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 ...
Hey! Klingon!
There you go again. Letting your alligator mouth unload your canary butthole.
“With all post 1789 elected presidents being Article II “natural born citizens,” never in the history of the United States has our nation had to address the meaning of an article II “natural born citizen.” Plaintiffs claims are historic, unprecedented, and constitutional in nature.”
True about elected Presidents but not major party candidates. See>>
“The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Evans was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore “enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance”, Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: “Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States.”[40] However there is no indication that Long’s article was taken seriously or had any impact on the election” > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned
I suspect Longs article would make interesting reading for folks here.. Wonder if it’s available anywhere?
Oops, I should have checked the reference>> here’s Long’s article from the Chicago Legal News.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
It would say you were born in Timbuktu, not Honolulu.
Once again, you take refuge in your ignorance.
Re: post # 359, Thanks
Just wait. It will be the number one destination for adorable kitten videos on the Web.
The Supreme Court was making a decision on the citizenship “status” of Wong KIm Ark . Citizenship in America has always been based on the alligiance of your parents not your place of birth. example : McCain was not born in America ,but he was born of two American parents and thus a Natural born citizen. The Constitution( 14 th. amendment states that you are a citizen if you are born here AND your parents have allegiance to America). The Supreme court has always followered these :
Natural born citizen: both parents U.S. Citizens
Native born : one parent a citizen, or both parents not yet citizens but have inmmigrated to America.
No citizenship : neither parent a U.S.citizen
so you are now asking about children of illegals , they are “allowed” to claim citizenship as a policy, but have no constitutional right to do so.
If you doubt what I have said research and read the actual cases yourself.
Unfortunately, you're only half right. The 14th Amendment does say that you're a citizen if you're born here, but it doesn't say anything about the allegiance of your parents. Birthers like to think that's in there, but the truth is it isn't.
A person born here AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF refers to the allegiance of the parents. Research Senator Howard a person considered to be the chief writer of the 14 th amendment. In the context used by Howard the word Subject refers to the birthright gained by being born to Subjects(citizens)under the jurisdiction of the U.S. I don’t consider myself a “birther” . I do historical research so it’s necessary for me to know the actual facts, not take a political viewpoint. If you want to know the facts, do your own reseach, don’t allow others to tell what to think. Most of the political websites(right and left) are so biased that it is laughable to read their “opinions”.
I guess I misunderstood your post #346.
Yeah, you misunderstand a lot of things here, I've read your posts here and I've surmised one of two things, you're a troll or an idiot.
Take your pick, I can't figure which.
“...you’re a troll or an idiot.”
A typical response from the intellectually vain. Can’t stand to have their thinking challenged.
I was merely trying to point out that the cases you cite stand for nothing when it comes to Obama’s eligibility. If you would bother to read them, you’d see that is so. But I know it is much easier to resort to name calling than to do some actual thinking.
To get rid of Obama, we’re going to have to do it the old fashioned way—by impeachment. This birther concept is going nowhere.
Get back to me after you learn how to follow and comprehend what is happening in the thread.
These are three different interpretations of NBC that you cite here.
What’s the point of getting back to you? I haven’t seen any evidence that you are capable of making an intelligent argument.
That is not necessarily the case in spite of the fact that Obama’s COLB states that Hawaii was his place of birth.
It’s a little long but here is a link to what I am talking about: http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Barak-Obama-must-release-Original-1961-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth
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.