Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the hour-and-a-half long Care inquiry, LTC Lakin acknowledged no less than half a dozen times that the orders he received were lawful, and that he in fact had a duty to obey them. Judge Lind found his guilty pleas to be provident and accepted them.
The state of play now is as follows: trial will begin at 1500 hours with opening statements on the missing movement offense. Regardless of how the members find on that offense, LTC Lakin will proceed to sentencing. He is, on the evidence and by his own admission under oath, a criminal to be sentenced in accordance with the UCMJ.
Hopefully, by 2012 there will be legislation in several states that will keep him off the ballot if he doesn't provide proof of eligibility.
You're funny. The State of Hawaii has put out a document and confirmed its veracity. That ends it. And under the "full faith and credit" clause, those "several states" will be forced to accept a copy of the Hawaiian COLB that has been posted numerous times, fresh off the laser printer. (Which is why it won't happen. That sort of humiliation would make the legislators look really stupid. The people who vote for this sort of BS - well, too late for them.)
But surely, someone who wishes to "Preserve,Protect,Defend & Uphold" the Constitution would know this.
You're funny. The State of Hawaii has put out a document and confirmed its veracity. That ends it. And under the "full faith and credit" clause, those "several states" will be forced to accept a copy of the Hawaiian COLB that has been posted numerous times, fresh off the laser printer. (Which is why it won't happen. That sort of humiliation would make the legislators look really stupid. The people who vote for this sort of BS - well, too late for them.)
But surely, someone who wishes to "Preserve,Protect,Defend & Uphold" the Constitution would know this.
Using Vattel makes the incessant whining for more documents look even more silly, seeing as the Vattel angle, desperate as it is, is based on a fact that's never been in dispute: Obama's father's citizenship.
Well, Lakin is about to be made an example of and that's a regrettable waste.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
- Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162
Parents... both parents. Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent, and admits he was born a British citizen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,861,828 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizNJ
To those who are defending Obama's hiding of his birth, school, medical, passport and other records - if he were conservative would you still be defending him? I doubt it, you'd be screaming your heads off for his impeachment and worse.
There's absolutely no defense for Obama's arrogance - if he has nothing to hide why not make the records public? Right now he's no more than an empty suit with an empty resume.
Why would we allow the top office in the country to be filled by someone (of any party)who simply cannot or will not prove who he is - are you really happy that you know nothing about the man's background or beliefs? He's a proven liar and manipulator, a professional bully who's paid vast sums to keep his past well hidden. Why would anyone defend that?
Hopefully, by 2012 there will be legislation in several states that will keep him off the ballot if he doesn't provide proof of eligibility.
I agree with that ElizNJ, if you have nothing to hide, why not make the information public?
That's why I used my real name - 70Ford - like you used your real name ElizNJ.....right?
Eh?
What's that?
Can't hear you over the hypocrisy.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
- Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162
Parents... both parents. Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent, and admits he was born a British citizen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.
Watch this thread get deleted, even though I've provided proof from SCOTUS and Obama himself that Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen.
What a cute little couplet: "Born a Brit, Not legit". All the quote from Minor v Happersett says is that a person born of two citizen parents becomes a citizen at birth. It does not say anything about any other case, e.g. when one parent is a citizen and one isn't. In fact, by that reasoning, Obama was not "born a Brit" b/c his mother is an American Citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've got some proving to do. Get busy.
