Press Release: Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit Supporting LTC Lakin’s Case

safeguardourconstitution.com ^ | August 31, 2010

[Uncle Chip]

Because not one of those things actually says what you tell people they say.

But they do say what those founders, and historians, and statesmen, and Supreme Court Justices tell you they say.

Why do you leftists ignore history and keep trying to obfuscate it with your lies???

[Munz]

Regan did.
they all produced all kinds of documents when asked .. especially prior to the elections. Including military service, college records etc.
Obama above all with his promises of transparency and considering that there has been court cases and almost 6 out of 10 Americans polled have no clue where he was born should step up to the plate instead of dropping 2 million dollars to hide it.

No other president in history has been in doubt as much as Obama. He should produce all his documents for inspection. But he won’t because he is hiding *something* that would embarrass him. The man has no decency, no credibility and no honor.

Lakin deserves a medal for what he is doing. I hope he succeeds.

[seekthetruth]

Just a matter of time. :)

[hennie pennie]

crossposting the other thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2581458/posts?page=1

A Good Get for the Birthers (More trouble for the Wee Wee alert)

Anyone happen to know what happened in court today. Also, will the judge's ruling be made public TODAY, or is this something the judge will sit on for a few months and then simply dismiss?

[hennie pennie]

http://m.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100902/NEWS01/100902002/-1/WAP&template=wapart

MARYLAND - Army birther refuses deployment, seeks Obama school records
Associated Press

FORT MEADE, Md. — An Army doctor charged with disobeying a deployment order because he doubts President Barack Obama's credentials...

[Hoosier-Daddy]

What does the IRS say to you when you say I didn’t owe any taxes? Is the onus on the IRS to prove it?

[American Constitutionalist]

" It's not straw man, it's very much to the point. Name one other president that has produced a birth certificate to prove he was eligible. Come on, just one. "

Perhaps ? other than President Chester Arthur, that there where no suspicions that they were not natural born, besides ? how do you know for a fact that they didn't show their documents ?
I don't care about the past presidents, we care about the present one.
And no, sorry Obots, just because President Chester Arthur got away with it, does not mean that Obama should.

[Sun]

“Anyone happen to know what happened in court today.”

That’s what I’d like to know.

[itsahoot]

U.S. Files Discrimination Lawsuits On Behalf Of Muslims
Judicial Watch ^ | 9/2/2010
Posted on September 2, 2010 9:45:01 AM PDT by markomalley

The Obama Administration’s taxpayer-funded Islamic defense program has been quite busy this week, filing several discrimination lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in different parts of the country and holding Justice Department meetings to discuss prosecuting “anti-Muslim hate speech.”

The legal actions come on the same week that the White House and various federal agencies—including the Department of Homeland Security—hosted a special workshop to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources. Read all about that here.

Now the administration is flexing its legal muscle in its ardent quest to befriend the enemy. A federal civil rights agency known as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed discrimination lawsuits against companies in Nebraska, California and Colorado for discriminating against Muslims by not accommodating prayer breaks and forbidding a headscarf on the job.

The government sued meatpacking plants in Greeley Colorado and Grand Island Nebraska for religious and racial harassment because dozens of Muslim employees were “denied prayer time” during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawsuit seeks changes to policies and procedures to accommodate Muslim workers, payment for past and future damages and punitive damages.

In a third lawsuit filed this week the EEOC claims that an outdoor apparel store discriminated against a Muslim female job applicant in northern California because she wore a headscarf known as a hijab. The company has a longstanding employee dress code banning any sort of head covering but the government asserts that in this particular case it’s discriminating on the basis of religion.

Also this week, the Justice Department met with a coalition of Islamic groups that demand the administration criminally prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric as hate speech. Besides investing more resources to combat discrimination against Muslims, coalition leaders want Attorney General Eric Holder to “make a strong public statement” condemning hate crimes, harassment and discrimination against Muslims.

[itsahoot]

What does the IRS say to you when you say I didn’t owe any taxes?

You might ask Wesley Snipes. Of course when you are a politician the response is "So."

[hennie pennie]

* * * U P D A T E S * * *

Judge Weighs Request For Obama School Records (Ltc Lakin hearing today)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2582248/posts

Judge Weighs Request For Obama School Records (Ltc Lakin hearing today)

[mlo]

You seem to have gotten confused. The claim was that the Constitution required documentation. I asked you to show one other president that has produced a birth certificate to prove eligibility, as part of that documentation requirement. You answered with:

"Perhaps ? other than President Chester Arthur, that there where no suspicions that they were not natural born, besides ? how do you know for a fact that they didn't show their documents ?"

Either there's a documentation requirement or there isn't. What anyone suspected is beside the point.

Why not just acknowledge that the constitution has no such requirement and move on?

[American Constitutionalist]

That's ridiculous to say that there is no document requirement, how else can the candidate prove that they are eligible without documents ? it's plain common sense.
Are we suppose to do the Johnny Carson trick of Carnac the Magnificent ? and just figure how old the candidate is and where they were born ?



What you say is totally absurd.

Are you of the same school of Bill Clinton on the definition of what the word : is , IS ?

Tell us all great and knowing one ? how can the candidate prove eligibility without any kind of documents ?
Don't lead this discussion back to your line " the Constitution does not require showing documents " that's just a BS cop out on your part..... a non-sense revolving door argument that the liberals play.

[mlo]

"That's ridiculous to say that there is no document requirement, how else can the candidate prove that they are eligible without documents ? it's plain common sense."

It's ridiculous to say there is a document requirement, when the text of Constitution is available to anyone and we can all see that it's just not there.

It's doubly ridiculous to insist that such a requirement exists when no other president has ever had to comply with one. You would have us believe that this requirement just magically popped into being, inside the hidden part of the Constitution, in 2008. Now that's absurd.

The common sense view is that the procedure laid out in the Constitution itself is exactly the process the founders had in mind for enforcing the provision. The electors are selected, they vote, and the Congress certifies. Those entities had the power and authority to enforce the requirements. No magically changing Constitution required.

[American Constitutionalist]

No matter how much you try to skirt around it, who ever is running for president of the USA should provide documents to prove that they are eligible to be president of the United States.
So I guess ? you rather have your Obama boy get away with it ? .. ohhh wait, just because some think that President Arthur Chester got away with it means that Obama should get a free pass too ?
The argument that the other presidents didn't have to provide documents is crazy, where you there when all the other presidents were made candidates for their party ? tell us all knowing, enlightened , magnificent one, where you there ? you don't know squat what happened in the past concerning those " other Presidents "
The Constitutional requirement that the President must be 35 years old, and a Natural Born Citizen is what it is.... and how else can we prove that they are 35 years old and a natural born citizen unless we take a look at their birth certificate and other documents.
What do you say when you go to the motor vehicle administration and they ask you for documents ? do you tell them that it's not required in the Constitution ? are you going to tell them that you don't need to show them any stinking documents ?
Oh yeah ? how do we know where and when you where born unless you have a valid birth certificate ? do you want us to sit here and guess ? that is crazy.
Stop supporting your Obama boy, he will trow you under the bus like the rest.
Stop playing coy , you know very well that Obama's documents need to be looked at to see whether he is eligible or not, stop this stinking revolving door argument that the liberals play.

[mlo]

"No matter how much you try to skirt around it,..."

The only skirting going on here is yours.

"...who ever is running for president of the USA should provide documents to prove that they are eligible to be president of the United States."

I don't object to that idea, but there is no such requirement currently in the law. That's all I'm trying to get through to you.

"So I guess ? you rather have your Obama boy get away with it ?"

He ain't my boy. I think he's a socialist idiot. But you birthers sure are working well for him.

"... ohhh wait, just because some think that President Arthur Chester got away with it means that Obama should get a free pass too ?"

He's not getting away with anything.

"The argument that the other presidents didn't have to provide documents is crazy, where you there when all the other presidents were made candidates for their party ? tell us all knowing, enlightened , magnificent one, where you there ? you don't know squat what happened in the past concerning those " other Presidents "

Why is it crazy? Come on, don't run from it. Show me where any other president had to comply with this rule you imagine.

"The Constitutional requirement that the President must be 35 years old, and a Natural Born Citizen is what it is.... and how else can we prove that they are 35 years old and a natural born citizen unless we take a look at their birth certificate and other documents."

Again with all the speculation. Just skip all this and give the proof. Show us where some previous president had to do it.

"What do you say when you go to the motor vehicle administration and they ask you for documents ? do you tell them that it's not required in the Constitution ? are you going to tell them that you don't need to show them any stinking documents ?"

There are rules requiring document production for a license. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

"Oh yeah ? how do we know where and when you where born unless you have a valid birth certificate ? do you want us to sit here and guess ? that is crazy."

More blah blah. If you were right that a president is required to cough up the documents then you could show us at least one example where any of the previous presidents did so. Speculating that they must have done so sometime just doesn't cut it.

"Stop supporting your Obama boy, he will trow you under the bus like the rest."

I support the facts and reason. You birthers are supporting Obama. He loves you guys.

"Stop playing coy , you know very well that Obama's documents need to be looked at to see whether he is eligible or not, stop this stinking revolving door argument that the liberals play."

One of the games liberals play is where they ignore the law and insert what they wish would happen instead. You're playing their game real well.

[American Constitutionalist]

Once again, how else can a candidate show that they are eligible unless they cough up their credentials and documents ?
Common sense would tell you that in order for someone to prove that they are eligible for the office of the President of the United States is that they show their birth certificate, and other documents to prove that they meet the age requirement ( yes, that is in the constitution ) and that they meet the Natural Born requirement ( yes, that is in the Constitution ) ... and the only way for that is to show a birth certificate and or other documents.
The line " Obama loves you birthers " is getting old and is a line that the liberals love to shame birthers with.
It's the same bogus line as " Obama loves you guys who say he is a Muslim " and the last we saw, the questioning of Obama's faith, and , or that he is a Muslim is not helping him at all.
Some think that questioning Obama about his eligibility is helping him , it's not.