Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

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

[philman_36]

You like using bait, don't you.

[tutstar]

BUMP

[2ndDivisionVet]

Can’t fish with dynamite, it’s dis-legal. LOL

[OldDeckHand]

"it isn't to give your support for the cause. "

Support for the cause? What "cause" is that, exactly.

The military is no place to make political statements. This is especially true of our commissioned officers.

I suppose you were all for those uniformed service members who sued George Bush and Don Rumsfeld for conducting an illegal war, right?

If this guy want to score political points, then he should resign his commission and start a blog or run for office. Otherwise, he should take a big drink of STFU, and start obeying lawful orders.

BTW, my opinion is reflective of virtually every career officer I have ever served with, many serving under Presidents that didn't vote for or particularly like or even respect as men. This is why, should Lakin not not seek an alternative disposition, he's going to get hammered at sentencing. Most of the officers on Lakin panel probably don't like Obama, and probably didn't vote for him, but they're not making political statements. Why is that?

[Michael Barnes]

Yeah, Yeah, and supposedly Steven Segal was a CIA man too..Anyone can claim that.

[EDINVA]

I’m in the camp that believes the mere production of a birth certificate doesn’t mean a thing, even if Obama was born in HI. The question of what constitutes a ‘natural born citizen’ should be taken up by the SCOTUS, whether now or down the line.

[The Sons of Liberty]

It's gonna take eye witnesses to swear where this guy actually comes from and once we discover them they will disappear real quick.

True, and I think you could have 100 eye witnesses stand up and testify, but I don't think the court - any court - including the SCOTUS, has the balls to rule that he is ineligible.

[Stat-boy]

“Godspeed, Lakin.”

Agreed.

He seems like a man of extraordinary convictions. He took the risk of accepting dire consequences for his actions in order to have the opportunity to to argue for what he believes is right.

[2ndDivisionVet]

If any so-called "real" journalists were doing their jobs, someone like Joseph Farah and his World Net Daily wouldn't be the only game in town. Woodward and Bernstein had a lot less to go on than Mr. Farah.

[philman_36]

...and start obeying lawful orders.
But that's the very point of his action.
Can you tell me (as in prove), or him, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the orders he's receiving are lawful?

...my opinion is...
Your opinion is nothing more than blubbering if you can't prove the previous.

Why is that?
I can't speak for another and wouldn't presume to.

...reflective of virtually every career officer I have ever served with...
Most of the officers on Lakin panel probably don't like Obama, and probably didn't vote for him...
You, on the other hand, seem to take some pride in stating or assuming what other people think or do.

[rodguy911]

The coverup IMHO, definitely has “professional” written all over it. NO individual,especially one that is probably gay and does drugs, is this good.

[OldDeckHand]

"Can you tell me (as in prove), or him, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the orders he's receiving are lawful? "

Orders are presumptively legal. If you had ever served, you might know that.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy. Again, this isn't complicated. Any officer, to especially include any line or legal officer could have told Lakin that. Unfortunately, he's a medical officer who has been given some incompetent legal advice, or he has refused competent legal advice all to make an political point. Either way, he's not the kind of officer the military wants or needs - one that compromises mission integrity for his own personal whims.

[verity]

I completely agree with ODH.

My perfect solution would be for Obama and Lakin to be in adjoining cells.

[rodguy911]

I can’t aruge with you that’s probably true.

[OldDeckHand]

BTW, I see you didn't answer this question...

"I suppose you were all for those uniformed service members who sued George Bush and Don Rumsfeld for conducting an illegal war, right?"

So what is it? Where they all as "patriotic" as Lakin? After all, the circumstances are EXACTLY the same. They alleged George Bush didn't have the legal authority to conduct the Iraq war, and ergo, he didn't have the legal authority to order their deployment.

[scott7278]

I think about all the brave men and women who are fighting right now against oppression, and then I think about all the brave men who fought against communism in the past, and here we are in 2010 and it’s on our very shores - in entertainment, in Congress, and in the presidency.

We should have never shut down HUAC. It’s given our domestic enemies courage to act openly against our national interests.

[philman_36]

Orders are presumptively legal.
So you can't prove whether they were or not. And yet you've already tried and convicted this man.
If you had ever served, you might know that.
There you go presuming again. I did serve, in the Navy.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy.
If the orders weren't issued under the proper authority there is.

You've sure got a lot of supposition and assumptions in your argument.

[TigersEye]

0bamas’ hidden records: Why are these off limits?

1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?

Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.

0bamas’ hidden records: Why are these off limits?

[philman_36]

My perfect solution would be for Obama and Lakin to be in adjoining cells.
A more perfect example of an illogical conclusion couldn't have been presented!
If Larkin is proven right and his orders were illegally given he would never end up in a cell.

I completely agree with ODH.
You both sound like you're convicting him for 'presumptuousness of questioning'.

[jamese777]

Orders are presumptively legal. If you had ever served, you might know that.

There is nothing illegal about an order to deploy. Again, this isn’t complicated. Any officer, to especially include any line or legal officer could have told Lakin that. Unfortunately, he’s a medical officer who has been given some incompetent legal advice, or he has refused competent legal advice all to make an political point. Either way, he’s not the kind of officer the military wants or needs - one that compromises mission integrity for his own personal whims.

---

OldDeckHand is right. The “proof” is in the legal doctrine known as “de facto officer.” That doctrine clearly states that validity is conferred upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.
In the Supreme Court of the United States case of Norton v Shelby County (118 U.S. 425, 1886) the court held that “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”