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 ...
Why haven’t Rahm, Soros, and Axelrod sued Hagmann for libel?
Why did Laura Ingraham say Obama’s school records should be released? If she wants him to come clean, why come clean on his college transcripts? Why would those matter at this point? Of all the things she could ask for him to come clean on, why did Laura Ingraham mention his GRADES, for heaven’s sake? If we haven’t figured out he’s out of his league by now, mere transcripts aren’t going to convince us. Why did she ask for that?
Why are Fox and Wall Street Journal the media entities that censor my comments (and comments by anybody else trying to post my content) worse than anybody else? Buried in threads a mile deep with all kinds of irrelevant or frivolous content all around, they won’t allow a simple posting of documented facts. Why not?
You can laugh all you want, but a lot of people are seeing the effects of the thuggish behavior - especially as we’ve got
1) a DOJ that only investigates and prosecutes whites, dropping charges of blatant voter intimidation because it was done by Black Muslims,
2) the Chrysler lawyer who was told he’d be destroyed by the IRS if he challenged the illegal takeover by the government,
3) 5? (I’ve lost track) inspectors general who were fired because they were doing their jobs - including Walpin who was first manipulated/threatened before being illegally fired and then libeled afterwards and the Congressional investigation halted when the DOJ wouldn’t answer requests for information
4) Obama and the dems going after the Chamber of Commerce - wanting their contributors’ list so these thugs will know who contributed and they can investigate/harass them all.
5) Joe Wurzelbacher put through a wringer, including an attempt to get him on licensing issues.
6) the lawsuits that eventually drove Sarah Palin out of the governorship.
These are just the blatant attempts at intimidation and threats that I can name off the top of my head, and I miss a lot because I’ve been investigating the eligibility issue so intensely.
This is standard operating procedure for these thugs and by now just about everybody who isn’t stoned or on life support sees it clearly.
So laugh, if you want, at those who say Obama’s slip is showing. By now the hem of his skirt is about at his eyebrows and everything below that is hanging out in full view of everybody.
Citizens can’t file charges.
Citizens can ask for investigations, which I did. The government of Hawaii doesn’t do investigations; instead they craft a law designed to take away the open-records access rights of people who request investigations, by labeling them “vexatious requestors”.
Read it again. No mention of any offensiveness,
and you know it. That may put you in the same class
as him. Congratulations. Done with it .. period.
Waste of my precious time.
~~~~~~~
Dont waste the keystrokes on this guy. He could watch Obama go to Philadelphia and burn an original copy of the constitution and piss on the ashes, and then report to Obama for duty the next day to hang any soldier that objected.
***
No, I’d stick around here so I could laugh at you some more
And I might add that Fukino’s attempt to label people like myself as having “mental health issues” sound SO much like what Obama tried to do with Walpin.
Their deletion of specific communications from my communications history to distort what I said is strangely similar to Obama’s “friends” dumping Walpin’s notes on the floor when he was taking a break and then plying him with questions before he could get his notes together.... so they could accuse him of being a little “confused”.
Their legal threat of removing the access rights of a person, in retaliation for whistle-blowing on evident corruption, is SO like everything Obama’s thugs have been doing from Day 1.
I see the fingerprints of Obama ALL OVER Hawaii’s government. Could be coincidence since all thugs look somewhat alike. But it does make me wonder why anybody would trust either the thugs in Hawaii or the thugs in DC.
Let’s see - Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter fear to take on Obama, but Hagmann and the “Northeast Intelligence Network” press on...just donate to keep them ‘investigating’ what Rush Limbaugh and Coulter and Malkin fear.
I think I’ll go on laughing.
That's not offensive?
That's not a deliberate insult?
Then I'll spell it out for you—that comment is explicitly stating, at a minimum, that the person it refers to has no moral awareness or standards. It can also be read as saying worse. It is a clear and direct insult that posits an absurd situation to impugn someone’s character.
Here's another hint—the phrase “don't waste the keystrokes on this guy” is normally the preface to an insult.
Yeah. As long as he’s laughing he’s happy with what he believes. The rest of us who can see Obama’s backside hanging out all over the place can deal with the realities this country is facing.
See my tag line...
Terrorists Have More Rights than Army LTC Lakin
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/terrorists-have-more-rights-than-army-ltc-lakin/
I'd bet you were looking in a mirror when you wrote that.
See P. 25 of the PDF for the punch line. Basically, they point out that your friend Gray was entirely wrong to invoke English Common Law in Ark as it relies on Feudalism, and the United States is founded on the rejection of that system of slavery. To wit:
Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation’s founders, when they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in 1866, and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Hamdi’s case presents this Court with the opportunity to reject them once and for all, and to repudiate the erroneous decision of Wong Kim Ark that revived that forgotten doctrine to the detriment of the American republican ideal of go vernment by consent.
Using Wong Kim Ark to make a point is somewhat questionable.
14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the....
Hmmm, wonder why they would have left out the Natural Born part???
Not that a fact from your own sources matter to you or would get in the way of defending your boy.
Your statement — “Obama is a natural born citizen if born in Hawaii” — is false.
I cite as evidence of the flasehood of this statement this testimony from the Senate Judicial Commmittee testimony of Chairman Leahy, and Secretary Chertoff clearly stating that a “natural born” citizen must have two US citzen parents:
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.
It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.
Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy’s opinion — his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website — that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent —singular — his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, “at birth,” was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain — he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of “divided loyalties,” — the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place — a fact that further underlines Obama’s ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy’s own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff’s testimony.
The plural word “parents” is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word “citizens” is used five times. That’s nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of “parent” or “citizen” is used.
“Although some scoff, Lakin is acting “exactly” as “proper training dictates,” confirms retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst who served as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe.
Likewise, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, agrees Lakin “has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief.”
*snip*
Indeed, in an extraordinary affidavit he filed with the court in Lakin’s defense, McInerney, who also served as assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force and commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, made this bold statement:
The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority.
The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office, that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.
Adds McInerney: “Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211589
Not that “Moe”. The Albany, N.Y. radioman, a muzzie, who cut wife’s head off!!!
Good post, Regulator.
Great post!!
Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
No soldier is sworn to serve the government. Period.
I'll prove it, too:
| Oath of Enlistment National Guard portions in blue. |
|---|
| I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ☀ according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ☀ according to law and regulations. So help me God. |
| Oath of Office [for military officers] |
| I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. |
| Additional Oath for Officers in the National Guard |
| I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY], that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the (Army, Air) National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY] upon which I am about to enter, so help me God. |
This is also born out by the terminal clause about lawfulness of orders, the Constitution is the Supreme Law and any law or regulation or order contrary thereunto is illegal. It can therefore be said that all these military oaths begin and end with the Constitution.
Furthermore
MILITARY AUTHORITY
Authority is defined as the right to direct soldiers to do certain things. Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers.
The Seven Army Values (LDRSHIP)
According to the Army (via GTA 22-6-2)
As expounded upon by the University of Cincinnati's ROTC:
Loyalty
Loyalty is bearing witness to your allegiance to the US Constitution and its ideals, to the Army, to your unit, to your fellow Soldiers and subordinates, and to yourself as an Army professional. Loyalty means placing your professional obligations and commitments before your personal ones. It means dedication to carrying out all of your unit’s missions and to serving faithfully the values of the country, the Army, and your unit.
Duty
Duty involves fulfilling all of your professional, legal, and moral obligations and accomplishing all tasks to the fullest of your ability. Duty means accepting responsibility for your actions and those of your subordinates. Doing your duty prohibits engaging in illegal and immoral actions. Duty also requires your disobedience of unlawful orders— those that run counter to the Army’s doctrine, standard practices, and values.
Respect
As an Army officer, you are charged with promoting dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity for others. Respect means treating people as they should be treated and as you expect to be treated. It requires having regard for others’ well-being, feelings, and needs.
Selfless Service
Selfless service means placing Army priorities before your own. You consider the welfare of the nation, your mission, and your fellow Soldiers and subordinates before your personal safety. Selfless service means a willingness to sacrifice for the country, the Army, and your unit. This does not mean that you forget about the needs of your family or yourself. Selfless service prevents a narrow, ambitious focus on careerism for gain or glory. This value guides you in giving credit where credit is due and sharing your successes.
Integrity
Integrity means “completeness” and “wholeness.” Integrity leads you to unity and consistency in your principles, values, and behavior. It requires you to be candid and sincere with your peers, subordinates, and superiors. Integrity calls upon you to be honest and honorable in word and deed at all times.
Personal Courage
A wise leader once said that courageous people are afraid, too—they just hold on for a minute longer. You can exhibit two types of courage. Physical courage enables you to face fear, danger, and adversity in any situation. Moral courage means acting with honor, respecting others, and taking responsibility for your actions and decisions. In the Army, you get a medal for acting bravely. But decorations are merely cloth and metal symbols of your inner strength of character that leads to courageous acts.
I could cite much, MUCH more but I think this is enough to say, conclusively, that the Lt. Col is acting honorably.
If you choose to disagree, then I invite you to find documented proof to present, which invalidates the above.
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.