Posted on 09/16/2010 10:33:25 PM PDT by STARWISE
*snip*
Today’s statement relates specifically to the ongoing courts-martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
September 3, 2010 – Upon receiving word that LTC Lakin would be denied any and all access to discovery and mitigating evidence needed to provide for a legitimate defense, a White Paper was prepared and released by The United States Patriots Union and The United States Bar Association, advising the Lakin defense team to immediately adjust its defense strategy in accordance with established history and law concerning Mr. Barack Obama’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
In short, to drop the search for an insignificant birth certificate and focus on the right question at hand. A second White Paper was published last week.
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
*snip*
It is our opinion that the existing legal team representing LTC Lakin should be re-energized and reinforced immediately by a more experienced military legal team.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Actually there is a large number of people who do. They are the ones who set up the coverup. They are counting on the ignorance of the average American to sustain it. This case is HUGE in-terms of the constitution. The letter in the P&E makes it very clear why. You should read it again.
Brilliant.
It’s been talked about LONG before the election. Only it was McCain they were talking about. He likely isn’t an NBC either as he was not born on out soil. That was Senate resolution 511 I believe. But then it was the Democrats who were the birthers.
Yea, but still ... We haven constitutional right to own a gun. There is always work to do it seems.
Really.
I have to say I have been reading your posts on this for what seems like a couple of years. I can honestly say I wish you were on Lakin’s team.
You've got it StonyBurk. This is an idea which preceeds cities and states, and is enunciated by Aristotle and Cicero. If parents are caring they want to know the parents of a prospective suitor. Jews pass the religion to the children of mothers because there is no doubt about who the mother was. Look at every other religion, most of which satisfied more than just eclesiatical guidance, levied taxes, had standing armies, and held court. It is about the allegiance of families. And then it was about the allegiance to states, when states began to supplant the protective function of families, it is about allegiance to states. That is the natural law or Law of Nations.
Not a surprise, when seventy to eighty percent of black youngsters are born without a father, thanks to our great society which made it profitable for the father to leave, that the left is so willing to suppress our requirement of family allegiance for the president. Any other position in our government admits naturalized citizens who have spent a little time living here.
An issue important to understanding what has happened was alluded to in my note. A short search will show that Democrats were well informed "Birthers" until Barack prevailed (notice I didn't say 'won') the Democrat primary. There are dozens of literate analysis of why McCain didn't satisfy the eligibility clause. The left absolutely understood the eligibility criteria, and understood the opening left by there never having been a case requiring the affirmation of our common law referred to by Justice Morrison Waite in Minor. All senators agreed that a natural born citizen had two citizen parents. They they saw that McCain's ineligibility provided cover for Obama, and started their Alinsky ridicule campaign. Then all the good senators forgot what they had known so well, and signed agreement to, Senate Res. 511 "...born of two citizen parents."
I,as a search will show, suspected the motives of the team claiming to defend Dr. Lakin. Is he naive? Is he a foil to distract the less informed? After seeing JAG officers investigate foot soldiers whose lives were in the balance based upon information from the enemy, it wouldn't surprise that they would protect an enemy of their nation to protect their career paths. The evidence suggests that our military has been infiltrated by mulitcultural operatives, even pro-Ilamic operatives, and our acting president appears to be one of them.
No, it wasn't. The first Birther I've found who made the 'natural born citizenship requires TWO citizen parents' argument was Leo Donofrio, in early November 2008. That particular argument was simply was NOT advanced earlier in the campaign. And it didn't make its way to FreeRepublic until mid-to-late November, after the election was over.
If it had been around earlier, you'd be linking to examples. But you're not. Instead, you just claim that it was being talked about, with no evidence whatsoever.
It's not like I haven't looked, either. I've tried at length to find any earlier appearances, but they simply aren't there. Phil Berg's lawsuit from August 2008 doesn't include the claim. None of the WND stories before November 2008 even reference the claim. There was no discussion of the argument on FreeRepublic or AtlasShrugs or TexasDarlin or NoQuarter prior to November 2008. Even Leo's own original litigation papers from October 2008 don't make that particular argument.
And considering that Obama had been running for President since February 2007, the fact that nobody claimed his father's citizenship was, by itself, a disqualification until November 2008 shows just how baseless the claim is, and how late in the process it was invented.
Of course there is no such case or authority. The difference only matters in qualification for the office of President. That issue has not been adjudicated. Although there is dicta and citations indicating that such a difference exits.
From "Wong Kim Ark"..
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
In which a distinction is made between a "child of alien" born in the country, and the "natural born child of a citizen".
There are many others.
In the case of McCain, the fact that his father was serving in the Navy means, according to Vattel, that he is considered born in the country, since his parents never left its sovereignty or control.
Is not a territory, except maybe an unincorporated one like America Soma, whose inhabitants are not US citizens, but are US Nationals, part of the United States? Of course they are. Thus the Goldwater issue was a non issue. But in any event it also was not adjudicated.
Now clearly if born in Kenya, he's disqualified. But it does not follow that if born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the US, he's automatically a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th amendment does not use the words "Natural born" only "citizen".
FYI
No, it doesn't. It merely says in this one set of circumstances there is no doubt. The judge goes on to recognize other possible birth circumstances without attempting to resolve the "doubt" because it is irrelevant to the case.
Of course there is no such case or authority. The difference only matters in qualification for the office of President. That issue has not been adjudicated. Although there is dicta and citations indicating that such a difference exits.
From "Wong Kim Ark". . .
I am reluctant to get very far into this with you since I doubt your good faith.
As a matter of fact, it looks to me generally as though most of the people who are arguing that we look at the issue on the basis of something other than place of birth are doing so to frame the appellate issue on that basis--so that an appellate decision holding that in fact, these secondary citizenship factors are irrelevant in a case in which place of birth is not the issue would constitute authority in favor of upholding Obama's citizenship.
As you well know, Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with the issue. Wong was born in the United States and the decision is in fact a primary holding that deficiencies in the Vitel citizenship base are irrelevant to the issue after adoption of the 14th Amendment. This case is a primary 14th Amendment Citizenship decision.
I don't see anything there that would give a plaintiff hope that an Obama type, born in the US without a U S Parentage citizenship base could be held not a citizen for any purpose.
So I see your post as just another false flag distraction from the main point which is that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
Thanks STARWISE.
Yes it is, but it had nothing to do, directly, with natural born citizenship. The question as stated in the decision was: Is Wong Kim Ark, born in the US of Chinese parents legally in the US, a citizen. The answer was yes, under the 14th amendment.
Does there just need to be single avenue? If you set up for only place of birth you run the risk that there will be faked documentation, or that he really was born in Hawaii, with a non-citizen, not even permanent resident, father. But if you go after the total definition, you get to both the place of birth and parentage questions. Much historical research of the founding period indicates that Natural Born Citizen then meant, born in the country of parents who were citizens. That definition has never been tested in a case where it mattered.
I don't see anything there that would give a plaintiff hope that an Obama type, born in the US without a U S Parentage citizenship base could be held not a citizen for any purpose.
I guess you are saying it's all or nothing? You would make no distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, at least in cases where the birth was in the US?
We know that persons who are citizens at birth, even though born outside the country with citizen parent or parents, due to various statues do not fall under the same legal umbrella as those born in the US, and their rights and privileges may even depend on which parent was a US citizen. Why can there not be distinctions between classifications of native born citizens?
But please, don't doubt my sincerity. Refute me if you will, but not that.
A very heartening development.
I believe the total definition (jus sanguinus and jus soli) is what should be pursued.
This is the case where it matters.
Ditto. Those footprints were not on that webpage.
Oh, I see, for some obscure reason you are wanting a specific date as to when the Blogosphere recognized that Obama’s citizenship issue devolved from his father’s parentage and not just his place of birth.
Well go search Berg’s site, because I believe it was there I first came across it, and it was before the election. It was during the time Hillary lost Texas due to basic Caucus fraud and other shenanigans by the Obama people. I seem to remember a youtube video of it where Phil was discussing the several possibilities.
ExPatInAsia http://laotze.blogspot.com/ is also another source. That is the site where Obama’s school records in Indonesia were first discovered. It might well have been him who was talking about Obama’s father being the reason he was ineligible. Honestly I don’t remember. It could easily have been Leo who really made the connection when he found Chester Arthur’s fathers Naturalization Document, dated 14 years after Chester’s birth which did it. But I remember it being discussed long before Leo found that document.
In reality, what does it matter when people first made the connection? The momentum propelling him into the office he has Usurped was such that it could not have been and indeed was NOT stopped by the issue of his lack of Natural Born Citizenship Status. It has taken TIME for the issue to get as Public as it is, and that in spite of a deliberate campaign to MOCK the reality of it. To laugh it into obscurity is what Obama is trying to do.
He has succeeded so far, but that does not change the fact that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen qualified to Run for or hold the office of POTUS.
What does it matter WHEN we knew such a thing? What matters is that we stand up for the truth of it and demand justice be DONE! Unlike Arthur, when people did not ever know during his lifetime he wasn’t qualified for VP let alone POTUS. With Obama we know NOW, and we should NOT stand for it. The people in Arthur’s day would not have stood for it either had they but known.
How can Alan Keyes not have standing? How can any military person not have standing?
Is it true that “standing” is actually supposed to apply to lawsuits where someone sues over laws?
Where in the Constitution is the responsibility and authority to determine Constitutional eligibility or whether a President elect “qualifies” specifically given to a branch other than the judiciary, that it could be called a “political question”? Impeachment is given to Congress, but that is not the same thing as determining whether a President elect is “qualified” and could thus ever have been allowed to use the presidential powers.
Nothing obscure about it. I know who was responsible for creating the rumor that Obama was secretly born in Kenya and that his mother snuck him back into Hawaii. I know who was responsible for creating the rumor that Obama is a secret Muslim. I know who's responsible for various other smaller Birther rumors, like the claim that Obama was born specifically in Mombasa, or specifically at Coast Province General Hospital, or the claim that Maya Soetoro has a COLB, etc.
Similarly, I've tried to determine which Birther first started claiming that 'natural born' citizenship absolutely required two citizen parents. And so far, my research indicates it was Leo Donofrio, in early November 2008. If anybody proposed it any earlier, it certainly didn't attract any supporters.
Well go search Berg’s site, because I believe it was there I first came across it, and it was before the election... I seem to remember a youtube video of it where Phil was discussing the several possibilities.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Phil Berg has never supported the 'two citizen parent' claim, and he DEFINITELY wasn't supporting it before November 2008. It's not in his lawsuits, it's not in his early videos, and it's not in his early interviews. Berg's central arguments are 1) Kenyan birth, and 2) Indonesian adoption.
ExPatInAsia http://laotze.blogspot.com/ is also another source. That is the site where Obama’s school records in Indonesia were first discovered. It might well have been him who was talking about Obama’s father being the reason he was ineligible.
But it wasn't. The site only had 10 blog posts between June 2008 (when Birtherism caught on) and November 2008, and the 'two citizen parent' claim isn't there.
It could easily have been Leo who really made the connection when he found Chester Arthur’s fathers Naturalization Document,
I appreciate the brainstorming, but it really seems like you're just throwing around wild guesses here. More importantly, I've already said that Leo is the earliest source I've found, from early November 2008. Leo's arguments about Chester Arthur began in December 2008.
But I remember it being discussed long before Leo found that document.
Memory is simply not a trustworthy and reliable source for matters such as this. As evidenced by the above remembrance of yours about Phil Berg that is simply wrong.
Similarly, I've seen other Birthers who claim to remember arguments over Obama's birthplace dating back to 2007. Didn't happen. Other Birthers who claim to have watched an Obama/Keyes debate where Obama evaded a question about natural-born citizenship. Didn't happen. And still other folks who swear they witnessed an Obama interview where he said he wanted to change the national anthem to "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing." Which not only never happened, but it was the fictional creation of a satire writer.
So to reiterate: memory is not reliable without evidence to back it up.
In reality, what does it matter when people first made the connection?
Well, for one thing, I'm simply curious about who's responsible for creating the argument. Just like I used to be curious about who made up the 'secretly born in Kenya' rumor.
Furthermore, it's because the timing of its creation serves to illustrate its legal baselessness. Obama never hid the fact that he had a non-citizen father; he wrote a whole bestselling book on the subject. He mentioned it in the first 30 seconds of his 2004 convention speech. No one can claim that the public, the legal community, or his political opposition was ignorant of the fact that he had a non-citizen father. Thus, if 'two citizen parents' was ACTUALLY a legitimate historical requirement for the Presidency, you'd think SOMEBODY would have pointed it out between February 2007 and November 2008.
But as best I can tell, no one did. Not Hillary supporters during the primary campaign. Not McCain or Keyes supporters during the general election campaign. Not even BIRTHERS THEMSELVES between June 2008 and the election. The fact that nobody made this argument during those entire 21 months of campaigning strongly suggests that it's not the legitimate legal definition of 'natural born'. Arguing that it IS the legitimate definition is, then, to argue that every single person in the entire country was inexplicably too stupid to connect the two dots until the election actually happened, and only THEN did a somewhat nutty ex-lawyer-turned-poker-player suddenly put two and two together and realize that the Kenyan father everybody always knew about was an absolute barrier to the Presidency.
And that's just silly.
Sorry, but there's no reason to talk about other definitions if they aren't relevant. And even after this section on the definition, they continue to talk about other circumstances and maintain a distinction between the children of natives and the children of aliens. For example, later in Minor v. Happersett, it says, "From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth." Keep in mind, according to the definition they used, native = born in the country to parents who are citizens.
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.