Posted on 05/20/2010 11:35:49 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On May 12, the American Patriot Foundation announced that there will be an Article 32 military hearing that may reveal whether President Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States. The hearing is set for June 11, after Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin refused to deploy to Afghanistan “because the president refuses — even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary — to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.”
The American Patriot foundation operates the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which generated a great deal of support for the movement for Obama to provide documentation proving his eligibility to serve as President. Those involved in the movement have been dubbed “birthers”, a term that has generally been met with contempt by the mainstream media and Obama supporters.
However, Lakin’s staunch insistence that Obama is responsible for proving his eligibility has gained some notoriety, even prompting CNN to provide media attention to the movement on Anderson Cooper’s program. On the show, both Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, presented a series of facts to legitimatize their concerns.
The “certification of live birth” found on the Internet, which purports to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, has been dismissed as valid proof, as it is a “short-form” document, as opposed to the “long-form” document that lists the hospital and attending physician. “Short-form” documents are easily obtainable. In addition to Obama’s missing birth certificate, other documentation that has been concealed includes kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school records; college records; Harvard Law Review articles; passport; medical records; Illinois State Bar Association records; baptism records; and adoption records.
The constitutional language in question is tricky, as it states that the president of the United States must be a “natural born citizen,” though the term has been undefined. Some argue the term means that the president must be born in the United States to two parents that were also born in the United States. If that proves to be the case, Obama would be disqualified, since he has openly admitted that his father never was a U. S. citizen. However, much of the legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility rests upon the presumption that Obama was not even born in Hawaii, as he claims.
As a result of Lakin’s oppositional failure to report to duty, charges have been filed against him. According to Safeguard Our Constitution, the charges against Lakin are serious and can result in “years of hard labor in a penitentiary,” but Lakin refuses to rescind his demands, as he asserts that serving in a military operation under an ineligible president is illegal. It is Lakin’s hope that the charges against him will lead to the discovery of information to prove or disprove Obama’s legitimacy, which is his ultimate objective.
In the past, however, this has not proven to be the case. Attorney John Hemenway was threatened with sanctions by a federal judge when he attempted to challenge Obama’s presidency. Hemenway welcomed the threat, however, as he believed it would lead to a “discovery hearing,” which would necessitate the search for documentation proving Obama’s eligibility. At that point, the court rescinded its sanction threats.
Any deployment orders filed under Obama that were met by questions of his eligibility have been rescinded. World Net Daily columnist Vox Day writes that this behavior suggests “that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander-in-chief.”
According to World Net Daily, “Obama’s actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the U.S. president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.”
Lakin joins the ranks of Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, both who have also questioned Obama’s legitimacy, but Lakin remains the first-active duty officer to raise issue.
Additionally, recent ABC polls reveal that tens of millions of Americans question Obama’s eligibility, including many who are in favor of Obama.
In addition to the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi reports that “two independent investigations by two different investigators in two different states (using two different data sources) discovered that the Social Security number used by Barack Obama mysteriously coincides with Social Security numbers verified to have been issued by the state of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a full two years after Obama’s first, publicly-documented record of employment at a Hawaii Baskin-Robbins back in 1975.” If this is true, not only is President Obama guilty of illegally accepting the presidency, but of identity theft as well.
Joseph Farah, founder of the World Net Daily, has launched a full-fledged campaign questioning Obama’s presidential legitimacy. A petition has been circulated, generating 500,000 signatures from those demanding proof of Obama’s eligibility, while yard signs, bumper stickers, and billboards are popping up asking “Where’s the birth certificate?”
What makes you think biden knows what a hammer is, let alone how to use one?
That's a lie? Hardly. That was a poor choice of words when quickly typing.
If that's the best you got, I'll sleep easy.
Jack Nicholson at Guantanamo.... its priceless....
If Lakin had Tom Cruise defending him .... Obama would be in big trouble. LOL
Looks like Biden hit himself in the head with a hammer ...
Nonsense. Hemenway was sanctioned; he appealed the sanctions order; and it was affirmed. There was no discovery permitted. Ditto with Orly Taitz's $20,000 sanctions award, which was also affirmed on appeal, with no discovery permitted.
There's no evidence that Obama proved his eligibility to any of these entities. Signing a form to get on a ballot doesn't prove eligibility. Lakin noticed the oversight and is trying to protect the Constitution. Wish we could say the same for the 50 secretraries of state (or 57 secretaries of state in Obama's mind).
Who doesn't have a role to play, here? The US military, that's who. It's not the role of the US military to inspect the Commander-in-Chief for constitutional infirmities.
How exactly do they defend the Constitution by standing down to a fraud??
But this has nothing do with liking, voting for or respecting. It has to do with Constitutional eligibility. You know, the Constitution, that document we swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. What sort of domestic enemies do you think it meant? The Tea Party crowd?
This hearing is unlikely to, but the trial by Court Martial could be another matter.
But just as a thought experiment, what if it does, and the trial judge rules that the ultimate order giver had no authority to issue any such order, making it unlawful. Then what? Does the government appeal the ruling?
If that's the best you got, I'll sleep easy.
I'll sleep easy as well.
This alleged fraud is a civilian crime. The military doesn't investigate, prosecute civilian crimes, nor does it enforce civilian law on civilians.
If Obama has committed fraud, then this is something for the Congress to sort out, not the US Armed Forces. That's what my copy of the Constitution say, anyways.
The guy is a trained lawyer.
To be honest, that is a minefield. Imagine if the Military refused to take orders because Bush was “Selected not Elected”.
However ..... in this case, the Military should allow discovery to clear the air. Its just a BC and some college records. We all know Obama to be honest and intelligent, so there should be nothing to fear about discovery. He has also stated that he wants transparency, so this is a good thing.
Which guy is a trained lawyer? Lakin is a medical doctor. His civilian defense counsel has no practical military law experience.
I still don't know which guy, you're talking about. You said to m, ""The guy is a trained lawyer."". That's it.
Didn't you spend "almost 25 years as a JAG"?
Yes, I did.
Would you consider yourself to be a trained lawyer?
Have you always been an ass, or is this something that you've had to work on and develop?
I see, now you're comparing me to a guy who lied about his Vietnam service.
I'm making a comparison, but it isn't about a guy who lied about his military service.
Would you consider yourself to be a trained lawyer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.