Posted on 05/06/2010 4:36:00 PM PDT by rxsid
"LTC LAKIN TO APPEAR ON FRIDAY, MAY 7, ON CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER 360 PROGRAM
...
The interview will be broadcast live and unedited from CNN’s New York City studios on May 7, 2010 at 10:00 p.m. eastern time, 7:00 pm pacific."
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/lakin-on-ac360.html
Please make your maximum tax deductible donation now to the legal defense fund of a courageous officer standing up for the Constitution.
American Patriot Foundation's Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin's attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin's lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin's supporters come to his aid NOW."
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/support-the-foundation.html
Whoops! Please see my #120. I misspelled your name x2! It has been a long day.
“AC sure was well coached and prepared.”
AC probably watched Jensen and Lakin meeting with potential financial backers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX3ePAOUK7U&feature=related
parsy, the helpful
Yup. Noticed that too. However, Cooper did say, later on that the LTC didn't believe the President was a "Natural Born Citizen."
Watching the lead-up to that segment was horrible.
Even though most of the "conversation" centered on the B.C., I was happy that the actual requirement "Natural Born Citizen" was mentioned a few times. Even though I doubted that they would, it was too bad they didn't have time to go into the history of the term.
Yes, you are right about Cooper doing the cover up of the difference between a CERTIFICATION and CERTIFICATE! Trust me, Cooper knows the truth. He just must protect Obama. I am sure he thought he would have this interview and really come out on top trashing and making fools of LTC Lakin and his attorney. But it didn't work out that way! More folks will now want to know more about this just because of the fact that Cooper is the one who made a fool of himself in his over the top rudeness!
Yes, you are right about Cooper doing the cover up of the difference between a CERTIFICATION and CERTIFICATE! Trust me, Cooper knows the truth. He just must protect Obama. I am sure he thought he would have this interview and really come out on top trashing and making fools of LTC Lakin and his attorney. But it didn't work out that way! More folks will now want to know more about this just because of the fact that Cooper is the one who made a fool of himself in his over the top rudeness!
Thank You.
cooper received his talking points from WH attorneys...native born was used..as a legal term...no body uses native born...
Now why would Cooper have Lakin on his show? What was Obummers agenda for requesting Lakin to appear on Cooper's show?
First, Anderson gave the impression that the birth was supposedly published in 2 newspapers is a powerful argument, which it clearly isn't. In addition, his eligibility has nothing to do with where he was born, it has to do with him being a dual citizen with mixed loyalties. Both to being a British subject and an Indonesian citizen as an adult.
Loved that Lakin’s attorney stated none of the flimsy, Fraudulent so called evidence which Cooper was screaming about would be admitted into the Court. Cooper cut the interview short after that. (And yes, Cooper kept referring to a photoshopped forged document which Obama forged for the 2008 election as his proof...Cooper was using a photoshopped document as his proof lol),
It's good that Cooper was so over the top as it revealed Obummer's insecurity, but still curious why Jarret and Axlerod would request Cooper to have this interview. Maybe they wanted to gage Lakin’s believability and knowing Cooper's show has such low ratings, they felt they could take the chance to see how Lakin and his attorney performed.
Very interesting.
Don’t you dare take me off your list, or I’ll smack you upside the head! ;o)
Could you please put me on this ping list?
Thanks.
At least since FDR, the Democratic Party has been a conspiracy to evade the Constitution. So it's nothing new, and they've been getting away with it. This is just another example.The obvious question about that is - "What/who can enforce the Constitution?" It is quite obvious that Congress will not do so. I hold no hope that SCOTUS would enforce the provision you refer to against an already sitting president. So as far as the federal government is concerned, I think we're in the soup. The issue will be faced in the state governments, or not at all. How can the state governments respond?
IMHO Mr. Obama will, unless providentially hindered, be POTUS until inauguration day in 2013. But if you look at Article II you will note
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.Note that each state legislature directs the selection of the electors, and the Constitution does not say that there will even be a popular election to select the electors. That is why, in Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS rightly made the point that the State of Florida should never have allowed the problem to get to federal court.(The 12th Amendment relates to the voting by the electors, but does not touch their selection)
So at least for the future, Arizona's law requiring proof of natural citizenship is the way to go. For myself, I would recommend that the state legislatures ban voting for Barak Obama (by name, and under any alias). Refusal to exercise a constitutional right ultimately moots that right. In the extreme case, the legislatures of the states could directly name members of the majority party of the state legislature to be electors.
It is not necessary for Arizona, or any other state, even to provide a constitutional rationale such as the "natural born citizen" clause for its decision. It does of course help politically to have a rationale, of course. And there is no shortage of such, starting with the citizenship issue but including the proliferation of unaccountable "czars," signing (say nothing of promoting) unconstitutional acts such as the ObamaCare "law," misappropriating private property of holders of GM and other stock/bonds, and so forth. But the key point is that such rationales need not withstand scrutiny of the federal judiciary any more than the selection of a manager of the State Parks Department or a zoning officer or any other strictly STATE officer would. They would be strictly for internal consumption within the purview of STATE politics.
Obviously the direct naming of electors inaccessible to Obama can only have real significance when done by a state which Obama would need in order to gain reelection. Such an action might be easily passed by the State of Texas, for example, but would not necessarily have bite since Obama didn't win Texas the last time. But if such an action were taken by Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Democratic Party could scarcely renominate Obama and hope to win. And would be unlikely to renominate him if either of them did.
And that reaches the real target in the matter - the Democratic Party. As the example of NJ Senator Lautenberg replacing Senator Torricelli on the NJ ballot after the deadline for such action in NJ state law illustrates, the Democratic Party has a sense of entitlement to office. The NJ supreme court held in that case that the Democratic Party had an absolute right to have a competitive candidate - no matter how rank the aroma emanating from its first nominee, it could always name a second candidate. IOW, the party was allowed to play "rock, paper, scissors" - and make a second call of "scissors" after having first called "rock" and seen the Republican Party call "paper." Any real reform would be calculated to force the Democratic Party to clean up its act. By, for example, providing that Obama could be on the ballot - but only on row(s) below the rows of all the parties which did not nominate Obama. That would bury the Democrat line in the middle of the ballot - which would threaten the Democrat Party with the loss not only of the presidency but of all the offices on the ballot. I think that might get their attention . . .
You betcha I won’t!
Love your tag line! LOL
Leni
Hey Friend, We need you back here in sunny Florida! Hope it is soon that we will have you at our FL Freeper get togethers! :)
Exceptionally well-put, rxsid.
It seems too few Americans think about citizenship issues nowadays; or if they do, only very carelessly. And our lack of attention is costing us all a humungous bundle.
It is crystal clear (to me at least) that Obama occupies office illegitimately, because he is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States within the historic meaning of that term. He is not, because his father was a British citizen under international law. Not to mention that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a minor at the time of his birth, and thus, under the naturalization statutes of the time (1961) incompetent to convey her American citizenship to her son.
But most people nowadays seem to think that since he was born within the territory of the United States (i.e., in Hawaii — but even this is uncertain), he is a U.S. citizen "natural born."
At best, given his parental situation, he would qualify under the "anchor baby" understanding of American citizenship: a native-born child, or any child born on American soil irrespective of parentage.
But even the Fourteenth Amendment does not sanction such an understanding of how one achieves American citizenship. It does not make American birth per se the standard by which we recognize an American citizen. For right off the bat, in Section 1, the Amendment declares: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [emphasis added]
The "anchor baby" interpretation of American citizenship does not seem to me to meet this test. A child born on U.S. soil is only subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if his parents are so subject. A child born on U.S. soil to foreign national parents is subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign national parents' home country — not to the U.S.
The jurisdiction into which Obama was born — regardless of the actual geographic location of his nativity — is the same jurisdiction to which his father owes his allegiance — i.e., the British Crown. Stanley Ann contributes nothing from her side to remediate any uncertainty on this question, she having been underage when Obama was born.
Thank you so very much, rxsid, for your excellent research here!
I saw just a bit of it and Butt-Buddy Cooper wouldn’t allow an answer. He was, should I say, an a$$hole!
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.