Posted on 09/06/2010 6:18:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
From the very beginning, legal challenges to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility have met a standard of adjudication unfamiliar to most Americans.
Mere "citizens" were told again and again they didn't have "standing" to test the eligibility of the man in the Oval Office.
Then came forward a man who actually ran against Obama in 2008. He didn't have standing, either.
Then came a parade of active-duty military men. Surely they would have standing to challenge a man with the power to send them on life-and-death missions in foreign wars. No dice.
And finally came Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, a distinguished U.S. Army surgeon, due for promotion, with a stellar military career. When he simply asked for proof that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve – something now 58 percent of the American people do not believe – he was court-martialed.
He is now being denied the right to defend himself in that case because, as the female military judge suggests, requiring the evidence he seeks might prove "embarrassing" to the president.
"Embarrassing?"
Are good men and women denied justice because someone might be "embarrassed" by the truth of the evidence?
What might that ruling suggest about Obama's actual ability to prove his eligibility? It almost sounds like Army Col. Denise R. Lind, the acting judge in this case, might know Lakin is correct in his suspicions. Surely Obama would not be "embarrassed" if he had the documentation he could provide to prove he is eligible, right?
So, in the interests of protecting Obama from "embarrassment," the Army is ready to railroad Lt. Col. Lakin, deny him a fair hearing and look the other way on the little matter of constitutional integrity.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little sick of this charade.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Just curious, what if someone posted information online which proved to everyone they were qualified to be the President of your company. They become President of the company based on this false information.
You have a risky job, your President orders you to risk your life or lose your job in disgrace. You learn beyond a shadow of a doubt that your President is not qualified for the position they hold, because the information he posted has been proven to have been falsified and clearly a fake. That the President of your company is hiding his college records, passport information, just about anything and everything to do with his life. Do you blindly risk your life or stand on principle?
If it were proven, then there wouldn’t be a leg for that President to stand on. If it hasn’t been proven, but is a suspicion based on circumstantial evidence, then he has a much easier time of it.
I know that the first couple of “Certificates of Live Birth” have clearly been proven to be outright forgeries or poor fakes. No raised seals, number sequences incorrect, etc...
There is no doubt that a lot of the information that was posted by his campaign did not pass the smell test. I think they release maybe four or five versions of his “Certificate of Live Birth.” Seems like that would be reasonable suspicion.
They posted an official “abstract” of a certificate from the Hawaiian government. In other words, a government official prepared a document with what they considered the relevant info.
Since it’s from the Hawaiian government, it is hard to argue with. A judge would have to assume they got the data from the real files.
Personally, I’d like to see the original. But, as long as the Hawaiian government is presenting an official abstract, it’s gonna be hard to argue against.
My analogy is way off base, because the President of the company is not asking one person to risk their life, but thousands upon thousands. When all he has to do is produce one piece of paper to put this to bed... something is seriously wrong.
I would never assume that someone agreed with every word of an article he or she posted to a forum such as this. Speaking only for myself, I tend to post things (not necessarily here, but in general) about which I am unsure, and that I hope other people's insights will help me evaluate more competently.
The first couple were clearly fake. I don’t know all the arguments that are presented against the official “abstract” document, but the place of birth (hospital), father and mother’s name are blocked out. He has presented no actual proof of being a natural born citizen.
What I do know is that the number sequence of their best proof is not correct for his date of birth (two to three days off), which cast suspicion on that document also.
Also, it has been proven that you didn’t have to be born in Hawaii to receive the same document.
Snopes.com also reports it here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
An abstract is not an original birth certificate, but when they release an abstract and make these statements, how is a judge going to decide that YOU have been injured?
You're going to have to PROVE it in the face of this.
Fukino’s statement does not say that Obama’s alleged COLB is accurate nor genuine. In fact, the context of her statement indicates it is not. She has the statutory authority to release any and all information from Obama’s birth records as well as to issue a verification of the alleged COLB. A COLB, as it says on the form, is prima facie evidence IF presented in court. This means there is no reason to cite anything other than the original birth certificate as proof of Obama’s place of birth. Instead, Fukino cites MULTIPLE, but UNIDENTIFIED ‘vital records’ as allegedly verifying a place of birth. These records have no legal weight outside of a court of law. By making this statement, she is admitting that Obama’s original birth certificate is not sufficient to prove place of birth, and by default, his COLB does not prove his place of birth either. Such a birth abstract would be marked as amended or incomplete.
Second, she includes a statement that is NOT contained on any Hawaiian vital record ... that of Obama’s supposably being a ‘natural-born American citizen.’ No vital record contains such a statement nor would it. Citizens in this country are U.S. citizens, not American citizens. IOW, she lied outright and the rest of her statement suffers from a lack of credibility.
However, you have a judge who has to decide if a crime has injured you. You say, “The president doesn’t have a Birth certificate.” The judge says, “Hawaii says he does.”
You say, “Doesn’t.”
Judge says, “Does.”
In short, you’ve not PROVED that you have been injured.
I said "some evidence" not ironclad proof. As you know, just living beyond your visible means is enough to get investigated, if you hold a security clearance. Might be nothing, but they get to look into the matter without proof.
This is much more akin to a criminal matter than a civil one. There is some evidence that Mr. Obama is not eligible. Heck just his father not being a US citizen is "some evidence" that he is not an NBC. A court needs to rule on the definition of NBC. There exists a non-refuted Kenyan hospital BC, that too is some evidence.
How does the IRS go about obtaining evidence that you earned more income than you show? The have suspicions, maybe you live too high on the hog for the level of income reported. Then get a search warrant or court order to produce records. They don't have "proof" that a crime has been committed, they have what the Constitution calls "probable cause".
Did any one state pass a law requiring documentation for 2012?
If Lakin is asked to follow orders, presumably to go to war, he can only do so if he believes the order to be legally given.
He has reason to believe that the person giving orders is unfit to serve; he’s refusing to follow those orders until the chain of command is verified.
This business of nobody having standing to question the qualifications of The One is very, very troubling.
Not yet. Arizona was on it's way but shelved it to concentrate on the immigration bill.
No you are wrong but you knew that.
There is a ton of controversy surrounding her statement. Retractions, legal issues, Governor claiming to have seen, no authority to provide, parsing words, etc...
Seriously, are we suppose to take a relatively low level government employee’s word (with no legal background) on who is legally eligible to be President of the United States? All without any collaborating evidence? Accept this at face value when the President resolutely refuses to release his actual birth certificate, college records, passport, and has a weird SSN from CT, etc... I mean it is actually a bit scary.
And yet, that is exactly what many on these threads did when this man made this statement...
"During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country’s minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America’s election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:
“If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation,” Orengo posited, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America."
It was just a passing comment, and he has offered zero evidence to back up his claim, yet people still site this statement as proof of Obama's Kenyan birth.
It would be great if statements from both sides were treated with an equal amount of skepticism.
Sola Veritas, thank you for your service and thank you for asking the moderators to give a time out to Non-Sequitur. I notice he hasn't posted anything on Free Republic since you made your request. It reminds me of when the annoying ringing in my right ear lets up for a little while... what a relief!
Not only did I not know that but I'm not wrong. Read the charge sheet.
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.