Tag Archives: August 6

LTC Terry Lakin arraignment, August 6, 2010, Obama birth certificate, US Constitution, Citizen Wells open thread

LTC Terry Lakin arraignment, August 6, 2010, Obama birth certificate, US Constitution

Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Military officers take the following oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

They are duty bound to support and defend the Constitution and disobey illegal orders. Attorneys in the military are duty bound to uphold justice.

Great commenter and blogger Zach Jones provided this article from  CNN.

“A court hearing is scheduled for Friday in the case of a soldier who has refused to deploy to Afghanistan until President Obama proves that he was born in America and is legally eligible to be president.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is scheduled to go before a judge in Virginia to enter a plea on charges that include disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

He is a decorated Army doctor and an 18-year veteran who is now facing court martial for disobeying orders to ship out for another tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Lakin says the orders are illegal because, he claims, Obama — the commander-in-chief — has not proven he was born in this country.

Lakin wants Obama to produce his birth certificate.

“It’s a fundamental of the Constitution, and my oath of office is to the Constitution. And I believe we need truth on this matter,” Lakin told CNN’s “AC 360″ in May.”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/06/birther.court.martial/?hpt=T2

Natural Born Citizen, US Constitution, Kerchner update, August 6, 2009, Founding Fathers, Obama not natural born citizen

I received this update from Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit.

From attorney Mario Apuzzo:

“Thursday, August 6, 2009

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in his, The Law of Nations (1758), a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”

Read more about the lawsuit here:

Larry Sinclair book, Citizen Wells review, Status update, August 6, 2009, Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair, Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?, Donald Young murder

I have spoken to Larry Sinclair several times over the past several days. His new book, “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair, Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder?” is doing well. The book is available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Books a Million and other book stores nationwide and internationally. I have had the book review ready for several days, but thought it fitting to make it the first article on my .com. The review is up at

http://citizenwells.com

The Obama camp is still at it, broadcasting lies, creating diversions and still trying to discredit Larry Sinclair and his book. Notice that Obama has never filed a lawsuit against Larry Sinclair. The reasons are obvious. The evil, Orwellian weasels of the Obama camp are going online, en mass, to create lower ratings for Larry’s book as well as file false book reviews.

Larry is requesting that anyone that buys his book  go online and rate it. It is the least we can do. Larry has risked his life and spent what little money he had to keep this important story alive. We owe this to Larry and especially the American public, to know the truth about the real Barack Obama.

Very few people know this, but Larry Sinclair has never been in this for the money. I know this for a fact. I covered this story in detail, had hundreds of conversations with him, controlled his blog when he was illegally arrested and watched from a front row seat as thousands tried to stop him. What very few people really know is that I tried on numerous occassions to convince Larry to make money off of his enormous web traffic. His answer was always the same:

“I am not doing this for the money.”

Obama’s Muslim Outreach Adviser Resigns, Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2008, WSJ, Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi resigns

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, Obama’s Muslim outreach coordinator has resigned. Asbahi had an 8 year association with Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois. Mr. Said was named an unindicted co-conspirator, by the Justice Department, in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers.

Read more about the resignation at:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121797906741214995.html