Posted on 04/13/2010 1:39:03 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Another officer finds a very creative way to commit professional suicide.
There is no way the case will go the for the defense. No military judge wants to be the one to unseat a president.
More than two-thirds of non-U.S. students use funds from their own personal accounts and from their families as the primary source of financing their education. Only about 20 percent of non-U.S. students receive most of their academic funding from a U.S. college or university.
http://www.usjournal.com/en/students/info/finaid.html
Believe me now?
How do you prove natural born citizenship? Dig up your parents’ birth certificates?
This is just another reason why I’m not convinced by the argument that “natural born citizen” refers to anything other than citizenship from birth.
“If you don’t want to read the entire decision, I suggest that you scroll down to page 10 and section B which is entitled “Natural Born Citizen” and read the court’s ruling just on whether Obama (and McCain) qualify as Natural Born Citizens or not.”
Truly no insult intended, but I specifically wanted to hear about this from someone other than yourself. Your position and view is already clear. I’m not saying you are incorrect, I just wanted to see if someone with a dissenting view would step in and offer an alternative spin. It is strange that I haven’t heard about this case before....but then again I’m not an attorney (obviously) so....
Of course, not being an attorney has some advantages. For instance, to my non-legal mind, I cannot see that a failure to hear a case constitutes a real decision. Silence (not hearing a case) is NOT an answer to REAL people. Maybe attornies live in an alternate universe. ;-)
” . and the president has the power to put this whole matter to rest without court-martialing a career military officer by showing his birth certificate. “
Bingo. We have a winner.
As I have posted previously, assume for the sake of argument that Obama knows that he is a completely legitimate natural born citizen.
He has complete faith that there is absolutely nothing in his background to even hint of anything less.
What kind of Commander in Chief would allow deploying troops to think otherwise ?
Or to believe that he’s hiding something ?
It’s bizarre that a Commander in Chief , especially a war time one, would allow such a false and pervasive cloud to hang over him .
Or that he would allow a valued officer like LTC Lakin to immolate his career because he’s too stubborn and arrogant to do the right thing .
And it’s such a simple thing.
You would think that if Obama wouldn’t do it for the troops,
he would do it for his own reputation.
Dang .. missed it. What’s the scoop?
Having your livelihood taken away because you are falsely called senile is indeed a threat. Having your notes dumped on the floor while you’re taking a rest break and then being plied with questions while you’re still trying to pull your notes together and then being called senile because you didn’t have immediate answers is indeed a threat.
Just like being told it’d be a shame if your company was audited by a (mafia-instructed-to-plant-incriminating evidence) IRS is a threat.
The difference with Chrysler is that bankruptcy laws were broken so that what belonged by law to the secured creditors went instead to the union thugs who got Obama elected. Why do you think they didn’t fight?
Maybe they learned from the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. It’s just peachy to say it’s a black man’s world and go home honky as long as you’re black, Muslim, and Eric Holder’s in charge of law enforcement in the country.
Or maybe they learned from Obama’s tattle program - where people were supposed to report anybody “fishy” to the White House. Why would the White House want to know who’s “fishy” unless they intend to do something about it?
Or maybe they remembered the law enforcement “truth squads” in Missouri. Before the election law enforcement said they would be looking out for anybody who said Obama’s a Muslim or that he would raise taxes. Wouldn’t let any lawn signs say those things.
And there’s nothing threatening at all about memos sent by Janet Napolitano warning law enforcement that people who believe in limited government, oppose abortion, or belong to the military are likely to be terrorists. The memo going out right before a Tea Party protest. Nothing threatening about that at all.
This guy would NEVER use legitimate law enforcement or government processes as a tool to control the populace. Nah. Never happen.
He would never give somebody the job of codifying all the laws into enforceable rules if they had written that they thought the government could have a duty to put abortifacients and sterilizing drugs in the water supply by stealth in order to be more “green”. Use laws and a position of power to to bump off 9 out of every 10 people on earth in a sneaky manner? Nah. That’s not what these people are like. Never mind that they said it’s an option.
Oh - and those Bill Ayers Columbia University-type folks who talked about exterminating 25 million people who they expected to balk in the re-education camps? Obama would never let those folks visit the White House. He could never pass the security clearance to become president if he was friends with people like that, or met (or launched his political career...) in their house or his house or wherever...
Yeah, people are just, like, totally crazy if they imagine there might be a lawless thug in the White House. Totally nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
According to footnote 23, Martin Luther King was
also involved in aiding African students in getting
an education here thru churches, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278969/posts?page=356#356
Due to a program offering Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students that was organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya, Obama Sr. was awarded a scholarship in economics, and at the age of 23 (1959) he enrolled at the University of Hawaii. Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Senior’s early years in the United States. Elizabeth Mooney Kirk worked in Kenya and in concert with Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya. Kirk and Malcolm X, both New Yorkers, would have certainly met in Kenya. Kirk co-authored many books with Frank Charles Laubach, founder of LLI.
Aside: Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father.
(However, as you may already have noted, sourced research on the OBAMA AFRICAN COLONIAL thread shows clearly that Obama Senior was NOT on that first airlift. He had in fact, arrived in Hawaii some months prior to the first airlift landing at Idlewild.)
Truly no insult intended, but I specifically wanted to hear about this from someone other than yourself. Your position and view is already clear. I’m not saying you are incorrect, I just wanted to see if someone with a dissenting view would step in and offer an alternative spin. It is strange that I haven’t heard about this case before....but then again I’m not an attorney (obviously) so....
Of course, not being an attorney has some advantages. For instance, to my non-legal mind, I cannot see that a failure to hear a case constitutes a real decision. Silence (not hearing a case) is NOT an answer to REAL people. Maybe attornies live in an alternate universe. ;-)
The numbers must be in hundreds of thousands, in the early fifties, an organisation named THE AFRICA-AMERICA INSTITUTE, with funds from the ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS TRUST and the CHASE MANHATTAN BANK (STANDARD OIL) brough over 30,000 foreign students to the United States, the majority from Africa, many from Kenya.
One odd twist: In 1976, Percy Sutton, Malcolm X lawyer, features large on the board of the AFRICA-AMERICA INSTITUTE.
There’s no question that Obama Senior was sponsored, the question is, by whom, and WHEN did he arrive in the US?
Is there a doubt that Americans financed his education?
Are you able to provide a link? If this was on the QT, no need to reply...
Lawyers have personal opinions like everyone else . They don't exchange their emotions and hopes of how things "should" be , for an icy soul of "the way things are" . They just learn to quit BSing themselves. Even though I think this officer is making a mistake , my emotions wish he could win . My emotional self will never believe anything Obama produces . I wish Obama could be removed whether he is a citizen or not , if not by this action , then something with Tony Rezko , anything , he is wrecking this country .
Those dangerous emotions are near treasonous to a lawyer , and should be to every citizen . If the rule of law means nothing , this country is just real estate .
BTW You might be interested some day to learn the difference between a lawyer and an attorney . Nor all lawyers agree , but there is a clear and correct answer .
Heard the teaser twice on FOX this evening.
Kelly is a long time SCOTUS reporter and now her role is as a hard news anchor. I expect she will give a balanced assessment pro and con without judging the issue.
Frequently, the legal issues she covers in the PM are picked up on The Factor where O’Reilly grills her and tries to get her to take a more partisan position, or at least to agree with him. O’Reilly is all about ratings and talking around the birther issue while denouncing it has been his pattern so far.
Since Factor has a huge audience, any coverage will be great, even if O’Reilly (sticking to the anti-birther role) says he thinks Lakin is wrong to disobey orders. That is what I predict from him with Kelly sticking up for at least the possibility that Lakin might be vindicated depending on whether there is discovery in HI and what that discovery shows.
NO DOUBT WHAT-SO-EVER!
The only question that remains, is which Americans...oh, and WHEN did he arrive in the US?
“Those dangerous emotions are near treasonous to a lawyer , and should be to every citizen . If the rule of law means nothing , this country is just real estate.”
It only becomes “treason” when the method to remove is unlawful or violent. Personally, I would NEVER advocate or support any violent or unlawful means to remove a POTUS.
However, since the Constitution is the very basis for our being the “United States”, then it follows that to violate the NBC clause (even by judicial, or other, derilection of duty) is itself a form of treason. As would be the person that openingly advocated violating the constitution. I concurr that we must have “rule of law”, but that has to apply to everyone equally.
“On the issue of what you call “silence,” if someone were to sue you and the judge threw the case out without a trial because the plaintiff had no legal right to sue you or because the claims in the suit were frivolous, would you consider that to be a legal victory?”
I see your point. However, if a judge throws out a case for being “frivolous”, doesn’t he/she usually say so? The SCOTUS didn’t say anything. In other cases, the “lack of standing” that is a point that I, as a non-attorney, just will not agree with you or the judges. EVERY citizen has standing....because all are affected by who sits as SCOTUS.
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.