Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO!
YouTube ^ | September 03, 2010 | ppsimmons

Posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by RatsDawg

BREAKING! SHOCKER! MILITARY JUDGE says evidence could be an "EMBARRASSMENT" to BHO! Check out the video on YouTube


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armyvsamerica; armyvsamericans; armyvstruth; bc; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; islam; kangaroocourt; military; muslim; naturalborncitizen; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nochainofcommand; nojustice; obama; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-291 next last
For what its worth...
1 posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:07 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB—XdoZ0ZI&feature=player_embedded#!


2 posted on 09/04/2010 10:00:39 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

I think he may be speaking from the perspective of a military court. I don’t think he means that the information itself was embarrassing, but rather that it would be embarrassing to the Commander in Chief to be compelled to give evidence (of any kind) in such a proceeding. Members of the military are not supposed to do anything that would be critical or embarrassing to the administration, whatever their personal feelings are.

I wouldn’t read too much into this.


3 posted on 09/04/2010 10:03:31 AM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg
Is embarrassment mentioned in the constitution ?
4 posted on 09/04/2010 10:05:55 AM PDT by oldbrowser (Barack the Bungler must step down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

That isn’t exactly what was said. She said it wasn’t a relevant issue and that the place for the issue is congress who has the power to impeach. She made no effort to evaluate any evidence.


5 posted on 09/04/2010 10:08:15 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

What sort of stuff is on a long form bc anyway? Was he born with a tail like my cousin? Did he have an undescended testicle he’d rather not discuss? Water on the brain? Parasitic twin perhaps? Or did it just say “father: unknown?” Or “mother’s religion: Molochite Communist?”


6 posted on 09/04/2010 10:08:59 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

There is a good discussion here...this comment relevant:

“The phrase “embarass”… is a term of art by legal entities where they acknowledge the seperation between co-equal jurisdictions.

Specifically it means, in this case, a re-iteration that the judicial branch has no right or authority to delve into another entities business, specifically political questions on the Presidents legitimacy which are reserved exclusively to Congress.”

At: http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakins-defense-crushed-in-detail/


7 posted on 09/04/2010 10:09:43 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Indeed, very unusual words from the judge... Sounds mightily as a hint.


8 posted on 09/04/2010 10:10:11 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Indeed, very unusual words from the judge... Sounds mightily as a hint.


9 posted on 09/04/2010 10:10:15 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

PING!


10 posted on 09/04/2010 10:12:44 AM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
She also blocked the defense from obtaining any evidence pertaining to Obummer’s eligibility. BHO was never vetted by Congress. An affidavit was submitted and signed by Nancy Pelousy and others vouching for his eligibility to be POTUS.
11 posted on 09/04/2010 10:15:26 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg
Obama, is that a birth certificate on your forehead?


12 posted on 09/04/2010 10:16:12 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take any more beatings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

How do you know, Judge?
13 posted on 09/04/2010 10:17:15 AM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg
For what its worth...

For what it's worth has anyone actually read the Judges ruling to see if she actually said that, or what the context was if she did?

14 posted on 09/04/2010 10:17:48 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

While I agree with your analysis, it does seem to me that a member of the military should have the right to challenge a superior (officer in effect), if something that officer has done makes him ineligible to conduct his duties.

On board a ship there are rules to go by, that make it possible for subordinates to take control of the ship from the captain, legally.

Why is there no way for an enlisted man to demand proof that the CIC is qualified to be the CIC.

In most instances I would say, Congress having reviewed the matter, the subordinate should honor it’s ruling. That is clearly not the case here. Congress has neglected it’s duty, and it rests on the shoulders of others to determine the truth of this, in it’s glaring absence.

This challenge having been made, this man deserves a hearing on the matter. Evidence and witnesses are legitimate things for this member of the service to demand access to.

This man is not seeking to remove the president. He is merely seeking proof that he is qualified to be president, and thus legitimately authorized to act as CIC. A mere coronation or oath of office DOES NOT confirm this.

If this was Nixon, they would already have the birth certificate in triplicate, and every other shred of paper generated during his lifetime, and his family members back to ten years before they entered this nation.

What are these judges so damned afraid of?


15 posted on 09/04/2010 10:19:28 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
Here is the difference - if President is impeached, then it's a minor thing comparing to the discovery of an ineligibility to be the President. That would be a crisis of biblical proportions.

Not only constitutional - all that he signed, appointed, etc becomes invalid the same minute.

Foreign agreements, law, Kagan and Sotomayor - out of the Supreme Court, etc. Think of all those who participated in the cover up - the country will be busy for years fixing all this horrible mess.

16 posted on 09/04/2010 10:20:50 AM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Absolutely wrong.

Congress is the only body that can remove a president. It is not the only body that can review evidence, so that in this instance (for example) a person can defend themselves against a court martial.

This guy isn’t claiming Obama should be removed by the court. That duty does solely remain the duty of Congress. He is merely demanding to know if Obama is qualified to be the CIC, and that he is therefore bound to follow his commands.

This is an honorable exercise. I don’t think every case should be accepted that challenges in this manner, but I do believe one test case should be. And it should be conducted by the rules of the court, just like any other.

If discovery does reveal something, then the member of the military is excused from following an illegitimate order, and it is then Congress’ duty to take action.


17 posted on 09/04/2010 10:25:01 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

No doubt about it, the country will be tied up for years cleaning up after this guy one way or the other. Let’s get ALL the stink out.

Everything this guy has done, is nullified upon discovery. Onward...

Put the issue to rest. Do an examination and get it over with.

And I don’t mean one of those sham hearings like the one after Waco either. “Oh, you’re a five year old grade school girl Mr. FBI agent, well... okay then.” Hogwash.


18 posted on 09/04/2010 10:28:19 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

No one wants to be that person who pushes this issue down the so called slippery slope...


19 posted on 09/04/2010 10:29:50 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Aiding and abeting treason seems to be all the fad nowadays.


20 posted on 09/04/2010 10:32:41 AM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

yikes..is he really calling it “evidence” ?


21 posted on 09/04/2010 10:33:42 AM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

>Think of all those who participated in the cover up

They could rightly be charged with Treason; for how can invalidating the legitimacy/integrity of a whole branch of Government NOT be aid and comfort to America’ enemies?


22 posted on 09/04/2010 10:34:17 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

” but rather that it would be embarrassing to the Commander in Chief to be compelled to give evidence (of any kind) in such a proceeding. “

Embarrassment should not be a defense if
it’s pertinent to the issue.
It’s stunning that it’s come to this when
Barry could allay all doubts in a 1 minute phone call to Hawaii.
It’s jaw dropping that it didn’t happen in 08 when the questions were first raised by the Clinton campaign.
Commander in Chief George Bush or Ronald Reagan and heck, even a Bill Clinton would never in a million years sit back and allow any member of the Armed Forces
to have doubts about their Constitutional eligibility.
When the answer could so easily be given by
unsealing a single sheet of paper.
Of course, their documentation would never be sealed in the first place .
They would understand how toxic and deleterious it is to have the troops , even just one soldier ,
doubting a CinC’s eligibility
and they would be proud to voluntarily
substantiate their Constitutional bona fides.
Obama’s stonewalling and mocking attitude is extremely bizarre behavior by a Commander in Chief.


23 posted on 09/04/2010 10:35:16 AM PDT by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Actually if it's discovered that Obama isn't qualified to be President then a Presidential Impeachment would be targeting President Biden, who would be the President "should the President Elect fail to qualify."
24 posted on 09/04/2010 10:38:39 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Interesting. Thanks for posting the link. I forwarded it onto a retired military friend.


25 posted on 09/04/2010 10:39:05 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Where is the picture of Obama bowing to Netanyahu?


26 posted on 09/04/2010 10:39:05 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Sorry. The judge does not have any evidence at all. There has been no discovery yet.
Therefore the judge is speculating. Much as it kills me, her reasoning is probably sound. The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights. That would seem to be a role for Congress, not the military. It is not the role of the military to question their civilian masters.

Yeah, I’m a birther. So don’t blast me. But, I think the judge is correct. On the other hand, rather than see a competent officer court marshaled, as a legitimate commander in chief, I’d just hand over the appropriate documentation. I’ve had to produce my birth certificate at every job I’ve ever had. At my present job, I’ve had to produce it three times in five years.

Incidentally, after I was interviewed by a Homeland Security Special Agent, I asked him, “If I told you I had been mentored by Frank Davis and had worked for Saul Olinsky, would I get a security clearance?” He himmed and hawed, but finally said “no.” Obama is not fit to polish the colonel’s shoes.


27 posted on 09/04/2010 10:40:21 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

>The defendant is requiring the commander-in-chief, an elected official, not a military officer, to prove his Constitutional rights.

What Constitutional Right is there to be President?
How can the Commander-in-Chief *NOT* be considered a military officer when it is by his order that the military goes somewhere or does something?
Authority is inseparable from accountability [responsibility, if you will] and the way that people excuse the President from being accountable [”because he’s a civilian”] is inexcusable.


28 posted on 09/04/2010 10:49:17 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

Could someone tell me if obama was actually vetted? And, if so, what goes on in the vetting process? My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?


29 posted on 09/04/2010 10:58:53 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"He is merely demanding to know if Obama is qualified to be the CIC, and that he is therefore bound to follow his commands."

He isn't charged with refusing to follow Obama's commands. Courts don't do investigations on unrealted questions. They have cases before them that have to be decided.

30 posted on 09/04/2010 11:01:32 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
What do you mean by "vetted"?

He had to get nominated by his party, he had to get elected by the people, the Electors had to cast their votes, the Congress had to certify them. The same process that works in every Presidential election.

31 posted on 09/04/2010 11:04:48 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I know that Congress is the only body who can remove this president but, this Congress is also part of the conspiracy to block and or cover up this supposed POTUS eligibility documentation.

What do we do now? SCOTUS?

In my opinion this is a true Constitutional crisis.

32 posted on 09/04/2010 11:06:30 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Never mind the embarrassment to BHO, it is the embarrassment to the US that is more important. I doubt if any congressman wants to be involved in this issue — he would have to grow a pair first.


33 posted on 09/04/2010 11:07:01 AM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM - America's inevitable road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"What do you mean by "vetted"?"

Make sure he qualified to be President under the Constitution. Did everyone do the checking that was required?

34 posted on 09/04/2010 11:07:13 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

>My sister says it is impossible for him to NOT be vetted. Could this be true?

I think it’s entirely too possible. Consider this:

My state, New Mexico, has the following in its State Constitution:


Article II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but
nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep
and bear arms.

It’s very simple: the state cannot legitimately pass laws restricting my right to carry weapons openly for self defense; neither can cities or counties punish/persecute me for choosing to do so (i.e. charging me with “disturbing the peace” because I was open-carrying).

Now, there also exists a State Statute which reads as follows:


30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.

C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
—(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
—(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.


Now it’s obvious to even the casual reader that there is a conflict here. One that should be easy to resolve: the State Constitution is of greater authority than the state law; yet, I cannot challenge the contradiction between state statute and state constitution [without violating the state statute and challenging its legitimacy there in court] because all I get is the run around:
State DA says talk to the state supreme court who says, via recording, talk to the state-bar who says talk to either a local atty (who says they’ll look into it but never contact you again) OR talk to your state legislator who says that she’ll have to talk to the State DA who has to talk to the State Supreme Court who.... *bleh!*

See what I mean?
It’s because everyone is saying that “it’s someone else’s problem” that this isn’t being fixed; and if I were to challenge this law in court, by breaking it, I would be placing myself in a position of weakness for my attack [fighting uphill against the accusation of being a criminal] instead of attacking from a position of power [that of a Citizen noting something illegal/wrong with his government].


35 posted on 09/04/2010 11:08:44 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

So, you’re saying that it’s very probably he was NOT vetted? That someone didn’t do their job(s)?


36 posted on 09/04/2010 11:11:19 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

very probably = very probable


37 posted on 09/04/2010 11:11:53 AM PDT by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Question: From whence does an officer gain his authority to issue a command to a soldier?


38 posted on 09/04/2010 11:12:21 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mlo
McCain was vetted by Congress. Research was done to prove that he was born on a US Navy Base in Panama.

Research was never done to prove beyond doubt, that Obummer is a natural born citizen. All his records were sealed way before he ran for POTUS. They just took as evidence, a affidavit, signed by Nasty Pelousy, the DNC Chairman that “The One” was a citizen. It was signed the day he was “selected” Democratic Party nominee.

39 posted on 09/04/2010 11:14:06 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

“...the country will be busy for years fixing all this horrible mess.”

.
Why should it have to take years to fix the mess, when it did not take years for Obama to create it? Besides, any mess is worth fixing if it improves the situation.

There is ever more reason to pursue the question of his eligibility. If action is not taken by the expected new republican congressmen next year, then we’ll know that we elected a bunch of RINOs.


40 posted on 09/04/2010 11:14:21 AM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM - America's inevitable road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
BO bowing to Netanyahu?

That'll be the day!

41 posted on 09/04/2010 11:16:55 AM PDT by lonestar (Barry is furious the big spill wasn't caused by EXXON...would have nationalized it by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

They also took the word of the Republican Gov. of Hawaii that he was born in HI.


42 posted on 09/04/2010 11:18:58 AM PDT by Tamar1973 (Germans in 1932 thought they were voting for change too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

I think so.
I mean here I am trying to get resolution on something that’s really not “too big an issue” and is clearly cut and failing miserably; now consider that the top people in EVERY branch now have an interest in NOT admitting they didn’t do their job:

> Congress certified the electoral votes for Obama, as well as Pelosi signing an affidavit to his eligibility,
> The USSC {well chief justice} swore him in,
> and the executive, Obama and those close to him, obviously doesn’t want to be humiliated.

If it were to come out that he wasn’t qualified, it is conceivable that members of ALL of these groups could be charged with Treason; for what could give more aid and comfort to the enemies of America then invalidating the legitimacy of a whole branch of its government, undermining the integerity of ALL three branches of government, *AND* making all military actions carried out under the authority of Obama VERY legally questionable {read illegitimate}.


43 posted on 09/04/2010 11:20:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Everybody cries for recovery and stimulation of the economy, I would say that trying to restore to order every second of the usurper in Chiefs decisions would create a lot of new jobs.

America can fix itself in short order, prolonging it is much much worse and sustaining the lies for generations will hurt our country more so than bringing truth to everything.

Sometimes the hardest decision is best, taking the easy way out is cowardness.


44 posted on 09/04/2010 11:23:22 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: alecqss
the country will be busy for years fixing all this horrible mess.

Better this mess then the loss of our freedoms, our country - if America falls, there is NO nation to save her.

Individual freedom will be gone - forever.

Freedom isn't free - we may have to fight mightily to keep it.

45 posted on 09/04/2010 11:24:16 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973; alice_in_bubbaland

>They also took the word of the Republican Gov. of Hawaii that he was born in HI.

And? Why should I trust the Governor of Hawaii?
She never claimed to be at Obama’s birth. Obama’s grandmother, however, has... and she also claimed that it was in Kenya.
In a court of law the former would be thrown out as ‘hearsay’ while the latter would be considered an eye-witness testimony.


46 posted on 09/04/2010 11:24:16 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
True, after the fact. I am told that COLB is not a birth certificate though. Hawaii is unique with that respect.
47 posted on 09/04/2010 11:24:41 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Professional Politicians are a Threat to the Republic! Remove them on 11-2-10!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

If I were a judge, I would consider it a feather in my hat for having done the right thing, and making sure our Constitution was lived up to, by the letter of the law.

Where does this member of the military go to seek relief, if not the courts?

This court has every right to permit discovery and rule the member of the military does or does not have a valid case. That is not removal of a president. It is a matter of the rule of law, and something courts do every day.

We sit here in a state of limbo, a person who may or may not be qualified to be president. And so far, every branch of our government has taken a pass on upholding the Constitution of the United States.

Is that document still there? Does it still wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I’ve seen very little evidence of that in the last decade.


48 posted on 09/04/2010 11:31:04 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: alecqss

I’m willing to risk it ... ;-)


49 posted on 09/04/2010 11:32:31 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Because he is defined as a civilian Commander in Chief. He is, by definition a civilian, not a member of the military.

As for the Constitutional right to be President, I would guess that where it says that anyone who is a natural born citizen of the United States and has attained the age of 35 is eligible to hold the office.

He is the elected President of the United States, until and unless he has been proven to be otherwise ineligible. Since Congress has already ruled on is eligiblity, the point is moot.
50 posted on 09/04/2010 11:38:20 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-291 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson