she (Judge Lind) has denied Lt. Col Lakin “the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence” for use in the Court Martial proceedings brought against him on the charge of refusing to obey lawful orders from the military chain of command until the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President has been investigated and resolved by the decision of a properly constitutional authority.
It’s marvelous that a supposedly competent legal officer of the United States military could cram so much prejudicial nonsense into so few words. She refers to Obama as president. But because, among other things, of her own action, his status as president is, as the lawyers might say, a fact not in evidence. If he is in fact not constitutionally eligible for the office, then he is not president. If he is not in fact constitutionally eligible, then no lawful authority emanates from him to the military chain of command. Therefore, Lt.Col Lakin is not guilty of the charge against him. Judge Lind’s language is prima facie evidence of prejudice, and she should either recuse herself or be removed from the case.
She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama. Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?
Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part.
.http://loyaltoliberty.com/WordPress/2010/09/is-lakins-court-martial-an-american-dreyfus-affair/
she (Judge Lind) has denied Lt. Col Lakin “the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence” for use in the Court Martial proceedings brought against him on the charge of refusing to obey lawful orders from the military chain of command until the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President has been investigated and resolved by the decision of a properly constitutional authority.
It’s marvelous that a supposedly competent legal officer of the United States military could cram so much prejudicial nonsense into so few words. She refers to Obama as president. But because, among other things, of her own action, his status as president is, as the lawyers might say, a fact not in evidence. If he is in fact not constitutionally eligible for the office, then he is not president. If he is not in fact constitutionally eligible, then no lawful authority emanates from him to the military chain of command. Therefore, Lt.Col Lakin is not guilty of the charge against him. Judge Lind’s language is prima facie evidence of prejudice, and she should either recuse herself or be removed from the case.
She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama. Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?
Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part.
and if his citizenship isn't clear or cleared up... it should be.
Obama had cleared this up... but it seems not.
the candidate should have to prove he is a US citizen. Sounds bizarre, but this situation shouldn't be repeated... and if politicians have us jumping through hoops all our lives, the least they can do is prove they are US citizens, born in the US or on a US military installation when applying to run for president.
What the hell is a "birther?" Some silly European called me that the other day. I thought he was calling me a woman.
Urban Dictionary: birther
A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate...
What the hell is a "birther?" Some silly European called me that the other day. I thought he was calling me a woman.
1 - That is NOT a birth certificateHow much clearer do you want it?
Or is it that you don't care how clear it is?
If he was gay, he was probably calling you a "breeder" which is a derogatory term that homosexual people use for heterosexual people they don't like.
1 - That is NOT a birth certificate
2 - You can get those for a number of years AFTER birth, and doesn't prove anything... his mothers passport could have worked, because it could be determined where she was at the time of his birth... none of these things has been proven.
I blame the liberals, not getting this all settled BEFORE the primaries... but whatever the truth of the matter is, why would Obama make SUCH a BIG DEAL about hiding all the truth about himself??? I mean, it's like they say, if he's got nothing to hide, why is he hiding it?? It's a central issue, yet it's still a distraction.
If he was gay, he was probably calling you a "breeder" which is a derogatory term that homosexual people use for heterosexual people they don't like.
1 - That is NOT a birth certificate
2 - You can get those for a number of years AFTER birth, and doesn't prove anything... his mothers passport could have worked, because it could be determined where she was at the time of his birth... none of these things has been proven.
I blame the liberals, not getting this all settled BEFORE the primaries... but whatever the truth of the matter is, why would Obama make SUCH a BIG DEAL about hiding all the truth about himself??? I mean, it's like they say, if he's got nothing to hide, why is he hiding it?? It's a central issue, yet it's still a distraction.
1 - That is NOT a birth certificate
1 - That is NOT a birth certificate
I blame the liberals, not getting this all settled BEFORE the primaries
Gay? I don't think so. I think he is French though.
How much clearer do you want it?
Or is it that you don't care how clear it is?
I agree. Is there honestly anything in his actual birth certificate that will cause him any problems? They say where there's smoke there's fire, but the smoke can't necessarily tell you what you want to know about the fire. It doesn't even make a difference where he was born so long as he was born to a U.S. citizen that has lived in the U.S. continuously for at least five years with two after the age of 14. So all a legitimate birth certificate really has to say is that his mother is his mother and he's golden.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
In Hawaii, a birth certificate is labeled a certificate of live birth, they are for all legal and practical purposes the exact same thing. And I mean quite literally the same thing, there is no difference between this and any other birth certificate from any other state.
And no you can't get one years after a birth.
You're fact checking rates in the negatives...
Not true.....
Acquisition of a U.S. Citizenship By a child born abroad
Barry's mom was 18 when Barry was born...... add 14 +5, see what age you get.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?