Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point'

World Net Daily ^ | April 23, 2010 | Chelsea Schilling

[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."

[rxsid]

Correction:

It's clear that in the American experience, it's always been about citizen parentS (two) and born in country (with two exceptions: that of the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and that of resolution 511, both of which stated parentS).

[El Gato]

Being legally adopted in Indonesia (which there is no evidence of happening)

Other than the divorce papers between his mother and Lolo Soertero. Those describe him as a child of the marriage. Since we know, from the divorce papers between his mother and Barack H. Obama Sr, that he was also child of that marriage. We must assume that he was legally Soetero's child, via adoption, albeit one over 18 but still needing support for college, we pretty well must assume that he was adopted by Soertero. Might have been in Hawaii, or Indonesia, or elsewhere for that matter.

[Mr Rogers]

“We must assume that he was legally Soetero’s child, via adoption...”

Assumption. Lots of folks don’t adopt step-children.

[Reily]

Actually Puerto Rico is a “commonwealth” not a “territory”, its an interesting Constitutional question as to whether that makes a difference.

If Puerto Rico did vote for statehood (so far they keep selecting commonwealth status!) would they then be a “territory” then a “state” or would then go right to “state” status.

There is a very different history for Puerto Rico vs say Ohio, or even Hawaii so if Puerto Rico eventually chooses statehood it will be interesting!

[shadowland]

” and born in country (with the one exception of the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790).”

With the exception in Vattel that you already referenced - military personnel presumed to be under the de facto authority of the US Govt, regardless of where.

It would seem by extension you would have to provide the same exception for civilians serving in embassy’s or other official state functions.

All five examples given don’t seem to be actual items that can be cited as precedent in court. Unless you had somehow positioned yourself where you were actually asking the court to read the founder’s minds. My understanding is that the SCOTUS usually in matters like this, assert that it is up to Congress to legislate enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution. Our problem is that Congress has provided no current law that defines this requirement. It just appears to be too rare an issue to have motivated them.

[El Gato]

The Constitution makes it clear that native-born means that you're a citizen at birth.

The Constitution does not use the words "native born". Modern usuage of that term means "born in the country", but various earlier writers including Vattel (in translation) use the terms "native born" and "natural born" more or less interchangeably. (Vattel of course used "Les Naturels, ou Indigenes", since he was writting in French") So did the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, where they wrote: "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"

Clealy they required more than the 14th amendment's "Born in the United States", which is what we today call "native born".

[SatinDoll]

When Barak Obama attended Occidental College, in California, he used a SSN with a 999-XX-XXXX prefix.

This type of SSN is used by students who are foreign nationals receiving financial aid from the U.S. Government.

Just saying it contributes to the “legally Soetoro’s child” explanation.

[Mr Rogers]

If Obama ever claimed to be a foreign national, he needs to be removed from office as ineligible.

[El Gato]

I believe that to be the case as well. QW in the D.C. district court no doubt.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. For his purposes, just getting The One declared not eligible will be enough. Others can take the action to remove him, negate his acts and so forth.

[SatinDoll]

Agreed.

Notice how he has been trying to cover-up his past with the same vigor a kitty uses to bury its feces? Obama’s actions speak volumes.

[Mr Rogers]

There was not unanimity on the subject. There are lots of quotes on the other side. That is why it has been in dispute.

[vigilante2]

Without a birth certificate how could anybody confirm his true identity? You can’t even play little league without a BC!

[El Gato]

This thing doesn't have a seal certifying it. Can you spell BOGUS?

it's also not a Birth Certificate or a copy of one. It's a Certification, of *some* of the information on the original. It's an abastract, not a copy, and must still have a raised seal and registrar's stamp to be valid. That thing appears to have the stamp, but not the seal.

And it's not really a copy, it's an image, easily maninpulated. You could not take your laptop ito the DMV and show them that, and not get laughed out of the place, even if it showed a seal and the certificate number. Yet that image, and some really funky photos of something purporting to be a paper CoLB, are all we or anyone other than Obama's staff and two wienies who are Factcheck.org, have ever seen. No Court has seen it, let alone entered it into evidence.

[El Gato]

2 Parents Citizens and as I was reminded of..... born on US soil.

Except in the cases of those born to military personnel (in the Armies of the country) or those in the diplomatic corps, serving the country but outside of it and still subject to it's jurisdiction.

[Ro_Thunder]

My mom (who is gone, too) is looking on and laughing at my hard headedness to not let the little things go... She’d say ‘Dont sweat the small stuff’ and I’d just tell her ‘The big stuff is just little stuff that nobody paid attention to!’

Have a great weekend!

[El Gato]

African is not a race.

Certainly not. Afrikaners are "Africans"

as are North African Berbers.

Both of those would have been classed as "white" or "caucassin" in 1961. BHO Sr would have "negro" or possibly "black" in that periods. Even Martin Luther King was using the term "Negro" in 1961.

It was not until the late 1960s that the term became not politically correct with "black" being preferred at that time.

From the free online dictionary (other dictionaries have essentially the same:

Ne·gro
n. pl. Ne·groes Often Offensive
1. A Black person. See Usage Note at black.
2. A member of the Negroid race. Not in scientific use.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Spanish and Portuguese negro, black, Black person, from
Latin niger, nigr-, black; see nekw-t- in Indo-European roots

[RWGinger]

So would this LtCol/ Doc not have standing?

[El Gato]

Elections have meaning in a republic

Yes, they do. But they do not override the requirements of the Constitution. Otherwise it's not a republic, but a raw ashed democracy, known to the framers as "mob rule".

Franklin said it was a republic, if we could keep it. We are on the cusp of determing if we can.

[El Gato]

The strictures you place in your citations would have disqualified both McCain and Obama from their candidacies. It would seem to me that you should look at English common law and not the French philosophes for our definition

First of all, Vattel was not French, he was Swiss, and at the time he wrote "Law of Nations", working in the court of one of the German principalities.

French was the language of international diplomacy. Many of the founding fathers spoke it fluently. Ben Franklin, who some call "the first American", learned it later in life than others, not being as "well born", but he put it to very good use, both professionally (as diplomat for the American Colonies) and personally, with the French ladies.

The founding father's explicitly rejected English Common law, although they continued to use some of it's terms. But "natural born citizen" as opposed to "natural born subject" is not a term of English Common Law anyway. It has lots of aspects that any American Patriot would reject, such as feality, unbreakable by the individual, to the ruler.

Vattel's work recognized that there would be citizens who were still subject to the jurisdiction of a country who were doing its work in other countries, and that their children would be considered "born in their country", specifically diplomats and military personnel. Still had to have citizen parents though. By the "laws" that Vattel documented, McCain is a natural born citizen, while Obama, regardless of where born, is not.

[El Gato]

I don't know for a fact, but it is my understanding that a conviction under the UCMJ can always be appealed to the federal courts system.

Yes it can. But the military has an extra level of appeals court. Each service has a Court of Criminal Appeals, and in many cases, such as one "discharging" an officer, the appeal is automatic.

After that there is the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is just like one of the US Courts of Appeal, and part of the "regular" federal court system, except that it only takes cases arrising in the armed forces, rather than in a geographic area. After that, the US Surpeme Court sits at the top, just as it does for cases originating in civilian courts. The difference is that the first two levels of the military system are part of the military, not the US federal court system.