Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility

The New American ^ | May 20, 2010 | Raven Clabough

[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?”

[BP2]

As for the rest of your response, can you please provide for me the date, the time, the place and the name of the inquiry/inquirer that demanded to see the birth documents of any of the other 43 US Presidents. I'll wait.

Can you tell me of another president who has had this much controversy surrounding the events of his birth and Eligibility? I'll wait.

I'm no sure why you can't grasp this concept - Presidents of the United States do not answer to the military. And, they certainly don't answer to light Colonels.

Obama’s not answering to an O-5. He's answering to the US Constitution — the highest ranking authority in the nation.

[OldDeckHand]

"Can you tell me of another president who has had this much controversy surrounding the events of his birth and Eligibility? I'll wait."

You're going to have to point out for me where in the Constitution does "controversy" becoming legally significant. I'll wait.

Obama's election in the Electoral College was certified, without objection, by the US Senate, presided over by Richard Cheney. While I can find in the Constitution where that is a requirement, I can't find in the Constitution where it gives members of the military any role in that process.

Obama’s not answering to an O-5. He's answering to the US Constitution — the highest ranking authority in the nation.

Really? The US Constitution refused to deploy until Obama showed (to whom exactly, is a mystery) his birth certificate? I thought it was a guy named Lakin. My mistake.

[BP2]

Obama’s election in the Electoral College was certified, without objection, by the US Senate, presided over by Richard Cheney.

Did Dick Cheney call for objections?! Wow ... YOU would be the first who said he did.
You better go back and review that Jan. 8, 2009 video.

Really? The US Constitution refused to deploy until Obama showed (to whom exactly, is a mystery) his birth certificate?

The US Constitution requires the POTUS be a NBC. Obama is NOT above the Constitution, regardless of how much you may want him to be.

Obama's birth certificate appearing in court — be it the original birth Certificate or the abbreviated Certification — would simply serve as prima facie evidence that Obama’s father was indeed a British subject. That opens the next door.

LOL. You still seem confused on that part ...

[El Sordo]

But just look at those sculpted arms!

[El Sordo]

The President of the United States must be a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is President of the United States.

Therefore, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.

QED.

[philman_36]

What you have done is attack the character of people with whom you disagree on this issue.
Oh, you're such a saint you're above reproach...
You're an idiot.
Have you always been an ass, or is this something that you've had to work on and develop?

And where exactly, meaning in which specific reply, did I attack your character like you did mine?
Is it where I called you a liar? Until you can substantiate your claim I stand correct...you lied. Trying to explain it away as "a poor choice of words when quickly typing" won't stand up in any court of law.
You're a lawyer and should know that! Your testimony is on record.

And if you didn't mean what you wrote then how can anything you type be trusted? Are all of your replies "a poor choice of words" or are just the replies you get busted on the when poor choice allowance comes into play?

[BP2]

> Therefore, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.

Wow. That's some screwed up logic right there.
Let me guess ... you didn't do well in your Middle
School Debate classes either, did you? Bwa-ha-ha.

There's hundreds of laws on the books based upon the
so-called “fact” of Global Warming ... now shown to be a fraud.

You don't believe in Global Warming too, do you?

[BrandtMichaels]

Yeah sure - just like they hammered the last military guy when they quietly
rescinded his orders? You should go work for the msm, since you think
you can blindly assert anything to be true without the slightest evidence to
back-up your snot-nosed drivel!

[OldDeckHand]

"Yeah sure - just like they hammered the last military guy when they quietly rescinded his orders? You should go work for the msm, since you think you can blindly assert anything to be true without the slightest evidence to back-up your snot-nosed drivel!"

I see. Clearly, another imbecile (that's you) who has never served a day of his life in uniform. You (apparently) have NO IDEA how military justice works. If you think the government is going to dismiss the charges after they've scheduled an Article 32 hearing (especially considering the accused has made multiple national TV appearances, openly defying command), or that the hearing won't result in a referral to GCM, you're on crack.

The "last guy" volunteered to for activation and deployment (he was a reservist), only to turn around a few weeks later and sue. It was easier and less expensive for the Army to tell the guy to beat it. The government didn't formally charge the last guy, did they? Lakin, OTOH, is quite a different matter, isn't it. Lakin has already disobeyed orders and missed movement.

I have no idea how many courts-martial you've tried, but I've tried years worth. Why don't you remove your head from your behind and educate yourself before describe someone else's opinion as "snot-nosed drivel".

The Article 32 hearing is only weeks away. We will see who's right, you or me.

[OldDeckHand]

"And where exactly, meaning in which specific reply, did I attack your character like you did mine? "

You called me a liar, genius.

[Las Vegas Ron]

BFL

[El Gato]

They would have to. I imagine it would be immediately appealed or else the military would be dealing with legions of troops trying the same thing. That would completely disrupt the military and give a "get out of jail free" card to anyone who doesn't want to deploy --whether they cared about Obama's eligibility or not.

Or we fix the problem by getting an eligible President. Even if that's Joe Biden.

[El Gato]

I'm not sure how much legal education you possess, but in every law school and bar exam in America, binding precedent (and that's what we're talking about here, the trial court is bound by CAAF) is law. That's just the way it works.

Except when it doesn't. Precedent is overturned all the time. In fact the whole "Selective Incorporation" doctrine arose as a way to overturn the precedent that said that "Privileges and Immunities" of US citizens did not include those protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather uniquely federal things, like the right to use the navigable waterways.

Then there was the case which overturned Texas sodomy laws, (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)), which overturned precedent that was less than 2 decades old (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986))

[BrandtMichaels]

I highly doubt you’ve tried any cases like this one OldD—kH—d.

Go back to the swamp you’ve obviously crawled out of - DU maybe...

Anything less than revealing BC or lack thereof is simply not justice
by the letter of the law. Obama is a fraud as are any who would
even try to defend him based upon the lack of evidence shown so far.

[El Gato]

Personally, I think he should have resigned in protest and followed another course of action and another venue to challenge the eligibility issue; like his home of record and it's state court system, try to subpoena records on file from the state's election officer who passed on Obama's qualifications and eligibility to become a candidate in the first place.

If he'd done that, he'd most likely have been ruled to have no standing. (No particularized injury)

[El Sordo]

Take your Alinksy trolling elsewhere Obot.

Your Cloward/Piven strategy of elevating your master Obama to a dictatorship by working to sow discord among the military by encouraging insubordination or to foment a military coup has become pretty clear.

[edge919]

...has been the mantra of every South American banana republic the last 100 years.

What??????? What the hell does South America have to do with OUR Constitution??

Obama is the President. Any constitutional infirmity in either his election or installation, is not the concern of the military.

Nonsense. Obama's fraud is and Constitutional infirmity is everybody's problem in this country ... especially the military. Somebody has to stand up before we become a 'banana republic.'

As someone else pointed out, using your logic, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs could have disobeyed Bush's first order in 2001, and argued that he wasn't elected, but selected and therefor unconstitutional.

Which can be quickly proven wrong with a paper trail. No such paper trail exists for Obama.

Do you see the slippery sloap and why this is avoided in by military command?

Slippery 'sloap'? That slope is much more slippery from tolerating fraud.

[El Sordo]

Nice try Obot.

Ignore what you don’t like and then claim it doesn’t exist.

Classic Alinsky.

I bet you picked that right up from your buddy Obama.

[edge919]

The EXACT same (your words) "paper trail" that exists for GWB exists for Barack Obama.

No. The accusation for Bush was that he was 'selected.' The paper trail for that exists. The paper trail proving that Obama is eligible, however, does not.

Can you tell me when, where and to whom GWB provided certified copies of his birth certificate? I'll wait.

GWB wasn't born to a foreign national, whose paternity challenged his Constittuional eligibility ... unless you're going to sit here and accuse Bush 41 of being a foreign national. While Bush didn't provide a certified copy of his birth certificate, he didn't provide a forged copy of his certificate as has Obama. So, the sitatuion is markedly different. Would Bush hide his certificate from the public?? The answer is no, as it is listed among the items to be in Bush's presidential library. Obama's presidential library will be conspicuously empty.

[edge919]

Obot?? Are we drinking this evening??