Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Three Star General Backs Army Officer Facing Court Martial For Refusing To Deploy To Afghanistan: Challenges Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status

Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney is backing an Army officer facing court martial for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because of his doubts that President Barack Hussein Obama, Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military, is a natural born citizen, a constitutional requirement for serving as president. McInerney has furnished the following affidavit in support of Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, who is currently facing a court martial trial for refusing to deploy and openly questioning Obama's natural born citizenship status:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.


As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential-- vital-- in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it...Indeed, he has publicly stated that he "invites" his own court martial, and were I the Convening Authority, I would have acceded to his wishes in that regard. But thus stepping up the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin's request for discovery relating to the President's birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious-- and widely held-- concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue..
As I've previously noted, it makes no difference whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or some place else. On that point, McInerney gets it wrong. The original birth certificate can't and won't answer that question. The fact is he is not a natural born citizen because he was born the son of Kenyan father. Only children born of U.S. citizen parents can be deemed natural born citizens under our Constitution. We know that, and we don't need to see a birth certificate to prove that. That term is only used once in the U.S. Constitution in reference to eligibility to be president of the United States. All other references in the Constitution pertain to citizens in general.

Many people mistakenly think the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," makes any one born in the U.S. a natural born citizen. Quite to the contrary, it only says you are citizen, and it limits its application to those persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The framers made a distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen for a reason, and the authors of the 14th Amendment understood that distinction. That's why they used the word "citizen" when they wrote the amendment.

By his own admission, Obama was a dual citizen at birth because of his Kenyan father's citizenship. That alone makes the question of his natural born citizenship a moot point; dual citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship are completely incompatible. You are or you aren't. It's that simple. He's not. He also later became a citizen of Indonesia when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro. Obama and his mother immigrated to Indonesia with Soetoro where school records identified Soetoro as his father, listed his name as "Barry Soetoro", listed his religion as Muslim (the same as his paternal father and adopted father) and identified him as an Indonesian citizen. Of course, the Constitution has become virtually meaningless over the past few years so I guess it's a waste of time to even make the point. The New World Order decided Obama was The One and he would bring about an end to America as we know it. Now we're seeing the consequences of the end of American sovereignty.

When the framers concluded deliberations on our new constitution in Philadelphia, a woman is said to have asked Benjamin Franklin, one of the delegates to the convention, what they had done. Franklin is said to have replied,  "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it." Unfortunately, we have turned away from the rule of law and are now reaping the consequences. I dare question whether the Republic even exists today.

35 comments:

James said...

Dude...

This kind of nonsense erodes your credibility.

Look, the military is under civilian control, end of story. They don't get to pick and choose if they deploy or not.

Obama is our President. He is the Commander in Chief until such time as his term expires, he resigns or is impeached.

A General doesn't get to decide that.

If he was not qualified to be President, that should have been determined before he was elected. Courts give great deference to the will of the electorate and they don't invalidate an election based on a technicality (not saying that there is one... the point is that they won't do it).

So, bottom line is that he is the President for the remainder of his term- with all of the responsibilities and authority that goes with that position.

Any active military who doesn't get the chain of command needs to be dealt with swiftly and surely.

Culinary said...

Give it up, Advance Indiana.

Your "cause" is moot.

James said...

Oh wait... this is the same General who wants to personally strip search all 18-29 year old Muslim males before letting them fly on a plane.

In essence he's saying "we have to destroy the Constitution to save it..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXfnjkxBTrk&feature=player_embedded

This is the kind of fear mongering, heavy handed, unconstitutional power grabbing that got Obama elected.

Ummm. I think this guy isn't wrapped too tight - either that or he has a thing for young Muslim men.

dcrutch said...

If the general had one peer in the active ranks that took the same stand, life might be about to get very interesting. Provided mainstream media would acknowledge this is happening.

That might be the bigger "if".

TellerIP said...

Re: "As I've previously noted, it makes no difference whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya or some place else. On that point, McInerney gets it wrong. The original birth certificate can't and won't answer that question. The fact is he is not a natural born citizen because he was born the son of Kenyan father. Only children born of U.S. citizen parents can be deemed natural born citizens under our Constitution. "

Who told you that? Are the words "two US citizen parents in the Constitution? No they are not. The words are Natural Born Citizen, and it can be shown that in dozens of quotations by AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution that Natural Born always meant "born in the country" and never was used by any American writer to mean "born to two citizen parents."

And, it can be shown that John Jay, who used the phrase in a letter to George Washington, used Natural Born just like everyone else at the time to refer to birth within the country and not to the citizenship of the parents of a person.

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

I'll bet you say that these two Senators are wrong. Well, who is your authority? It certainly is not the US Supreme Court, which in the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

And when a person is both Natural Born and a citizen, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen. That is why there have been so many federal cases that have ruled that the US-born children of one or two foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens.

Advance Indiana said...

All of the evidence of the intent behind the framers, including John Jay, who authored the provision, backs my interpretation TellerIP. Contrary to popular myth, the U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the term. Hatch and Graham were in the mode of protecting John McCain, whose own NBC status was challenged because he was born in a hospital in Panama, not on U.S. soil. The only statute ever adopted by the Congress--one of the first following the adoption of the Constitution, interpreted the natural born citizen as I've interpreted it and sought to expand its meaning to include the children born of U.S. diplomats serving overseas. That statute was later repealed, but it made clear Congress believed the child had to be born to U.S. citizen parents. The founders didn't want pirates from Morocco landing on U.S. shores, knocking up a woman here, returning to their native countries and then letting that child grow up to be president, or in contemporary times, illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border simply so they can give birth to their children on American soil. I've studied this position at length. I'm more learned on the point that 99% of the people who dismiss those of us who bother to read and study the Constitution as crazy birthers who are anti-Muslim bigots. I don't care whether you agree with me on this point or not. I will stand by my principles and lose any day rather than lose my principles and win. I realize that's a concept foreign to the corrupt men and women who rule this country today, but it's what my parents taught me and it's how I choose to lead my life.

James said...

AI - Even if you think you are correct about your interpretation of "Natural Born Citizen" you know that the point is moot.

There is clear precedent that a court will not invalidate an election after the election has taken place. They are not going to be put in the position of giving opponents a second, third, and fourth shot at a candidate once the election has been decided at the ballot box.

Any discussion about birth certificates, the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen", etc.
is neither here nor there at this point.

TellerIP said...

Re: "The only statute ever adopted by the Congress--one of the first following the adoption of the Constitution, interpreted the natural born citizen as I've interpreted it..'

Actually, no. You are referring to the first naturalization law. That law added that a child born to two US citizens abroad is also a US citizen. It did not say a thing about citizens who were born in the USA. Not a word.

Moreover, the meaning does not stem from the word "citizen. Citizenship is set by law. At one time American Indians (Native Americans) were not considered citizens. Then, by law in 1925 they became citizens.

The meaning comes from Natural Born. That was used at the time just the way that Native Born is used now. Native Born was not a popular phrase at the time (I'll speculate that it implied "born of natives.") Who knows why. But Native Born was the popular phrase and it always was used by AMERICANS (Including Jay, want to see an example?) to mean 'born in the country."

As for the Supreme Court not having decided, as i said the Wong Kim Ark case ruled on the meaning of Natural Born. It did not have to say, since it should be perfectly obvious, that a Natural Born Citizen is the combination of Natural Born and Citizen, just as a cross-eyed citizen is a combination of cross-eyed and citizen.

And that is why there have been about eight federal cases in which the judges and justices have stated in their rulings that the US-born children of one or two foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens. Want to see examples?

Advance Indiana said...

The problem, James, is there were numerous lawsuits filed prior to Obama's election and swearing-in. Every single one of them brought by citizens who were denied a hearing on the merits because they were told they did not have standing to raise the issue.

Wong Kim Ark did not interpret the meaning of natural born citizen as used in the presidential qualifications clause, TellerIP. You and others on the Left have completely misinterpreted that ruling.

Advance Indiana said...

I love it. Every time I blog on this subject, there is a network of leftist bloggers from around the country--and even outside the country--who descend on the post to try and discredit the points I make. Sorry, but the American people are now coming over to my side on this issue. That's what has all of you Obama fans--albeit a number declining by the day--so up in arms whenever the subject is broached. The man is now viewed by most Americans as the complete imposter he is. He is the biggest fraud in American political history, and the American people now know that.

Downtown Indy said...

Funny, AI, I was scanning to the bottom of the comments wondering 'Who are these people? Never seen them before.'

Then I got to your post and had to laugh. Yeah, somebody got the word out - and here they come!

Advance Indiana said...

Teller IP, incidentally, visits blogs globally to defend Obama against challenges to his natural born citizenship status. As I've documented in the past, his IP address tracks him back to Canada. It only figures that someone outside the country would be on the front line of defending Obama.

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

Gary? Do you feel there is a possibility that TellerId is being paid to post comments on blogs such as yours that post on the question of Obama's right to hold the office of POTUS?

Thanks for telling us TellerID's internet origin is Canadian.

Advance Indiana said...

Google TellerID and you find his comments defending Obama all over the blogosphere. Yes, Melyssa, I do believe he is a paid operative--one of hundreds employed by George Soros and the massive disinformation campaign that he and foreign interests financed to affect the outcome of the 2008 elections in America. It has been proven that Obama's own online campaign finance system allowed foreigners to contribute to his campaign--the only presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential election that did not have edits/audits in the online system to prevent foreigners from illegally contributing to his campaign. The hard evidence was shown to the Omedia and they ignored the evidence. Other candidates saw their committees being subjected to incredible scrutiny by the FEC while Obama's committee got a complete pass. That is why nobody could compete with the hundreds of millions of dollars that flowed into his campaign, aside from all of the soft money spent by people like Soros to influence the election.

dcrutch said...

Amazing the input you get on this topic, but nothing compared to the screeching you'd hear if a President McCain refused to disclose birth and educational records. If there's no problem, then release the records. That's the drumbeat we'd hear from major newspapers and television networks with a President McCain.

Advance Indiana said...

You make a good point, dscrutch. McCain's original, long form birth certificate was released showing his birth at a Panamanian hospital. His grade transcripts at the Naval Academy were released. He was hammered because he had such poor grades. We know nothing about Obama's schooling other than where he attended school. He has hired scores of attorneys to block access to every school record, birth record, you name it to prevent people from learning what Americans in the normal course of events typically learn about the person they put in charge of this country. He still remains a great mystery. Fox News attempted to find classmates who attended school with him at Columbia. They called hundreds of students who had a similar major and none of them recalled him attending school there. George Stephanopolous didn't recall him attending school there, and he was at the school at the same time. A guy who went to high school with him started to give interviews to reporters and the Obama people dug up old arrest records to discredit him. Why? What is this man hiding?

Carlos F. Lam said...

Gary, I still don't see how Pres. Obama (aka Barry Soetero) wouldn't fall under _Wong Kim Ark_. In _Wong_ BOTH of the dude's parents were non-citizens when he was born in San Fran. Yet, the _Wong_ Court decided that he did fit the definition necessary for citizenry via the 14th Amendment. With regard to Pres. Obama, there's no question that at least 1 of his parents was a U.S. citizen.

Marv said...

In the last election the two major parties did not give US citizens a legitimate choice for President since John McCain was born outside of the United States in the Panama Canal Zone.


I have this issue with your argument:

First, Obama's mother was a United States citizen. Using even the strictest "jus sanguine" standard, i.e. that nationality passes only through the mother, and if born in Hawaii then Obama passes the citizenship test.

Secondly, should one lose ones otherwise legitimate US citizenship because of a parent's actions or the laws of another nation.

For example, let's say a person is of Italian decent. There is no limit to the number of generations through which Italian citizenship jure sanguinis can be passed? According to Italian law, there is no limit, provided that your Italian ancestor was born in Italy and emigrated after 1861 and that you can produce documentation proving your lineage. So, can a person of Italian decent ever be President of the United States?

Or under Belgium law a former Belgian citizen may resume Belgian citizenship by declaration after a 12-month period of residence. Residence abroad can be equated with residence in Belgium if the person can prove genuine ties with Belgium. The conditions under which the person lost his or her Belgian nationality and the reasons for wishing to regain it will be taken into account. Children aged under 18 automatically acquire Belgian citizenship if a responsible parent resumes Belgian citizenship. So, can someone born within the US of fully naturalized US citizens be President of the United States if prior to his/her 18th birthday one of their parents decides to become Belgium again?

Finally, Israel's Law of Return grants all those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship. So, can a Jew be President of the United States since any Jew is an inchoate Israeli?

Cato said...

No. The source of all military authority is the Congress. The President merely executes what the Congress has ordered.

Cato said...

Do you guys really want Joe the Biden as President and Hillary as veep?

If you bounce Obama, this is what you'll get. Joe will assume control and nominate Hillary as #2. Then, Joe will decline to run for reelection, and Hillary will slide into the top spot.

Advance Indiana said...

Again, there are different types of citizens. There are natural born citizens (children born of US citizen parents on US soil), there are native born citizens (born on US Soil regardless of parents citizenship (14th amendment); there are naturalized citizens; and there are citizens conferred by statute, such as children of US citizens born abroad. Only natural born citizens are eligible to be president. Obama could be a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in Hawaii, or if he was born abroad as some argue without proof, he could still be a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen and is statutorily conferred the right to have her children born abroad a US citizen. In neither case is he a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan. Someone raised the issue of Jews and having dual citizenship in Israel. Many American Jews don't hold Israeli ctizenship, but many others do. I would argue that you cannot serve two masters. If you are otherwise a natural born citizen but take on citizenship of another country at the same time, it poses a problem. Some have questioned whether Jewish Americans who choose to be citizens of both countries can serve as president. I think it may have been an issue with Joe Lieberman. Jewish Americans with dual citizenship are allowed to vote in both countries, and there are Jewish Americans living in Israel who vote in elections here and there from abroad. There is only one office where any of this makes any difference and that is the office of President. If you don't like the requirement, then amend the constitution. Instead, people have simply decided on their own they don't like it and have twisted the term to mean something it clearly was not intended to mean.

porsche said...

I don't get it? What is so bad about Obama? He reminds me of Clinton - smart, polished, and a member of our nation's meritocracy.

Obama like Clinton came into office at a time when our country is struggling economically and socially. Obama like Clinton is selling "Hope", something we so desperately need in this country after the Bush presidencies - both of whom rallied for "oil grab" wars.

And where it has gotten us? Trillions of dollars of more debt and hundreds of thousands of lost lives.

I'm of the opinion there's not much difference between a republican & democrat politician except for the rhetoric.

Please move on. Support our president, support our country, and support our citizens.

Carlos F. Lam said...

Gary, if I read you right you posit 4 types of US citizenry:

1. Natural born = born on US soil + TWO US citizen parents

2. Native born = born on US soil

3. Naturalized citizen

4. Statutory citizen

Your contention is that the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2, section 1 requires a candidate for President to be born on US soil AND to be the child of TWO US citizen parents. This is the De Vattel definition.

Assuming your contention (the De Vattel position) is correct, then Pres. Obama would fail the "natural born citizen" test you provided because--while he was born on US soil in Hawaii--he is the product of only ONE US citizen parent.

I would also note that your position does seem to have some statutory support: the Naturalization Act of 1795 dropped the phrase "natural born" and stated only that only that foreign-born children of American parents shall be considered as "citizens" of the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had conferred "natural born" status upon such children. A cogent argument could be made that Congress intentionally changed the language of the Act because it wanted only children born on American soil of two American parents to be able to accede to the Presidency.

I find your arguments persuasive, though I tend to believe that the _Wong Kim Ark_ framework is the current state of the law, regardless of what the Constitutional convention & Congress originally intended. I encourage you to continue posting on this matter regardless of the criticism that may be leveled against you.

Carlos F. Lam said...

"Support our president, support our country, and support our citizens."

porsche, the above statement scares me. Pres. Bush's supporters used such language to ram through a disastrous war, the PATRIOT Act, and the TARP. The state does not need our support; it is our fellow citizens who need us to forever be questioning, probing, and testing the state's motives.

Advance Indiana said...

No, The Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision was not ask to interpret the natural born citizen language contained in the qualifications clause for president; it was asked to determine whether a child born of alien parents on American soil who had lived his entire life in the U.S. and whose parents had returned to China was a citizen. The court answered he was a citizen. That's all the court decided in that case. There's a lot of mixing up of the terms citizen, natural born and native born in dicta. Each has a distinctive meaning. Look to the actual holding.

Marycatherine Barton said...

If it indeed is true that Barry was adopted by Soetoro, his abusive step-father, who is an Indonesian, then how is he also a citizen of the USA? We all know that he decided not to renew his Illinois law license, and I have concluded that he did not, because the administrators wanted to know why he signed a document under oath, that he never had or used any other names. Barack has used names other than Obama, on passports and elsewhere, and to fight this (true) accusation, he would have had to disclose records that would have been not only embarrassing, but could be determined to be fraud. Michelle also gave up her license, for similar reasons. Google it, lol.

It is the passport name problem, not the birth certificate, on which the Democrats and Obama administration do not want focus. What a fake we have in President Obama.

A century ago, President Wilson, grief stricken, declared that he had destroyed the USA, had made it into a controlled debtor nation, by supporting the creation of the phonily-named, Federal Reserve. I wish you did not feel compelled to write your last sentence, and invite you and all to stand with the Honorable Ron Paul and to call to end the fed, stop the wars, abolish the CIA, and to audit the U.S. Gold Reserves.

When I telephone Senator Luger's Indianapolis office to ask him to vote yea or nay on certain bills, the young man there usually tries to tell me how I should think. He has identified himself as, Jonathan, and last told me that never has any of Congressman Paul's bills passed. If not, great shame on his fellow so-called REPUBLICans.

Carlos F. Lam said...

Gary, despite what the ACTUAL holding in _Wong Kim Ark_ may be, haven't the courts essentially treated the decision as determinative with respect to what a "natural born citizen" is? You are correct that the _Wong_ Court wasn't asked to interpret Article 2, section 1, but other courts seemingly have extended the _Wong_ holding. However, I fully recognize that you are much more well-versed in immigration law than I am.

As an aside, who WOULD have standing to mount an Article 2, section 1 standing? Another candidate running for President? A state's top election official (i.e. Indiana's Sec'y of state)?

porsche said...

@Carlos. . . support does not mean not to question, probe, nor test the decisions of our elected officials. However, I can tell you that currently given the state of our government and nation rather than question Obama's citizenship in an effort to undermine his authority, the focus should be on his policies and leadership abilities. For me, the jury is still out on his presidency but I do think he was a better choice than McCain. And definately better than Baby Bush.

Advance Indiana said...

Carlos, A first step would be to require candidates who file for the office of president to present evidence to support their eligibility--namely, a certified copy of their original birth certificate, not a certificate of birth, which a GAO study concluded are quite easy to forge or illegally acquire. The California Secretary of State has in the past bounced independent candidates he deemed constitutionally ineligible-(i.e., not old enough or not an NBC). The courts have affirmed his right to do it. It has never happened in the case of a major party candidate. I suspect there will be at least one state elections official in 2012 who will be bold enough to challenge Obama just for the sake of testing the issue.

Carlos F. Lam said...

@Porsche: one can attack his policies--I know that I do--while @ the same question his legitimacy in certain places. Obviously, if questioning his legitimacy actually HURTS one's arguments against Pres. Obama's policies among a given audience, then one should remain mum on the subject.

porsche said...

@carlos . . I actually agree with you. . . However, as I wrote earlier "...given the state of our government and nation rather than question Obama's citizenship in an effort to undermine his authority . . ."

Undermining his authority is the underlying motivation for this kind of discussion. This is my point.

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

I stand with Ron Paul too.

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

Porsche, it's a shame that you seem so content to pick from the evil choices for president the elites serve up for you on a platter.

You could have written in Ron Paul, he serves no master but Americans and the constitution.

Marycatherine Barton said...

As an aside, if you will permit, some people think that Barack's real father is Frank Marshall Davis, who at the time of his conception was already married. Abortion being illegal then, and Obama, Sr. then 40, and already with a wife in Kenya, might have been an arranged marriage.

There is an article on line, "Obama's Father and the CIA", that has photos comparing Barry to Frank to Sr Obama, at the same age, and our president's resembland to Davis is remarkable. Btw, Madsen's five chapter series on the Obamas and Durhams connection to the CIA can now be found at the On-Line Journal.

Advance Indiana said...

Obama confirmed in one of his autobiographies his grandparents' friendship with Frank Marshall Davis when they were living in Hawaii. Davis wrote in one of his books about having sex with a 15-year-old girl. Some suspect he is the one who photographed Obama's mother in the nude. I don't buy that he was Obama's real father though. If you google it, you'll also find stories speculating that Malcolm X is Obama's real father, particularly since Andy Martin is the one who started that speculation.