Posted on 04/03/2010 5:19:37 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
Lt. Col. Lakin is defining himself as a true leader. The presence of brave leaders such as Lakin in our military conserves its integrity.
In failing to act honorably and clear up the questions regarding his background, Obama legitimizes Lakin’s actions.
“Didn’t turn out very well for Spartacus in the end though, did it?”
From what standpoint?
I would ask you this—how did it turn out for him from a moral standpoint?
Terminally.
Of course, if you’re an Obama supporter, it’s very likely you don’t believe in the existence of morality.
(Same thing, if you’re an Obama supporter pretending not to be one.)
Terminally?
You refer to his moral fight against oppression and slavery, which goes on to this day and is the same as the fight against socialism?
The moral standpoint of Spartacus, from which he emerges as a true hero, inspiring others to continue the fight against oppression—that moral standpoint? (hint: “terminally” simply doesn’t fit)
I wonder if even Barack Obama, the Marxist puppet raised from when he was a wee thing, knows for sure where he was born. This is going to be embarrassing for the US Park Service which will have to erect several signs at various places in Hawaii reading “Barack Obama may have been born here.”
Not at all. Referring to it as a moral fight against oppression and slavery never once crossed my mind.
And you just see right through us, huh? Damn. </sarcasm>
The people on the Civil War threads say the same about me there.
Well, you might want to understand a little of the basics of the story of Spartacus, if you think you can comment on it.
Notice how the leadership of Spartacus involves taking a strong and brave stand against oppression and slavery, as it does in the case of Lt. Col. Lakin.
I’m just giving you both options because I don’t know what you are.
Based on gut feeling, I would guess you probably don’t believe in the existence of morality.
Unlike Lt. Col. Lakin, who provides a well-thought out and rational explanation as he takes a moral stand against unimaginable pressure.
Why, are you a bammie defender there too?
I often wonder just what will be displayed in his Presidential Library as to ‘place of birth’ since no one in Obama’s inner circle can agree on just which hospital he was born in.
Leo Donofrio came up for air because World Net Daily, which I suspected of churning the web hit counters with rumors while avoiding the key issue, a non-citizen father thus not a natural born citizen, asked for an article. Donofrio’s article appeared, perhaps unfortunately, on April 1. His description and simplification of Wong Kim Ark is eloquent.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Mario Apuzzo has reported on another clear exposition, by another of the founders, briefly President of the States United during the period of the Continental Congress, David Ramsay. Read the amazing history of this man, a medical doctor and remarkably prolific historian, at the Kerchner Apuzzo site, http://puzo1.blogspot.com.
There is simply no credible contrary argument. Our founders could not have been more clear about the Vattel definition, “born in the country of citizen parents.”
Perhaps as we approach thirty percent underemployed and begin blackouts with ten dollar gasoline the citizens will see that our founders knew there might be clever and devious usurpers. It was no accident that one criterion was the allegiance of the parents. It may not have been an accident that Bill Ayres called his book “Dreams from My Father.” Those dreams were for a Marxist Kenya under Sharia law. Obama was not Born in the country OF CITIZEN PARENTS, though he might have been born in the country.
Of course he may have been born of another father, but we must take him at his word. If Obama was truthful, and he told us many times, every bill, every appointment, every executive order, is probably moot. First we must obey the Constitution and we must force Obama, through the court, to respect and obey the Constitution - even though he said in 2001 that he doesn't. He took an oath. For whatever it meant to him, it was a condition for his employment.
“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States)
This is the most important statement of all...this in my opinion should apply to children born to illegal aliens. Mere presence does not follow the intent, their Allegiance is to their own country, not the United States.
It is ridiculous to think that the founders and framers would follow Natural Law like the British did. They wanted allegiance to this new country...they believed men were free and capable of making that choice!
It is fact that during the War of 1812 the British forced American citizens into servitude because of natural law....any colony of Great Britian or born of a colony of Great Britian negated the citizenship of its people (ie, Barak Obama, Sr).....the founders/framers fought a war to break that tie!
My interpretation may sound too simple but when you look at the writings and read the words itself, the Constitution and its intent is simple.....IMHO
His points are virtually all legal rather than philosophical, though the original principles, the “feudal” jus soli and jus sanguinis which corresponded to “legiance” or allegiance in the English law.
The deeply embedded left in our power structure surely has anticipated all this. It is like a chess match where they have made the first move. They have hidden Obama’s past, perhaps creating much of it with the help of Ayres, Jones (both), and others from the radical left who have been plotting for decades. They have thought of all the moves. We can guess that, since only a divorce certificate was located, he may claim his parents weren't married. He may claim a native born citizen as his true father. He could do lots of things, but the “when he knew it will make any legislation hard to pass”, and could make him an impeachment target.
We must take him at his word, that his father was Obama Sr. That is clearly a violation of every supreme court decision involving natural born citizenship since there is a clear path to the founder's acceptance of Vattel. If some judge has the courage (it is getting easier now that Obama's popularity is below 45%), there will be discovery. He will then have to show his hand, reveal his legal moves, if indeed he even chooses to fight removal or impeachment. His ruse has been so successfully executed we don't know what he has hidden. Having been adopted, he may not have chosen to be a citizen at majority, which could raise questions about his citizenship. That could have been the significance in the cauterizing of his passport files. There is some guidance for his successor, initially Biden and then a new election. Since Pelosi has vouched for his eligibility, and either lied or failed to validate her signed assertion, she seems quite an unlikely replacement. But first, the clear violation of an alien father must open the legal door.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.