Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

The New American ^ | May 20, 2010 | Raven Clabough

[Responsibility2nd]

We all know Joseph Farrah's credentials.

What credentials do you have that qualifies you to make such a judgement?

 

 

__________________________________________________

 

Credentials? You're talking about these credentials?

 

 

 

Was great-great-great-great-great gramps Neanderthal?

 --WND Exclusive--

 

 

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Crowd goes wild as 'View' co-host touts Norris column 
'How are we able to secure borders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and not our own?'
--WND

 

 

WND BOOKS WorldNetDaily Exclusive 'Gadfly' in the ointment Snubbed: The poor dinner manners of White House Press Corps --WND

SPECIAL OFFERS
Your family depends on you
Protect them with Term Life Insurance. Save up to 75%
--Matrix Direct, Inc

SPECIAL OFFERS
New manual reveals how to 'Hide Your Guns' from criminals
Hard-core tactics now needed as bad guys get desperate
--HideYourGuns.com

Flex Belt, Contour Belt are 2 leading ab belts on market
Compare these 2 ab exercises to a product like Ab Circle Pro
--TheFlexBelt.com

 

 WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Don't believe in miracles? Then pay attention
Get the 13-part cable TV series of supernatural stories of biblical proportion
--WND

 

 

 

I could go on and on.

 

But you get the idea.

[TigersEye]

I don’t plan to debate with the birthers ...

Everything you say should be seen in the light of your agenda.

[philman_36]

The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
And you've already sat in judgment despite not being a judge! Good show! You really know what you're doing.

[philman_36]

So where did he sue Rumsfeld as OldDeckHand claimed?

[edge919]

This isn't an "issue"? That's a fairly broad term that I would think would easily encompass the authority of your commanding officer, wouldn't you think?

Are you unable to read?? I didn't say this wasn't an issue. I said this isn't about an issue being incorrect, such as the "war is bad" or "being in Afghanistan is unconstitutional." What we're looking at is a president who hasn't proved his eligibility. That's neither correct nor incorrect; it is simply unresolved.

[philman_36]

I got a John Doe suing him in a "stop-loss" case...
435 F3d 980 Doe v. Rumsfeld L E 1-10

[OldDeckHand]

"The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge."

Good grief. Do you even know what that means?

I'll tell you. It means that NONE of this business about Obama's alleged ineligibility will be something that is argued in front of the jury panel. Why? Because the order's lawfulness is something for the military judge to decide, not the jury panel.

Once the judge rules that the orders were lawful (and based upon almost 25 years as a JAG, that is the most predictable ruling in the history of judicial rulings), Lakin's defense fall apart. At that point, Lakin will have to change his plea from guilty, to not guilty if he wishes to preserve the issue for appeal.

Then it becomes pretty remedial business for the government to prove that Lakin missed his movement. Because intent is not an element of missing movement, Lakin's motivation for not deploying become irrelevant and inadmissible at trial. It doesn't matter why he missed movement, just that he did.

This becomes a slam-dunk conviction for a green horn JAG. At least Lakin might have a compelling appellate case based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He's got that going for him.

[BrandtMichaels]

Ping

[philman_36]

You're inability to use google, although not surprising, really isn't my concern.
Your inability to substantiate what you claim is an indication that you can neither google nor make a link.
So far all I see you doing is lying about who sued Rummy.

[OldDeckHand]

"What we're looking at is a president who hasn't proved his eligibility. That's neither correct nor incorrect; it is simply unresolved. "

A president doesn't have to prove his eligibility to anyone but the people who place him on the ballot for office. That would be the 50 state Secretaries of State. The Electoral College also has a role to play, which they played.

Who doesn't have a role to play, here? The US military, that's who. It's not the role of the US military to inspect the Commander-in-Chief for constitutional infirmities.

[PA-RIVER]

Old, here a hypothetical you will love.

If Biden cracks Obama over the head and locks him up in a box, Declares himself president and then orders an invasion of North Korea, what should the Generals do?

This question just for fun.

I would think the Generals should invade, as O was never really a legit president anyway.

[real_patriotic_american]

The Democrats, media and B. Hussein Obama cannot hide his birth papers forever. This will catch up to them someday. Maybe this case is it.

[OldDeckHand]

"So far all I see you doing is lying about who sued Rummy. "

I'm sorry, but since you've called me a liar, I'm going to stop being kind. You're an idiot. If you refuse to acknowledge the myriad of cases where service members have refused deployment orders, claiming that their deployments were illegal, I can't help you. I'm quite sure no one can.

[philman_36]

Once the judge rules that the orders were lawful (and based upon almost 25 years as a JAG, that is the most predictable ruling in the history of judicial rulings)...
And once again you're convicting him before he's tried. Why don't you wait and see what the judge does.
You're simply trying to convict him in the court of public opinion.

Which is pretty damn despicable, IMO!

[OldDeckHand]

"If Biden cracks Obama over the head and locks him up in a box, Declares himself president and then orders an invasion of North Korea, what should the Generals do?"

Reductio ad absurdum.

[PA-RIVER]

Your logic is infallible. I like how you think.

Yet the fact remains we are governed by an Indonesian/British/Kenyan/Marxist/Communist/Islamic/Muslim citizen. We are his slaves. And that sucks.

[OldDeckHand]

"You're simply trying to convict him in the court of public opinion."

You don't understand the meaning of "affirmative defense". You should familiarize yourself with the term lest you keep embarrassing yourself.

[OldDeckHand]

'Your logic is infallible. I like how you think"

Again, reductio ad absurdum.

I never claimed infallibility, although to date, I have yet to be wrong in any of my Birther legal predictions. Be that as it may, my logic is irrelevant to your absurd arguments.

[PA-RIVER]

Come on, picture biden with a hammer ... dont tell me you didnt laugh!

[philman_36]

If you refuse to acknowledge the myriad of cases where service members have refused deployment orders, claiming that their deployments were illegal, I can't help you.
I haven't refused to acknowledge the myriad of cases where service members have refused deployment orders.
You said...You can look up Matthis Chiroux and Ehren Watada. They are but two of the more than a dozen service men who sued Rumsfeld/Bush.
I can't find where either man sued either Rumsfeld or Bush! So YOU put up or shut up!
As it stands, you are lying and I can't help you dig yourself out of your hole. Only you can do that.