Lt. Col. Terry Lakin CONVICTED

Originally posted by 46ACE
And everybody said for months:"Oh for certain "somebody" certifies the candidates...
What did we find out? It was the democratic party leaders

You are confusing two different things.

The Democratic Party leaders certify their candidates for the general election, correct, just like the Republican Party leaders (The Republican Party leaders had to certify McCain and Palin as well). This party certification is basically an affidavit attesting their candidate’s eligibility.

But it’s Congress who ultimately certifies the election and in effect puts people in office (Article II). Obama’s certification in Congress was unanimous. No one, democrat, republican or independent, raised any questions or protested when that phase of the process was reached.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

The constitution states it quite clearly.. If you are born here, regardless of your parent's citizenship, you are a US citizen.

There in lies the question doesn't it.Perhaps if he hadn't spent a majority of his boyhood years outside the country And made it a campaign point:" I am going to "fundamentally change" America...( whatever that meant).And Not to mention a "firstlady" who is " proud of her nation for the first time" the day her husband is elected.

I'm sorry if people who grew up,served and and spent their entire lives here are more than alittle protective of their home.From the clutches of somebody who has made the efforts to surround himself with left wing extremist touting communist ideas l and to seal all documents from his past. Can't imagine why people are still applying scrutiny to "our" elected official".

How about that?

Originally posted by Miraj
Where are people even coming up with this BS and why are our "constitutionalists" still spouting it as fact.

Originally posted by 46ACE
There in lies the question doesn't it.Perhaps if he hadn't spent a majority of his boyhood years outside the country ...

No, it doesn’t. You are making up conditions for which there are none specified in the Constitution other than “being born in the United States.” Everything else you said is completely irrelevant to that provision.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by 46ACE
There in lies the question doesn't it.Perhaps if he hadn't spent a majority of his boyhood years outside the country ...

No, it doesn’t. You are making up conditions for which there are none specified in the Constitution other than “being born in the United States.” Everything else you said is completely irrelevant to that provision.

Here we go again:

Get out of your first gear thinking...You are stipulating ( assuming your statement is true without evidence beyond any question): I have pointed out inconsistencies that lead to doubt.I am not arguing natural born citizenship isnot in there. I 'm thinking out of the boxand asking why all these other coincidences?.( and no I don't like the man's policies or associates ).

I've got snow clearing to attend to this subject has been done to death here somewhere; I will not waste any more time rehashing the simple doubts that you people refuse to address besides resorting to the one word answer to every dissenter: " R-A-C-I-S-T!"

Goodafternoon: sir (mam?)

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by 46ACE
And everybody said for months:"Oh for certain "somebody" certifies the candidates...
What did we find out? It was the democratic party leaders

You are confusing two different things.

The Democratic Party leaders certify their candidates for the general election, correct, just like the Republican Party leaders (The Republican Party leaders had to certify McCain and Palin as well). This party certification is basically an affidavit attesting their candidate’s eligibility.

But it’s Congress who ultimately certifies the election and in effect puts people in office (Article II). Obama’s certification in Congress was unanimous. No one, democrat, republican or independent, raised any questions or protested when that phase of the process was reached.

That'sa valid interesting point you make....
perhaps a topic for later

reply to post by derfreebie


This birther nonsense is a waste of bandwidth.The only valid HI birth certificate HAS been published repeatedly....He's an American and he's BLACK....get over it.He's clearly done more with his life then many...What have you done?
Lastly...Why would you have a blindfold over your mouth?
That's just dumb.

reply to post by Schaden


McCain couldn't afford to contest anything...because although President Obama is a citizen....Mccain is not.He was born in the canal zone...and they probably didn't even have paper birth certificates then...Plus, the time in Vietnam he was clearly preprogrammed ala the Manchurian Candidate....He was meant to destroy America...and He's still trying!

Watch that lump on his face...it contains a cleverly disguised explosive device...The plan the cong have been following,was to hold him for 5 years to condition him...then allow him to return home...He would then run for office and become a senator...after a cooling off period...say 25 years....he would run for the office of president...Even though as a resident of the canal zone he couldn't be a citizen...Since we haven't Ever seen his birth certificate...
The intent of the plan was that he would get elected president...then...when alone and no one suspected it...he would be alone in the oval office and his Cong masters would activate the bomb...and he would assassinate the...oops....ther seems to be a flaw in this plan.

Originally posted by 46ACE
Here we go again:
Get out of your first gear thinking...You are stipulating ( assuming your statement is true without evidence beyond any question): I have pointed out inconsistencies that lead to doubt.

The inconsistencies you point out are subjective — some people agree they exist, some don’t, some don’t even think they are relevant. I’m not preventing you from enumerating these inconsistencies you think exist, or casting doubt over whatever you wish. Your personal doubts, however, are insufficient to prove or even demand anything.

To avoid unnecessary back-and-forths I will be blunt so what I’m saying is explicit: no one, irrespective of being in the military, can challenge a sitting President’s eligibility in the courts.

The Constitution stipulates who, how and when challenges can arise regarding the qualifications of candidates. The Constitution, also, stipulates who and how can remove a sitting President from office. If this was not enough, look at the opinions of the judges in the several so called “birther cases” in civil, and military, courts who have made this point abundantly clear.

For those that really want to continue this endeavor — you included, sir — I can tell you how this matter can be settled: you need to convince Congress to open an investigation on the question of the President’s eligibility, and if he is found guilty of what you accuse him of, then Congress can remove him from office by impeachment as per Article II Sec. 4.

Every other kind of challenge is constitutionally doomed to failure.

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by derfreebie

 

This birther nonsense is a waste of bandwidth.The only valid HI birth certificate HAS been published repeatedly....He's an American and he's BLACK....get over it.He's clearly done more with his life then many...What have you done?
Lastly...Why would you have a blindfold over your mouth?
That's just dumb.

That was a reply w e've onl;y seen 3500 times:
nobody cares hes" black".We care he may haven been put into office unlawfully.
and you should too. Tell me What have you guys screamed since 2004 ?

( still to this day hear) "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!!!

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by 46ACE
And everybody said for months:"Oh for certain "somebody" certifies the candidates...
What did we find out? It was the democratic party leaders

You are confusing two different things.

The Democratic Party leaders certify their candidates for the general election, correct, just like the Republican Party leaders (The Republican Party leaders had to certify McCain and Palin as well). This party certification is basically an affidavit attesting their candidate’s eligibility.

But it’s Congress who ultimately certifies the election and in effect puts people in office (Article II). Obama’s certification in Congress was unanimous. No one, democrat, republican or independent, raised any questions or protested when that phase of the process was reached.

Though I see you left a very rational post about congress having the power to bring this up and impeach furthe down the thread I still must address this commonly held "certification issue"

I gota cuppa' to warmup from snowblowing and find "wiki is your friend".

What's congresses idea of "certifying the election?

Joint session of Congress and the contingent election

The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.[39] The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.[40]
The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.[40] The sitting Vice president is expected to preside, but in several cases the President pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings instead.
(paragraph break mine)

The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each house appoints two tellers to count the vote (paragraph break mine)

(normally one member of each political party). Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by debate; however, objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the remarkably close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who ironically as Vice President was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by only a few electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which would have favored his candidacy. If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and, if applicable, states who is elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.

So they do indeed "certify the election" : The electoral ballot count!
Thorough huh,

Seems the states certify candidates for their ballots.Care to see how Your state did it?:

saveourrights.wikia.com...


Mine says:

" Wisconsin

Thank you for your inquiry about ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Wisconsin. State law provides two methods for qualifying for the ballot. Candidates of political parties with ballot status must be certified by either the state or national party chair and file a sworn declaration of candidacy.


§§8.16 (7), 8.21, Wis. Stats. Independent candidates for president must circulate and file nomination papers along with a sworn declaration of candidacy. §8.20, Wis. Stats. The Declaration of Candidacy requires the candidate to swear under oath he or she meets all the applicable eligibility requirements to hold the office. §8.21, Wis. Stats.

Kevin J. Kennedy

Director and General Counsel

Wisconsin Government Accountability Board

608-266-8005



Comment:

So the Dem party candidates are vetted by the state or national party chair i.e. Ms. " we have to pas s it before we can tell you whats in it.( if theres a wall we'll pole vault over it a fence we'll dig under it but its going through) San fran liberal Pelosi"....
Yes I have "birther madness" questions and you should too.You think i don't want an all American ex military president say( Colin powell) that I can stand behind 100%relax and get off the political madness bus?

Originally posted by 46ACE
So they do indeed "certify the election" : The electoral ballot count!
Thorough huh

What’s your point? That’s when Congress can raise objections. Did you not read what you quoted?

Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by debate (...)

If you were expecting there to be a formal, or codified, procedure to ask to see the candidates birth certificate, the link you provided is very elucidative as to non-existence, or non-enforceability, or if available when a challenges to candidates qualifications can be made:

Seems the states certify candidates for their ballots.Care to see how Your state did it?:
saveourrights.wikia.com...

In most cases (e.g. Michigan, Kentucky, Lousiana, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, etc) the responses from state officials acknowledge that they don’t check, or can’t even legally ask for candidates birth certificates or perform any investigation.

Michigan

Copies of the nominees' birth certificates or birth records are not required.

Kentucky

Our office has no legal authority to investigate the qualifications of a candidate or the information a candidate provides on his/her filing forms.

Louisiana

The law prevents Secretary Dardenne from judging the qualifications of potential candidates. Likewise he cannot legally require potential candidates to show birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.

Several state officials replied by saying the question of eligibility is up to the parties to determine and vouch for. Many states require the parties to submit a signed affidavit swearing the candidates are qualified.

A few responses say there can be challenges to a candidate’s qualifications, filed in state, before the election. Indiana, for instance, said this:

Once filed, Indiana has an “administrative challenge procedure” that allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. For example, this administrative challenge procedure would be the method to raise an issue as to whether a presidential candidate met the "natural born citizen" requirement contain in the U.S. Constitution. (...)

Cool! So how many challenges to Obama were there?

However, there was no challenge filed as to the qualifications of Barack Obama in Indiana.

6 or 7 responses from state officials explicitly defer the matter to Article II (Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesotta, Montana, Nevada). Here is one, from the Office of the Secretary of State of Minnesotta, stating what I have explained to you before:

The Office of the Secretary of State is responsible for administering elections in Minnesota . This office does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the eligibility of candidates for federal office. Under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to ascertain whether candidates for federal offices meet the eligibility requirements.

Originally posted by 46ACE
So the Dem party candidates are vetted by the state or national party chair i.e. Ms. " we have to pas s it before we can tell you whats in it.( if theres a wall we'll pole vault over it a fence we'll dig under it but its going through) San fran liberal Pelosi"....

Didn’t the Republican Party had to have done exactly the same? What’s with the partisan distinction? This makes your motives for pursuing this matter look purely political.

Yes I have "birther madness" questions and you should too.

I don’t think I should have any ‘madness’ of any kind. The questions I had regarding this question have been sufficiently satisfied.

Regarding “birther madness,” I’m yet to see any argument, based on factual legislation, or the Constitution, that require Obama to show you his “long form birth certificate” or whatever it is that you want him to show you.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by 46ACE
So they do indeed "certify the election" : The electoral ballot count!
Thorough huh

What’s your point? That’s when Congress can raise objections. Did you not read what you quoted?

My point? I'm not a procedural scholar but it seems they can raise objections to the electoral count...? That's all they are certifying. that's my point.


EVEN IF you could get a word in edgewise with all the teary eyed excitement during the election results. Do you think anybody could bring the whole "yes we can" train to a screeching halt without resulting turmoil; gunfire and riots in the streets?

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by 46ACE

Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count, provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by debate (...)

If you were expecting there to be a formal, or codified, procedure to ask to see the candidates birth certificate, the link you provided is very elucidative as to non-existence, or non-enforceability, or if available when a challenges to candidates qualifications can be made:

Seems the states certify candidates for their ballots.Care to see how Your state did it?:
saveourrights.wikia.com...

In most cases (e.g. Michigan, Kentucky, Lousiana, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, etc) the responses from state officials acknowledge that they don’t check, or can’t even legally ask for candidates birth certificates or perform any investigation.

Michigan

Copies of the nominees' birth certificates or birth records are not required.

Kentucky

Our office has no legal authority to investigate the qualifications of a candidate or the information a candidate provides on his/her filing forms.

Louisiana

The law prevents Secretary Dardenne from judging the qualifications of potential candidates. Likewise he cannot legally require potential candidates to show birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.

Several state officials replied by saying the question of eligibility is up to the parties to determine and vouch for. Many states require the parties to submit a signed affidavit swearing the candidates are qualified.

A few responses say there can be challenges to a candidate’s qualifications, filed in state, before the election. Indiana, for instance, said this:

Once filed, Indiana has an “administrative challenge procedure” that allows a registered voter to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. For example, this administrative challenge procedure would be the method to raise an issue as to whether a presidential candidate met the "natural born citizen" requirement contain in the U.S. Constitution. (...)

Cool! So how many challenges to Obama were there?

However, there was no challenge filed as to the qualifications of Barack Obama in Indiana.

6 or 7 responses from state officials explicitly defer the matter to Article II (Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesotta, Montana, Nevada). Here is one, from the Office of the Secretary of State of Minnesotta, stating what I have explained to you before:

The Office of the Secretary of State is responsible for administering elections in Minnesota . This office does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the eligibility of candidates for federal office. Under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, it is the responsibility of the United States Congress to ascertain whether candidates for federal offices meet the eligibility requirements.

edit on 19-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by 46ACE
My point? I'm not a procedural scholar but it seems they can raise objections to the electoral count...? That's all they are certifying. that's my point.

Did you look into this matter? Or just proclaimed not to be a “procedural scholar” and, while admitting to be ignorant of the process, dismissed the argument I’ve been making?

What Federal laws govern the Electoral College system?

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
12th Amendment to the Constitution
United States Code, Title 3, Chapter 1 (3 U.S.C. §§ 1 - 21)

3 USC §15

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. (...)

No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

As I’ve been saying, the process for when and how objections regarding the candidates can be made exists. No objections were raised when that phase was reached.

According the Constitution a once elected and certified President can only be removed from office by impeachment. In light of this, and the opinions in the so called “birther cases,” it’s evident to me that only Congress could settle this question.

reply to post by derfreebie


"Lt. Col. Terry Lakin CONVICTED"

That's great news! Thanks for posting it!.

reply to post by 46ACE

Perhaps if he hadn't spent a majority of his boyhood years outside the country

Four years (age 6 to 10) is not 'a majority of his boyhood'. Are you blaming a 6 year old kid for the actions of his parents?

If anything, that 4 year period would serve to give him a more rounded understanding of the world than any other President in history (yes I know, some like Jefferson and Eisenhower spent considerable time in Europe).

Perhaps if you would stop looking for trivial, nonsensical things to criticize for a little while, you might find some perspective in your life.

reply to post by 46ACE

He was court martialled for "missing a movement". (Not "disobeying a lawful order"Where he could directly contest the legality of the order)

In fact he was court martialled for both of those specifications.

He pled guilty to disobeying a lawful order, recognizing that the orders were indeed lawful. He CHOSE to not contest that specification, because he knew that they were lawful and he had absolutely no defense against them.

He did contest the "missing movement" specification which entailed missing a specific flight. Lakin's defense contended that no one told him that he needed to be on the specific flight and he could have taken another flight or driven or what ever. The prosecution presented evidence that indeed he was ordered on to that specific flight, and the defense did not attempt to impeach that evidence.

Even if he had availed himself of the possibility of getting to his duty station by another means, he didn't get there. He told the world he was going to disobey the orders and was not going to deploy to Afghanistan, then he followed through with that plan. It is pretty hard to mount a defense when your own stupidity is that intense.

The anti-Obama agitators seem to think they have won a victory through the destruction of this man's life and career and that of his family. Farrah and Rondeau were dancing on his grave before he had even finished his family farewells. They should be ashamed of themselves for leading this previously fine officer and doctor to believe their idiotic nonsense; instead they have renewed their calls for you to hit their paypal buttons and keep their scam going. Jensen should be disbarred (I'd like to see him tossed in jail) for suborning a military officer.

reply to post by aptness

According the Constitution a once elected and certified President can only be removed from office by impeachment.

Or resignation. Or by incapacity, either self declared or declared by the VP and Cabinet (this is theoretically temporary, but clearly could be in effect for the remainder of the term) as per the 25th amendment. (This should have been used when Reagan was shot, and during at least the last 3 years of his second term when he was descending into Alzheimer's).

Or expiration of term, obviously.

reply to post by 46ACE

Get out of your first gear thinking...You are stipulating ( assuming your statement is true without evidence beyond any question): I have pointed out inconsistencies that lead to doubt.I am not arguing natural born citizenship isnot in there. I 'm thinking out of the boxand asking why all these other coincidences?.( and no I don't like the man's policies or associates ).

You are proceeding backwards from the premise that he is not eligible. If you start from that position, then and only then does the question arise, how is it that he is not eligible? Then and only then are the inconsistencies conjured up out of fevered imagination. Then and only then are the doubts spread.

If you start from the premise that he is not eligible, then you must explain how he must be too young, not resident long enough, or not NBC. It is clear from the public record that he is resident long enough, so the only thing to attack is the birth certificate, or the situation surrounding his birth.

There is not and never has been any evidence what-so-ever to indicate that there is anything fraudulent about Obama or his birth certificate or the circumstances of his birth to raise suspicion in any way what-so-ever about his eligibility. That is the way the American system works, you present evidence to back up your accusations, you don't accuse and then demand the accused to prove you wrong.

But anti-Obama activists want to find something to club him with, so they decide he is ineligible and dream up theory after improbably theory after impossible theory and then pepper the internet with their wacko stuff, encourage people like you so spread it wider pretending that they are only raising doubts that haven't been answered, and sit back watch what havoc they have unleashed. They get you folks to spread lies and misinformation about the Constitution and transparently demand violating the Constitution to evict the President while pretending to be defending the Constitution. They get you folks to accuse every official in every State (especially Hawai'i) of being unprofessional, suborned, blackmailed, treasonous, criminals. They get you to demand documentation that has already been released and documentation that has nothing to do with anything what-so-ever.

Have you ever considered that for any of these anti-Obama theories to be correct, virtually every person in the United States (except you of course) would have to be in on it in some way or the other? Certainly every Federal Official, both elected (from any party) and appointed, every State official both elected (from any party) and appointed. Every official in England, Kenya, and Indonesia has to be in on it. Every school official at all levels in all schools in the USA have to be in on it.

Has it occurred to you that if everyone is in on the conspiracy, it isn't a conspiracy, and since you are the odd one out, you are the conspiracy.

The same old same old gets repeated and refuted, repeated and refuted, repeated and refuted, over, and over, and over, and over. There are no inconsistencies that lead to honest doubts about Obama's eligibility in any of this stuff. None.

I don't believe you have honest doubts; all your so-called inconsistencies have been completely refuted and debunked long ago even if the closed feedback loop of the various fear-mongers blogsites you subscribe to deny it. I don't even believe that you honestly believe that this caca you spread will have any real effect on Obama, other than helping to keep up the morale of the hard core haters.

I do believe you are disingenuously spreading gossip for the sole purpose of seeing your words in type.