Skip to comments.Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
So you agree with Judge Lind? The 20th Amendment allows Joseph Stalin to LAWFULLY “act as President”? Even if it can be known that he is Joseph Stalin, a foreign enemy of the US Constitution? And every officer in the US military, having already sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution from the Joseph Stalins of the world, is required to follow the orders initiated and authorized by a known foreign enemy combatant in the White House, because the orders they receive are all lawful?
You agree with all that? Please consider that the states said they couldn’t protect and defend the US Constitution because that is Congress’ job.... and Congress says they can’t protect and defend the US Constitution because that is the states’ job (and/or because Stalin presented online what has now been confirmed as 2 different forgeries).... and the courts say they can’t protect and defend the US Constitution because it’s nobody’s business whether the CINC is a foreign enemy combatant after all and it is either the states’ or Congress’ job. And the courts say that military officers don’t have enough vested interest because it is only their oath, the potential for losing protections under the Geneva Conventions, and (in one instance) 4 years of reservist’s pay (which the judge ruled to be less valuable than $500) which is at stake.
Please also consider that law enforcement has confirmed that the media was threatened if they reported on Stalin not being eligible and the 2 people who were going to present a petition to allow Stalin’s primary challenger to expose him as a foreigner were killed within days of agreeing to do so. Also keep in mind that tyrants are ALWAYS “elected by the people”. Usually by a 100% or higher vote. The Reichstag “lawfully” voted to give Hitler unconstitutional powers - never mind that the communists who would have opposed him were already purged by Hitler without due process or that Hitler’s armed military was milling all about while the vote was being taken... Even a hostage process appears outwardly to be “lawful”. That’s why the mafia tactics work. That’s why the officers’ oath recognizes that there may be foreign and domestic enemies to the Constitution who pose a REAL danger (IOW, they are embedded within the system where they can do real damage).
BTW, Mr Rogers, you are about the only person opposing Lakin who actually engages with reality. I respect and appreciate that. Anything less than that is a waste of time for both of us.
Maybe the Constitution contemplates that any factual disputes about qualifications should be decided by the states' electors and indirectly by the people who select the electors (nowadays the voters).
You are a total waste of my time, but for the sake of any lurkers: Before making any ruling she said that she would not accept any argument on the basis of Obama’s ineligibility, because the eligibility of the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders.
That means it could have been Joseph Stalin who ordered the Afghanistan surge, and the orders to Lakin would still be “lawful”.
The very quotes that BigGuy22 (who has never posted on anything on FR except opposing the “birthers”) gives from Lind show the reasons she gave for saying that the eligibility of the President is “irrelevant”. What he’s quoting makes my point. BigGuy just doesn’t want to admit that this is what she actually ruled. She effectively ruled that Joseph Stalin, if sworn in as POTUS, could LAWFULLY order combat operations anywhere in the world, and there’s not a dang thing anybody in the military could do about it. Even if Stalin came right out and said to the world that he is Joseph Stalin and he will bring America to her knees and make Russia lord of all. It is “irrelevant” because the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization to Use Force, and the protocols and rules of the military allow foreign enemy combatants to give lawful orders to the chain of command, as long as they first take an oath of office.
You sound like you could be a follower of Mau Zedong. If you were the judge you wouldn’t jail Lakin nor give him a trial; you would call him insane and be done with him. That’s how Islamists in Afghanistan wormed their way out of executing the Muslim who converted to Christianity, as sharia (the top law, over any Constitution) demands. They said he would have to be crazy to convert from Islam so they wouldn’t execute him because he is insane. It’s circular logic. No True Scotsman. No sane person would ever say that Obama is ineligible, therefore we dismiss the case of anybody who claims it because we already know they MUST just be insane... It says that any evidence is “irrelevant”. I believe in Iran they call it “judge’s knowledge”. It flies in the face of everything about the Federal Rules of Evidence, which is why red-blooded Americans still smell the stink no matter what legal dancing and prancing the lawyers do with their naked emperor.
Thanks for showing your true colors. No need to respond to you any more.
” Even if it can be known that he is Joseph Stalin, a foreign enemy of the US Constitution?”
“If Joseph Stalin was elected to the Presidency by the majority of voters of the USA, IAW the Electoral College, and approved and accepted as such by Congress, and took an oath from the CJ of the Supreme Court,
and if he had gone to Congress and been given approval for combat operations, and Congress funded the costs of the war, then...”
Now, would America vote for someone who lived in Moscow, spoke no English, and ruled a foreign country? Don’t you think SOMEONE would notice during the election? Do you think no one in the Electoral College would notice? Do you think there would be no one in Congress who would notice?
Bill Ayers is an enemy of the US Constitution. Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents Ayers from becoming President?
If Congress thought you were right, they could remove Obama this afternoon. But ZERO of 535 members of Congress agree with you. ZERO of 50 states agree with you. The state of Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii. The term ‘natural born citizen’, as used at the time the Constitution was written, allowed for the child of aliens to be pone. But you want the US military to determine if Obama was born in the USA and eligible to be President. You want the US military to overturn the election and use whatever force is needed to remove someone who received a majority of votes, with no objection from anyone in Congress, in two elections.
What were the Founders more afraid of - someone fooling everyone and getting into office when born overseas, or the danger of a standing, professional army?
Massachusetts: “And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature.”
Pennsylvania & North Carolina: “And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.”
Maryland & Delaware: “That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature.”
“A Farmer” also mused in this essay: “I was persuaded that the grave would have closed on my bones, before this question would be publicly proposed in America. Are we then to look up to a standing army for the defence of this soil from foreign invasion?” In his sixth essay, he included as a “great and manifest” defect in the proposed government “the manifest danger to public liberty from a standing army, without limitation of number, in time of peace.”
The Anti-Federalist who used the name of “John DeWitt” wrote extensively about the evils of standing armies in a series of essays published in the Boston American Herald in late 1787:
They shall have also the power of raising, supporting and establishing a standing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I see not why in your several houses.”
Where lies the security of the people? What assurances have they that either their taxes will not be exacted but in the greatest emergencies, and then sparingly, or that standing armies will be raised and supported for the very plausible purpose only of cantoning them upon their frontiers? There is but one answer to these questions. They have none.
The advocates at the present day, for a standing army in the New Congress pretend it is necessary for the respectability of government. I defy them to produce an instance in any country, in the Old or New World, where they have not finally done away the liberties of the people. Every writer upon government, Lock, Sidney, Hamden, and a list of other have uniformly asserted, that standing armies are a solecism in any government; that no nation ever supported them, that did not resort to, rely upon, and finally become a prey to them.
It is universally agreed, that a militia and a standing body of troops never yet flourished in the same soil. Tyrants have uniformly depended upon the latter, at the expense of the former. Experience has taught them, that a standing body of regular forces, where ever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary.
There is no instance of any government being reduced to a confirmed tyranny without military oppression; and the first policy of tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and defence, and to rely solely upon standing troops.
It is very true, that the celebrated Mr. Wilson, a member of the Convention, and who we may suppose breathes, in some measure, the spirit of that body, tells you, it [a standing army] is for the purpose of forming cantonments upon your frontiers, and for the dignity and safety of your country, as it respects foreign nations. No man that loves his country could object to their being raised for the first of these causes, but for the last it cannot be necessary. GOD has so separated us by an extensive ocean from the rest of mankind, he hath so liberally endowed us with privileges, and so abundantly taught us to esteem them precious, it would be impossible, while we retain our integrity and advert to first principles, for any nation whatever to subdue us.
DeWitt also equated the “revenue, excise, impost and stamp officers” that would be introduced under the new Constitution with a standing army.
Patrick Henry (17361799), in his June 5 speech in the Virginia ratifying convention against adopting the Constitution, likewise denigrated standing armies: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”
“Brutus” wrote more about the evils of standing armies than any other Anti-Federalist. Sixteen of his essays were published in the New York Journal from October 1787 to April 1788. In four of these essays (numbers 1, 8, 9, 10), he explains how the establishment and maintenance of standing armies breeds fear, is destructive to liberty, and should be viewed as a scourge to a country instead of a benefit. Since I have already explored at length the opinions of “Brutus” on this subject in a previous article (”Brutus on the Evils of Standing Armies”), I only present here something he said in his ninth essay on this subject:
That standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people was proved in my last number If it was necessary, the truth of the position might be confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I presume it would be useless, to enter into a laboured argument, to prove to the people of America, a position, which has so long and so generally been received by them as a kind of axiom.
What do you think would have been the opinion of any Founder on the idea that the military gets to choose who is or is not President?
The thing I can’t understand, butterdezillion, is what you think the alternative could be. What system would permit Col. Lakin, or your nephews, to refuse to obey a command from their superior officers when Obama or Stalin is the president that would not also permit the same thing when Bush or Reagan is president? How could the military function if every member had the option of refusing an order until they were satisfied of the legitimacy of everyone up the chain of command? And could this refusal happen at any point—at the moment they were ordered into combat, for instance?
Who, under the Constitution, is empowered to decide factual, legal and constitutional issues concerning the qualifications of candidates?
That's the important question. This fellow's case has demonstrated only that the federal executive and judicial branches are unwilling to decide that a lieutenant colonel has been empowered to decide in even a preliminary way the factual, legal or constitutional issues concerning Obama's qualifications to be president. Those two branches of government have taken the position that this lieutenant colonel exceeded his authority and that he had no right to impede the orderly operation of the military while he litigates and debates his theories of our constitution.
That really shouldn't be too hard for you to accept, but accept it or not, that is the simple reality of this case.
“That means it could have been Joseph Stalin who ordered the Afghanistan surge, and the orders to Lakin would still be lawful.”
For the record, I agree with you. Even under the absurd hypothetical that Joseph Stalin had been elected President and had ordered the surge, Col. Roberts’s order to Lakin to report to his office would have been a lawful order, as the order itself did not depend on Obama’s authority but rather on Roberts’s own authority to issue orders. Had Lakin refused to show up, as he did, he would have been guilty of refusing to obey a lawful order and would have been imprisoned and dismissed from the service, as he was, and as he deserved to be.
Do you think that Col. Roberts lacked the authority to summon Lakin to his office? If so, I’d love to hear your legal explanation for why you think that’s the case.
Remember, however, the Chief Judge of the 1st Judicial Circuit explained very clearly, with reference to case law and to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why you are wrong about this. If your only response is to conjure up absurd bogey-man hypotheticals and you can cite no laws or cases to support your position, I doubt that anyone is going to be swayed by emotional rants.
You really believe that Joseph Stalin could lawfully “qualify” as POTUS under the US Constitution, as required by the 20th Amendment?
Do you believe that officers who have sworn on their sacred honor to protect and defend the US Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic - and lay their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line EVERY STINKIN’ DAY OF THE YEAR have enough vested interest to get the legal answers necessary for them to carry out their oaths?
If the courts we have now existed at the country’s founding, nobody who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution would have enough “vested interest” to even constitute a case if they questioned the Constitutionality of a foreign enemy combatant in the White House. King George III could have been installed as President and not one of those oath-takers’ lives, fortunes, or sacred honor would be worth enough to these stinkin’ judicial cowards to even make a case.
Is that cool with you? Is that really what you think those Founding Fathers meant when they said that the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged?
What more can a man lay on the line than his life, fortune, and sacred honor? If that isn’t enough then NOTHING will EVER be enough. What did John McCain stand to lose from a usurper winning the Presidency, that Lakin DIDN’T stand to lose? McCain wouldn’t lose his honor. Wouldn’t lose his fortune. Wouldn’t lose his life. He’d lose the chance to be king for 4 years. Do the courts really believe that 4 years of White House cuisine is worth more than a man’s life, fortune, and sacred honor?
Geez, this country is hopeless. We’ve sold our birthright for a bowl of soup. I hope the Lord spits us out as a nation; we deserve NONE of the blessings He’s given us over the years. I am disgusted and appalled that this is what has come of this nation.
The courts, and not one of them has subjected ANY evidence to the scrutiny required under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
All the people’s petitions to the government for a redress of grievances have been sent away without ANY evidentiary hearing. It’s a travesty. OUR CONSTITUTION is none of our stinkin’ business, in the eyes of this government. Even Stalin would be proud of Soros’ coup.
“King George III could have been installed as President and not one of those oath-takers lives, fortunes, or sacred honor would be worth enough to these stinkin judicial cowards to even make a case.”
And the answer to that one is known to all of us. The Founding Fathers decided that it was the Congress, not the judiciary, who would have the power to act in a case like that. They can call for eligibility hearings at the drop of a hat if they believe there is cause to do so.
They have failed to act. They have made it clear — each and every single one of them — that they had no objection to the vote of the Electoral College. I know you don’t like it, but the fact remains that the only remedies available are the ones prescribed under the Constitution. Your manic diatribes notwithstanding, no one — at least, I hope no one — will attempt to address this issue using unconstitutional means.
And demanding that the military oust the President is about as unconstitutional as you can get.
Like me, you cannot prove who fathered Obama. Like me, you have no idea who fathered him other than what you read on the internet. Like you and me, Obama doesn't know who fathered him other than what people told him. As a result, none of us know whether his father was a citizen of the United States, Kenya or China.
Those who believe that he is unqualified should quit wasting their time hanging around courthouses and shift to an impeachment strategy. The House clearly has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to convict and remove.
Forget the judges. They are just going to demand that you prove what your claiming and, as set forth above, you can't. Take it to the Congress.
And, quit driving yourself crazy over all this.
I almost answered this, thinking you were Mr Rogers, who I addressed the question to. You, BG, won’t even acknowledge that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders. So you haven’t even met the requirement of honesty required for me to engage with you.
I’ll wait for Mr Rogers to respond, either on the board or privately.
“You, BG, wont even acknowledge that Lind said Joseph Stalin could be President and it would be irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakins orders.”
LOL, you are lying again! Take another look at Post 208, in which I said, “For the record, I agree with you.”
The truth means nothing to you, that’s clear. Maybe you’re too emotionally worked up to see clearly.
If one judge gave the demand that anybody prove anything, I would be dancing a jig and calling this issue over.
Congress can’t even get Obama or his AG to turn over documents that have been subpoenaed. Obama and his entire regime are lawless. You don’t seem to understand what that means.
But this discussion isn’t about my sanity (thank you for libeling me...), about impeachment, or anything else. It is about Lt Col Terry Lakin, and what he was willing to do for this country. The military screwed him, claiming that Joseph Stalin could have been President, and the orders Lakin received would still have been LAWFUL. Lind said that because she INFERRED that if Lakin had to obey the orders then they must be lawful, even though Lakin would also be required to obey unlawful orders if given under the authority of a de facto president such as Joseph Stalin.
2008 was a coup, and like every coup, it required a complicit military hierarchy. In this case her name is Denise Lind.
Terry Lakin shines in stark contrast to her. One Day Lakin will receive the honor he is due, when the truth is revealed. Denise Lind will be gnashing her teeth, revealed as a tool of this country’s enemies. She could have instructed the military to file a Quo Warranto case on behalf of Lakin so that the factual issues could be determined before she determined whether the orders to Lakin were in accordance with military requirements that all orders comply with the US Constitution - in this case specifically the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution. That would have resulted in the proper people making the proper determinations - WITHOUT giving a middle finger salute to the Constitution, War Powers Act, Authorization for the Use of Force, and all the laws, regulations, and protocols of the US military.
What she did is a disgrace, and I am eagerly awaiting the Day when the truth is revealed. There is in incorruptible Judge; of His government there will be no end. It is in effect right now, and though the wheels of His justice sometimes grind slow they grind EXCEEDINGLY FINE. Those who trade temporary popularity or ease of life now for innocence later will one Day rue the day they were born. I call her to repent.
“You really believe that Joseph Stalin could lawfully qualify as POTUS under the US Constitution, as required by the 20th Amendment?”
Of course not. But it isn’t the military’s job to work it out.
If Joseph Stalin ran for President, and a state in the country said he was born in the USA, and all 50 states certified him to stand for election, and the majority of voters voted for Stalin, and no one challenged his eligibility (or lost in court if they did), and the Electoral College voted for him, and all 535 members of Congress agreed Stalin won the election fair & square, and the Chief Justice swore him in...
THEN he could act as President.
The US military doesn’t certify elections. It doesn’t determine who gets to run. And the Founders would have been stunned if anyone thought a standing army SHOULD decide who won the election, or gets to be President. In fact, that was what they FEARED!
You bring up a lot of stuff. And that's part of your problem with this case: courts don't deal with lots of stuff, they deal with the specific charge and statute at hand. They're just not going to get into what the Founders meant.
But you didn't answer my question. How does the military function if every individual member has the right to refuse orders until they "get the legal answers necessary for them to carry out their oaths"?