Posted on 04/19/2010 10:58:01 AM PDT by rxsid
"April 19, 2010: Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
Mr. O’Reilly:
Please refrain from using your “No Spin Zone” jingle. Please stop saying you support the troops. Your recent "opinion" story about LTC Lakin with Megyn Kelley proves both of these claims to be wrong.
Until convicted, LTC Lakin remains a soldier willing to and desiring to take care of troops and join them in any deployment. He chose to do so ONLY if his chain of command could provide all troops with the evidence that they are serving under Constitutionally eligible leadership.
Your statement that his disobeying orders was a way for him to get out of deployment is false. He met all pre-deployment requirements, still has his bags packed and would be on the next flight to Afghanistan for his second tour if there is valid or forthcoming evidence that Mr. Obama has met "Natural Born Citizen" status per the requirements of Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution. You tossed this decorated soldier under the bus without any research of the facts-- this doesn't reconcile with your claim to support the troops.
Megyn’s comment that his refusal to obey orders is a “political statement” is also without merit, but contains much spin. How is upholding the law-- the Constitution-- per his sworn oath as an officer, deemed a “political” act? We expect and demand a retraction for this reckless and unsubstantiated smear.
Megyn also stated there are military channels to deal with the issue. If you and Megyn had bothered to look at the information available about his efforts at our website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com, the timeline provided demonstrates that for over a year, LTC Lakin brought this issue to his supervisors, leaders, and Congressional representatives.
...
LTC Lakin attempted to use the military justice system to file two complaints. In those complaints, he pleaded with superiors to advise him if he was not using the right method or to provide advice on a way forward. The response was that his complaint was “deficient” and the Commander in Chief and the commanding General of the Army are not in his chain of command. After eighteen years serving in uniform, with many deployments overseas, he deserved honesty, not evasions. All American servicemembers deserve better than this.
Mr. O’Reilly, do you understand how meager the evidence is regarding the online copy of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and newspaper entries which were generated by the underlying, hidden document which Mr. Obama refuses to release?
Just a little bit of time for any serious investigative journalist would have revealed obvious problems with the COLB versus an original birth certificate; most notably lacking is a hospital name and attending doctor's signature.
Can you provide a reasonable explanation for the team of lawyers defending Mr. Obama's vital records in courtrooms across the country-- and the shroud of secrecy over all documents which might shed light on his actual birthplace?
Can you explain why no hospital in Hawaii has yet laid claim to being the birthplace of this President?-- yet many Kenyans publicly, and including on the floor of the Kenyan Parliament, claim he was born there? It is clear that the State of Hawaii has lax verification policies to obtain a birth record and that it altered a website in June 2009 to make the COLB appear co-equal to an original birth certificate-- when it never was before.
...
"http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/openlettertobilloreilly.html
Precisely stated!
A foreign government cannot compel someone born in the US to be a citizen or subject of their country. They cannot even do that with someone who was naturalized a US citizen - a cause of the War of 1812. They could not, for example, draft Barry Obama for the Queens service.
The idea ‘Once a british subject, always a british subject’ was laid to rest in 1814. And if that is true of someone who was naturalized, how much more so for someone BORN in the US!
You are wrong, and the courts have consistently held that you are wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if your parents declare you to be a citizen of another country, it won’t make you one unless you accept it when you are of age. The acts of the parents cannot rob you of US citizenship. And when birthers go to court and repeat these asinine arguments, they get laughed out of court.
That is how one builds a perfect record of 100% defeat...
And if that is the case, he can be impeached for fraud
Maybe even do the perp walk!
“Natural born citizenship is extraconstitutional. It is defined outside of laws and statutes.”
Umm...no. Legal terms have legal meanings. You do not get to declare what the Constitution says about NBC. Congress can (and has), and the US Supreme Court could try (although it may well be outside their jurisdiction).
If it were a universal rule, there would be no dispute.
Obama, born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England.
Indeed! No matter how it’s sliced, he’s a fraud and/or a USURPER.
Not according to our laws...
The Supreme court has already said that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is extraconstitutional: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
If it were a universal rule, there would be no dispute.
It is a universal rule. The only dispute is on the part of faithers who don't want to admit there's a universal rule that's been cited by the Supreme Court.
Good letter but O’Reilly is so full of himself he will never answer it or the questions. I can’t stand the man anymore. Never watch him. CO
OR, that's been cited by the "father" of the 14th Amendment, Bingham...OR that the Congress of 1790 attempted (unconstitutionally) to EXTEND the definition of (NBC) to include those born to citizen parentS, overseas. OR that Ramsay from the founding era reaffirmed the definition of NBC as being born in country to citizen parentS.
Birthers amaze me. The cry used to be, “show us the long form”. Well now even that won’t be enough to satisfy them so I have no idea why they ask for it.
Obama could have applied to be a Kenyan citizen (based on his father’s citizenship). He did not.
In addition, the Kenyan Constitution would have required Obama to reject his US citizenship, which he did not do. Failing to do that by 23, he cannot ever claim Kenyan citizenship.
On the question of NBC, Obama was born in the USA and has never shown any interest in claiming British citizenship - so he has undivided loyalty - at least, legally. And he certainly has no loyalty to the UK - he can’t even show minimal politeness to the UK PM!
So no. His only citizenship is his birth citizenship in the US, and no court will overturn the 2008 election because Obama has a divided loyalty to the Queen of England!
The very idea is so ludicrous that only a birther could avoid laughing...
If Barry sent a certified copy of his ‘long form’ to every household in the USA, birthers would reject them as forgeries. People who claim Barry is a British subject with loyalty to Queen Elizabeth are beyond rational discussion.
Another drama queen response. How about having Barry send a certified copy of his long form to one household, like that of a certified document examiner?? You can't pretend what skeptics would and wouldn't accept when there's been no effort on Barry's part to try to meet his burden of proof.
“Birthers amaze me. The cry used to be, “show us the long form”. Well now even that won’t be enough to satisfy them so I have no idea why they ask for it.”
Think of it like solving a crime. The detective gets one piece of evidence, which leads to more questions and more required evidence till the criminal is finally brought to justice.
Where does he get his loyalty/allegiance to America from?
That’s a good analogy. We’re trying to unravel the Obama mystery. At this point, all evidence points to forgery and criminal fraud. A long-form certificate would help prove it.
Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Please explain the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen.
The Founding Fathers specified a difference in their requirements for certain offices, why would they do that and how do you think they defined the difference between Natural Born Citizen vs. Citizen?
“Natural born citizen.”
NOT natural born American citizen
John Jay is the originator of the article II eligibility clause, and in correspondence he underlines the word *born* in the phrase natural born citizen.
“Natural born citizen” does not need to include the word American - that's because its Vattel’s legal definition of NBC as birth by two citizen parents on the soil of the nation and that automatically excludes other nationalities.
Fukino’s trickery does not work because a dual citizen could be a natural born Kenyan citizen [blood] AND a natural born American citizen [soil], but NEVER a natural born citizen.
That is why Fukino does not use the exact expression found in the constitution, because of the use of verbal gymnastics to fool the public with something that sounds good but turns to dust on closer forensic examination.
If Obama was born a dual citizen, that excludes him from being a natural born citizen.
The election would not be overturned because the constitution does not tie the VP post to office of POTUS. Party rules have no effect on the constitution.
If Obama is removed for being ineligible by a Quo warrento action, the VP would be POTUS by default.
Only if Biden, now POTUS, insists on a new election, could SCOTUS even approach the issue. Perhaps SCOTUS could order a Presidential special election, with the consent of both the Democratic and Republican party, as a way out of the constitutional crisis.
If Biden refused, he would remain POTUS unless impeached.
If he is impeached after the November mid terms, it is possible the House speaker, 2nd in succession, and possibly a republican, would be POTUS.
The sheer reckless insanity of putting an ineligible candidate up as Democratic party candidate, why the very idea is so crazy only a communist ideologue would attempt such a coup against the constitution.
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.