Posted on 09/14/2009 1:33:00 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen
During a hearing in U.S. District Court Monday, an attorney for an Army officer fighting deployment to Iraq questioned Barack Obama’s legal right to serve as president, asserting he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Judge Clay Land, inquisitive throughout the 90-minute hearing, said he will issue a decision on Capt. Connie Rhodes’ request for a temporary restraining order by noon Wednesday.
Rhodes was represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer and a national figure in the “birther” movement that claims Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president.
California attorney Orly Taitz, the president of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, stands on the steps of the Columbus federal courthouse Friday with what she claims is a copy of a birth certificate for President Barack Obama from Mombass, British Protectorate of Kenya.
Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington, told Land this case was about Rhodes, not Obama.
“There was a lack of any reference to Capt. Rhodes,” Ausprung said. “This case is about Capt. Rhodes and her deployment.”
Taitz kept going back to Obama’s birth certificate. Twice she called Obama a “usurper.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
Not as sophisticated or adult as 'chinslurp' I admit. But I was afraid that if I went any more high brow then it'd go right over your head.
Is forging a false document a good way to follow the law?
Almost Any one of them will suffice. Thanks again for bumping this important thread so that others who seek the truth can get it from MY posting.
No. It means that you are. It means that you have accomplished what you set out to do. Disrupt, distract and piss off. Speaking of which....
piss off.
If it was forged, no. But has anyone actually seen a paper copy of it? Until someone does, and can truly examine it, then you claims that it is forged is speculation.
Nah. I don’t want to be like those leftie idiots at DU. We can take care of this twerp ourselves. Or better yet, do as advised by a very wise poster and just IGNORE NS and all like him/her/it.
"FLASHED" -- that 's a new one. Do you sit up an night and just think this stuff up all by yourself or while on the phone with other Obots????
Oh and that qualifying phrase is just so precious: "AS FAR AS HE'S CONCERNED".
So -- then in other words -- he really didn't flash it, he just thinks he flashed it, and because he thinks that he did, then he did as far as he is concerned and of course you report it as if he did.
Your prefabrications are so predictable.
Nah. I don’t want to be like those leftie idiots at DU. We can take care of this twerp ourselves. Or better yet, do as advised by a very wise poster and just IGNORE NS and all like him/her/it.
That's just it, I'm having problems finding one.
“Why would I want to lie?”
In your limited world, there’s no such thing lying. Or telling the truth.
That’s part of the price you and all leftists pay for your relativistic, nihilistic, self-centered ideology.
Another part is having to live with the reality that every leftist policy, once established within the system, universally results in the exact opposite of its stated purpose.
Now who's being lame, juvenile, and anything-but-original?
With all respect, PLEASE READ POST 135.
Mixing clean water with clean water = clean water. Mixing dirty water with dirty water = dirty water.
Mixing clean water (Constitution believing Americans) with dirty water ( Non-Sequitur ) results in DIRTY WATER ! Let’s starve this king of trolls from our communications. Let’s BUILD ourselves up.
We have a lot of work to do and we’re finally making some progress in the court room, despite what the adversarial infiltrator claims.
“that’s speculation”
The favorite excuse of criminals when confronted by their accusers.
“that’s speculation”
The favorite excuse of criminals when confronted by their accusers.
“that’s speculation”
The favorite excuse of criminals when confronted by their accusers.
“that’s speculation”
The favorite excuse of criminals when confronted by their accusers.
As are your responses.
It's an easy question - what law lays out the documents that a presidential candidate has to show to establish their qualifications for the presidency and who does the law say those qualifications have to be provided to? Until you can answer that then your complaints that Obama's showing is COLB isn't sufficient is irrelevant. Nothing new there.
It's also an accurate description of people who make statements that can't be backed up with facts.
Agree, I won’t respond if others do that same.
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.