Wikipedia scrubs article on eligibility challenge
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
Wikipedia scrubs article on eligibility challenge
Best read post #19.
Oh, really? Which court cases did he cite for that, huh? You should take that letter down to a friendly journalist or tv reporter and let them have at it. If nothing else write letters to the editor for as many newspapers in this idiot's area as you possibly can. The more that gets out there, he might be shown the door next election.
I didn't know his brother was an attorney in Hawaii. He might know something Hussein doesn't want let out of the bag.... of course, other than the blatant evidence of a papa from Kenya.
I don’t believe that LTC Lakin is being represented by his brother. His civilian legal counsel will not present a defense that has anything to do with Obama or his eligibility. The Military Judge has ruled against that and Lakin’s civilian counsel has said that he agrees with her decision and believes it to be correct as a matter of law and of fact.
LTC Lakin’s brother may be a part of the problem.
“GOD” Bless Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!
He had an outstand record as a Military Officer.
He felt it was his duty to question orders because he took an oath to Protect & Defend his Country.
Mr Obama also took this oath “KNOWING that He was NOT ELIGIBLE” to be POTUS because “His Legal Father” was not an American Citizen as required by our Conistitution.
Mr Obama is a “DISGRACE” to our Country!!
He needs to be removed from the White House immediately!!!
Don’t.
We need you in safer saner roles as long as possible.
outrageous? This would be true if we were still a Constitutional Republic. When obama seized power in 2008 , we became a socialist nation. A Constitutional Republic is based on laws . There is a 95% chance that obama was born in Kenya, even if he was born in Hawaii(5%) he is ineligible to be the President of the United States. The Constitutional Republic we called America ended when obama took the office with massive liberal and foreign money.
AMERICA
July 1776-Jan 2008
MAY SHE REST IN PEACE
That's not entirely true. He's not allowed witnesses relating to Obama and his eligibility but Lakin is allowed to call witnesses relevant to the charges he's facing. If he doesn't have any of those then that's pretty much an admission of guilt.
>>No, Mr. Larkin made himself expendable. The trial will consist of 2 questions: #1: Were you ordered to deploy with your unit? Answer is Yes #2: Did you deploy as ordered? Answer is No Then he is guilty of missing movement and failure to obey orders. Period. Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.<<
How can you post such BS and yet post this tagline? The House has oversight of the Judiciary...why are the rogue judges not being impeached?)
You, a puny civilian, a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, are questioning authority yet you demand Lt. Col. Lakin, an honorable soldier, a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, shall not have that right.
You don't like hate anything that doesn't walk in step with the majority or steps out of line to make his own path. Those are usually the characteristic of a coward or an institutionalist who is afraid to question authority himself.
You obviously do agree with Dr. Kissinger, who said, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy".
I think you need to do some deep thinking and some soul searching in these times of uncertainty.
According to the article Lakin has a brother in the Coast Guard who is an O-6? And yet there is nothing the article to indicate that he’s supporting his brother in this. Interesting...
Deep down in the negatives. Almost out of hearing.
Apparently.
This event makes me ashamed of the Army.
Amendment 6 says
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [...] be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
While I realize that the argument could be made that this is a court martial, it is admission by this court that either a) violations of the UCMJ are NOT CRIMINAL, OR b) the high-ranking have no loyalty to the Constitution.
Neither is good.
What in the Sam Hell is going on in the Pentagon?
Quite possibly it is like Hackworth described; the higher-ups are not concerned with "doing their job" but with politics*, which is why he referred to them as "perfumed princes."
*This has become so pervasive that I am sure you won't have to travel very far to find claims that politics is the job of the high ranking.
... and there’s nothing to indicate that he’s NOT supporting his brother either. Non-sequitur indeed.
More appropriate question:
“Did you receive a lawful order to deploy with your unit?”
Ans: No, The order I received reasonably appeared to lack authority and as an officer sworn to defend the Constitution it was my duty to seek higher confirmation. Despite repeated requests, no officer in my chain of command was able to confirm the lawfulness of the order.
Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.
The issue fundamentally involves whether individuals are capable of effectively governing themselves.
The entire population of the nation has been wronged by the failure of Congress to properly certify the president-elect during its January 2009 Joint Session, a point lost in the “standing” decisions.
The damage has nothing to do with Obama’s political views and the victims include Obama supporters.
LTC Lakin may or may not be the perfect plaintiff, but he has displayed far more courage than those who had, or to date, have the authority to do something about the issue.
Many on FR respect him as a leader and support him; that is quite different than, as you charge, putting him on a pedestal.
>>”Mr.Lakin has been chosen as expendable sacrifice by his superiors.”
>No, Mr. Larkin made himself expendable. The trial will consist of 2 questions: #1: Were you ordered to deploy with your unit? Answer is Yes #2: Did you deploy as ordered? Answer is No. Then he is guilty of missing movement and failure to obey orders. Period.
Do you even understand the nature of authority? If all military authority for orders originate with the commander-in-chief, and the person claiming to be commander-in-chief is not legitimate, then all subordinate orders are invalid.
>Find someone who is really being wronged to put up on a pedestal.
ANYONE who owned GM bonds.
Bonus recipients of the bailout-funds.
Anyone who PAID for the bailout funds.
To use your words, the brother certainly may be part of the "problem".
As a former prosecutor in Hawaii he may have relevant insights as to the birth documentation practises employed by that state, and particularly with reference to specific instances.
One could also expect he has had an ongoing flow of information from friends and prior colleagues.
This is going to the Supreme Court.
Due process is a real issue in this case.
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.