BUT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION STILL IN EFFECT?
by Brianroy
(Dec. 11, 2010) — I sent the Lt. Col. Lakin team essential US Supreme Court cases to pound earlier in the year, and they blew it off. Yesterday, I tried sharing in their comment section something to the effect of what I have reconstructed below, that:
1. They need to cite where the Supreme Court says: “The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim” (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) and so stated in 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948). This point should lead the Lakin defense argument.
2. The requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth is Supreme Court Law and follows 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth are those REQUIRED BY LAW via the US Supreme Court to be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification of identity as rising to the level of a de jure jus soli claim as identified as being born here on US soil.
3.There is a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a natural born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and the Supreme Court consistently says from the Founding to Perkins v. Elg that a US Citizen father (or the presumption of one in bastardization where the father is unknown and the mother is a US Citizen) is required every time someone is called a natural born Citizen. So a US soil or territory, sole allegiance birth AND a US Citizen father are required.
4. Raise the question, “Does a natural born allegiance follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not?” Obama’s biological father was an alien national his entire life, a Kenyan national, and NEVER a US Citizen.
5. The US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) — on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born Citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel.
6. Every word of the US Constitution is to have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and again, it is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where the phrase “natural born Citizen” means more than just a “born citizen” because “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law as even the Supreme Court of the United States says. This must also include the Constitutional Article 2.1.4 (now Article 2.1.5) “natural born Citizen.”
I also enclosed to them that they should read my October 24, 2010 blogpost on citing “due process” case law, etc. There is just so much info that can be argued, but if anything, Lakin’s defense needs to spearhead on 333 US 640 @ 653 and 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62. Lakin followed the pursuit of being faithful to the US Constitution as first and foremost demanded of him to uphold and protect it from DOMESTIC as well as foreign enemies. In other words, his oath demands that there will be unique DOMESTIC circumstances where he will have to follow the US Constitution first, and see that it is adhered to. So if the Army demands he come to deploy and bring along his birth certificate and re-identify after 18 years (or however many) of service, the US Army having already seen it way back when he (Lakin) enlisted…why shouldn’t Obama fulfill US Case Law on the books, de facto de jure since the bluebook printing of the Nguyen v. INS case back in 2001, i.e. 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62, and produce a HOSPITAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH WITNESSES TO THE BIRTH at the very least?
Lt. General (Air Force – Retied) McInerney agreed he should, and believes Lakin will be Kangaroo convicted and later win exoneration following a Congressional Armed Services Committee Discovery and a subsequent three-judge court- martial oversight review panel on appeal. If the defense cites what I cite above, I believe Lakin will not only avoid conviction, but will allow the national debate that should have been had in 2007 when Obama announced his candidacy for an office he had no US Citizen father qualification to run for.
————————–
Editor’s Note: The following message was sent to The Post & Email on December 12, 2010, regarding the Lakin court-martial:
The Public Affairs people in the Army are trying to bury anybody looking at his case by having rescheduled Lakin’s court-martial for ten days before Christmas. The court-martial was pushed back for reason: to bury it with all the deflection that goes with the Christmas holidays. However, Lakin has an opportunity to speak out now, but
if he doesn’t use it, that’s his call.
He can also contact the FBI to request an investigation into what appears to be a premeditated conviction on the part of the U.S. Army, which is covering for a usurper to the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
Col. Lakin not only has an opportunity here to break this thing wide open; he has an obligation to do it. The time is now.
The English Common law (Calvin’s case of the postnati – circa 1600) that is relied upon to draw the conclusion that an English ‘natural born subject’ is equivalent to a US ‘natural born Citizen’ actually states that for a child to be an English ‘natural born subject’, one must be born of an English subject and in the realm.
Per English Common law, (Calvin’s case) the alien born father is considered a ‘subject’ of the English sovereign by the Law of Nature.
So in English Common Law, jus sanguinis and jus soli were the qualities that were required for the child to be an English ‘natural born subject’, which is due by ‘nature’ and ‘birthright’.
The notion suggested in the SCOTUS dicta of the Wong Kim Ark case that concludes that a child born to an alien is an English ‘natural born subject’ & therefore a child born in USA to an alien is a ‘natural born Citizen’ is WRONG, because the father in England, although an alien born, is considered to be an English ‘subject’ FIRST, for his off-spring to qualify as an English ‘natural born subject’.
SCOTUS got it wrong and all subsequent court cases that have followed this erroneous notion are in error.
A child born in England to alien parents was considered to be a natural-born subject (by statute) because the parents, while living on English soil, suspended their foreign allegiance. They promised that, while on English soil, they would “bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king.
A child born in the US to alien parents is not a natural born citizen because the parents, while living on US soil, do not suspend their foreign allegiance. A natural born citizen of the US owes exclusive allegiance at birth to the US, and this can happen only by being born in the country to citizen parents.
President Manning is there. I hope he is allowed to address the court.
Pleads guilty. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Seriously. So many of these things have turned out to be farces, for whatever reason. The powers that be are too strong.
The only way to fix it is politically. The Secretary of State of just 1 state, no matter which one needs to inquire/be required to check … and it’s not like we havent’ talked about this for the past 2 years. WE HAVE.
And what do we have in response? Nothing that looks like any sort of real threat to me. It’s all quite sad.
Why would he have to plead guilty to even one charge? Is there some strategy to be had in this? This is discouraging news.
Maybe it is a matter of semantics:
True or False: True.. he did not report to his commanding officer so he is guilty of that charge.
True or False: True… he did not report for movement to Charlotte, NC and he is not guilty of that charge, because he did not have legitimate orders.
Just a thought on what it all might mean.
The court-martial began at 9:00 a.m. EST. Lieutenant Colonel Lakin pleaded guilty to one count of failure to report to his commanding officer and he pleaded not guilty to one court of missing movement to Charlotte, North Carolina.
So what does this mean? Is there a plea deal… I still think this whole case is rigged… & that Lt Col Lakin will NOT get a fair trial… it must be true there are some who must be above the law!! Hopefully one day the truth will come out & when that day comes… then those who are responsible MUST be prosecuted & thrown in prison. This should include ANYONE who is part of the injustice…
WHAT? Col. Lakin pled guilty? Sounds like his lawyer, what’s his name, Pluckett? has been threatened. With what, an IRS audit?
A Possible Defense Strategy for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin ?
How can any defense be made when a kangaroo court will not allow any
evidence to be discovered or presented ?
Does anyone know what time the court martial starts? We all know he will be found guilty as the case is rigged!! They will NOT allow him a fair trial… IF he is found guilty then every citizen needs to contact their rep’s & all the MSM contacts to object & to look into this case… hopefully the main media is covering this… at least the FREE press that is still left to report it.
Lt Col Lakin is a hero in my book & needs the support of us all… to think he needed to show his birth certificate to prove who he was & have obama not is wrong & only proves that Lt Col is not guilty.
Lastly, ANYONE who is later found out to be hiding the truth as a mass cover-up, including politicans, judges, lawyers, media, etc… needs to go to prison… period!!
——————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: The http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com website has posted that the court-martial began at 9:00 a.m.
Texoma,
I said that long ago. Dead ringer, that pic on the beach. But his features are strong and his daughter has the exact ones (feminized).
Do you agree with my theory?
Didn’t Obama once say that his father served in WW2? Obama Senior did not serve in WW2, but Stanley Armour Dunham did.
——————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Very good point. I think commenters here are getting closer to the truth: that neither parent named by Obama and his supporters was really his parent. He resembles the “grandfather” very strongly, and Stanley Ann might have agreed to raise him or act as a surrogate parent. Perhaps the “grandfather” had an affair and Barack was the outcome and was accordingly given the “borrowed” name of “Obama,” with the named father being conveniently dead.
Good stuff, Sharon. Indeed, I’m glad you see/agree with the plausibility of these theories.
How come I’ve been put in the doghouse though? I never did understand that.
I’m still wondering how we can break this news. You gotta figure it can come out somehow, some way. No?
—————–
Mrs. Rondeau replies: What doghouse? I’m confused.
Sharon, on Dec. 13, Joe Maine said that you
aren’t responding to his emails anymore.
That must be what he means by being in
the doghouse..
——————-
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Oh. I have not received any from him recently. For anyone who has tried to communicate with me and hasn’t heard back, please send an email to editor@thepostemail. I would like to know if it is a systemic problem. I attempt to answer every email, but with over 300 daily, some of them do get lost or rerouted to spam erroneously.
Sharon and Joe, do either of you recall the research done by Miss Tickly (aka TerriK)? I recall that her research led her to thinking that Obama was adopted and that he could be part Hawaiian.
——————
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, she has a new blog called http://www.obamasgarden.com
Sharon, thanks for that link. I was not aware that Miss Tickly had a new site. By the way, the address is actually http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/. I googled “obamasgarden” and found it.
If it does not matter that Obamas father was not a natural born citizen then any foreigner’s son born to an American women in America can be President .What if Obamas mother had a baby by Osama Bin Ladin ?Could his son be President?
To be a natural born citizen, your parents can be naturalized citizens, as long as they become naturalized before you are born (in the US). The Supreme Court, in the 1939 case of Perkins v. Elg confirmed this. Elg was born in NY to naturalized parents, and she (Elg) was declared to be a natural born citizen.
A lot of what Paulie says rings true to me, BUT I’m seriously having trouble within my family over this issue.
I have girls screeching at me from across the Atlantic Ocean. Is this something young people can’t begin to accept?
It is difficult for people today to accept because they cannot imagine what it was like in 1776 when there was no social security or privileges from government like we have today. People had to create and produce their living by living close to the natural laws and nature. It was a hard but spiritual life. Everything that anyone had had to be created by yourself. Hardship was created when kings and governments taxed people when the people were not beholden to government for anything. As a result, people had a natural understanding of their own sovereign authority because they lived like sovereigns themselves. They were more free in a way and so they realize from where their freedom came from (nature and natural laws).
Natural Law was the developed science of the day in those times. Chemistry, and Physics, and even Math, were all on the verge of just taking off but were not quite that developed and widespread in 1776. But what was developed as a science was Political Science. That is why the Declaration of Independence reads like a science of Natural Law and espouses enlightened scientific legal reasoning regarding freedom, liberty, and personal sovereignty. These qualities are not taught in schools and not enough people live with these principles in mind so it is difficult to change your entire perspective and accept that reality is very different than what you personally live and perceive.
I think young people can accept but it takes a lot of education on a wide array of topics to see the entire picture. I wish I could talk to your family and these young people, perhaps I could help them to understand and accept.
I think Jedi is wrong… our founding fathers knew that anyone who was to be President of the USA had to be a citizen of the US & also had to have BOTH parents as citizens… they also knew this was NOT possible at the beginning as most came from Europe, mostly Britian… this is why it was put in the Constitution in the first place.
Aja you are 100% correct… if Lt Col Lakin is found guilty then he will for sure have every reason in his appeal to bring the truth out & “NO JUDGE” will be able to say he doesn’t have standing. I am hoping that there will be many people from the media covering this court marshal case… we need every citizen to contact their rep’s & congress to address this case!!
tz
Jedi’s argument is pure self interest. He married a non citizen, and probably had a child abroad. God forbid that his child would not be eligible.
If Lt. Col Lakin is Court Martialed he will have been injured and then in turn will have standing upon appeal to a civilian court. The Supremes will have to take this case!!
No, the Supremes do not have to take any case. In fact, I doubt they will because it will expose their own involvement in fraud and treason especially because they accept the two appointees of Obama on the court. You are correct about one thing though. Col, Lakin will have standing for a Title 42 section 1983 civil suit for conspiracy to deprive him of Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the color of law and the government will be committing the criminal offence of Title 18 section 1581 (Involuntary Servitude) and Title 18 section 1584 (Peonage).
I am sorry to say that Brianroy fails to understand the issue, as do so many. I can understand why the defense team blew off his sent help. There is no support anywhere in law that says that a candidate for the office of President is supposed to be born without any conflicting allegiances at birth. This concept is a bogus figment of Brianroy’s and everyone else’s imagination. The only thing that is required in Article II is that you are created by, and born to, a citizen father. That is what “natural born Citizen” in Article II is clearly meant to relate. That is why it is spelled with a capitol “C” as a PROPER NOUN. Article II is meant to relate a specific one of the “natural born citizens”. It did not originally include females who were also “natural born Citizens” and it does not mean the ones created by soil or your mother which have nothing at all to do with the inheritance of a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY.
Everyone that I have seen or talked to, like Orly Taitz, and Mario Apuzzo, and Mr. Kerchner, and Philip Berg, and Brianroy, etc., etc., all believe that “natural born Citizen” in Article II is some legal term to be defined by statutes or the opinions of mankind and debated by a court of law. WRONG. Nature already defines it as a scientific principle of Nature. What they all fail to realize is that the terms “natural born citizen” that is defined in U.S. case law by soil or your mom (Positive Law PRIVILEGE), and the term “natural born Citizen” (Natural Law NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHT the OPPOSITE OF POSITIVE LAW PRIVILEGE) in Article II are not the same terms or relating the same information. They are in fact legal HOMONYMS (sound and spelled the same but mean something different in different contexts) and also ANTONYMS (Natural Law and Positive Law are defined to be OPPOSITE and “opposed” jurisdictions making “natural born citizen” and “natural born Citizen” antonyms). The term “natural born Citizen” from Article II is actually already defined as a SCIENTIFIC TERM observed in NATURE and described in the Declaration of Independence. “Citizen” is capitalized because it is referring to a SOVEREIGN citizen that is created by natural birth inheritance (“natural born”). The context of Article II is a POLITICAL CONTEXT and “natural born Citizen” in Article II is meant to relate a NATURAL POLITICAL CONDITION that of POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY. The term “natural born citizen” from U.S. case law that defines citizenship by soil or your mother say nothing about the political rights of said citizens beyond simple citizenship and they are not even about the inheritance of Natural Sovereign Political Rights which are not inherited from soil jurisdictions (government is not God or the Laws of Nature) or from females (“all men are created equal” and “governments are instituted among Men” Declaration of Independence).
What everyone is missing is the scientific natural concept of SOVEREIGN POLITICAL RIGHTS. Sovereignty is a Natural Political Right clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence that is endowed (means inherited) from the Laws of Nature via males (father) as a self-evident fact of nature. This is not my or anyone’s opinion. It is just a simple observation of nature and fact of reality that anyone can observe for themselves. That is exactly what our forefathers observed and declared in the Declaration of Independence. Natural Rights do not come from soil jurisdictions which are just legal fictions, and we do not inherit our Sovereign Political Rights from females (mother). It is just a fact of nature that children inherit their Sovereign Political Rights from males (their sovereign citizen fathers). This is just a Law of Nature which is why it cannot be redefined or debated by humans. Nature already defines it. It is just supposed to be observed and accepted as a self-evident truth.
Any conflict in owed allegiances at birth is taken care of by the other provisions of Article II that require one to return to the U.S. and repatriate yourself as a U.S. citizen guaranteed by your citizen father, to return to the land of your father, and live in the U.S. for fourteen years. This allows one to sever any foreign owed loyalties and reestablish your allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. via your father from whom you inherited a Sovereign Political Authority as a U.S. citizen at birth according to the Laws of Nature. This is why your place of birth does not matter and your mother does not matter. You must have a sovereign citizen father so that you can inherit your Sovereign Political authority to be President which is a Sovereign Natural Right under Article II and under our Constitution which created a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens. The entire problem is that Americans have forgotten where their freedom and Liberty comes from and how it was secured. We fought a war in 1776 to secure the recognition of this scientific principle that all children inherit from their sovereign citizen fathers LIBERTY which is secured by having your Sovereign Political Rights recognized.
The facts of natural reality that I have just described is the only correct defense that anyone can argue against the treason that we are all a witness to. Whether or not anyone is smart enough, or enlightened enough, to understand and accept reality and their own sovereignty and what I have just written here that our forefathers observed in Nature and described in the Declaration of Independence and codified in Article II, is another issue entirely.
> Article II is meant to relate a specific one of the “natural born citizens”.
No, it isn’t. If you care to read the Constitution, you will find that *almost all* nouns are capitalized (from “People” over “Congress” to “Vote”, “Majority”, “Place”, “Name” and “Thing”.
Your attempt to rewrite the Constitution by claiming that “citizen” (as written today) is something different from “Citizen” (as written back then) – or, for that matter, “natural born citizen” and “natural born Citizen” – is fatally flawed from the get-go.
> This allows one to sever any foreign owed loyalties
This is easily disproven by Soetoro’s obvious loyalties to Islam, despite him living in the US for way more than 14 years.
> This is just a Law of Nature […] It is just supposed to be observed and accepted as a self-evident truth.
No. You are making it too easy for yourself by simply declaring your personal theory a “self-evident truth” and a “Law of Nature”. That is not how science works, which you purport to be the base of your investigations. Pointing to the Declaration of Independence does not prove your point since you can’t scientifically prove by “argument by authority”.
> This concept is a bogus figment of Brianroy’s and everyone else’s imagination.
So everyone is wrong except you. That’s what you’re saying?
> “all men are created equal” and “governments are instituted among Men” Declaration of Independence
You are aware that “man” refers to both genders, both back then and today? Are you even a native speaker?
I think this is basically a useless point since its result is no different from the commonly accepted viewpoint (that NBC means “citizen father and mother plus born on the soil”), but it directs us away from what we’re trying to achieve.
Besides, if Soetoro’s birth certificate is ever revealed, it might just as well tell us he has a US citizen father but an Indonesian or Kenyan mother and was born abroad. Then your “great theory” would tell us he is an NBC although he really isn’t.
Dan;
You are so wrong on just about everything you have said that I don’t even know where to even begin. I stand by everything I have said as it is supported by reality and applied law. Nothing you have said is supported by natural reality or legal principles. It is just your opinion. I have heard this bogus idea of yours before that seeks to dismiss the capitalization of nouns in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Your opinion is baseless. One can easily see that there is an intent to relate a specific limited concept in every instance where capitalization of nouns is used and also by the fact that not all nouns are capitalized. Here, read my response to Mario Apuzzo who commented on my published article at the Post and email entitled “The True Meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen” a Scientific Legal Theory”
Dear Mario;
Welcome. I am very glad you have joined the discussion. First, let me ask you, are you the “Doc” that I wrote back and forth with from your website, or is that some paralegal that answers e-mails? That may be part of why I may have wrongly attributed something to you that is not your position. If that is the case, then I stand corrected and am pleased that you have corrected the record. Next, you say:
“As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.”
I have said exactly that both males and females inherit the same natural sovereign political rights from their fathers and this indeed makes them POLITICALLY “equal” under natural law jurisdiction and is not in contention.
It is very easy to see how and why I can discount the female so easily and I will now explain it to you. Also, I have already proven that it makes no difference about the soil or your mother because both are proven to be irrelevant for Article II purposes which debunks the notion that it requires both parents for Article II purposes, or for a natural born citizen status under U.S. law. I think you missed the point of my proven theory. Finally, the child most definitely does not acquire as much natural POLITICAL allegiance from one parent as he/she does from the other when it comes to POLITICAL RIGHTS which is the proper legal context of Article II. We are not talking about PERSONAL natural allegiance which would be equal for both your mother and father, we are talking strictly about natural political rights and natural political allegiances that are owed to SOCIETY, not what is owed to your mother or father. First, let us examine Vattel.
“The country of the FATHERS is therefore that of the children…”
and
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
and in section 215 of the same chapter of Vattel,
“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the LAW of NATURE ALONE, children follow the condition of their FATHERS”
As you can see, when it comes to POLITICAL RIGHTS which are natural rights that are inherited, Vattel makes it very clear “By the law of NATURE ALONE (means in the absence of, or ignoring, the positive law jurisdiction, which would be the soil jurisdiction of a foreign state, but instead only by natural rights of inheritance and the natural law jurisdiction as in a Natural Right to be a citizen), children (means both males and females) follow the condition (means political condition of which citizenship is part of your natural political rights and natural condition) of their father”. I don’t see Vattel saying the word MOTHER do you? He does not say that the children follow the political condition of their mothers, a female. Let’s not stop there however, let’s go on and look at the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”
Once again I don’t see the mention of females in the Declaration of Independence. However, I do see one very important observation of English grammar that I believe you have overlooked. Notice that when it says “that all men are created equal”, that the noun “men” is not capitalized, but further along, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Then, “Men” IS capitalized. This is very significant because it proves that the use of capitalization is meant to convey something very specific and different than the use of the noun “men” earlier in the previous sentence.
In the first instance “men” can necessarily be interpreted to mean mankind or both males and females because it is stated that men are created equally and endowed with political rights (Liberty). As I have pointed out and you seem to agree, both males and females inherit their natural political rights from their fathers, and this is indeed equal for both males and females, but may not be equally recognized in the positive law jurisdiction, which brings us exactly to the next instance of “Men” and the capitalization.
In the next instance of the noun, “Men” is capitalized because they are now talking about something very specific, and not just the general usage of the word “men” as in the previous sentence. The subject is now different also, which is the creation and administration of a government, and from whom the just powers are derived and consent is given (from the “Men”). The subject of the previous sentence was about where the rights to a government come from. It only makes sense that to derive just powers from the consent of the governed can only mean those who are actually empowered to give their consent, which was not females who could not even vote until 150 years later! Likewise, a female president would have to give her consent to the laws of Congress by agreeing to sign the statutes into law, and if she cannot even give her consent because her voting rights are not recognized, it makes no sense that by “Men” they mean a females who can give their consent as a President.
Now with the proper noun “Men” they ARE referring to just a specific. The reference is to the sovereign male natural born citizens who have the natural political right to vote recognized in the positive law jurisdiction. Furthermore, in light of history and the political context of the time, and the fact that it was 100 years later when the Minor court declared that they could find no voting rights for women spelled out in the Constitution or in the States at the time of the Adoption, it is clear by logic, and sentence construction, and the use of capitalization, by the Declaration of Independence, by Vattel, and history, and the absence of any other indications, that natural political rights come from males not females and that the intent of the Framers was not to include females, and the Constitution did not provide for their political rights according to the Minor court, which is why we had to have a 19th Amendment. Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone can possibly argue otherwise. I think anyone can see how easy it is to exclude females from the equation. I hope this clears things up for you.
Also Dan,
Your criticisms fall away as bogus as soon as you realize the obvious that we are supposed to be a SOVEREIGN Republic of SOVEREIGN citizens. Where are all the sovereign citizens and how are they created then, and why would we set the office of President to be something other that one of the Sovereign citizens? Your contention then is that the Sovereign citizens are to have as a representative in the highest political office of the land (President), who turns Bills into laws, someone who is not a Sovereign citizen and representative of the Sovereign People? Your contention is that the office of President is not a Sovereign Political Right which is just absurd! Vattel makes it clear that it only requires a citizen father to be considered a natural born citizen of your fathers country and your mother and soil are irrelevant. Read the Analysis of Vattel by Jedi Pauly published here at the Post and Email News.
Your reverse example and conclusion is wrong as a mater of law and reality. If Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen and O was born in Kenya to a Kenyan mother O would still be a “nbC” of the U.S. according to U.S. Law and Natural Law but he might not even be a citizen of Kenya depending on whether or not they recognize him to be a citizen since he would have a foreign father. In some countries you would be considered an illegal alien if you have a foreign father even if you are born on native soil to a native mother.
> I stand by everything I have said as it is supported by reality and applied law.
Isn’t “applied law” what the Obots want to tell us dictates that ius soli defines a natural born citizen?
> I have heard this bogus idea of yours before that seeks to dismiss the capitalization of nouns in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Then why is “thing” capitalized? Or “least”? Or “year”? Or “magazine”? Or “case”? Or “life”? Or “seventeenth”? Where is the “special” meaning in those words that distinguishes them from their lower-case variants?
On the other hand, take a look at the very very few nouns that are not capitalized. What about them?
You’re making a purportedly “scientific” argument without looking at the whole picture, ignoring contradicting evidence.
> First, let us examine Vattel.
Again, argument by authority? Hardly “scientific”. You talk like a physician who rejects quantum theory on the basis that it contradicts what Newton wrote.
> Once again I don’t see the mention of females in the Declaration of Independence.
Once again, the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative on what is scientifically true. It is a political document.
Does the law of man decide whether, for example, abortion or homosexuality are “natural”?
> Your contention then is that the Sovereign citizens are to have as a representative in the highest political office of the land (President), who turns Bills into laws, someone who is not a Sovereign citizen and representative of the Sovereign People?
Misrepresentation of my argument. I simply reject your definition of “natural born citizen” as applying only to the paternal part.
> O would still be a “nbC” of the U.S. according to U.S. Law and Natural Law but he might not even be a citizen of Kenya
I couldn’t care less about the latter, but I do care about the former.
Your blather is pure self interest. I saw on your profile that you married a non citizen. At the time that the USC was written, and the laws of nature were codified, women were automatically naturalized by marraige. Vattel defined it specifically as birth in the country of citizen parents. One is not INDIGENOUS to the US if born outside of it. Anyway, Lakin’s argument should use the father’s citizenship as the main point, and the BC to verify the father’s identity.
Again I stress – We question everything Obama has asserted about his “Birth Narrative” EXCEPT – Who his father was – We have NO EVIDENCE – Other than Obama’s assertion, that Barack Obama Senior is the putative President’s father. We might all be surprised when we finally look at the birth certificate and find that he was hiding not WHERE he was born, but WHO HIS FATHER IS. Why do we just “Accept” Obama’s word that Barack Obama was his father and build this entire strawman case based on that totally baseless assumption?? Please Advise
ELmo
Obama said in a 1995 interview, “Obama was my father’s name as well. He bequeathed the name to me before he went back to Kenya.” Most people say they got their name when they were born. Barak Sr. didn’t go back to Kenya until 1965, well AFTER Obama was born. Is this when he got his name, or was it in 1971, when Barak Sr. returned to Hawaii and after Obama returned from Indonesia to live with his grandparents??
My theory has been for the last 6 months, and please credit me with this, you heard it here first: You are hitting on it, precisely.
Sharon, I hope you are reading since you don’t respond to emails anymore. Here’s the deal:
Barack Obama Sr. is his adoptive father, that is the amendment to the vital records. There could be all other manner of shady details. I personally believe that he is the son of Stanley Armour Dunham and an unknown woman. Stanley Ann decided to take care of him due to familial reasons (perhaps her father’s philandering). All that really matters is that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani and BO isn’t his biological father … WHICH, wait for it …
MEANS HE IS NOT THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
That is the real embarrassment. Give credit where it’s due, this is a hell of a theory.
Joe, have you seen the photo of Stanley Armour Dunham on the beach with Obama as a child? Some say that there is a strong family resemblance there … stronger than one might expect between a grandfather and a grandson.
Just a suggestion… why can’t someone who has the influence contact the TeaParty people in charge… & ask them to look into this. Also have them help by accepting donations for Mr Lakin’s defense… (it will make more people aware of this injustice)
Hopefully, someone in congress has the guts to step in if Mr. Lakin loses his case… which is most likely as the judge isn’t allowing him to defend himself properly.
tz
I know,… Obama could pardon him. But wait,…. he can’t pardon anyone because he is not a legitimate President…. but wait… then Lakin cannot be guilty…but wait… Aaaaiaaarrrg… it’s enough to drive a person mad!!!!!
THREE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT MUST SEE VIDEOS:
“INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY STEPHEN PIDGEON: IRRELEVANT WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN; THE STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIGH TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”
From: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/interview-with-attorney-stephen-pidgeon.html
“Interview with attorney Stephen Pidgeon. The case for probable cause of high treason against Barack Obama. Atty Pidgeon explains how there is already enough probable cause to warrant investigations and indictment against Obama for high treason under the Logan Act. Atty. Pidgeon also explains Obama’s constitutional eligibility in full detail. Parts 1-3 embedded below. Enjoy!
Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama’s eligibility.”
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/interview-with-attorney-stephen-pidgeon.html
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html
If truth and justice were the goals, Brianroy’s excellent strategy would be highly effective, but clearly the goal of the U.S. government is to defend Obama’s fraud and sedition. It’s hard for me to say “our” or “my” government any more, since my consent to be governed by it depends on the Constitution being followed and since the present federal government is headed by an unconstitutional, fraudulent, foreign and foreign-fathered chief executive who has been treacherously protected by the judicial and legislative branches. I cannot consent to be governed by a foreigner, just as Col. Terry Lakin cannot consent to take orders from a foreigner.
If the U.S. government were legitimate, it would care whether it had the consent of the governed, but this government only needs the compliance of the major media, whose propaganda keeps the bulk of the populace pacified. All three branches of this government have smugly and derisively dismissed the legitimacy concerns of numerous Americans precisely because it is not a legitimate government. It is a hoax, a fraud, a gigantic deception, and Liberty weeps at our disgrace.
Stephen Pidgeon may have some answers in the video posted at birther report DOT com.
You probably know this already, but others may not. Your point about the Founding Fathers requiring the President to be a natural born citizen and not just a born citizen is evidenced by events in the Constitutional Convention.
On June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton submitted the following Presidential requirement: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
In response to the above, on July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
There we have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the Founding Fathers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President (such as US-born to non-citizens or born abroad to US citizens), the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen (born in the US to US citizen parents).
Being a natural born citizen meant being born with exclusive allegiance to the US, and this was a “strong check” against foreign influence in the President. In addition to this, I contend the Founding Fathers emphasized this point with the 14-year residency requirement. I think they understood that foreign influence could come not only from a foreign birthplace and parents not owing allegianc to the US, but also from having recently lived in a foreign nation. I liken the 14-year residency requirement as a way to cleanse a natural born citizen of foreign ideas, values, and customs picked up from having lived in another country.
In fact the 14 year requirement is proof that your place of birth and your mother’s citizenship are irrelevant. When combined with Vattel’s description of Natural Law that it only requires a father to be a native citizen of the country, and that all of your political rights come from your citizen father, and combined with the Declaration of Independence and the science of Sovereignty as a natural political right that is only inherited from your father, then look at Article II and notice the Proper Noun “Citizen” in “natural born Citizen”, combined with the fact that females were not part of the equation, it becomes obvious that Article II is only referring to the male citizens who are created by sovereign citizen fathers and your place of birth and mother;s citizenship are irrelevant.
And let’s not forget about the other issue that has dogged this eligibility issue, “standing”!
I would argue that when it comes to constitutional issues, everybody has “standing” whether or not they have been personally injured. Consider this:
Suppose I were to sue the Federal Government for failing to provide for the common Defense and national security which is guaranteed to me under Article I, Section 8? I’m referring, of course, to their failure to secure our borders and prevent the thousands of illegal aliens from crossing into our country every year.
I’m sure the courts would say that I don’t have any standing and can’t sue because I have not been personally injured, but think about this! By denying me “standing”, isn’t the government actually saying that I don’t deserve to be protected under Article I, Section 8? And if I (We the People) don’t deserve to be individually protected, then just who is it that the Constitution is protecting?
If “standing” only applies to those who have suffered an injury, then under what laws and whose Constitution are the rest of us governed by?
For God and Country
> If “standing” only applies to those who have suffered an injury, then under what laws and whose Constitution are the rest of us governed by?
You could probably find at least someone who has indeed suffered personal injury and who would thus have standing.
The reason for the concept of standing is that it would overwhelm the judicial system if anyone could sue anyone even if he is not affected by the alleged behaviour of the defendant.
That’s why I can’t sue you if you damage your neighbor’s car and why I, as a male, cannot sue the government if support for pregnant women is cut.
I think you would have standing if you can show an injury. That has been my argument that the suits against Obama so far have not been the proper one’s. If they had been brought as Title 42 section 1983 suits that also show an injury, like the fact that you are being subject to Involuntary Servitude (Title 18 section 1581 a crime) which is the essence of slavery and a violation of the 13th Amendment and most state Constitutions, then you would definitely have standing. I think the emotional stress that all of this fraud has caused me and also the damage to my relationships and credibility because people think I am crazy for saying that Obama is not legitimate when the law is so clear to me that he is illegal is also an injury of defamation. Also my future quality of life is destroyed and any value of citizenship is gone because now I have to live with the knowledge that crazy judges and Prosecutors who can not even determine the true nature of reality will try and force me to accept and live by invalid laws which I cannot do an so I now become a pariah in my own country. My only recourse to peace of mind is to renounce my U.S. citizenship and move to another country. That is going to take money so I will sue for millions for robbing me of my life’s enjoyment and value of my U.S. citizenship. If everyone would do this it might work to remove Obama.
Could it be that the conspiracy to maintain the usurper in place is due to threats made by the CIA to all of Congress, courts, and mainstream media that it’s a national security issue that cannot be threatened? I wonder if WikiLeaks has any information that would expose the fraud Obama? Maybe that’s what the real scare is about? Furthermore, I wonder where Lt. Colonel Lakin’s court-martial receives its authority, if not from the supposed Commander-in-Chief? Wouldn’t he have to be proven to be legitimate before the court-martial could even take place? Maybe some legal expert could address or readdress these conjectures and questions?
I think you are probably right. Remember it was the CIA and Military industrial complex that fabricated bogus intelligence to take us into an unlawful war with Iraq and who also set up world wide torture chambers that are still being used today. They had a lot of criminal activity to cover themselves for due to the 08 election and a change of administration. That explains why Obama was installed. What better way to protect yourself than by blackmailing Obama since he is not even legally qualified. It is the perfect cover. He gets to be Pres, installed by the CIA, and the CIA and Military receive a get out of jail free card. Then Col. Lakin is left holding the bag. It is the innocent that then must suffer. America, what a shining example of truth and justice we have become to the world.
Nominate LTC Lakin! Need info on chain of command etc to effect a vote.
http://www.militarytimes.com/smoy/?utm_source=mt-promo-modulead&utm_medium=mt-websites&utm_term=smoy&utm_content=all-promos&utm_campaign=title2-promomodules
Did SCOTUS in their “NO Opinion” Denial of Kerchner vs O’Bama & Congress et.al. Writ, not serve a total Rebuff of the 234 yr. old “Constitution of the United States” as as such Declare it MOOT, of NO Consequence and VOID??
IF so, is the United States of America not NOW an OLIGARCHY, TOTALITARIAN STATE, OR ?????
As I understand the Lakin defense it is stuck to the rules allowed under the UCMJ not the constitution , at this point. If convicted, as is forecast, the case will be appealed where it will fall under the jurisdiction of the civilian law and the supreme laws binding them. The jig as I see it is to run the clock on the eligibility issue until Obama leaves office in hopes of minimizing the fears of civil unrest. I can’t see any other reason for all courts to be playing fast and loose with the constitution. Even the case in front of Judge Carter was thrown and Carter alluded to the scenario where there would be no government left if the trial went forward given the breadth of the conspiracy required to put an ineligible man in the presidency. That doesn’t even begin to delve into the real status of the man whose alias is Barack Hussein Obama, his social security number (s) or his unusual selective service registration. All taken together there is reason to believe there is a whole lot more going on than just “opening the presidency up to naturalized citizens to improve voter choice” as the senate judiciary had attempted to employ a supposed decency act or relieve a ethnic or racial bias in order to sidestep the constitution back on Oct 5th, 2004. Comprehending danger is “all in ones head” and that isn’t being nuts, it’s being astute.