Posted on 10/04/2010 11:30:46 AM PDT by Red Steel
Well and cogently said.
Thanks for plugging the age qualification issue, I appreciate it. Please continue to do so. I mean, what can it hurt to include it?=)
My 1926 edition of Baldwins Bouvier Law Dictionary defines a Christian...”one who is born of Christian parents”... cites the following: Anderson;53 N.H.50.
The definition is on page 170
Thank you for reminding me as I fear we have all pretty much had on blinders and have forgotten about that other sticky little requirement. And yes, I will continue plugging it.
Thank you.
My hope and expectation from the outset was that the LTC, after consulting with his chain of command and other military officials, had sufficiently examined all aspects of the issue with one or more top-notch military attorneys.
The present “reorganization” of his legal team suggests otherwise.
Haven’t read the latest filings but, unfortunately, given that the 2-parent requirement has not been judicially confirmed, it can be argued there is nothing “patently illegal” about orders from a CinC who is not “patently disqualified”.
... and none has ever been shown in court ...
Likewise, if Fukino testified under oath that his vital records show birth in Hawaii, it would be legal proof.
... and Fukino has not testified under oath.
Which isn't the same thing as saying he was born there.
Such a reference is either for the place where a person makes his home or the place where he was born. The first can be ruled out, but not the second.
Yes, two MP's who never met either Obama or any members of his family, and have no special knowledge of his birth, made claims about it. That's not an "account."
I'm not sure we can rule out whether these people have met Obama or not. As far as members of his family, it's certainly possible they know his Kenyan family members. As for it being an account, it IS on record.
Did they cite a source? Did they have any proof? Just because some hack journalist makes a claim doesn't make it a credible account.
These stories were published prior to Obama running for president, so they can't be blamed on so-called birthers or malicious falsehoods. They have as much credibility as any publicized birth claim, since there is no legal documentation to support Obama's nativity claims.
That is simply not true.
Minor v. Happersett "... 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." Under this definition, Obama, born of a foreign national, is therefore an alien or foreigner. Wong Kim Ark affirms this view by citing that very same definition and by saying, "The decision in that case [Minor] was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..." Virginia Minor's citizenship fit the Vattel definition of natural born citizen as used by Justice Waite, because she was born to citizen parents (plural). At best, Obama can only claim 14th amendment citizenship at birth, but only if he can prove he was born in the United States. So far, he has failed.
Does anyone know why LTC Lakin chose to use a lawyer that is skilled in civil litigation but had no military legal experience that I can find?
Paul Rolf Jensen: http://www.jensenfirm.com/
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/support-the-foundation.html:
American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin’s attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin’s lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin’s supporters come to his aid NOW.
Which U.S. President has proven to the American people he was thirty-five years-old when taking office?
Political activity is the right and responsibility of the citizenry. The exception to this are Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States. To our great credit, officers beginning with General Washington have declined to get involved in politics without first taking off their uniform. May God help us if that tradition ever changes.
I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.
Not to mention the Kenyan Parliament is of the opinion he’s not eligible (see my tagline quote).
Those kind of demands didn't work for Yolanda Huett-Vaughn, or Ehren Watada or Michael New. It isn't going to work for Lakin.
That is not so. Bring your citation for Washington! I demand it be produced so it can be refuted.
Even those in uniform must refuse to obey unlawful authority.
This is AMERICA. Even a soldier in uniform is at first and core, a CITIZEN!
We Will see, But Oboma will eventually be discredited in or out office.
For many years, federal civil servants had legal limitations on their political activity. This was intended to ensure that career civil servants did not act in a partisan way toward a particular political party. Unfortunately, those laws have been cast aside, and our taxpayer paid public officials are now actively involved in promoting the Democrat Party and their agenda on government time and using their government authority to help their party.
The case of military officers is even more serious. Most of the world’s armies have instigated, supported, or backed attempts to overthrow the government. The United States Armed Forces are practically the only exception to this and it is a distinction worth keeping. LTC Allen West and LTC Oliver North both entered the political arena. But first, they took off their uniforms. We cannot accept anything less.
Fluff!
Produce the citation for George Washington!
Washington was offered the Crown and refused (Newburgh 1783). Washington stood before his officers at Fraunces Tavern (New York 1783), disbanded the Army, and resigned his commission. He then returned to his farm in Virginia. Only later was he asked to offer himself as a candidate for President. You can demand all you want, but I don’t care to do free research tossing frivolous demands around.
Your premise that Obama is not the lawful President rests on shaky ground. I do not know of a single official of the United States Government who has made that assertion. Red Steel doesn’t count.
“Wrong. A misstatement of the law. Look, he’s far from my favorite CinC, but the presumption under the UCMJ is that the orders were lawful, so it’s up to Lakin to prove they were not.”
Colonel. Sir, from a legal/JAG perspective what you say may be correct. However, from the perspective of a potential foxhole dweller, I must disagree. LTC/Dr. Lakin is challenging the current POTUS’ eligibility based upon constitutional requirements. The military judge is NOT allowing discovery. How can LTC/Dr. Lakin “prove” the orders are invalid without showing the ultimate source (the POTUS) to be invalid/questionable. This current administration with its evasiveness to provide simple documents and records has made that “presumption” of lawful orders to be shaky. Numerous quotations from reputable sources have been made on FR posts that show the ultimate authority for military orders under the UCMJ derive their source in the POTUS. (Goodness my commissioning orders say “by direction” of the POTUS) If the source is tainted, then everything down the line is. As a still serving, USAR field grade officer, I want to see the POTUS clear this issue up with transparency. LTC/Dr. Lakin should be allowed discovery. IMO, albeit uneducated, the findings of any court martial of LTC/Dr. Lakin are invalid IF he is not allowed full discovery to properly defend himself.
I am please the LTC Lakin is not backing down. He is a very brave man IMO.
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.