Jueves, 16 de diciembre de 2010

British Citizenship: the True Disqualifier for Obama

? ??3Share 0diggsdigg ?

WHY DID NEITHER OF LAKIN?S LEGAL TEAMS USE THE OBVIOUS TO PROVE OBAMA?S INELIGIBILITY TO SERVE?

by Lester Kincaid

Why did Obama readily admit that his father had British citizenship before the election? Many say that Obama has lied "about everything." Is this one of those things? Is his father actually someone else?

(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.

? 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


?

9 Responses for ?British Citizenship: the True Disqualifier for Obama?

  1. Justitia says:

    May I second CH?s comments and analysis? It is quite obvious to those who love the Constitution that ?politics? may NOT trump Constitutional Order and Law.

    Lakin may have ?Lost? at one level, but his ?loss? has actually brought a strange triumph to eligibility seekers.

    As CH has so correctly maintained, the press is NOW all over this and it is a topic squarely in the arena of public debate. It had been marginalized by the press and pundits until now, and the fact that LTC LAKIN?s trial did not resolve it, ironically STILL exacerbates the issue for Obama.

    If anything it is a major nibble at Obama?s Achilles Heel.

    Mirroring so many of Obama?s lies, perhaps his REAL FATHER is NOT Barack Sr.
    Nonetheless, the British Subject and then later, Kenyan citizen, accepted paternity for Barry Jr.

    It may not be universally recognized or yet acknowledged, but this ASSAULT on the CONSTITUTION means the eventual end of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY which will split into various factions and cease to be a national force in American Politics.

    They have been unveiled and national awareness just needs to catch up. It will?.very swiftly.

  2. iluvamerica says:

    Why would the Republicans be complicit in this cover-up? Congress has worked on bills to remove Natural Born Citizen requirement many times over the years.

    The biggest reason may be JINDAL!! Republicans and Gov. Jindal need to know, we will NOT vote for Jindal or any other candidate for President or VP, who is not a Natural Born Citizen. Fox News has been touting Gov. Jindal and Rubio for the top of the ticket. We need to make sure the Republican party knows in advance, It?s NOT going to happen.

    How many republican House and Senate members need to be replaced in 2012??? Every member who does not step up and protect our Constitution!! The Supreme court says this is the responsibility of the House and Senate. If you are not going to do your job in DC?STEP DOWN or we will do it for you. God Bless America

  3. TheGoodRevDr says:

    Why did Alito and Thomas not write dissents to Apuzzo?s case? They had an opportunity to make history by calling Obama a fraud and failed to do so.

  4. RacerJim says:

    ?When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.? ? Thomas Jefferson

    Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the United States of America from the former into the latter.

  5. Kevin J. Lankford says:

    This is as simple as it can get. The facts are in their face,but they choose to ignore
    the truth, the Constitution, and the People.

    It could not be more clear,this is a challenge to the People. Accept this Fraud or Else!

  6. AuntieMadder says:

    ?But Obama?s father?s and his own citizenship at birth are not concealed and are in violation of the Constitution.?

    Please, tell us how you know who his father is.

    ?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.?

    No. It was proof that, when it comes to this man and his ineligibility to hold the office of the POTUS, there is no recourse and there will be no justice, not in the justice system or the military courts, not by arguing that his alleged father was a Brit when he was born nor by arguing that he?s not proven where he was born or to whom.

  7. The Big Boo says:

    Excellent summary and conclusions. By ?implicit? I take it you mean Traitor. All those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and are in public office, are now in fact Traitors to the Constitution if not actively seeking redress and remedy of the usurpation of the Office of President. This of course includes all the commissioned officers of the Military as well as the Congress (Deal perhaps excepted).

    Action now seems to fall upon the shoulders of state legislatures and Secretaries of State. Entanglement here by requiring FULL Disclosure and proof of Eligibility as per the Constitution, will put an end to this venal and corrupt scheme.

  8. Last I checked, in order to conclusively prove who one?s birth parents are, a long-form or hospital generated birth certificate must be viewed/verified, by some sort of legal authority?

    Most of us know that Obama would be ineligible if his parents are who he claims them to be, but, many still don?t know that fact?

    What if his birth parents are not who he claims them to be?
    ???????
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I highly suspect that to be the case. His ?mother? spent almost no time with him as he was growing up; she ?returned? to school supposedly just weeks after having a baby in 1961 (the University of WA verified that it was September, not August, but that still would have been barely six weeks), and he bears a striking resemblance to Stanley Armour Dunham. Perhaps Barack Obama Sr. was a surrogate parent who was easy to put down as the father on a fake COLB because he?s dead. However, if that proves to be the case, and the truth will undoubtedly come out some day, it would prove that he?s a complete fraud. Who wants that kind of person in the White House?

  9. ch says:

    You need to see a birth certificate to build the next step about place of birth of parents. Dr. Lakin knows Obama is hiding the truth about who he is. It is running in national newspapers. My own Oregon paper which has avoided any truth, from some odd reason ran this article. They may be all playing games at the top to have the new Republican Congress handle it. I think the defense of Obama plays the game that it is a ?political question? with ?political motives.? They play this lie so often, like the Alinsky tactic, if you lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The crime has definitel happened in the political arena, but it is not a political question and motives are not political. It is a constitutional question and a legal question. Somebody has got to learn to learn judo law, and flip these Alinsky guys to the carpet! If the Obama Alinsky crowd can play this out long enough, they will have made it to the end run, and Obama?s term will be over, and all their illegal laws will be in place and their illegal Supreme Court judges sitting safely chained to their seats. It is pretty obviously this is a game being playing one way publicly and another very different way privately. God bless America?.He knows what is going on, and has warned about ?plotting.? It will come to no good for those who undermine Truth.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios