Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
>>“My son will not answer to an Indonesian president, and I’m proud of that. And that is honerable as well, thank you.”
>
>No, it’s not.
Um, excuse me; it is, go back and read post #385.
>What it means is that you and your son place your own personal sense of pride over the well being of the nation you would purport to serve.
Question: Do soldiers owe their [supreme] allegiance to a) The Nation, b) The President, c) The Secretary of Defense, d) The Constitution, e) the Supreme Court, OR f) their intimidate commanding officer?
Justify your answer.
>The honorable men and women are the ones serving their country, the ones who understand that the need for such service exists irregardless of who currently occupies the Oval Office.
First “irregardless” isn’t a word; and even if it were it would mean “not regardless” and be defined as something like:
–adjective
1. having or showing regard; heedful; mindful (often fol. by of ).
–adverb
2. with concern as to advice, warning, hardship, etc.
—Idiom
3. not regardless of, for the sake of; with regard for
Secondly, how is it “serving the country” to despise and disregard the supreme law of the land, The Constitution?
>The ones who are currently fighting and dying for you.
The ones who are lucky if they can have their vote counted? The ones who can have their rights to own/keep weapons near-whimsically repudiated?
I don’t care if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia under Indonesian law. Under US law, he remained a US citizen by birth, eligible for office.
“This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
See post 542 for what the Supreme Court thinks.
I suppose you can see a communist if you want. But there is no evidence at all that Obama is a Muslim. There is no evidence at all that he is Indonesian (genetically he clearly isn't). Your conflation of the two indicates the feeding of a personal prejudice.
Obama has not said anything about Islam that George W. Bush didn't say. Obama didn't start the conflict in Afghanistan; he is continuing a war that George W. Bush began in response to the Taliban's sheltering of Osama bin Laden. It is an American war, and he is continuing it because the current consensus of our civilian leadership and the military is that it is in our national security interests to do so. To imply otherwise is a lie.
I fought in a similar type of guerrilla war, a much more intense meat grinder (though certainly less of a grinder than the trenches of yore). Many people will say that such wars are fought in pursuit of fundamentally unattainable objectives. If one believes that, that is a valid reason for choosing not to serve. Making up lies about the current President and the genesis of said war are not.
Coulter, Rush, etc were not threatened with bad press. They were threatened with their jobs, their reputations, and the potential loss of life and limb for themselves and their loved ones.
The fact that only these particular issues were worth Obama’s thugs making threats over should give pause. Obama was not afraid of not getting elected; he was afraid of something else. What do you think that was? Why did Soros, Rahm, and Axelrod make those threats both before and after the election?
A democratic form of government cannot survive its fools. That’s why the communists have always targeted the people with power to decide what the people hear and whether they are able to think for themselves. Education and media have always been the targets of the communists.
And the communist in office right now threatened the media heads with harassing investigations and regulatory actions if they let the public know anything about Obama’s eligibility problem, birth certificate, Indonesian citizenship, the name Barry Soetoro, OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (???), law licenses, or educational records. That’s according to notes taken at the meeting by the administrative assistant who was there, according to Doug Hagmann.
The American people are fragile enough in their understanding of what is at stake even without a threatened, gagged media. If we allow this kind of gagging to continue the nation cannot survive.
That’s why this is about SO, SO much more than just Obama himself.
The reason I responded to this issue at all was because you called somebody a nutcase for saying Obama is Indonesian. I pointed out that the only document we’ve got for Obama that hasn’t already been proven a forgery is a school registration document saying that Obama was an Indonesian citizen.
My question had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility, but with why you would call somebody a nutcase because they believe the most credible document we actually have on Obama to this date.
Why do you call him a nutcase?
Uh, yeah.
Let’s see: “I want to join and stand beside my fellow citizens risking their lives for my country. But I’ve made up a bunch of groundless crap about the President in my own head for which I have no evidence and of which nobody in a position of authority per the Constitution will even acknowledge. That compels me to sadly recognize that my fellow citizens risking their lives for my country are not fulfilling their duty.”
Yeah, that’s some real honor there.
Because he has had it pointed out to him numerous times that Obama could not lose his US citizenship while he was in Indonesia, and because he insists on pretending Obama is Indonesian and not American. That is lunacy.
Nor are school documents legal documents of citizenship.
What legal documents have you seen showing that Obama is a US citizen?
Why are you not a nutcase, using the same standards as you applied to him?
“Coulter, Rush, etc were not threatened with bad press. They were threatened with their jobs, their reputations, and the potential loss of life and limb for themselves and their loved ones.”
Really? Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have been threatened with death if they discuss this issue?
I’m surprised to hear you are close enough to Rush and Ann that they confided this information to you...
If he was born in Hawaii - and yes, state officials say he was - then he is a US citizen. Period.
I’ve read your evidence for the BC being a forgery. I don’t think there is a 1 in 100 chance you are right.
It's sadistic and flippant and typical. And it's
even more aggregious and offensive, given the
subject at hand, which is no less than deadly
serious.
Noted .. ;)
If someone is making a ludicrous, outrageous and offensive analogy about you, I think responding that you laugh at them is both common and rather mild. It’s a generic response as opposed to repeating the original offense by impugning their character at a detail level.
Doug Hagmann says he’s got evidence that complies with PI-licensing standards showing that 2 large radio networks were threatened, as well as Fox, NBC, and CBS. The people he spoke to about this were fearful for their lives. One signed a statement saying that the media heads threatened his career and reputation and made very clear indirect threats on his well-being and life, as well as that of his family members.
It was interesting to me that Laura Ingraham, just this week, said that Obama’s educational records should be released. What was interesting was that in asking for the educational records she still complied with the demands of Soros, Axelrod, and Rahm (to whom Hagmann had directly traced the threats), who had blacklisted these subjects, as specifically listed by Hagmann:
Obama’s eligibility,
place of birth,
documentation about his birth certificate,
passport,
Pakistan travel,
Islamic schools,
aliases including Barry Soetoro,
oath of allegiance, and
Obama’s law license.
Fukino said there are multiple records for Obama and within those records there is a sworn claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. And this is the same Fukino who illegally hid the Administrative Rules until a year after the election, possibly committed perjury in testimony before the Hawaii legislature, requested that their open-records law be gutted, and refuses to obey UIPA which requires the disclosure of those very records she saw in order to make her announcement saying there is a claim of a Hawaii birth.
Why do you think she is doing all these illegal things, Mr Rogers? Why won’t she simply obey the laws?
But you evaded the questions I asked you. What legal documents have you seen that prove Obama is a US citizen?
And why are you not a nutcase also, if you use the same standard as you apply to others?
“Doug Hagmann says he’s got evidence that complies with PI-licensing standards...”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The head of the “Northeast Intelligence Network”?
http://homelandsecurityus.com/
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see what I see.
You see a man born to a Muslim, raised in a Muslim home, with a Muslim name, raised in a Muslim country, hosting a Ramadan Dinner, and you see a Christian. And I see a Muslim.
Go figure.
If you have evidence of illegal doing by Hawaii state officials, why not file charges against them?
Oh wait...the conspiracy protects them. Right!
I see a man born to a non-practicing Muslim he never knew, who didn't have any real interaction with Islam until his mother married another man, who spent a few years in an Islamic country and then came back here to be raised predominantly by his grandparents, who certainly weren't Muslims. There is nothing determinative in that description, and I would give anyone with that background the benefit of the doubt if they claim to be a Christian. It's called simple fairness. Particularly since I have seen Obama on camera drinking alcohol and eating pork.
George W. Bush hosted Ramadan dinners and Obama also hosted a Sedar. So what?
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.