If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
WHY DID NEITHER OF LAKIN’S LEGAL TEAMS USE THE OBVIOUS TO PROVE OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY TO SERVE?
by Lester Kincaid
(Dec. 15, 2010) — Mrs. Rondeau’s view of a corrupted military is certainly correct. Dr. Lakin’s actions were always suspect, though it isn’t clear who, if anyone, was guiding him. Dr. Lakin was backed by a shadowy 501(c)3 with little record of direct activism. Dr. Lakin, voicing concern about the natural born Citizen clause, referred to statute – citizenship law – rather than the dozens of statements confirming the natural law definition of a natural born Citizen, “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Birth certificates are irrelevant when a child is born of a non-citizen parent. It was all about allegiance. When the Constitution was written, the citizenship of the father became that of the wife. A child’s allegiance can be influenced by either parent. The large majority of U.S. citizens were natural born after about 1800. Obama never hid his father’s citizenship – British – or his own at birth – British.
For Dr. Lakin to apparently put his future at risk but not understand the Constitution raised doubts about his motives. The Marxists running our government have raised the level of cynicism about our government, perhaps by design. For the JAG to not have allowed discovery sounds challengeable, but with the major issue being avoided by the Supreme Court, that is, the definition of natural born Citizen, justice is now about politics. The Constitution has become Obama’s “artifact.” It will remain to be seen whether the refusal to recuse themselves constitutes “Good Behavior” on the part of the new justices. They can be removed by the Senate, and I hope most of us will not forget the Kerchner certiorari review.
CDR Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo proved that corruption now dominates the Supreme Court. The two Obama appointees, who would have lost their jobs if the Kerchner case had been reviewed, refused to recuse themselves. It is common-law and common sense that a fiduciary interest in a decision by a judge requires recusal. Three justices are clearly originalists (I suspect that Roberts, who knew Obama was illigitimate, and had the responsibility to ask the question, was the defector), and could have granted certiorari if only seven justices were part of the review.
We will probably never know Dr. Lakin’s motives, but the publicity he generated, supporting the misdirection around a birth certificate, could have been subterfuge. Obama was born a British subject. Would our framers have been so stupid as to allow a born British subject to command our military? They explicitly forbade it. Even if Obama had been born of a natural born father and a non-citizen mother, he would still not be naturally born, i.e., require no legal qualifiation. A subtle partition, explained by Mario Apuzzo, and stated to much confusion by Earl Cheit, the retired Dean of Hastings, U.C. Berkeley’s law school: Citizens are either naturally born or naturalized.
Obama’s cadre has permeated our government. His documents have been concealed, just as Chester Arthur hid his birth certificate to keep the suspicion focused on his birth, and not his father’s British citizenship, when he was born.
Dr. Lakin’s lawyers’ claims required that Obama release his records. As disgusting as it is that our judicial branch allows the concealment of the background of our most important public official, that is currently the situation. But Obama’s father’s and his own citizenship at birth are not concealed and are in violation of the Constitution. For Dr. Lakin to challenge the executive on jus soli – born on the soil – without proof, when the jus sanguinis requirement – citizen parents – was already admitted, was a guarantee of failure. As “jtx” pointed out, when SCOTUS refused to hear Kerchner, the fix was in. Our only path is through the legislature, Tea Parties, and a few honest legislators. Every legislator in Congress when Obama was elected except Nathan Deal, who did request proof of eligibility and was answered with ethics charges, is complicit. Don’t expect any of them to speak up. They only want the issue to go away.