Today begins the court martial of Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Terry Lakin.

[gsvol]

First Read - Military 'birther' sentenced
From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
The Army doctor who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he challenged President Obama's birthright has been sentenced to six months confinement and ordered discharged from the Army.


Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin had considered any order from the commander-in-chief, President Obama, unlawful because he claimed the president has not proven he was born in the United States.


Besides today's sentence, Lakin will pay a potentially heavy financial price. At 18 years in the Army, he was two years short of retirement, which over the course of a lifetime could have added up to an estimated $2 million in retirement pay and benefits.
Lakin had pleaded guilty to one charge, and was convicted of another in failing to report for deployment to Afghanistan in a court martial at Fort Meade, MD.

Lakin pleaded guilty to the one charge because he was denied discovery and some of his defense witnesses were denied the right to testify.

Probably there will be congressional hearings this coming year, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

A man who rises to the position of being in charge of primary care for the whole pentagon isn't stupid.

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or somewhere else his mother is/was a citizen and the below rule would apply.

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.


Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

some questions:

1. Why are all of Omama and his mother's passport records held in secret?

2. If he was a citizen of Indonesia which seems to be apparent and Indonesia didn't permit dual citizenship, did he ever apply to be reinstated as an American citizen, if indeed he ever ligitimately held American citizenship?

3. If he was born in Kenya, (and two affidavits have been produced saying so), would he have not been born a British subject and not an American citizen?

4. Did he receive tuition aid as a foreign national when he attended various colleges?

5. Why has he spent $2+ million on legal fees to avoid these issues in court?

It's hard to see why some want to give him a free pass on all these issues, why not just produce the records?

Read this whole thing, but found nothing but gsvol in his latest, rather extreme case of hollow talking points and staging ways to post his latest political cartoons and farks.

Is the debate about this Lt Col, or is it about Barry Saddam Hussein Obambi, doer of nothing but wrong?

I can see why gs is defending this guy, they both actively engage in meaningless political grandstanding entirely in some far-fetched hope of dethroning our illicitly-elected Dear Leader in Chief. Difference is Lakin is using his job as a platform for it, and is likely going to end up paying for it.

Moo.

Shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.

Some call this logic.

 

[gsvol]

I know it doesn't make sense to you. I have no doubt that logic is quite often beyond you.

And common sense isn't within your mental grasp.

What do you think it is that qualifies you to say what is logical and what is not?

I know. I put it as simply as I could. You support one action when it benefits your cause, but are against the same action when it doesn't.

Duh?

What is your cause?

You wear flip flops.

You have a flip flop stuck up your nose.
(or perhaps imbedded in your ass.)

Surely with as well read in military history, and all your time being told "things" by Carter, or whomever. And all your time with all those classified documents, surely, surely you've come across a Congressinal Interest/Inquiry.

Agains, DUH?

He can request mast all he wants, but when he is turned down, he is done. He did not question through the chain of command. He went around it by personally writing a request a the CiC. Did he not?

NO! He filed two form 138s.

No, how I percieve things stems from how it is seen in the US, particularly in the US military. Which is why your boy was court martialed.

He invited a courts martial as is his right under the US Constitution and the UCMJ.

You, evidently are pretty much clueless on the whole process.

Because that is how it works in the military. So news flash, this viewpoint, yea... it is all home grown.

I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say, you will have to elaborate.

If you are parroting Napolitano's claim that home grown members of our military are one of the greatest threats to homeland security (not only inane but insane really) then say so.

Really, so Obama isn't the President? He wasn't sworn in, and the courts have allowed challenges against his eligibility to go through? Really? Reaaallly? Link? Yea, thought not.

What is it exactly to which you would have a link??

There have been many court procedings on this issue.

The first and foremost was when the SCOTUS declined to hear a challenge even before Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the POTUS.

Then two he is the very first president ever to be sworn in twice.

No, he is being faithful to his own agenda, and using the Constitution as a door mat. Like I said. If he were truly a strict Constituionalist, he would argue several of the Articles I've already mentioned. But he isn't, is he? Nope. That is because to him, like you, the Constitution is nothing more than a punch line.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Obama and his supporters are the ones using the constitution as a doormat.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to just what Colonel Lakin's agenda might be??

So you are trying to say that people like me and Col Lakin are trying to make a joke of the constitution??

In that case I would say that Obama and people like you already have!

 

[WillisWG]

In other news on this front, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld a $20,000 sanction against Orly Taitz, the most visible of those pressing the Obama-as-foreigner theory. As we wrote in January, a lower court judge imposed the fine to punish Taitz’ "misconduct" in filing "frivolous" legal claims on behalf of an Army officer who didn’t want to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that Obama’s presidency was illegitimate:

Judge Clay D. Land, Oct. 13 2009: While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.
​

Land was named to the bench by another Republican, former President George W. Bush.

Another lawsuit filed by Taitz on the subject was dismissed in April by no-nonsense federal Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C. "This court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her," Lamberth said, referring to Taitz.

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/the-obama-birth-chronicles-chapter-ccxcviii/

 

[gsvol]

You quote a source that is the mouthpiece for those who gave Obama his first job, working for the unrepentant communist terrorist murderer William Ayers, they would never put a spin on anything or get caught telling an outright lie, would they.

BTW, that isn't news, your information is months old.

Answer just one question, why would Barry spend $2+ million in legal fees to avoid producing a document that costs only ten or fifteen?

Here are two documents that have been introduced to court proceedings:


Why did Barry's paternal grandmother say he was
born in Kenya and say she witnessed the birth??

Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were
you present when your grandson Barack Obama was
born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation
twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”.

It appeared Ms. Obama’s relatives and her grandson,
handling the translating, had obviously been versed
to counter such facts with the purported information
from the American news media that Obama was born
in Hawaii.

Despite this, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very
adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein
Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present
and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United
States.

When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter
his grandmother’s clear responses to the question,
verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop
McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present
at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in
Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the
question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that,
“No, No, No. He was born in the United States!”

But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein
Obama never changed her reply that she was
indeed present when Senator Barack Obama was
born in Kenya.

A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto
as EXHIBIT “A”.

The second affidavit is interesting also, particularly
that the candidate that Barrack Hussein Obama
campaigned for named his first born son after Fidel
Castro, that should tell you something about what
Barry's true political philospohy is.

From the second affidavit:

Additionally, it is common knowledge throughout
both the Christian and Muslim communities in
Kenya, that contrary to news media propaganda
here in the United States, US Senator Barack
Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that
he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the
State of Hawaii as falsely purported by the Obama
campaign for presidency of the United States.

Mr. Obama’s cousin ran his failed campaign for the
Kenyan presidency in the identical fashion of Senator
Obama’s American campaign strategy, and that being
to join a nominal Christian Church in order to publicly
profess to be a Christian, while maintaining their
actual Muslim beliefs, in order to sway public opinion
away from the actual fact of his strong Muslim beliefs,
family and goals.

It is a known fact that membership in the United
Church of Christ in Chicago, where Barack Obama
was a member, does not require muslims to renounce
their Islamic faith in order to join the UCC church.

 

[gsvol]

One Obeyed An Unlawful Order – The Other Disobeyed A Questionably Lawful One – They’re Both Locked Up | Here's The Right Side Of It

Private First Class Corey Claggett, United States Army, has been sitting for the past four years in administrative segregation (read that: Solitary Confinement) at Leavenworth Prison, for obeying a direct and apparently unlawful order from his superior officer to kill two suspected al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq.

Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin sits in prison, doing six months and forfeiting his retirement benefits, for disobeying what he believed was an unlawful order vicariously issued by his Commander In Chief Barack Obama – who has yet to prove his Constitutional eligibility to hold office.

Diana West, who has written extensively about the Leavenworth Ten, military enlisted and commissioned personnel who are now locked up in prison for war-time killings that got them Court Martials when they returned home, presented a post today on the case of Private Claggett. West includes a video presentation by his lawyer that is well worth your time. But be prepared to feel more than deeply disturbed as you hear the attorney, Tim Parlatore, lay out the cold, hard facts of the Claggett case – and what has happened to his client at the hands of the United States Army:

The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Free PFC Corey Claggett

“…I’ve never highlighted the details of PFC Corey Claggett’s case only because I didn’t know them. I do now and they are harrowing. To date, Corey has served more than four years in solitary confinement for following an unlawful order to kill two al-Qaeda suspects (His superior who ordered the killings is free on parole, and the man who killed a third one is not only free but has been promoted. Details here.) That means that without clemency, Corey Clagget has 14 more more years to go on this diabolically harsh and unjust 18-year sentence…”

 

[fl0at]

What is your cause?

Intellectual consistency.

Agains, DUH?

Then why did you ask what a congrit was? Why, if you knew the answer? Why, gs? Intellectual consistency.

NO! He filed two form 138s.

Really? Cause I have a link to one...
Terry Lakin Letter to POTUS

Hey, gs... INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY.

He invited a courts martial as is his right under the US Constitution and the UCMJ.

You, evidently are pretty much clueless on the whole process.

No, he missed a movement. That isn't inviting a court martial, that is being punished for a crime.

Oh, as far as clueless... see the above... about the letter you say didn't happen.

Oh, hey gs... intellectual consistency?

I don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say, you will have to elaborate.

If you are parroting Napolitano's claim that home grown members of our military are one of the greatest threats to homeland security (not only inane but insane really) then say so.

Where did you get anything about home grown threats? Where, gs?

My point was this: The military views that what Lakin did was wrong, WRONG and more WRONG. I agree. You said my views are more in tone with WW2 Germany and Russia. I said, no, they are more in tone with TODAY'S military. Our military.

Want to know where the evidence is? His verdict.

Nice fallacy, though. (Under "Fs" in your dictionary, again).

What is it exactly to which you would have a link??

I will spell it out for you, again. Again gs... again.

I don't know where you picked up the idea that the live birth certificate satisfies the legal requirement but you are flat out dead wrong on that.

I would like a link that proves that I am "flat out dead wrong" on the believe that the live birth certificate doesn't satisfy the legal requirement.

That is what I want a link to gs. GS... that's what I want the link to.

Where's that link that GS? Oh where or where has that little link gone?

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to just what Colonel Lakin's agenda might be??

So you are trying to say that people like me and Col Lakin are trying to make a joke of the constitution??

Lakin's agenda is like yours; the spread of idiocy through hearsay and circumstance. His agenda, to be specific, was to question a president he does not agree with; but guess what? You get the president the nation votes for, not the one you want.

So suck it up and Ranger on Dr. Lakin.

As far as you, gs, yea... people like you are making a joke of the Constitution. People like you, who "flight for the Constitution" only when it serves your agenda.

For or against Patriot Act, gs? How about searches of them dang "Moslum's" belongings at airports?

People like you, gs. People like you.

 

[gsvol]

Intellectual consistency.

Would it not be intellectually consistent in your
world for the president to present his bona fides
as being qualified for the office he holds just like
everyone else has to do when they want to
interface with our government and a proof of
birth record is required??

Then why did you ask what a congrit was? Why, if you knew the answer? Why, gs? Intellectual consistency.

I suppose it was a lame attempt to introduce some
humor about your typo into this otherwise ultimately
boring exchange.

Intellectual consistency??

You are the one who interjected that congress
would be meddling if they held a hearing but they
are the ones who are responsible for seeing the
the UCMJ is followed to the letter and in this case
the judge ruled that Lakin didn't have the right to
discovery which was an error and also denied him
the right to produce expert witnesses who are
qualified to express their interpretation of certain
passages in the UCMJ.

Really? Cause I have a link to one...
Terry Lakin Letter to POTUS

Hey, gs... INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY.

Are you saying he didn't file two requests in the
proper manner that he testified in court of having
done???

If that were true they would have him flying from
the flagpole by his balls.

INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY??? Getcha some!!!

If Obama were half as true to the oath he swore
(apparently twice, one on a Bible with the words
wrong and once with the words right but without
the Bible) as Lakin is, the Barry would produce his
bona fides to hold the office that makes him CIC!

No, he missed a movement. That isn't inviting a court martial, that is being punished for a crime.

Oh, as far as clueless... see the above... about the letter you say didn't happen.

Oh, hey gs... intellectual consistency?

He did so because he (as stated in court) believed
this to be an unlawful order, and he yet may still be
proven to be right about that.

He has more intellectual consistency than your
whold family has for several generations, particularly
YOU.

You read the letter that I have never said didn't
happen, what can you surmise from the letter??

Do you have a link to any reply??

NO, Barry doesn't have the gonads for a reply!

Where did you get anything about home grown threats? Where, gs?

My point was this: The military views that what Lakin did was wrong, WRONG and more WRONG. I agree. You said my views are more in tone with WW2 Germany and Russia. I said, no, they are more in tone with TODAY'S military. Our military.

Want to know where the evidence is? His verdict.

Nice fallacy, though. (Under "Fs" in your dictionary, again).

Obama is a threat, he just isn't 'home grown.'

I can think of some good Fs you can look up in your
Funk and Wagnals.

I have no idea about what you are talking about here
except you say Lakin is wrong, I'm saying he may very
well be right.

I will spell it out for you, again. Again gs... again.



I would like a link that proves that I am "flat out dead wrong" on the believe that the live birth certificate doesn't satisfy the legal requirement.

That is what I want a link to gs. GS... that's what I want the link to.

Where's that link that GS? Oh where or where has that little link gone?

On the belief that the live birth certificate doesn't satisfiy the legal requirement??

When that fake COLB is ever produced in ANY court,
then we can procede, so far it has only been presented
on the internet and proven to be a fake!

You show me a link to where Obama has ever produced
anything in court that asserts he is qualified under the
constitution to be president.

Clue one, don't google it, he hasn't done so.

Lakin's agenda is like yours; the spread of idiocy through hearsay and circumstance. His agenda, to be specific, was to question a president he does not agree with; but guess what? You get the president the nation votes for, not the one you want.

So suck it up and Ranger on Dr. Lakin.

As far as you, gs, yea... people like you are making a joke of the Constitution. People like you, who "flight for the Constitution" only when it serves your agenda.

Actually I'm trying to stamp our idiocy, in you case
that is turning into a full time job.

I beg to differ.

Obama and sheeple like you are the ones making a joke
of the constitution.

Your talk about flight for the constitution is reminiscent
of tallywhackervol saying I want to segregrate airline
flights for homosexuals.

Some of you guys make quantum leaps of logic that
should someday be in the bullfrog hall of fame!

For or against Patriot Act, gs? How about searches of them dang "Moslum's" belongings at airports?

People like you, gs. People like you.

Against, unneccessary.

Here is a picture of a TSA agent wearing a burka.

What's that tell you mister intellectual consistency??

What did it say, Joe?

I did a quick search for some of the esteemed folks who wrote the rave reviews of gs' link, I wasn't surprised with what groups they fall into.

I will say this, though gs is pretty far out there, he at least can carry himself with some wit and intelligent presentation. You, on the other hand, are a mindless sheep. Get back under the porch before the neighbors see you.

Far out??? Thanks for the compliment.

And what do you mean SOME wit, who is funnier??
(or more intelligent for that matter) :loco:

I notice you tout your talents at pugilism in your sig,
here is a funny story for you.

During the mid-eighties, with a house full of youngins
I somehow managed to sneak off to go see a UT game,
live and in person in Neland stadium, and experience
everyone should have at least once, the more the better,
it's addictive.

So I rolled into K-town and got with a couple of old
friends of mine and we headed over for the game,
they told me don't worry about tickets, one of them
strong armed a scalper for three tickets for free and
we were in like Flynn.

We were well juiced by then.

So it was an exciting game with everybody standing
a lot and one of the guys would stand up on the back
of the seats and do a swan dive down through the
crowd and if anyone said anything his brother was
invite them to a fight.

All my efforts to get them to behave better was
met with even more outrageous behavoir and so I
was just trying to watch the game because that
was why I was there, their motives seem to be a
bit different.

Finally I looked around and there was about a
twenty foot circle around us where there was
nothing but empty seats.

So then I got a tap on m shoulder and I turned
around slowly, keeping my jaw tucked under my
shoulder so as to prevent someone delivering a
knockout punch to said appendage and it was a
nice Vol fan (greatest football fans on Earth,)
who asked me; "are these guys for real?"

I replied; "the guy on my left was the 178 lb all
Navy boxing champ and would have been all service
champ and would have been all service champ except
he ran into a Marine who knew how to defend himself,
he takes your best shot then puts your lights out and
the guy on my right is the only man to be kicked out
of the Merchant Marines for fighting too much."

(for those who don't know the tradition in the
merchant marines is that if two guys can't get
along, the whole crew goes down into the hold
and make a ring and the beligerants then go
bare knuckle until one is declared the winner.)

I added; "If you want to start something, just
let me know so I can get out of the way, I really
just want to watch the game."

He replied; "No, I'm not going to start something,
I just wanted to know if they were for real."

PS: At least Joe isn't the PC sheeple many of the
others on this board are.

PPS: Letterman had a funny skit on the DADT
controversy tonight.

Sure, as long as heterosexual soldiers do the same. Such as, not getting married(something gays cannot do), and not discussing significant others(since it would reveal that they are heterosexual)

:cray:

Uh, I don't know if it has escaped your scrutiny
but repeal of DADT doesn't mean you can marry
your dignificant other.

Homos don't want equal rights they want preferential
rights and we will see how this all plays out.

 

[fl0at]

Would it not be intellectually consistent in your
world for the president to present his bona fides

He has presented as much as legally required of any other president, so yes, I would say that is consistent. My two forms of ID are my drivers license and my social security card.

You carry your birth certificate around?

I suppose it was a lame attempt to introduce some
humor about your typo into this otherwise ultimately
boring exchange.

Congrit is an "affectionate" term those in the military call a congressional interest request. We also have Margrits... which is when a high ranking Marine Corps officer requests interest. What was the typo?

You are the one who interjected that congress
would be meddling if they held a hearing

Yes, they would absolutely be meddling. I also said that was why Congrits exist, if they choose to do so, they certainly might and certainly may; and it would also be meddling.

Congress wasn't there to make sure Lt. Watada's case went perfect... hm, wonder why that is? Maybe... agenda related? Like you.

Are you saying he didn't file two requests in the
proper manner that he testified in court of having
done???

Nope, what I'm saying is that he went around the chain of command by writing his letter.

You don't request mast to your CO, get turned down, and then walk into the Base commander's office and *****.

That is what he did; he didn't get his answer, and he circumvented the chain of command.

INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY??? Getcha some!!!

See the above, genius. Oh, and didn't you deny that he wrong a letter to Obama, the CiC? Yea, see the above, again.

Barry would produce his
bona fides to hold the office that makes him CIC!

He has. You just don't like them. Tough titty.

He has more intellectual consistency than your
whold family has for several generations, particularly
YOU.

Nah, we all got Honorable Discharges. How was AWOL/UA when you went? Never did that one, myself.

Do you have a link to any reply??

NO, Barry doesn't have the gonads for a reply!

He doesn't have to reply. If I write a letter to you asking you for a copy of your birth certificate, will you give it to me?

I have no idea about what you are talking about here
except you say Lakin is wrong, I'm saying he may very
well be right.

I'm not arguing that your belief that he is right or wrong is right or wrong, I'm arguing that you are a hypocrit. Nothing more.

If you want to believe Obama isn't a US citizen, and that Lakin salutes the Constitution before brushing his teeth, so be it; just show some consistency and don't be such a hipocrit.

On the belief that the live birth certificate doesn't satisfiy the legal requirement??

When that fake COLB is ever produced in ANY court,
then we can procede, so far it has only been presented
on the internet and proven to be a fake!

You show me a link to where Obama has ever produced
anything in court that asserts he is qualified under the
constitution to be president.

No, you have it backwards; when that COLB is found to not satisfy the requirement, then we can proceed. You are, once again, confused.

How about this one, sir, you show me a link where the COURT has demanded that Obama show such "proof."

Turn about is fair play, after all. And since you are 0/1, I'm sure you won't mind going 0/2.

Obama and sheeple like you are the ones making a joke
of the constitution.

Your talk about flight for the constitution is reminiscent
of tallywhackervol saying I want to segregrate airline
flights for homosexuals.

Some of you guys make quantum leaps of logic that
should someday be in the bullfrog hall of fame!

This, gs, is a leap of logic. I'm not suggesting that you are saying anything. I'm SAYING that you are SAYING contradictory, hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent things.

I'm telling you this, gs, not suggesting it. You are a hypocrite. I have even spelled it out in simple logic, several pages ago.

I've given (4) examples of your hypocrisy. Need I remind of your desire to see classified information published in a book the Pentagon purchased, yet your hatred of published classified material by a particular website?

Need I remind you of your desire to see classified information about JFK released, but your hatred of such information released by a certain Swede?

The above show that you have a lack of intellectual consistency. I'm not saying you are dumb, because you aren't... but you are inconsistent and in keeping with the viewpoint that serves your cause and your cause only.

Here is a picture of a TSA agent wearing a burka.

What's that tell you mister intellectual consistency??

I would say that is exactly along the lines of someone who says something racist, and then talks about how many black friends they have; or how many their mother once fed.

 

[gsvol]

He has presented as much as legally required of any other president, so yes, I would say that is consistent. My two forms of ID are my drivers license and my social security card.

NO HE HAS NOT!

Show me one link that backs your goofy statement.

I use my passport for ID, which is another thing, why are Obama's passport records sealed as are his mother's?

When he traveled to Pakistan logic would say that he did so using an Indonesian passport and Indonesia didn't permit dual citizenship which means that he wasn't an American citizen at that time.

You carry your birth certificate around?

No, I keep in my important documents file and retrieve it when I need to interface with government.

Funny thing, at one point when dealing with a US Agency they requested a copy of my form DD 214.

I went to the VA, then the federal building and eventually to the war archives with no luck and they gave me two options to pursue the matter and said it would probably take at least six months.

So I told the agency I was dealing with that my military service had no bearing on what we were dealing with and therefore I was submitting my paperwork (which included my birth certificate) and gave them the two places they could inquire about my form DD 214 and since I would assume that various governmental agencies could communicate among themselves I suggested they get it together themselves.

So it worked out and the nice young man I was dealing with sent me a copy of my DD 214 later.

Government only works for you when you make it do so, in this case I support Col Lakin because he is doing just that.

I call that intellectual consistency.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, this isn't over by any means.

Congrit is an "affectionate" term those in the military call a congressional interest request. We also have Margrits... which is when a high ranking Marine Corps officer requests interest. What was the typo?

The term wasn't around when I was in the military.

I thought it was a typo.

Yes, they would absolutely be meddling. I also said that was why Congrits exist, if they choose to do so, they certainly might and certainly may; and it would also be meddling.

Congress wasn't there to make sure Lt. Watada's case went perfect... hm, wonder why that is? Maybe... agenda related? Like you.

NO THEY WOULD NOT!

It is their responcibility to do so.

Was there some sort of impropriety in the Watada case??

If so then Congress should have held a hearing, if not then they shouldn't have.

Very simple, intellectual consistency.

Nope, what I'm saying is that he went around the chain of command by writing his letter.

He filed up the chain of command twice, do you dispute that fact??

He also went to talk to senators and congressmen, he had the right to do so, do you also dispute that??

You don't request mast to your CO, get turned down, and then walk into the Base commander's office and *****.

That is what he did; he didn't get his answer, and he circumvented the chain of command.

Again the chain of command failed to address the issue.

See the above, genius. Oh, and didn't you deny that he wrong a letter to Obama, the CiC? Yea, see the above, again.

What means 'he wrong a letter to obamabi?'

No I didn't ever say he adressed Obama directly, I did say it seems that Obama was as silent on the issue as a whale turd on the bottom of the sea.

What have you got to say about that wise guy?

He has. You just don't like them. Tough titty.

NO HE HAS NOT!!

And furthermore you can produce exactly no evidence to show that he has.

Nah, we all got Honorable Discharges. How was AWOL/UA when you went? Never did that one, myself.

I don't know what you are talking about, you will have to explain.

I went AWOL (in a technical sense) the day Kennedy was killed. I was back on duty the following Monday when I was supposed to report for duty.

He doesn't have to reply. If I write a letter to you asking you for a copy of your birth certificate, will you give it to me?

He did have the option of doiing the honorable thing and preventing the whole (sham) trial.

You have no ligitimate reason to see my birth certificate, unlike the situation we are discussing.

Intellectual integrity??

I'm not arguing that your belief that he is right or wrong is right or wrong, I'm arguing that you are a hypocrit. Nothing more.

If you want to believe Obama isn't a US citizen, and that Lakin salutes the Constitution before brushing his teeth, so be it; just show some consistency and don't be such a hipocrit.

Well then you need to get a better argument, so far your argument is rather weak.

Whether I am a hypocrit or not has nothing to do with the topic.

I submit that you are the hypocrit in this discussion, instead of trying to accurately address the topic you try to turn it into an attack on my character, that isn't what I would call intellectual consistency.

I submit your intellectual consistency resembles that of a jello salad.

I don't believe either way, I do argue that he should satisfy the legal requirement!

No, you have it backwards; when that COLB is found to not satisfy the requirement, then we can proceed. You are, once again, confused.

How am I confused, the COLB isn't a long form birth certificate and the internet COLB is as bogus as can be anyway.

How about this one, sir, you show me a link where the COURT has demanded that Obama show such "proof."

Numerous suits have been filed, so far no judge has ruled that obama show his bona fides, all cases have been tossed on techincal grounds and Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees to get these rulings.

(who knows if any money passed under the table?)

Turn about is fair play, after all. And since you are 0/1, I'm sure you won't mind going 0/2.

You have turned nothing about.

You on the other hand have three strikes, you are out, next batter up.

This, gs, is a leap of logic. I'm not suggesting that you are saying anything. I'm SAYING that you are SAYING contradictory, hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent things.

How so, the POTUS has contitutional requirements to hold office.

Obama has not satisfied those constitution requirements.

I'm telling you this, gs, not suggesting it. You are a hypocrite. I have even spelled it out in simple logic, several pages ago.

Let me interject some words here from the Man Himself:

Matthew 7
7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. "Pearls before swine"

7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

I've given (4) examples of your hypocrisy. Need I remind of your desire to see classified information published in a book the Pentagon purchased, yet your hatred of published classified material by a particular website?

Give me the cliff notes on your thesis that I am a hypcrite.

Need I remind you of your desire to see classified information about JFK released, but your hatred of such information released by a certain Swede?

Doofus, you don't even have a grasp of basic facts, the punk, Assange, to which you refer is Australian.

The above show that you have a lack of intellectual consistency. I'm not saying you are dumb, because you aren't... but you are inconsistent and in keeping with the viewpoint that serves your cause and your cause only.

No I am consistent, the truth of the matter is that you have been so dumbed down (and you obviously have a good degree of God given intelligence) that you can't see the intellectual integrity of my argument.

I would say that is exactly along the lines of someone who says something racist, and then talks about how many black friends they have; or how many their mother once fed.

Bye bye, you have now entered liberal la la land.

So now you say racism is my motive??

Well that could be what you call intellectual consistency if the intellectual part is sadly deficient.

 

[fl0at]

Show me one link that backs your goofy statement.

My "goofy" statement is from a fact that until this fiasco laced entirely in fantasy, no president, to my knowledge, has been required to submit a birth certificate.

Ergo, Obama has submitted exactly as much evidence as all the others.

If there was such a requirement, there would have been no need for the "Eligibility Bill," would there have not?

The Constitution is quite firm, as is precedent. Which president has submitted a birth certificate, to the public record, that you can recall?

The wheels of justice turn slowly, this isn't over by any means.

I would say it is over, but we will see.

Was there some sort of impropriety in the Watada case??

If so then Congress should have held a hearing, if not then they shouldn't have.

Very simple, intellectual consistency.

Yes, there was a mistrial after jeopardy attached. They attempted to re-try Watada, and it took a Federal judge to issue a stay.

The case was dropped by request from the Justice Department once Obama entered office. Congress made no such attempt to intervene.

He filed up the chain of command twice, do you dispute that fact??

He also went to talk to senators and congressmen, he had the right to do so, do you also dispute that??

He could request mast 100 times, and being denied does not give him the right to jump the chain.

If he talked to several congressmen, that is allowed... unless one of those congressmen was in his chain of command, above his level. I assume they were not.

Obama is in his chain of command, however. The very top, as it were. Directly contacting him is jumping the chain. That is my dispute.

The chain is not required to pander to the whims of its officers. If he makes his request, and they deny, it ends. Period.

And if it doesn't end, well... you saw the outcome.

No I didn't ever say he adressed Obama directly, I did say it seems that Obama was as silent on the issue as a whale turd on the bottom of the sea.

What have you got to say about that wise guy?

That it is his right to remain silent. The burden of proof is not on Obama.

Until a court decides to address the matter, the burden of proof is on everyone but Obama.

NO HE HAS NOT!!

And furthermore you can produce exactly no evidence to show that he has.

He produced a certificate of live birth. Like I said, he has provided the evidence, but you don't like it. Too bad. It is what it is.

Is it a fake? Could be, but it was still produced. Would you like a link to it? Because that is my evidence, and such that he produced.

I don't know what you are talking about, you will have to explain.

You said something about him having more whatever than my family and I, and I stated we all got Honorable discharges. Him... eh, not so much.

If duty, honor and integrity count, he failed two out of three.

You have no ligitimate reason to see my birth certificate, unlike the situation we are discussing.

Intellectual integrity??

I take that as a no, and follow by saying this: a mid level officer in the US Army has no legitimate reason to request the birth certificate of a member of his chain of command after courts have thrown out several lawsuits on the matter, and evidence has been produced.

You may think the evidence is forged, and so be it. Doesn't mean it hasn't already been put out there. If the courts make the request, and Obama denies, I would side with Lakin.

They didn't, and I don't.

Well then you need to get a better argument, so far your argument is rather weak.

Whether I am a hypocrit or not has nothing to do with the topic.

I submit that you are the hypocrit in this discussion, instead of trying to accurately address the topic you try to turn it into an attack on my character, that isn't what I would call intellectual consistency.

Actually, sir, me calling you a hypocrite is pretty much completely consistent with what I have been saying since my first post directed at you. It is my entire topic, my entire discussion and it has everything to do with this topic, as I have explained since post 33.

How am I confused, the COLB isn't a long form birth certificate and the internet COLB is as bogus as can be anyway.

And which section of the Constitution does it state that one must submit the long form? Which section, please?

My copy doesn't say any birth certificate is necessary. Which version of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 are you reading?

Numerous suits have been filed, so far no judge has ruled that obama show his bona fides, all cases have been tossed on techincal grounds and Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees to get these rulings.

So you are saying that there has been no LEGAL ruling against Obama? So... help me here. If there has been no legal ruling, how is his presidency illegal?

You have turned nothing about.

I'll say it again: How about this one, sir, you show me a link where the COURT has demanded that Obama show such "proof."

How so, the POTUS has contitutional requirements to hold office.

Obama has not satisfied those constitution requirements.

You have, once again, put your keen mind to the task and come to the wrong conclusion.

I'm not saying that you are a hypocrite for believing Obama isn't a US citizen. I'm not saying you are exhibiting intellectual inconsistency for such a belief.

I am, however, saying that you are exhibiting both of those things by backing Lakin. Period. That is what I am saying. That is my conclusion. Read it twice if need be.

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

I am prepared to be judged. I welcome such judgment. As such, I will judge as necessary.

Are you saying that you are not ready to be judged, and thusly, should not judge?

I am ready, and I am ready to be judged, I will so continue to judge you.

I also like the serpent one, my tattoo of such goes with me everywhere.

Give me the cliff notes on your thesis that I am a hypcrite.

I already did. It is like post 33, and the one a few posts down from that one. The one a few down from 33 is the shortest version I can give.

Doofus, you don't even have a grasp of basic facts, the punk, Assange, to which you refer is Australian.

I thought I summed up Assange in the Wikileaks point? Try to keep up. The Swede I was referring to was none other than the Pirate Party.

Didn't you oft state your annoyance with Assange and his "followers?"

Hm, should I get a link for you?

No I am consistent, the truth of the matter is that you have been so dumbed down (and you obviously have a good degree of God given intelligence) that you can't see the intellectual integrity of my argument.

If I am missing the bulk of your argument, then I apologize. But if you are saying that you support Lakin, then I think I've got the gist. My argument is that you should not support Lakin. Everything else is irrelevant bickering between us.

So now you say racism is my motive??

Well that could be what you call intellectual consistency if the intellectual part is sadly deficient.

No, please don't misconstrue my point. I do not think you are a racist. I, in fact, cannot name the RACE of the individual in the picture you showed. Maybe you can, but I cannot.

My point was that simply because TSA has Muslim employees does not make it tolerable to impinge upon the rights of US citizens, much the same way that having a black friend does not make it alright to make off handed racist remarks.

I do not think you are a racist. Anyone that can clearly identify the race of an individual merely because they wear a burka is someone who is far more racially enlightened than I.

I could probably guess her religion, though. Her race... eh, that would be a toss up.

 

[gsvol]

My "goofy" statement is from a fact that until this fiasco laced entirely in fantasy, no president, to my knowledge, has been required to submit a birth certificate.

Ergo, Obama has submitted exactly as much evidence as all the others.

If there was such a requirement, there would have been no need for the "Eligibility Bill," would there have not?

The Constitution is quite firm, as is precedent. Which president has submitted a birth certificate, to the public record, that you can recall?



I would say it is over, but we will see.



Yes, there was a mistrial after jeopardy attached. They attempted to re-try Watada, and it took a Federal judge to issue a stay.

The case was dropped by request from the Justice Department once Obama entered office. Congress made no such attempt to intervene.



He could request mast 100 times, and being denied does not give him the right to jump the chain.

If he talked to several congressmen, that is allowed... unless one of those congressmen was in his chain of command, above his level. I assume they were not.

Obama is in his chain of command, however. The very top, as it were. Directly contacting him is jumping the chain. That is my dispute.

The chain is not required to pander to the whims of its officers. If he makes his request, and they deny, it ends. Period.

And if it doesn't end, well... you saw the outcome.




That it is his right to remain silent. The burden of proof is not on Obama.

Until a court decides to address the matter, the burden of proof is on everyone but Obama.





He produced a certificate of live birth. Like I said, he has provided the evidence, but you don't like it. Too bad. It is what it is.

Is it a fake? Could be, but it was still produced. Would you like a link to it? Because that is my evidence, and such that he produced.




You said something about him having more whatever than my family and I, and I stated we all got Honorable discharges. Him... eh, not so much.

If duty, honor and integrity count, he failed two out of three.




I take that as a no, and follow by saying this: a mid level officer in the US Army has no legitimate reason to request the birth certificate of a member of his chain of command after courts have thrown out several lawsuits on the matter, and evidence has been produced.

You may think the evidence is forged, and so be it. Doesn't mean it hasn't already been put out there. If the courts make the request, and Obama denies, I would side with Lakin.

They didn't, and I don't.



Actually, sir, me calling you a hypocrite is pretty much completely consistent with what I have been saying since my first post directed at you. It is my entire topic, my entire discussion and it has everything to do with this topic, as I have explained since post 33.



And which section of the Constitution does it state that one must submit the long form? Which section, please?

My copy doesn't say any birth certificate is necessary. Which version of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 are you reading?




So you are saying that there has been no LEGAL ruling against Obama? So... help me here. If there has been no legal ruling, how is his presidency illegal?




I'll say it again: How about this one, sir, you show me a link where the COURT has demanded that Obama show such "proof."




You have, once again, put your keen mind to the task and come to the wrong conclusion.

I'm not saying that you are a hypocrite for believing Obama isn't a US citizen. I'm not saying you are exhibiting intellectual inconsistency for such a belief.

I am, however, saying that you are exhibiting both of those things by backing Lakin. Period. That is what I am saying. That is my conclusion. Read it twice if need be.



I am prepared to be judged. I welcome such judgment. As such, I will judge as necessary.

Are you saying that you are not ready to be judged, and thusly, should not judge?

I am ready, and I am ready to be judged, I will so continue to judge you.

I also like the serpent one, my tattoo of such goes with me everywhere.




I already did. It is like post 33, and the one a few posts down from that one. The one a few down from 33 is the shortest version I can give.




I thought I summed up Assange in the Wikileaks point? Try to keep up. The Swede I was referring to was none other than the Pirate Party.

Didn't you oft state your annoyance with Assange and his "followers?"

Hm, should I get a link for you?




If I am missing the bulk of your argument, then I apologize. But if you are saying that you support Lakin, then I think I've got the gist. My argument is that you should not support Lakin. Everything else is irrelevant bickering between us.





No, please don't misconstrue my point. I do not think you are a racist. I, in fact, cannot name the RACE of the individual in the picture you showed. Maybe you can, but I cannot.

My point was that simply because TSA has Muslim employees does not make it tolerable to impinge upon the rights of US citizens, much the same way that having a black friend does not make it alright to make off handed racist remarks.

I do not think you are a racist. Anyone that can clearly identify the race of an individual merely because they wear a burka is someone who is far more racially enlightened than I.

I could probably guess her religion, though. Her race... eh, that would be a toss up.

The bottom line is that Barack Hussein Obama has never satisfied the requirment to prove he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the US Constitution plainly states.

Whether he is or not remains to be seen, he has spent over $2 million in legal fees to avoid doing so.

BTW, Napolitano is compiling a list of people who object to TSA searches on the grounds that they are too intusive.

Gotta love that homeland security agency, before long there will be nothing but sheeple like you in this country.

I'll address your post in more detail later, doing some Christmas stuff today, have a merry one.

 

[fl0at]

BTW, Napolitano is compiling a list of people who object to TSA searches on the grounds that they are too intusive.

Gotta love that homeland security agency, before long there will be nothing but sheeple like you in this country.

I don't know if the above is or is not true, but if it is, that is ridiculous and needlessly intrusive.

I object to the full body scans, are you saying that you do not? Because the "sheeple" like me do not agree with most of what is occurring in the name of "security."

If objecting to the governments intrusion is being a "sheep," then you and I differ greatly on what it means to be a sheep.

Enjoy your Christmas.

 

[gsvol]

I don't know if the above is or is not true, but if it is, that is ridiculous and needlessly intrusive.

I object to the full body scans, are you saying that you do not? Because the "sheeple" like me do not agree with most of what is occurring in the name of "security."

If objecting to the governments intrusion is being a "sheep," then you and I differ greatly on what it means to be a sheep.

Enjoy your Christmas.

My bad, I just assumed since you don't object to Obama running ruoughshod over the constitution and vilify anyone who stands up to him, that you wouldn't object when his appointee Napoliano does the same.

Young Boy Strip Searched By TSA

Here we go, you are what is known to DHS as a "domestic extremist." (I went ahead and looked it up again)

Northeast Intelligence Network

(from the fourth article down in the link above.)

21 December 2010: Did you see the Washington Post this morning? That was the one sentence e-mail I received yesterday from my DHS contact who alerted me to the DHS/TSA memorandum about the domestic intelligence agency’s creating and maintaining a list of individuals who were determined to be “interfering” with the enhanced airport TSA screening procedures through their objections or “opting out” of such procedures.

In my November 23rd report titled DHS making a list, checking it twice, I wrote that the DHS, through the arm of the TSA, under the direction of Napolitano and with the full consent of Obama, was collecting the names and personal information of such individuals, labeling them as potential “domestic extremists.”
--------------------------------

Monday’s edition of the Washington Post featured an article titled Monitoring America, which was the result of an investigation by columnists Dana Priest, William Arkin and staff researcher Julie Tate, which confirms that the U.S. Government ” is building a vast repository [of the names and personal information] of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime.” Inclusion on the list appears to involve a rather broad and arbitrary definition of someone acting suspiciously as interpreted by a law enforcement officer or even a neighbor.

The Washington Post article identifies the collection of names and profiles of Americans as the new Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, or SAR for short. When a “suspicious” incident is observed or reported, information about you is collected, either through direct questioning or by more covert means, such as running your license plate through a state DMV database or even photographic surveillance for facial recognition purposes.

What happens next, however, is perhaps the most disturbing aspect to this story.

Even if the reported activity is deemed to be completely innocent and harmless, the data collected about you remains stored in the SAR “Guardian” database indefinitely. Accordingly, the DHS will be able to quickly compile in-depth profiles on you whenever they determine it to be necessary despite being completely innocent or cleared of any crime or criminal behavior.

Orwell really knew who and what he was talking about in his book '1984.'

 

[fl0at]

My bad, I just assumed since you don't object to Obama running ruoughshod over the constitution and vilify anyone who stands up to him, that you wouldn't object when his appointee Napoliano does the same.

Orwell had insight. That, or we took his ideas and ran with them, either way.

Nah, I don't object to those who speak their mind, I object to how they do so. I object to how Lakin made his challenge, not that he challenged.

I'm not a fan of DHS. This country spends more time, money and intelligence energy looking inward, instead of outward.

The government should be paranoid of the people; paranoid, not invasive.

They shouldn't strive to limit, they should strive to listen.

 

[7thgroupvolfan]

Yes, it is extremely easy for me to say considering my father was a decorated vet of WWII, Korea and Vietnam and served his country for over 25 years.

Sooo your father served during WWII and that gives YOU the right to call someone a coward? Interesting..

BTW 63, Lakin's refusing to go BACK to Afghanistan. How many times have you been?

I'll hang up and listen.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

Orwell had insight. That, or we took his ideas and ran with them, either way.

Nah, I don't object to those who speak their mind, I object to how they do so. I object to how Lakin made his challenge, not that he challenged.

I'm not a fan of DHS. This country spends more time, money and intelligence energy looking inward, instead of outward.

The government should be paranoid of the people; paranoid, not invasive.

They shouldn't strive to limit, they should strive to listen.

Lakin exausted all other avenues before he invited his own court marshall.

Freedom Force International - Welcome

"Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart's desire!"

The above verse appears in the Rubiyyat of Omar Khayam, the Persian poet.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13959

More ominous still—the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Amazingly, the Fabian Window contains an image—just above the fellows hammering the world—that is as clear as it is foreboding: the socialists are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I often wonder why they did not choose a less ignoble animal. What about a courageous lion? A proud bull? A vigilant hawk? A noble horse? No, they chose a wolf—a cunning, ravenous, devious, and scary critter—and cloaked him in a sheepskin. Why? Because, as Lenin taught, if you want to operate in a capitalist society you must disguise yourself. Put the sheepskin on and you can easily mingle with the flock. Until you decide to shed the skin and consume the flock. The most frightening thing about the image is that the socialists make no apology about being wolves and living among sheep.

Orwell knew because he was an insider.

I can't seem to find the usual site I use that explains all of the symbolism contained in the image above, it must have slipped through the memory hole.

Then too Carrol Quigley revealed quite a bit in his 'Tragedy and Hope,' he too knew what he was writing about.

 

[gsvol]

More:

A Window into the Socialist Soul

With the exception of officially shunning noisy or violent revolution, The Fabians adopted the basic doctrines of Marxism including the inevitability of socialism in the future. This involved the rejection of the basic Christian doctrine of private property and ownership, as well as the overturning of the social order in most other areas: finance, education, politics, family, sex, etc. The Fabians, however, endeavored to advance this agenda without appearing to oppose the traditional system; they hoped to advance Marxism without being detected as Marxists.

The amount of deceit involved in this endeavor defies all comprehension. Two of the founding members, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, provide a great example of wolves spinning lies in sheep’s wool. During their 1932 visit to Soviet Russia, Stalin had waged war against Ukrainian farmers who refused to collectivize. The dictator closed railways, roads, and blocked all shipments of food, stock, fuel, and seed. In a short time, anywhere from two to ten million people starved to death. The Webbs crossed Ukraine through the worst of this slaughter, but denied seeing anything. Worse yet, in 1935 the couple published Soviet Socialism—A New Civilization?, in which they denied that any famine had occurred period.[2] The question mark disappeared from the title in later editions. They approved of the Bolshevik Revolution, and vaunted Soviet Russia as a model. Later it turned out that Soviet army officials had written much of the text themselves, and that “The entire text of the Webbs’ book had been prepared in the Soviet foreign office.”[3] Propaganda about their “humane” prison camps and denials of atrocities filled the whole work.
----------------------------------------

Despite the fact that most of the Fabians (like Marx and the later Bolsheviks) promoted atheism or at least agnosticism, they had no problem employing religious language or even overtly tagging the name “Christian” on their devices. They disguised their wolf’s-head atheistic system under the white-as-snow wool of Christian faith in such an “impudent contrivance,” as Martin calls it, as the “Christian Book Club.”[4] For a grand opening in this disguise they offered Christians the Webb’s Soviet Socialism—A New Civilization. Martin comments:

The inference seemed to be that, since Christians were not overly bright, they could easily be led down the garden path to Socialism by a false appeal to ideals of brotherhood and social justice.… To churchgoers among the voting population, Sidney Webb had reasoned shrewdly, Socialist goals must be presented cautiously—in terms that did not appear to conflict with their religious beliefs.… For the most Part 1ts spokesmen prudently avoided outraging the beliefs of religious minded persons, while soliciting their support for Socialist candidates and persons.[5]

The faux-religiosity of the socialist program extended well beyond the mere presentation of the message. The whole system intended to replace Christianity from Marx onward, only while Marx favored open confrontation and conquest, the Fabians promoted subversion and gradualism. Either way, socialism was a new messianism, a humanistic, God-replacing messianism. Martin again:

In the Fabian Socialist movement, as in Soviet Marxism, there was always a strong element of political messianism, diametrically opposed to the religious messianism of One who proclaimed: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Both Socialist and Communist literature stressed the supposedly communal character of early Christianity, undetectable to anyone familiar with the Epistles of St. Paul. Revolutionary Marxism, open or disguised, was presented as being the “Christianity of today.” Voluntary charity and renunciation of one’s own goods were confused with the forcible confiscation of other people’s property, as illustrated in the famous phrase of John Maynard Keynes, “the euthanasia of the rentier,” that is, the mercy-killing or painless extinction of those who live on income from invested capital.[6]

Nowhere does the messianic worldview of the socialists find a better visual expression than in the aforementioned window. Designed by one of the human objects of their devotion himself, all the major themes shine through: the caption at the top reads “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEARTS DESIRE,” and while founding member Edward Pease mans the bellows, fanning the flames of a smith’s furnace, fellow founders G. B. Shaw and Sidney Webb place the globe—heated like iron to an orange glow—upon an anvil and hammer away toward that heart’s desire.

You might say this explains fully global warming.

 

[milohimself]

Reading half of the threads in this forum are like reading Bumi v. wheaton4prez arguments... And equally as enlightening.

 

[fl0at]

Reading half of the threads in this forum are like reading Bumi v. wheaton4prez arguments... And equally as enlightening.

I wasn't around for those. What's the short version?

 

[milohimself]

Go to Around the NCAA and read any thread dealing with the Oregon Ducks.

 

[fl0at]

Go to Around the NCAA and read any thread dealing with the Oregon Ducks.

The one I picked to read was droski vs everyone from Oregon, and then you locked it.

I'll keep looking around.

 

[gsvol]

One can always count on intelligent insightful input from Milo, or NOT.!

Lakin trial did not resolve original issue | Greeley Gazette

Sadly the issue will never be resolved satisfactorily until one particular branch of government or agency will step up to the plate and take responsibility for this issue. It is a shame because the issue could be resolved so quickly by simply producing a piece of paper. When even a CNN poll reveals that only 42 percent of the American people definitely believe Obama was born in this country we have a serious problem especially when all of the major media including Fox have done everything to say there is no issue.

The timing of the trial which was pushed back more than once to coincide with right before Christmas makes the message loud and clear to the common soldier, Obama’s eligibility is never to be questioned. With a military engaged in multiple wars it is vital they be able to have the utmost confidence in their commander-in-chief. Lakin stated his questions were never answered. If he is going to do time in prison, we believe he at least deserves to have an answer to his question.

Courts ruling that citizens have no right to know if their president is constitutionally qualified is simply treasonous; and citizens can no longer hold our government accountable. Our founding fathers have written this would happen, immediately followed by the country suffering a mortal, self-inflicted wound. "There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Adams, 1814.

 

[milohimself]

Vote for Obama!

 

[ptclaus98]

late to the thread but the dude (refusin deployment) in question is moron.

*reads*



*looks at avatar*




*abides*

 

[gsvol]

Vote for Obama!

More in depth analysis.

You are like the average mud puddle compared to the deep blue sea and make a good case for not legalizing pot.