Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
Not listening.
Of course not! You shut your eyes, cover your ears, chant “la la la” and live in your own fantasy world. But you don’t get to make everyone else live there...
CCPS, what makes you think the man in the WH is the son of the Kenyan 0bama?
Since all his docs are forgeries, how do you know who his father is?
Mr. Rogers likes to think that foreigners can drop kids on US soil and they’re natural born citiznes and spews the same idiocy on these threads, and has for years. Why he does this is anyone’s guess.
There are no issues of standing in a military court martial. It is a civil law concept only.
There are also no issues of standing on the criminal side of our legal system.
Challengers to Obama’s eligibility proclaim allegations of criminal activity like forgery, fraud, identity theft and altering official documents yet they only use the civil courts to press these claims; Very strange.
Unfortunately there’s no evidence that Obama ever had U.S. citizenship to lose. And under WKA, his parents did not meet the subject clause requirements. Quit trying to confuse people with your ignorance.
“Mr. Rogers likes to think that foreigners can drop kids on US soil and they’re natural born citiznes...”
Because the US Supreme Court says it works that way - that that IS the meaning of “natural born citizen”. If the highest court in the land says that is the meaning, every other court will agree. You have no case.
In a criminal case, such as a court martial, the STATE is making the accusation, and the STATE has standing. In this case, the STATE had standing to accuse Lakin of refusing to obey lawful orders.
A DA could accuse Obama of forgery or fraud, but none has done so. Either everyone in the country is part of the Great Conspiracy, or all the DAs are incompetent...or the birthers are simply wrong.
“And under WKA, his parents did not meet the subject clause requirements.”
Every court, every state, and 535 members of Congress think you are an idiot who cannot read a court decision.
At some point, birthers need to ask themselves WHY they lose every time they go to court. Is it a Great Conspiracy? Or are they just wrong about what the law says...
Mr. Rogers, are you a member of the Fogbow forum? Please be truthful with your answer.
You quoted Perkins v Elg and stated a parent cannot renounce the citizenship of a child. In this case, Elg’s father renounced his U.S. Citizenship after returning to his native country of Sweden.
After turning the age of majority, Elg requested a U.S. passport as a U.S. Citizen and received one. She returned to the U.S. and lived as a U.S Citizen. Later, she was denied a U.S. passport upon renewal application because the SoS had determined she was no longer a U.S. Citizen.
SCOTUS ruled the father’s renouncement of his U.S. Citizenship did not have effect on his child while she lived with him in Sweden. The U.S. SoS did not allege Elg was a dual citizen. Elg never claimed to be a citizen of Sweden. Elg could have been stateless if the SoS’s actions were upheld. Consequently, she maintained her U.S. Citizenship.
In Obama’s case, as with Terrazas, he was born in the U.S. with one U.S. Citizen parent and one foreign national parent. Both Obama and Terrazas were dual citizens at birth. All dual citizens are a risk of Loss of Nationality if they move out of the U.S. and participate in acts deemed to have renounced their U.S. Citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the Secretary of State.
As opposed to Elg, where the SoS did not establish Elg was a dual citizen, the SoS did determine Terrazas and Obama were citizens of another country before the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was issued.
So where did Barack Obama Jr. around the age of 5 personally renounce his U.S. citizenship? Hawaii or Indonesia
“Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since.”
That is a far more dramatic thing than Obama went thru in moving to Indonesia for a few years.
“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
There is no evidence anywhere that Obama has rejected his US citizenship and declared himself a citizen of Indonesia. Nor could his parents do that for him while he was a child.
Don’t know what the “fogbow” forum is. I have, however, been a regular poster here on FR since 1998. That would be more than 14 years before you started posting here.
“6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . “ was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
Page 307 U. S. 326
This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.”
“”The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be ‘right reason,’ and I think it is law.”
So in essence, we can’t deny the possibility that Obama, as a small child of sound mind, acting on his own ‘COULD’ have renounced his U.S. citizenship if he wanted to and it would have been granted?
Was the Ark case specifically about the Constitutional requirements for the presidency/highest office in the USA?
Mr rogers wrote:
“No child can lose US citizenship by the actions of their parents. See:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html
It takes a lot of work,even as an adult,to lose US citizenship. Barry spending a few years in Indonesia as a kid does not,in any way,rob him of full US citizenship.”
What about this one?
Question is, if its not possible for a minor to (somehow) lose their u.s. nationality, how in the world can a SOS supposedly issue a cert of loss of nationality, as Sven theorizes?
Donald Trump?
At a minimum, it would require Obama to have gone to an embassy in a foreign country, and then fill out paperwork and swear he was renouncing his country. The State Dept would have it on record. Ultimately, the courts would have to agree that Obama was able to make that decision freely and knowingly. I haven’t heard of it ever being allowed for a minor. It certainly didn’t happen at 7-8 years of age...or at 10.
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.