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
Not I.
He wasn't BORN with it.
He WAS born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England.
How could you be so cold so as to try an deny him that birthright, by way of his father! To attempt to deny the man his heritage. Terrible.
“Please explain the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen.”
Clause 2 - the person needs to have been a citizen for 7 years - does not need to be born in the USA.
Clause 3 - the person needs to have been a citizen for 7 years - does not need to be born in the USA.
Clause 4 - if someone was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, they were eligible regardless of where they were born. Afterward, someone needs to be a natural born citizen - attained in the natural means of attaining citizenship, by birth. Congress quickly interpreted that to include those born to two US citizens abroad or on the seas.
You are welcome!
Thank you, by your own definition, obama is not eligible
Thanks again.
Heehee ;)
Oops!!!
Who exactly 'forced' Obama to post this at his Web site??
"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
O’Reilly’s instructions to his staff, to “research” Obama’s citizenship:
“Find me something plausible to say that I can repeat endlessly on the air to make it sound as though I looked into this issue.”
Result:
“The birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers prove that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
Yet he continues to mock them. The fear in that man (for being labeled a racist, or for having "his" license pulled by the FCC) must be huge.
They may not know the details of the history of NBC, or of the HI Law 57 with it's giant loopholes, etc...but they have an idea that something "just ain't right" when someone fights multiple court battles across multiple states to prevent the release of a friggin birth certificate.
If Obama was born overseas, then he is not eligible.
But in case you hadn’t noticed, Congress AGREES that he is eligible, if he was born in Hawaii. So did 50 states that put him on the ballot, a majority of voters, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Supreme Court has no desire to jump in...and may well believe it is outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
Lemme get this straight so I know where you are coming from.
Congress AGREES that he is eligible, if he was born in Hawaii.
Congress has stipulated to this fact, where?
So did 50 states that put him on the ballot, a majority of voters, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Supreme Court has no desire to jump in...and may well believe it is outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
The States (electors) were deceived as already proved to you, bogus argument.
A majority of voters? If the majority of voters voted to renew slavery, should that stand or is it unconstitutional?
John Mc Cain and Sara Palin are irrelevant as to his Constitutional eligibility, nice try.
SCOTUS has no desire to jump in? You're right, Clarence Thomas says "we're evading that" Why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MNdweV8Qv4
Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers sacrificed everything so that the son of a Brit could one day become POTUS and that they were so inept as to allow a loop hole in the Constitution so that it could happen?
You as well as others here argue that the phrase NBC is not defined in the Constitution, well okay, neither is any other word or phrase.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, how should we look at the word regulated? It too is not defined in the Constitution yet we ca ascertain how it applies due to the semantics of the time and indeed we must look at the definition as understood by the Founding Fathers at the time of their writings. Shall we get into Ex Post Facto, Bills of Attainder, they're not defined either but we know what they mean by looking at the intent of the writers.
Do we dare look at "shall not be infringed" and how that has been twisted to take away 2nd Amendment rights? Do we apply that to the NBC clause as well? Could it be that the SCOTUS will not look at this issue because to do so would cause a crisis and expose the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and the World?
Semantics is an interesting study, those who control the language control the argument, look what they have done with the word "gay", abortion is now reproductive "rights", NBC according to you means nothing.
Have you noticed the progression of any agenda with those changes?
There is overwhelming evidence showing obama is not eligible for the office, yet there is virtually none that says he is, and you defend him, or at least your argument, why?
Is it your ego that will not allow you to admit you're wrong or do you have another agenda?
“There is overwhelming evidence showing obama is not eligible for the office, yet there is virtually none that says he is, and you defend him, or at least your argument, why?”
Congress says you are wrong. The states do. The voters do. The courts do, every time they get a case.
Yet you close your eyes and ears and scream he IS IS IS ineligible.
“Congress has stipulated to this fact, where?”
Congress passed a bill without opposition saying Obama was born in Hawaii, and they certified the election without a single dissent.
Every state has rules about how someone is placed on the ballot, including eligibility. You might not like their rulings or methods - I don’t - but they did so knowing full well about Obama’s father.
Every court that has ruled, has ruled in Obama’s favor, usually with snarky remarks about the idiots bring court cases.
Thomas may believe the Court is evading the issue, but he couldn’t get 3 other justices to agree with him, and an opinion of one doesn’t make a case.
Words should be interpreted as they were used at the time, and NBC was used several ways by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is a dispute - there are valid arguments on BOTH sides. However, the courts have consistently fallen on one side, and it isn’t yours...
Congress has passed a bill that says they can force you to buy health insurance, so what, IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL? They also say they can take your 2nd Amendment rights, IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL?
Congress passed a bill without opposition saying Obama was born in Hawaii,
Bull crap, gotta link?
Every court that has ruled, has ruled in Obama’s favor, usually with snarky remarks about the idiots bring court cases.
No court has agreed to hear this case, it's one of your aguments....they have never ruled as you suggest, you're lying.
Thomas may believe the Court is evading the issue
Thomas said the court is evading the issue, you're lying again.
Words should be interpreted as they were used at the time, and NBC was used several ways by the authors of the Constitution.
Bullshit, liar.
However, the courts have consistently fallen on one side, and it isn’t yours...
You're at it again, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
Now you sound like Clinton debating the meaning of the word is.
I don't say he is ineligible, the Constitution does.
Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers sacrificed everything so that the son of a Brit could one day become POTUS and that they were so inept as to allow a loop hole in the Constitution so that it could happen?
"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
Let's have it.
As usual, you substitute invective for thought.
“Congress has passed a bill that says they can force you to buy health insurance, so what, IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL?”
A number of states say no, and are suing in court to back it up. How many states have agreed with your interpretation of NBC? NONE!
“Bull crap, gotta link?”
A bill saying, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...” passed on a vote of 378-0 on 26 June 2009.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111b1ZIRC::
“No court has agreed to hear this case...”
The Indiana courts took a case making this argument, and it was recently endorsed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Other courts have heard this argument, and tossed them out - most recently, Judge Lamberth in DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Eligibility_litigation
“Bullshit, liar.”
No, but you aren’t interested in the truth.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
This is how the problem should be dealt with:
“New Message on Arizona
Monday, April 19, 2010 7:18:44 PM SandRat
Ariz. House votes to check candidates’ citizenship
The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for re-election.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema says the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.”
Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash says he has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.”
Invective my butt, I gave you links of actual SCOTUS definitions of NBC, you send links of writers opinions.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111b1ZIRC:: is a bogus link.
Do you actually read the crap you post to support your arguments?
" Resolved, That it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister, charg6 d'affaires, consul, or vice-consul, or to any other civil department in a foreign country; and that a copy of this resolve be sent to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay, ministers of the said States in Europe."
The Indiana courts took a case making this argument, and it was recently endorsed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Other courts have heard this argument, and tossed them out - most recently, Judge Lamberth in DC.
Retarded, not worth addressing.
You still for some reason will not address the following:
Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers sacrificed everything so that the son of a Brit could one day become POTUS and that they were so inept as to allow a loop hole in the Constitution so that it could happen?
"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
Funny, we've been discussing what the Founders intended in the NBC clause, now you're shifting the argument to how it should be handled?
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president
Well that's a load of obama luvin crap, what would this solve?
According to you he is eligible, how is this going to prevent him from a second term?
This is how it should be handled? Are you admitting he is not eligible now?
I do have to admit, it's been amusing to see the level you will sink to to defend your position.
Fess up, is it ego or an agenda that keeps you from admitting you're wrong?
I just enjoy pointing out to an idiot his idiocy...
Most of the court cases have been thrown out for lack of standing. That is because the individual citizen, 1 of 300,000,000, isn’t charged with ensuring eligibility - states are. And it is appropriate for states to tighten their requirements before putting someone on the ballot.
Obama will never be disqualified because he ‘has divided loyalties’, is ‘subject to the British Crown’, etc. THAT issue is settled law. I know you don’t agree, and that is why folks following your theories will lose every case in court.
Unless Obama was born overseas, he IS eligible. Your opinion doesn’t count for squat. The states, Congress and the Courts agree with each other, and disagree with you.
So - have YOU figured out why YOUR side loses every court hearing and couldn’t convince ONE member of Congress to object? Not ONE?????????
Odd that you claim to be pointing out 'idiocy' and then post something that exemplifies it. The lack of standing doesn't have anything to do with who is 'charged with ensuring eligibility.'
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.