Posted on 11/30/2010 11:42:20 PM PST by rxsid
[Thread Ping]
Your entire premise is completely false. Officers are following the Constitution, excepting Lakin, of course. What proof do you have that Mr. Obama is not the Constitutionally legitimate President? None, of course and neither does anyone else. What you have are wild allegations and speculation that isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
Produce some evidence. The world awaits.
Do not worry my good man. If Lakin is martyred, then he will have avchieved the ultimate in the cause of civil disobedience, and it will not stop there.
Martin Luthur King Jr, a great Republican, knew this well.
And where did he learn that? From the Satyagraha movement of Gandhi, ,who by the way, learned it from reading the works of Henry David Thoreau , in particular the Variorum on Civil Disobedience. Gandhi read these while a student at Harvard University.
This is the exercise in which Lakin has embarked.It does not stop with the just the court of military justice. It is merely the beginning.
I laud Lakin’s Civil Disobedience. He is a brave man, and so far the Obama administration has shown us all that they are deeply afraid of his efforts, meaning that what he asks simply in his disobedience is indeed proven. The president is NOT qualified according to Article II of the constitution, and everything is being done to obscure his contention both inside and outside of court.
Americans will not let that rest with a kangaroo court finding of guilt along the lines of “strict liability”, a specious argument if I have ever heard of it, worthy of the flacid ignorance about how fascism itself works inside of military hierarchy as it did in Germany and Italy a few generations ago.People have fogotten their history.
In short , this is just a beginning.What do you think Lt. Col Allen West will do about it after he takes his seat in Congress in January, for example.No, this is not over by a long shot.
Satyahgraha. Its here and we need to celebrate it.
http://www.quietspaces.com/satyagraha.html
Lakin knows exactly what he is about.
“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her — the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now. “
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil2.html
So be of good heart. And gird yourself.This fight is just beginning
Are you saying that there is no evidence that his father was a Kenyan who not a citizen of the United States? Then why does he state that that is so and has in fact build his entire career on it as a sort of charisma.
No one disputes that his father was a Kenyan and not a citizen. Every elector, every member of Congress, the entire previous Administration, and all of the members of the Supreme Court knew that as well. They did not think that made him ineligible and neither do I. I agree with Judge Scalia on this point and until their is an opinion of the Supreme Court otherwise, I’ll continue to hold that view.
Why didn’t you make that argument when he started running for President four years ago?
God bless them all in an extra-tender way. I just printed that photo out; I’ll put it on my refrigerator so I remember to pray for them every day.
>>Judge Lind said that if an order has to be obeyed it is “lawful”. <<
Maybe she’s leaving him a sensible reason to appeal. I’m thinking of the My Lai Massacre.
God bless and protect them.
Perhaps you could explain how Obama can be a natural born citizen when his father is a British subject.
Please read Post 250 and 253 before you reply.
Why the voice of reason slinging ad hominem insults. You seem to take great exception when they come your way.
You are quite correct, that the issue has never be decided and certainly will never be on these pages. So why is it that you missed the opportunity in 2006? A chance for fame gone by. And tell, what great American Victory was brought about by your efforts? I’m sure that we would all love to hear about your contributions and service to this great nation.
You are not an idiot, so you know quite well what Scalia has said, as you also know that it was said off hand and not in an opinion. Bring your case counselor, and I wish you well but its not likely to produce the decision that you and I would both like to see.
I continue in prayers for brave LTC Lakin and his family every night.
The courageous LTC Lakin has pointed to the elephant in the living room, the elephant of eligibility, and BO is quaking in his boots.
Prayers for that brave hero and his family.
You’ll have to ask others. When you do, be sure to ask why that question was never raised in the case of Chester A. Arthur, born to an Irishman subject of the British crown (Not naturalized until young Arthur was about 14), and the case of Spiro Agnew, son of a Greek immigrant. Perhaps they just assumed that they were eligible to be President as was done with Mr. Obama.
*snip*
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
You are quite right. And what became of all those laws and treaties that he signed? They remained in force and for all I know, some are still in force.
Or, perhaps she means what she says; [and now] any order presumed to be lawful *is* lawful — thereby making any request for clarification of the lawfulness of orders tantamount to refusing those orders... perhaps she is TRYING to set up a Catch-22 situation such that the very act of questioning the legitimacy of orders is, in itself, punishable.
That would be a VERY, VERY bad thing indeed; but it is necessary for keeping the military in-line until they suddenly find themselves not with questionable orders but orders which are blatantly contraconstitutional; perhaps those that fear martial-law imposed on the US are not wrong at all.
{Martial law itself not being contra-constitutional; but look at the TSA and the 4th Amendment and try to argue that martial law imposed for any significant length of time will not be used to violate the Constitution.}
PS — We’ve seen something similar to this “presumed to be lawful” recently from our congress; do you remember “deem & pass”?
I’m late to this thread because I could hardly stand to read it.
Did that creep apologize to you?
Even though you’ve been around a few years I don’t recall meeting you on threads before. Turns out I missed nothing of value.
You’re rude, uninformed, ignorant, and insulting a lady.
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.