The judge will ask, “How have you been harmed?”
and when the general cannot show that he HAS been harmed, the judge will at the very least throw him out of the suit, for lack of “standing.”
It doesn’t matter that we have a law; you must demonstrate you’ve been harmed by failure to comply with the law.
Gotta Love this guy
So this guy doesn’t like Obama I gather?
On target!
I wonder how many retired/inactive officers and retired/honorbaly discharged NCOs out there are willing to form a shadow cadre for purposes of activating the unorganized militia in defense of the Constitution.
btt
I’ll be praying especially For Major General Childers during Lent, for sure.
:)
Surprise, surprise.
My e-mail to....
1. Glenn, I Personally Resent Your APOLOGY To Fox-n-Friends!!!!!!!!!!
2. Get Alan Keyes To Guest On Your Show!
3. Showcase THE ISSUE—Barack Hussein Obama’s Eligibility/Non-Eligibility For POTUS!!!!!!!!!!
Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
AKA: Gunny G
~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you General and don’t listen to the naysayers on here. No amount of evidence/common sense will ever sway their tainted minds.
But I observed last night on TV the unconscionable hobnobbing that took place (prior to Obama's speech) between the SCOTUS justices and Obama. I use the word "unconscionable" because the SCOTUS justices have pending business dealing with cases in which Obama is a party, and any socializing between judges and participants in cases that are scheduled to come before them violates the tenets of judicial ethics. (This is not the first time that such fraternization between Obama and the SCOTUS judges has occurred.) Frankly, this is not a good sign for those of us hoping and praying for the success of the plaintiffs in these cases.
There is publically known information that, at the very least circumtantially say's he's not a natural born citizen
He had FOREIGN citizenship at birth and
His father was a FOREIGN national (who never had U.S. citizenship of any kind)
and
He's provided no confirmation that he was even born in the U.S..
Much more than standing has been determined in legal cases with less information than that. I believe there's more to the story than simply saying citizens (voters) do not have standing to make sure those they put in office really are who they say they are. And, Attorney Puzo has a good point in that McCain was 'vetted' by congress...but Barry was not. There's no ambiguity there. Why the difference in treatment?