New Defense Strategy Proposed for lt. col. Terrence Lakin (Maj.Gen. Paul E. Vallely)

"Vattel is used in context like a legal dictionary that the framers used so we can understand the terms they used in the legal context they viewed them from."

Vattel is not a legal dictionary. Context, sure.

"It isn't an end, but it is a means to an end, it gives the NBC argument (re two citizen parents) a legal base to start from."

But in fact Vattel doesn't provide that definition. Birthers get this wrong, like so much else. Vattel never used the term. And the passage birthers quote wasn't a definition Vattel was imposing, it was an observation about what various countries already did. But England wasn't one of those countries, as Vattel himself noted.

Interesting, thanks

"Vattel said citizenship of the child naturally follows the citizenship of the father."

Vattel did not say that about England, he said it about other European countries that had different practices.

"The Supreme Court called this definition common law, although it was nearly and clearly a direct quote from Vattel."

No, the court has not called what you claim as Vattel's definition is common law. Quite the contrary. The court very carefully and clearly explains that the common law only required birth on the soil.

"And though originally cited by Minor, it was quoted and never disputed nor redefined in WKA."

Aside from the pesky little fact that the finding of WKA is in contradiction to your claim.

I know you have trouble understanding it, but any rational person reading the very long dissertation in WKA cannot come away from it without understanding that its says birth on the soil is enough.

Vattel did not say that about England, he said it about other European countries that had different practices.

He didn't say it was about any particular country. He was referring to natural law. Statutory law varies per country. Natural law does not. Vattel did acknowledge that in England, the children of aliens are naturalized at birth on English soil. They do not fit his definition of being natural born, even though they were called natural born subjects under English law. Natural born citizens are not dependent on statutory law in order to be citizens.

No, the court has not called what you claim as Vattel's definition is common law.

Sorry, but you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court was very specific. Read and learn. "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Aside from the pesky little fact that the finding of WKA is in contradiction to your claim.

WKA is not contradictory to my claim at all. They cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen and were unable to apply to it the plaintiff. Thus they were forced to figure out a common-law option for justifiying their opinion that the 14th amendment could be applied to the child of a person whose parents were not citizens and were arguably not subject to the United States. This is why they explained the difference between temporary and permanent allegiance and that the parents had a permanent domicil and residence in the United States. Under those conditions, the child fit their interpretation of the 14th amendment and was declared a citizen of the United States. That child was not declared to be a natural born citizen.

Ooooookkaayy.....

But in fact Vattel doesn't provide that definition. Birthers get this wrong, like so much else. Vattel never used the term. And the passage birthers quote wasn't a definition Vattel was imposing, it was an observation about what various countries already did. But England wasn't one of those countries, as Vattel himself noted.

This is completely disingenuous and extremely misleading. Vattel's definition was about what it means to be considered a native citizen of a country and how citizenship occurs naturally at birth. John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington that tells us what he thought it meant to be a natural born citizen, which was to provide a check against the admission of foreigners. This fits in with Vattel's Law of Nation's. He wrote, "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.... Their children follow the condition of their fathers ..." which was the same circumstance used to define the natives ... the children naturally follow the condition of the fathers. To be a natural citizen at birth, or natural born citizen, you would have to be born of a citizen father, else you would be a foreigner. Again, Vattel says, "it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

The Supreme Court had no problem recognizing this term and definition, as it said in Minor v. Happersett (AND Wong Kim Ark) ... "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Are you saying the Supreme Court is wrong?? If so, why??

Ooooookkaayy.....

Birthers tend to be an odd lot.

Your typically blurring Alinsky agenda won't cut it here. Check with the PUMA crowd and see what they said!

Huh?

Look, I'm not trying to be sneaky or confusing here. I'm making a pretty straightforward claim that no one has yet been able to rebut. If it helps, I'll spell it out a little with an abbreviated timeline with some dates relevant to the question at hand:

July 1995 - "Dreams from My Father" published about Obama's Kenyan father.

July 2004 - Obama mentions his Kenyan father in his opening comments at the DNC Convention.

February 2007 - Obama announces he's running for President.

July 2, 2008 - Obama clinches the Democratic nomination.

June 9, 2008 - Measurable online skepticism of Obama's birth begins after Jim Geraghty makes a blog post mentioning the (up-until-that-point-incredibly-obscure) rumor that Obama was born in Kenya.

June 12, 2008 - Three days after that starts, Obama puts the COLB online.

July/August 2008 - The 'Obama used an Indonesian passport' rumor is more or less kickstarted by "Judah Benjamin" at the Hillary Clinton-loving TexasDarlin blog.

August 2008 - Phil Berg files his lawsuit.

November 2008 - Leo Donofrio becomes the first Birther to claim that the Constitution requires a "natural born citizen" to have two U.S. citizen parents. And that Obama's father's Kenyan citizenship, by itself, disqualifies Obama from being President. (This definition finally reaches FR for the first time a couple of weeks later.)

I've wanted to see if anyone has any evidence of any Birthers making this specific "two citizen parent" before Donofrio. No one so far has been able to do so.

Are we on the same page now?

“July/August 2008 - The ‘Obama used an Indonesian passport’ rumor is more or less kickstarted by “Judah Benjamin” at the Hillary Clinton-loving TexasDarlin blog.”

In case anyone doesn’t know who Judah P. Benjamin was, he was the Jewish Secretary of State of the Confederacy.

"But in fact Vattel doesn't provide that definition. Birthers get this wrong, like so much else. Vattel never used the term. And the passage birthers quote wasn't a definition Vattel was imposing, it was an observation about what various countries already did. But England wasn't one of those countries, as Vattel himself noted."

This is completely disingenuous and extremely misleading. Vattel's definition was about what it means to be considered a native citizen of a country and how citizenship occurs naturally at birth.

No, it is your arguments that are disengenous. For example, you completely evaded my point. I suppose you hoped nobody would notice.

You act like Vattel was expressing some kind of universal rule when in fact, as I already explained, he was not. He was expressing an observation about the rule in use in some countries. But England wasn't one of those countries.

"Are you saying the Supreme Court is wrong??"

No, the small quote you provide is not controversial. We all agree with that statement. We all agree that, "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also".

But you are reading it to say something it doesn't say. It doesn't say that's the *exclusive* definition. The very next part of the quote, which you don't include, goes on to point out that it may not be and then specifically refuses to address the question. It chooses not to provide a definition at all. But you don't want people to know that.

Cool. I’m honestly interested to hear how it turns out.

Thanks.

That covers what they believed were 2 factors that go into the definition of “natural born” citizenship - place of birth and parental allegiance.

The key, though, is that these two factors aren't both requirements. They're alternatives, representing the two different avenues for one to be naturally born a U.S. citizen.

If you're born on U.S. soil, regardless of your parents' citizenship, then you're good. If you're born to U.S. citizen parents, regardless of where, you're good.

2008 Presidential candidate Bill Richardson was born in the U.S. to a Mexican mother. He's a natural born citizen. 1968 Presidential candidate George Romney was the reverse, born in Mexico to American parents. He was a natural born citizen too.

This also illustrates the one narrow difference between "natural born" and "native born." To be "native born," you have to be born in the U.S. It's the narrower label. George Romney, for instance, was natural born but not native born. Similarly, John McCain was natural born but not native born.

You act like Vattel was expressing some kind of universal rule when in fact, as I already explained, he was not.

Wrong:

Read and learn: "And that law, which natural reason has established among all mankind, and which is equally observed by all people, is called the law of nations, as being law which all nations follow. In the succeeding paragraph, the emperor seems to approach nearer to the sense we at present give to that term. "The law of nations," says he, "is common to the whole human race. The exigencies and necessities of mankind have induced all nations to lay down and adopt certain rules of right."

We all agree that, "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also".

Good, then you agree with the Supreme Court this is the only definition of natural born citizen for which there is no doubt and it was the definition which would have been used by the framers of the Constitution.

The very next part of the quote, which you don't include, goes on to point out that it may not be and then specifically refuses to address the question.

No, it says, "As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first." The court is saying that it's not going to use a definition that has any doubts that would have to be resolved. And the court does not say they can resolve that doubt, just that there's no need because they have a definition for which there is no doubt. That IS the definition they use.

Thank God for these Patriotic Men & Women, still serving their Country with Bravery and Honor!!!

Are we on the same page now?

You forgot mentioning that a slew of African newspaper mentioned his Constitutional ineligibility during the Illinois Senate run, as well as stated in the Kenyan parliament(?), the Kenyan Ambassador the same, plus Moochelle Antoinette twice on youtube claimed that your dear fuhrer, the illegal alien's homeland is Kenya. Quite some slip of the tongue "evidence" !!!

“2008 Presidential candidate Bill Richardson was born in the U.S. to a Mexican mother. He’s a natural born citizen.”

WOW, you just proved all of our points, by WHO was Richardson’s father, LOL!

And very interesting he ALSO pointed out your fuhrer’s none NBC status, hmmmm!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wba6LUpeadk

Did you see the four red words under the button “Word Wrap: ON???

See 195/196!!!

Obama’s mother could have been 25 and birthed him in the US, in Kansas for all anyone cares, but that alone would not make him a “natural born citizen” with a Kenyan (UK citizen) father. He would be a ‘native born citizen.’

If that subtle distinction is lost on you, it was not lost on the Framers.

Maybe you ought to take a closer look at these fraudulence documents putting your dear fuhrer and illegal alien in office???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0

Bringing back an oldie .. just cause ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As Obama stonewalls on uncertified birth certificate, official doubts mount

*snip*

Speaking to National Review Online, Okubo admitted that the Obama image lacked those required features but thought that perhaps the embossing was applied too lightly.

Maybe so, but all the certificates we have seen have the embossed imprint clearly visible, as well as horizontal fold marks.

There’s only one way for Obama to show he’s a natural born citizen eligible to be President: produce the paper proof.

We got an email yesterday from Bryan Suits who has a radio show on KFI Los Angeles. He writes:

“I have just received my State of Hawaii certified birth certificate for my 1964 debut on the planet earth. It looks....nothing like Obama’s. We’ve scanned it at 72dpi, 300dpi. Nuthin. We can’t make the emboss disappear. Also, we can’t make THE FOLDS disappear!! How did FightTheSmears do it?

I got curious when I compared his (with the 2007 date bleed) to my old beat-up1986 copy. then I went online on June 13 and ordered the thing. It got here yesterday tri-folded in a state of hawaii envelope. I called the State and asked if I could get an unfolded copy. No dice.

Hollyfield brings up other issues that her readers raised, although she does not address them or explain them [bracketed comments from Israel Insider]:

Where is the embossed seal and the registrar’s signature? [Required for validity]

Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.

Isn’t the date stamp bleeding through [in reverse] the back of the document [image] “June [6] 2007?” (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)

There’s no crease from being folded and mailed. [Hawaii requires printing and mailing, according to Okubo.

Electronic images are never released, she assured us, nor are they valid.]

It’s clearly Photoshopped and a wholesale fraud.

Hollyfield, frustrated by failing to access the required original, being refused by the Obama campaign, and finding only secondary documents from his subsequent career, asks what’s “reasonable” and then claims that skeptics about Obama’s published birth certificate believe that there’s a conspiracy afoot:

Because if this document is forged, then they all are. If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud.

They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies.

But Hollyfield is mistaken. There would be no need to invent a conspiracy among officials. All Obama needed to do would be to pass off an uncertified document as being certified. He may have done so unwittingly. Then the rest can follow without any need to conspire with any other official. They just take it on faith that the person is an American citizen.

They don’t check about the embossing requirements of the State of the Hawaii. They believe Obama. Why should they doubt him, certainly after he becomes a lawyer and a state senator? The officials believe that the claimed document is authentic, and therefore issue other documents, based on the phony one, buried deep in the documentary chain.

Unwitting or not, however, the high stakes for basing one’s citizenship on an uncertified birth certificate must be pretty obvious to the campaign now.

Nothing else explains why Obama’s campaign refused to release the original paper document, to make this distracting controversy go way. Because Hollyfield is right about one thing:

“If this document is forged, a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud.”

U.S. citizens who have written to Israel Insider or have posted on the Internet are not satisfied. Ordinary people are compelled to produce certified paper birth certificates to get a passport or a driver’s license. Why, people are asking, doesn’t Obama needed to show one to run for President?

In a follow-up contact by Hollyfield, Janice Okubo backtracked and qualified, pointing to the main issue that Israel Insider and others have brought into focus [our comments in brackets]:

“I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front — you wouldn’t see those things.” [But of course, as in the DeCosta sample and others, you can see it clearly.]

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received. [Well, “identical” cannot be correct. Her name is not Obama, Her certificate number was not blacked out, and her certificate had the required embossed certification. So she can only be saying that the form looked the same, as she said to the National Review Online’s Jim Geraghty.]

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification?

“When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

[Except that she received only what was published on the Internet and circulated by email, and no “pieces of the embossed image” do come through that. We have published the highest resolution available and there is no trace of embossed seal or signature. Readers can see for themselves.]

Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us “to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

http://israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=6798