Posted on 04/23/2010 8:47:39 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
A retired Army general and national security policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point" and should use his "right to discovery" to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born citizenship status.
In an interview with Evil Conservative Radio, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I'm not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen]."
Vallely, CEO of Stand Up America U.S., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving 32 years.
He said he inspected his own long-form birth certificate, and it contains a doctor's name, date and location of birth.
"But he's never been able to produce that," he said of Obama. "His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don't know why he won't come out with that."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“Obama’s your guy.”
Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid you sound writing that?
Feel free to go back thru my over 11,000 posts and see how many nice things I say about Obama...
“I don’t think Obama does.”
Agree he has told so many lies and woven so many stories about his past he does not know what is true any longer
or care
I know. But I believe they would balk, hard, at being put on the record, in the form of a resolution, that dual citizens born on US soil are Natural Born Citizens.
The Senate had no trouble crafting a resolution that it thought would quell concerns over McCain's birthplace; it should have no qualms about crafting a similar resolution asserting its sentiment as to a person born a dual citizen. AFAIK, at birth, Obama had the (not yet mature, but inalienable) power to elect British citizenship. But still, as far as the Senate is concerned, dual citizenship is NOT a barrier, or disqualification.
I think there would be some political value in calling for a Senate resolution, again to "quell public concerns."
You should add 1) George Washington also had Vattel’s Law of Nations from the library and failed to return it and 2) Obama was on the S.R. 511 committee.
Oh, I forgot about the SS card. Yes, Texas requires a certified BC and SS card. From what we’ve seen, Hussein has a nice collection of those to choose from.
and I will show you Nancy Pelosi's 49 affidavits in which she, as morally-corrupt as she is, couldn't even bring herself to state that Obama was qualified for the office of POTUS.
I think other documents are just as important to settle the eligibility question...ie. school records, passport.
Clearly they also did not mean that an officer, in service to the USN having a child by his American citizen wife in a foreign port of call, would have a son who was not entitled to the full benefits of a natural born citizen, which Vattel as you noted would make so when you put emphasis to the “AND born in ....” ‘The word ‘subject’ is not the issue. Britain is not and was not then a Republic. Blackstone was the reference used by lawyers of that revolutionary generation however. I’m not saying the French philosophes didn’t play a huge role.. particularly Montesquieu with his ideas of ‘separation of powers.’ All I’m saying is Blackstone can’t be discounted and serves the cause well enough without having to say that the children of military born overseas are ‘less’ entitled than others.
If you ask that guy anything, you are asking to be misled with faleshoods or fake assumptions.
“How can you penalize 2 USA Citizen for serving their country?”
My whole point was that could not have been the intent of the founders.
Someone had made a great point on another thread a few days ago...
If, during 1961 or 1962 (for example), the US was at war with Great Britain, the US government could have interned (or at the very least monitored) Barry as a subject of an enemy power.
Yes it can:
"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.)"
I'm sure I will be adding to "that" post as time goes on.
“And what happened during the War of 1812 because of English Common Law?”
If what you were asking is. ‘did the British navy use a presumption of American subjection to the British crown to impress American sea-men?”..Yes.. in a sense they did. You’d have been desperate if you were fighting Napoleon also. :)
You posted not much except trivia until you jumped in with both feet as a toadying 0bama suckup.
Checking peoples’ posting history is very interesting and revealing. No one can edit their comments afterwards. I’ve also noted some very strange inconsistencies in your comments.
;-)
This is an outstanding thread and has some great historical references from the Founders on this subject. It's long but a great study.
Yes.. I was more referring to the whole French intellectual scene of the mid 18th cen. France had a finance minister under Louis XV and XVI that was Swiss, Necker...the two countries were closer in some ways than even Canada and the USA. But correct..Vattel was Swiss.
Thanks!
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.