Posted on 11/11/2010 12:55:19 AM PST by FTJM
An attorney-doctor from Kansas whose brother is scheduled for a court-martial says President Obama could, if he chose, resolve the dispute virtually without effort.
Greg Lakin, whose brother is Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, told talk radio show host Peter Boyles on KHOW radio in Denver that it would be "easy."
"It could have been an easy fix. Obama could have stepped up and done the honorable thing and made this all go away," Greg Lakin said in the interview this week. "Just some type of showing, 'Hey, I was born here … here's some proof.'"
WND reported a new trial date has been announced by the military for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the career Army doctor who decided to refuse an assignment to Afghanistan because of his concern that the orders he was issued in a chain of command headed by Barack Obama were not legal.
According to attorney Neal Puckett, who has represented Lakin since a military judge ordered Lakin could not have access to any information about President Obama's eligibility, the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14 and run for three days.
He confirmed to WND that there will be new directions for the defense but could not elaborate.
"All I can really say is the case is going to be handled differently from here on out," he said.
Greg Lakin said he fears the military, which he said never has had to confront the possibility that a president may not be eligible and his orders then may be illegitimate, may take the easy way out and simply lock up his brother.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
a better question? where in the Constitution does it say that a kenyan national can be President of the United States? If he could have prove otherwise , he would have already done so!
We can't prove he's legally a foreign subject without the birth certificate.
Bgill and null and void have been sowing confusion for so long we tend to ignore them, but in case citizens are beginning to pay attention, the little bits of misdirection need to be addressed. Our Congress is derelict, and colluded with Obama supporters. The evidence, the fourteen page talking points distributed by the Progressive Congressional Research Service to all congressmen within two months of Obama's inauguration was concealed from the public. It was leaked several weeks ago. (pointer at puzo1.blogspot.com)
Thecodent is correct. There are enough new patriots that there is again a risk that one or more may decide to risk attack from the state-run media, justice department or, as with Nathan Deal, some congressional committee. The House Ethics Committee which dug into IRS files to attack Deal will be chaired by a Republican.
As to Bgill's point of confusion, it doesn't matter "IF he was born outside the U.S." Obama told us who his father was. If Obama falsified his autobiographies, Social Security, bar registration, etc. etc. he has committed many crimes to attain the presidency, so many that his fitness to hold the office would invoke the Constitution to have Biden replace him until doubts are resolved.
Null and void suggests there needs more "proof" than the words and oaths spoken and signed by Obama, who told us very publicly that he was "born a subject of the British Commonwealth." Barry even cited the 1948 British Nationality Act, which deemed dad natural born subject, and passed that allegiance to his child - Barry. Barry swore to uphold and protect. If he lied, there are many paths to removal, and none may be necessary, since he isn't a constitutional president.
Obama is in his office because of the malfeasance of our legislature which oversees politically appointed federal judges. The reason's for the Supreme court's intransigence are less clear. Perhaps someone will explain, Justice Thomas perhaps, who let us know that evasion was not a paranoid illusion? We will always wonder at the closed door meeting with the justices in January of 2009.
All three branches are cooperating, if they are not colluding, to weaken the trust our citizens have in its core institutions. They have had some success. That is part of why corporations are leary of taking risks. Small business deal mostly with private citizens. Only large businesses can tolerate the overhead necessary to dealing with government drones. Every business knows its future depends upon the next edict from our politburo, headed by a man whose past is secret, and by whose own definition, is a "native born citizen of the U.S." and not a "natural born citizen."
Is this not a coup? Has not our military chosen to obey a commander without Constitutional authority? Would the military, already operating outside of our Constitution, obey, defend and protect an extra constitutional leader? How far would the military, since every dictatorship depends upon its military to control its citizens, go to implement the current coup?
It is no surprise that GE, GM, Google, etc collude with a dictator. Their leaders will be removed by investors if they don't generate positive cash flow, even if GE is being paid by unwilling taxpayers to build idiotic monuments to graft and corruption like windmill farms, which to survive, will always need to be subsidized, and always run at a loss. That the the government becomes their largest customer was always the plan. The government will eventually put Ford out of business, or, take them over too. With no one trustworthy measuring profitablility, no private corporation can survive. Neither can dictatorships compete economically, so they use subterfuge to undermine free countries, as we are seeing.
Google and Cisco already have billions to spy on our energy use, and soon, to allow the government to ration energy, while we become more and more dependent upon foreign sources.
Was the missile off the Los Angeles coast a message to Obama to stay the course, in spite of the recent politicallosses? With our agencies, with IR satellites monitoring the surface of the earth claiming to have seen and done nothing, are we simply pawns in a larger negotiation? If Clinton, after the Flight 800 SA missile attack, could silence two hundred eye witnesses, confiscate all private video recordings, gag major airplane manufacturers, and deploy the CIA to manufacture a smokescreen to insure his reelection, who is protecting our nation and from whom? We are currently not a government of laws, to paraphrase John Admas, but are being governed by a man legally without allegiance, as his father was not a citizen, to our Constitution.
Well said up until your last paragraph. Including the Los Angeles ‘missile’ in your argument only serves to weaken your position.
FYI, I’m the Queen of England.
Now that I’ve said it, it’s an indisputable fact which should hold up in any court -— or at least that’s what Spaulding believes.
“The Indonesians might have been bribed to expunge evidence of the adoption and passport by (IIRC) Obama’s congressional rep. Samoan friend who made a suspicious trip to Indonesia to “gather” all of Obama’s Indonesian records.”
I did, in January 2009, ask a close friend in the Indonesian Immigration Department if he could snoop around in the files for anything on Zero. He just gave me a sly ‘cat who ate the canary’ smile and said that it was all cleared already.
I've had many good writers criticize my writing which was intended to sell ideas in my corporation. They were usually correct. The usual mantra was "Senior managers may read half a page." Did you object to adding another theme, distracting from the essential notion of Obama’s illegitimacy? Do you have conflicting views of the significance of the apparent missile? Or did you not like the comparison with the Flight 800 imbroglio?
Bill Ayers candidly discused, as did Alinsky, the need to weaken trust in institutions the easier to replace them. Two retired Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs agree that Flight 800 was attacked. My point was that government knows that citizens have become accustomed to not knowing, either about threats, if it didn't affect them, or eligibility, if they don't understand the Constitution.
The claim by some is that the missile is a con trail. Having seen lots of missile launchings, albeit from some miles down range, and never seen a con-trail with a glow at its tail, or increasing velocity with altitude, I question the con-trail explaination, and know the government and military will do as they are told, lying if necessary to achieve the objective of the CinC. Knowing we have an illegal commander, with thousands of cadre embedded in our government, and not knowing who is guiding him, I consider a missile launch very serious. We may not have been able to detect a presumed submarine, while our Executive, through a committee, is proposing to take another 100 billion dollars from our defense budget. That launch could have been a demonstration by one of two countries (three if I include Israel, which has every reason to consider the current government a risk to their existence) that we are very vulnerable.
Does anyone doubt that Obama would capitulate if pressed? He has said to the whole world that we are profligate. His lieutenant, Van Jones, is more to the point. The Green Jobs Czar was quite public about his belief the GW Bush planned and executed 9/11. Obama didn't contradict him. Missile launches are worth paying attention to, and particularly important without a trustworthy Commander in Chief.
I've had many good writers criticize my writing which was intended to sell ideas in my corporation. They were usually correct. The usual mantra was "Senior managers may read half a page." Did you object to adding another theme, distracting from the essential notion of Obama’s illegitimacy? Do you have conflicting views of the significance of the apparent missile? Or did you not like the comparison with the Flight 800 imbroglio?
Bill Ayers candidly discused, as did Alinsky, the need to weaken trust in institutions the easier to replace them. Two retired Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs agree that Flight 800 was attacked. My point was that government knows that citizens have become accustomed to not knowing, either about threats, if it didn't affect them, or eligibility, if they don't understand the Constitution.
The claim by some is that the missile is a con trail. Having seen lots of missile launchings, albeit from some miles down range, and never seen a con-trail with a glow at its tail, or increasing velocity with altitude, I question the con-trail explaination, and know the government and military will do as they are told, lying if necessary to achieve the objective of the CinC. Knowing we have an illegal commander, with thousands of cadre embedded in our government, and not knowing who is guiding him, I consider a missile launch very serious. We may not have been able to detect a presumed submarine, while our Executive, through a committee, is proposing to take another 100 billion dollars from our defense budget. That launch could have been a demonstration by one of two countries (three if I include Israel, which has every reason to consider the current government a risk to their existence) that we are very vulnerable.
Does anyone doubt that Obama would capitulate if pressed? He has said to the whole world that we are profligate. His lieutenant, Van Jones, is more to the point. The Green Jobs Czar was quite public about his belief the GW Bush planned and executed 9/11. Obama didn't contradict him. Missile launches are worth paying attention to, and particularly important without a trustworthy Commander in Chief.
Pinging butter to Spaulding’s comments.
Thanks for the input. Although I don’t expect any additional corroboration from you, this is what we would expect.
I noted that the top three police commanders in Kenya were fired/demoted three days after a certain Kenyan BC was filed in an affidavit in CA. Those hospital files may not have been adequately protected (retained for blackmail purposes rather than destroyed or confiscated as might have been the case in Indonesia...who knows!).
All circumstantial, of course...
You must have had some blinding blind-folders on, AS USUAL!
Seems to many that we are govern by something worse than Honduras!!
30+ some unelected Czars and supported by the world order puppet billionaire Soros, is YOUR ideal Government, hmmmm. No wonder you constantly get flacks from our FRiends for your total screwd opinions and postings!!!
In contrary to YOU, Lt.Col. Lakin honors his oath as a serious act and has true character and conviction to honor our CONSTITUTION. You don't, like your dear usurper leader in the W.H. , Mr. Quisling!!!
Your not saying an American can go get Mexican citizenship, and then run for US president and qualify as a NBC?
Lt. Col. Lakin is refusing based on his oath to the Constitution, NOT for political reason. And IF you believe in the Constitution(?) you ought to be on the same page, which you are NOT!!!
“The point isn’t that politicians can or cannot be removed from office, the point is that if you’re going to state something that claims something unusual it is good etiquette to provide a link to a source so people reading the post can research the claim.”
If you have followed us here more closely, about 2+ weeks ago, you could have saved a lot of “words” here, huh???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=1745#1745
Now that I know you can make a link could you link me to verify the source for the statement that senators have been expelled for not being citizens?
That was the subject of my original post that you're trying to hijack with this red herring.
Why not?
If that were not the case, any third-world country that chose to do so could award citizenship to any of our politicians and thereby make them ineligible for president.
I’m not saying I would approve of any such action or vote for such a person, but I don’t see any legal or constitutional bar.
Our legal system does not presently recognize dual (or more) citizenship. Whether they also hold citizenship from another country is just not relevant to a person’s status as a citizen in this one.
I’m referring, of course, to whether a person who is an American citien subsequently acquires citizenship with another country. I’m well aware those who become naturalized are required to forswear allegiance to other countries. But even there we make absolutely no effort to track down whether a newly naturalized American from Venezuela has been removed from the Venezuelan citizenship rolls. Status as a Venezuelan citizen is irrelevant to American citizenship.
You may believe a person should lose NBC status if they obtain citizenship in another country, and I would probably agree with you, but I know of nothing in the Constitution or laws that implements it.
Funny to see, is the case is in the court or in Congress???
You are right, it's just common sense. We have a president who has held three citizenship's outside of US citizenship, and he is actively pursuing the destruction of our country. He attended a church that cursed and dammed the United States on a regular basis. Finding out that he was born with foreign citizenship's and attained other foreign citizenship's is no surprise.
It's so unfortunate that the Founders did not spell out NBC in the constitution, and accepted the only definition known to mankind at the time, the documented definition by Vattel that excludes people like Obama.
There actually is another definition. It's the definition of "natural-born subject" as provided by Blackstone, the common law authority most familiar to Americans at the time.
Since citizen in a republic is the equivalent of subject in a monarchy, it is not totally unreasonable to assume the Founders would have had this definition in mind.
Under this definition, which has been cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in the few cases that tangentially address the issue, Obama would be NBC (if born in HI).
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.