the loss of right of entry (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)[38]) has never been enforced by the Attorney General since its enactment in 1996. Further, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the Attorney General (Department of Justice) would no longer be empowered to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States.

No new legislation has modified 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) to enable the DHS Secretary to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States. Lastly, IRC section 877 and Revenue Rulings was modified in 2004 to discontinue the practice of the Internal Revenue Service issuing rulings to determine if a former U.S. citizen had a tax-related motive in renouncing U.S. citizenship. Instead, IRC section 877 establishes an objective test to determine if the section 877 regime will apply.

If the former U.S. citizen fails one of these objective tests, for ten years after the individual’s expatriation they are subject to the 877 regime. In practice, given the various modifications since the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E), that the U.S. government has never enforced 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) since its inception in 1996, a former U.S. citizen may freely travel to the U.S. subject to normal visa restrictions.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law


None of this applies to someone who returned to the USA at age 10 and has lived here ever since as an accepted US citizen. There is no indication his US citizenship has been ever challenged. Even birthers generally agree he is a US citizen by birth, if born in the USA. I disagree with birthers about the meaning of NBC, but there is no evidence Obama moved back to the USA at age 10 using a visa on his Indonesian passport.

You claim he was naturalized in 1983. Offer PROOF, or stop lying.


298 posted on 02/17/2013 7:36:00 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No sane person reads WKA and concludes they didn’t address the meaning of NBC.

You're proving my point that you can't read, Rogers. I didn't say WKA did NOT address the meaning of NBC. I said it did NOT go into GREAT DETAIL as YOU claimed. It mentioned NBC 5 or 6 times and THEN it affirmed the Minor definition of NBC. The rest is NOT about NBC and you know it.

They only cite Minor to say:

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

Thanks for proving my point for me yet again. I'm pretty sure you and other Obots like to claim that Minor doesn't have anything to do with presidential eligibility, but this citation proves that it does indeed serve as the legal PRECEDENT on Art. II. Second, this part of this that DESTROYS your arguments is the conspicuous absence of WKA in the Luria Citation. Let's look at the rest of the paragraph, shall we???

Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

Now, in the list of citations, notice there is NO MENTION of WKA. And the ONLY refernce to "native citizen" in Minor is under this definition:

all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens ....

And we have YOU to thank Rogers, because YOU were dumb enough to bring up this Supreme Court citation that proves Minor and NOT WKA is THE legal precedent on defining NBC as birth to citizen parents. Thanks!!

And BTW, the epitome of insanity is to refer to yourself on a discussion site with a name like "MrRogers." That IS insane indeed.

299 posted on 02/17/2013 8:36:13 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: edge919
And BTW, the epitome of insanity is to refer to yourself on a discussion site with a name like "MrRogers." That IS insane indeed.

Joe Montgomery was already taken.

300 posted on 02/17/2013 8:45:38 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-350 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson