You Have the Right to Remain Silent (LT Colonel Lakin Read His Rights)

Safe Guard Our Constitution ^

[Man50D]

Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.

LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.

Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.

The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.

Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.

Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.

Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com

[hedgetrimmer]

It’d be really cool, and end all this palaver once and for all if you would just give us the link to the National Park Service web page that shows the effort to memorialize Obama’s birthplace.

It’s my understanding that the National Park Service undertakes to make a monument out of a president’s birth place pretty much as soon as they take office in their first term.

Because we have an open government and free society, the names of the people from the park service heading up the project should be available for you to post, or at least the department manager heading up the operation.

We can all chip in so that the ‘first home’ can be purchase and made into a park

Thanks in advance for your knowledgeable stance and for the information you will provide to us. I am sure his birth home will make an enjoyable and historic national park for the United States citizens.

[browardchad]

MSNBC updated the story -- either they got it wrong, or the Army is equivocating:

Army officer won’t accept Obama as chief
Sources: Doctor who refused to deploy could face court-martial

NBC News and news services
updated 6:30 p.m. ET, Tues., April 13, 2010

WASHINGTON - The Army may be forced to court-martial a lieutenant colonel who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he considers orders from President Barack Obama to be illegal, military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.

Link

[edge919]

Maybe the Army or the Feds are trying to work a deal. This kind of case doesn’t reflect well on the Army of the administration.

[presently no screen name]

Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

So that means Obama, Sr. is not his father.

[Red Steel]

Oh yes...a speech given by a Kenyan politician. THAT is evidence!

Said it as a matter of fact. I suppose The Minister of Lands in Kenya is lying or was talking out the side of his rear like you do. No one contradicted Mr Orengo in the Kenyan Parliament meeting, or has he said he was BS'ing everyone. No, that did not happen. It's evidence that can and will be used against Obama in court case(s).

But a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, attested to by the senior official in the department?

Exactly what did Fukino look at? What "vital records" -huh? You do know anyone in Hawaii could have said Obama was born there and the Hawaiian DoH would have gave Obama a birth certificate? You do know that -- right??

BTW - did you believe the politician who is worried about Guam turning upside down? Since we KNOW politicians stick to the facts...

You spout the Obama Demo Rat line of BS? How about you stick to the facts.

[Red Steel]

Correction. Dropping the the “?” from above.

You spout the Obama Demo Rat line of BS.

[parsifal]

I imagine the only information making it out comes from either Lakin or Hemenway. If the Army took his bldg pass and his computer, I don’t think they are going to ignore this. We just won’t know what they are going to do until they do it. Plus, the Army diddled around when the Muslim nutbar was giving indications that should have had him picked up. They are going to be looking for a scapegoat to punish. Plus, Obama needs to keep the birther movement alive for a while. All of this works out to mean bad for Lakin.

parsy

[Mr Rogers]

“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12 “

Well, no they didn’t leave it open. If you continue reading a couple of paragraphs further in the Minor decision where Ankeny left off, they give statutory precedent as to what happens with the children of aliens.

“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.”

Here Minor acknowledges a clear difference that native minors are citizens at birth, but that alien minors at birth are under the dependence of whether or not their fathers have naturalized. IOW, there has never been an assumption in the United States the all persons born in the United States are citizens at birth - and hence not natural born citizens. And, it clearly shows that the United States didn’t follow English common law of what was considered natural born.

---

You err.

First, they DID leave it open. What they wrote was, “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Note that last phrase: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Now, you then contend that “Here Minor acknowledges a clear difference that native minors are citizens at birth, but that alien minors at birth are under the dependence of whether or not their fathers have naturalized.”

However, what the court said was:

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. n8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen.

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.”

Notice - alien children in America, whose father planned to become a citizen, were to be naturalized. The ‘alien minors’ were children who had immigrated, not children who had been born here. And they were to be naturalized if their father had planned for it to occur, even if he died before it happened. So this has NOTHING to do with a child born in America of an immigrant father. Those were held to be already citizens, by birth.

Remember, the point of the case was that a woman born in America is automatically a citizen at birth.

You can read the full text here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

[conservativegramma]

All you obama sycophants do is regurgitate the same old tired talking points. Its getting tiresome, you need some new material.

Case in point: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), contrary to what you anti-birthers continually mis-represent...... did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, the Supreme Court issued a divergent and incorrect interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. “citizen” under the unique circumstances of that case. That case cannot in any honest judicial analysis be used to explain what the Founders meant by Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

Now here are some cases you keep missing:

The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Justice John Marshall said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), This infamous case while not directly tackling the natural born citizen issue, nevertheless did address it in seeking to determine whether or not a 'freed slave' was a citizen. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founding Fathers. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a citizen or not. As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (For you Obamamaniacs out there this is not to be confused with the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's) first established a national law that provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of a foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.” Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause said: “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Even the dissenting opinion affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to assure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time of birth subjects of any foreign power. This is only possible if both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth. If one parent were not a citizen then the child could be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign State, and not be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court specifically addressed what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They ruled that persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Only if both of the parents were citizens at the time of birth could the child be “completely subject to U.S. political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

See for every case you anti-birthers trot out to seek to disprove the birther position there are twice as many that birthers can trot out to weaken the anti-birther position.

[Mr Rogers]

Anyone STUPID enough to believe the ramblings of a Kenyan politician over the attested to birth certificate issued by Hawaii deserves whatever they get. And that included Lakin.

“It’s evidence that can and will be used against Obama in court case(s).”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hedgetrimmer]

I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer my post?

[browardchad]

They are going to be looking for a scapegoat to punish.

I'm not so sure about that. Remember who's in charge: General Casey, who cherishes diversity over the lives of  his troops.

Plus, Obama needs to keep the birther movement alive for a while.

Absolutely. Anyone doing a dance of joy thinking this is going to bring Obama down underestimates the overwhelming disdain the left has for the military, and the golden opportunity it presents to portray both the men and women of the military, and the right, as buffoons. It's no coincidence that the first news outlets jumping on this are MSNBC and TPM -- it's right up their alley, and I'm sure ever-irresponsible WND will oblige the left by stoking the fire.

All of this works out to mean bad for Lakin.

I really could care less about Lakin at this point. He's put himself in a no-win situation, and he and Hemenway could do a lot of harm in the process.

[Red Steel]

Anyone STUPID enough to believe the ramblings of a Kenyan politician over the attested to birth certificate issued by Hawaii deserves whatever they get. And that included Lakin.

Stupid? You believe the ramblings of the Kenyan Obama. Only $12 dollars Mr Rogers for Obama to submit his birth certificate to a court of law as PROOF. We are still waiting and waiting and waiting. Obama can't show his BC, but little kids show theirs to play little league baseball.

“It’s evidence that can and will be used against Obama in court case(s).”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Orengo statement in Parliament has already been submitted to a court. Ha.

[parsifal]

True, but I kind of feel sorry for him in a way. I probably shouldn’t, but I have known a doctor or two in my time, and just because they understand medicine, does not equate to either legal knowledge or basic common sense. I can see him being mislead by his “friends” into thinking this is a noble and patriotic move. Shame.

parsy, the soft-hearted

[conservativegramma]

That’s fabulous news. When did that happen????

[Mr Rogers]

OK, here’s my reply to this:

“It’d be really cool, and end all this palaver once and for all if you would just give us the link to the National Park Service web page that shows the effort to memorialize Obama’s birthplace.

It’s my understanding that the National Park Service undertakes to make a monument out of a president’s birth place pretty much as soon as they take office in their first term.”

YGBSM! Who let you out of the psycho ward?

For example, as late as 1977, Nixon’s birthplace was part of the school district. AS of 2004, it was being managed by “The Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation”.

[presently no screen name]

Well, we already know he lied on his resume.

Investigation Reveals Numerous Bogus Claims on Obama Resume

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2486166/posts

[Red Steel]

See your FReepmail.

[jcsjcm]

It would be great if they could locate the actual hospital that will state he was actually born there. Unfortunately there is so much conflicting information. Which is the real birth certificate? Even the Health department in Hawaii has given inclination that they have an amended certificate? Do you think this has something to do with it?

Evidence needs to be brought out in court with real paper products that are stamped official. This internet stuff just doesn't work for me! That Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii I will never believe.

[conservativegramma]

I concur. I know only too well that ‘internet images’ don’t cut it for the passport office, so why should it be acceptable for POTUS?