Lt Col. Terry Lakin Risks Courts Martial Standing Up For Constitution

Lt Col. Terry Lakin needs your help.  He is facing an imminent courts martial over his refusal to obey orders from an illegitimate criminal president.

Hats off to you Terry Lakin, for having the guts to stand up for your sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

From Safeguard Our Constitution:

LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.

He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.

LTC Lakin has questioned the President’s “natural born” status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. After a year of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President’s Constitutional eligibility.

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence (“Terry”) Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon’s DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic. He is the lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin, selected for promotion to Colonel, is a native of Colorado, whose residency is Tennessee.

LTC Lakin’s numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with one Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal. He has served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, El Salvador, Korea, and Afghanistan.

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • jay

    LOCK THIS TRAITOR AWAY IN A MILITARY PRISON!!!

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • Mr James

    The “Law of Nations” one of the foundation books for the constitution of the United States, and in fact the guiding principle of law in regards to the founding of the American Constitution states: In Chapter 19; Paragraph 212:that to be a citizen your father must be a citizen, or you will be just a resident of the country you were born in, and in fact a citizen of the country of your father’s birth. This is the real meaning of our constitutional law requiring “natural born citizenship “So, showing a birth certificate {legally & constitutional} doesn’t mean anything, but showing your father’s birth certificate does, and stepfather’s makes you a citizen or not.
    By law BO can’t be president, because of his father’s & step father’s birth.

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • http://fascistsoup.com/ WHITE POWER

    TRAITOR

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Michael Suede

    Don’t be mad that Lt. Col. Lakin is a war hero that believes in the constitution.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Sam Crawford

    @Mr James A treatise by a Swiss philsopher has no standing in U.S. law.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • Continuum

    Traitor.

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • ISUPPORTTERRY

    Can’t believe you guys are calling Lt. Col. Lakin a traitor, he is anything but, he knows that he will face a court martial, and possibly even a dishonorable discharge from the armed services, but yet he continued to move on with his statment. Lt. Col. Lakin, and we the people of The United States have every right to see Pres. Obama’s real Birth Certificate, if he is a “legitiment” citizen to this country then he should have no problem with showing it. I’am very happy to see that someone is finally calling Obama out on this. I will support Lt. Col. Lakin in every way possible. And I would hope the people of America will do the same for this very decorated soldier that has put his own life on the line to defend this great nation.

    Semper Fi and God Bless

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • NoMoreChange

    The left has spent so much money to keep this from coming to light. Does that no make you wonder what’s behind it all. Common sense tells you that if a simple birth certificate can’t be produced, something is up.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Steve

    He has disobeyed orders and has gone AWOL. He is a coward and a disgrace to his uniform. Obama has produced his birth certificate and you have to be a moron not to realize its real. It is not for a service person to question orders. THAT IS DISOBEDIENT. He needs to get courtmarshaled and spend a few years in jail.

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Alan

    If more true patriotic American military officers did the same as this brave man we “might” just be able to force the usurper-n-chief to unseal all those records he has sealed away from public scrutiny! Obama, his real name is Barry Soetoro, is hiding something(s) from the American people and for these things to still lay hidden is an outrage. May the spirit of 1776 fall upon the cowardly military, who are violating their oaths to the constitution by allowing this travesty to continue, and cause them to grow pair and stand with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin!!!

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Sgt. Thomas Barnes

    LT. Col. Terry Lakin is very willing to go into Afghanistan under a legitimate President. Now is the chance to prove that the President is legitimate.. The President has had many months of opportunity to do that .. but instead has spent almost $2M in hiding his records to delay it. Get er done.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Democrat

    I’m always impressed with the right wingers. George W Bush was not elected to his first term yet when anyone from left even disagreed we were called unpatriotic, traitors, or haters. Now with a President who was overwhelmingly elected in office it is okay according to these same people for military officers to endanger not only our soldiers in the field but our entire nation at a time of war by refusing to take orders from his and all our Commander in Chief or some question about where he was born. This at best is an academic question for first year law students, which would be held mute once his election had be ratified. End of Story! This man should be charged with desertion.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • Ron

    The wacko-right wing republicant’s just hate the fact that a black man was elected president. The constitution only applies to them and the war they really want this moron to fight is the civil war. they are the most un-patriotic traitors in our country. these are the same idiots who preach about the census being to intrusive. I guess the 3 questions they asked was 2 more than they are intelligent enough to answer. Oh by the way, our constitution calls for it. Dumb ass. Get over it. He is the president. Deal with it or leave. Throw this moron in jail.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • CyanWarrior

    Look you rightwing kooks, Terry Lakin is a traitor and coward He should be hanged. “NOBAMA” should make an example of this un-American filth.

    You assholes suddenly lost your love of this country when a black man took office. It’s disgusting. I didn’t fight in the sandbox for people like “Alan” up there. One day I hope meet up with someone like you, maybe I can make you respect this country again, you lost retard.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • idsville

    guys a nutter not a traitor. However, when personal convictions get in the way of lawful order to deploy/move I gotta wonder what else this nutbag is going to refuse. Court marital him.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    If Lakin is right, then every person serving in the military is now under no obligation to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, since he is not legally entitled to exercise any authority. Latkin isn’t the only one duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

    Every person here who supports Lakin should therefore go on record and demand that all military personnel refuse their orders, regardless of where they are deployed. All orders ultimately originate with or are approved by the Commander-in-Chief.

    I’d like to hear all the wingnuts and racists here make the case that Latkin is making, and stand by it: “Soldiers, you do not need to do your duty, regardless of who you are, where you are, or what you’ve been asked to do.”

    I presume that if Obama ordered Latkin’s division to assist some gravely wounded folks across town, under the Army’s jurisdiction, he would also refuse.

    This is not the reasonable objection of a C.O., whom I respect, but a treasonous ploy to make a grotesquely misinformed political point.

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • SquareJAW

    I hate to tell you, Mr. James, but Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, and Harrison were all born as British Subjects!

    In fact, 6 (now 7) US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson’ parents were both born in Ireland. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers…..

    But let’s recall them all, in the great tradition of Conspiracy Theories of Lunatics Masquerading as Reasonable Men.

    @Mr James

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    FUCK YOU ! You don’t deserve to wear the uniform of the USA. I hope they give you 20years hard labor

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @ISUPPORTTERRY
    Wake up stupid, it was already produced

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • EatShit Anddie

    @Ron
    ditto!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Alan

    @CyanWarrior
    I hope I meet you when the new American revolution begins. It is sad that my enemies are now home grown dumbed down morons like you that welcome Obama’s brand of communism into my country. You lost America when you spit on the graves of the millions of brave men and women who gave their lives in foreign wars to preserve our way of life. Shame on you!

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Nick Cole

    It has nothing to do with his skin colour you morons. It is to do with his elegibility. If he has already produced a legitimate birth certificate, you will have no problem producing a gif of it will you. The fact is he hasnt hence the reason its not been replicated.

    Typical PC tossers. You ignore everything at your own detriment. You always have to bring race into it dont you. Reason is you have no arguments to support your views, so you have to argue that to question him is racist. You are really sad and brain dead.

    Obama is of mixed race. He is half white and was brought up and educated by his grand parents who were white. Race has nothing to do with it.

    He is being questioned because he may not be legally bound to hold office. This argument has been going on since he was first elected. Obama may have or may not have been born in America. Some say he was born in Kenya, including family members and some say he held Indonesian citizenship. Why doesnt he prove he is an American, its a very simple thing to do..

    You do it for me. Please prove he is a legitimate American or shut up and let a man who obviously is no where near as stupid and guttless as you lot get on with defending the American Constitution.

    I salute you Mr Lakin.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    LTC Lakin’s attempts to challenge Obama’s orders will fail under the political question doctrine.

    The judge in LTC Lakin’s court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19

    Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
    for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .

    The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.

    The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:

    “[N]othing gives a soldier “authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience.” 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question,” id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier’s use of the “self-help remedy of disobedience.” Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine “ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government” by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110”

    As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    There is no way that a judge at LTC Lakin’s court martial will permit the defendant through discovery by means of subpoenas to discover whether or not a sitting President has the authority to issue deployment orders.

    In a nutshell, there is case law that established the Political Question Doctrine which is defined as: “Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition, 1979)

    In other words, courts will not intrude upon political matters that are within the powers of the congress or president. The military have long recognized that deployment orders are political matters of the “civilian policymaking branches of government.”(Effron, J, concurring), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001).

    As such, the eligibility question of a sitting President should be decided by congress and not by the courts especially a military court martial. If congress fails to do so for political reasons then that is its prerogative and courts cannot interfere.

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • Atticus Finch

    @Mr James

    Then how did Chester Arthur become president when he was born in the United States to a father who was born in Ireland?

    Moreover, Obama by the mere fact of being born in the United States is a citizen under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    A natural born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.
    In other words, any citizen who did not go through the naturalization process as established by congress is a natural born citizen. There are only two types of citizenships, natural born citizen and naturalized citizen. There is no third type of citizen.

    This natural born citizenship can be established by either birth on United States soil or Jus Soli (Latin: right of soil) or birth through United States citizenship of a parent or Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood).

    Justice Stevens articulated the source of United States citizenship in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) when he stated:

    There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.

    Court decisions have uniformly held that persons born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens.

    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844)

    In Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.D. 1884), forty years after the Lynch’s decision, Justice Field in Look Tin Sing approved the court’s analysis in Lynch by observing:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. Id at 909

    Numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a “natural born citizen” or simply use the term “natural born citizen” solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918), State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920), Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961), Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • mikeyes

    Atticus Finch,

    Please don’t confuse us with facts and the law. And try not to mention lack of standing, Constitutional acceptance of the election, and logic in the future.

    Thank you.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • Joe Blow

    Larkin is a freakin moron who has been listening to fatty Limbaugh too much. Morons .. freakin morons.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.

  • James Gragg

    The Federal District court in Washington, D.C., has recently “ruled” on Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s lawsuit in that court, concerning his “quo warranto” filing, as it relates to “eligibility.” AGAIN, the courts have ruled, ONLY on the issue of “standing.” In the expected denial of standing, that court stated “that only the signatories of the constitution could invoke the quo warrento statute.” This is totally outrageous, because that court has effectively struck down statutory law, as totally ineffective, and non-applicable to anyone living today. ALL of the “signatories” of the constitution are dead, and this statutory law (“quo warranto”) was not even enacted (as U.S. law) at that time the constitution was ratified. However, it was already an established legal principle under British common law. Now, it can plainly be seen, that the judicial branch of the government, are factually co-conspirators with the executive & legislative branches of the government, to perpetrate this absolute fraud upon the American people, by constructive “decisions,” effectively barring any “review on the merits,” by the people of America, under statutory law, concerning the legitimacy of the seated “President.”

    That “Executive” didn’t get there by himself, he had a great deal of assistance from most of the members of the legislative branch, and they had to confirm him as such when “elected” (the electoral college, of which they are the “members”). THEREFORE, the entire “government,” is in an active conspiracy, and revolt, to deny to the American people “due process of law!” Which is even more evident in the “Assignations Act” were the President can have ANYONE killed without arrest or trial. It was this very type of judicial TREASON, by King George of England, that caused the first American revolution.