Posted on 08/06/2010 1:17:40 PM PDT by cycle of discernment
Before birther row, Lt. Col. Lakin racked up medals as flight surgeon
By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN August 6, 2010 2:51 p.m. EDT
(CNN) -- Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is a poster soldier for the so-called birther movement, but for 17 years prior to his court-martial proceedings, the flight surgeon served around the globe, racking up a chest full of medals.
Military prosecutors allege that the Colorado native intentionally missed a plane in April after disobeying four lawful orders from superiors. Lakin has said he refused to deploy to Afghanistan until he sees proof that President Obama was born in the U.S.
In a YouTube explanation posted before he was charged, Lakin said he had no choice but the "distasteful one of inviting my own court-martial."
"If [Obama] is ineligible, then indeed, all orders are illegal because all orders have the origin with the commander in chief," he said.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice says the maximum punishment for both offenses -- missing his plane and disobeying lawful orders -- is a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in confinement. A guilty verdict could also result in forfeiture of his pay, which totals $7,959 a month, according to a charge sheet provided by a group sponsoring his defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Thanks Omegadawn, and welcome to FR. One never knows how many are fooled by the snow machines of the left, obviously very busy on this thread as Obama’s disdain for our citizens becomes more clear, and even the left becomes disillusioned. Some of us have heard the same refrains from the same people so often that we don't take the time to share the clarity gained from people like Bushpilot and rsxid, and now, hopefully, Omegadawn.
It is as simple as you have put it. Those who are still confused would benefit by reading our framers, though some, such as James Wilson, fascinating though he is lambasting English Common Law, take some wading. If those who are still uncertain about what Omegadawn stated would just read one source, the path to clarity will unfold. Among the more ironic sources for the truth is the whole U.S. Senate in 2008 when they signed a resolution, sponsored by McCaskill and Leahy, and co-sponsored by Webb, Clinton, Obama, Nunn... asserting that they deemed John McCain a natural born citizen because he was born of two citizen parents. This Senate Res. 511 is why no Republican dared point out Obama’s alien father - McCain was not born on our soil. Everyone knew. Everyone, whether they liked his aisle hopping or not, felt he deserved another shot at the presidency because of his POW record.
But they threw in some misdirection, suggesting that something was amiss because the term natural born citizen was not defined in the Constitution itself. So find Senate Res. 511 to confirm my claim, but I'll provide a better source of knowledge about natural born citizenship. McCaskill and Leahy could deploy misdirection because the Constitution was intentionally not designed as a legal reference. It was intended to be readable by common men. Its definitions were, as explained by James Madison, drawn from the common law familiar to the framers. Hamilton said that common law was based upon Vattel, whose Law of Nations, was the most widely cited legal reference between 1789 and 1821, and the text book specified by Jefferson as the core curriculum for our first law school, William and Mary, in 1779.
For an exhaustive contemporary (1916) analysis of constitutional eligibility, read the brief published by attorney, and later, Sec. of State, Breckenridgle Long, (thanks Sharon Rondeau of Post&Email) who explained why former justice Charles Evans Hughes was not eligible should he prevail over Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 election. Remarkably, Hughes was appointed Chief Justice by Harding and wrote the 1939 decision in Perkin v. Elg in which he cited Minor v. Happersett for the Vattel definition of NBC - born on the soil of citizen parents. Hughes was apparently willing to do what Chester Arthur and Obama have done, though Hughes, unlike Arthur and Obama, made no effort to conceal his parent's British citizenship. It seems that he assumed the seldom used term might escape attention. Here is a pointer to the Breckenridge Long paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within
If obama were to make a statement in court under oath that his father was a Kenyan national,it could be used as evidence. BUT at the same time it would allow the opposition to request discovery(proof of his statement),requiring him to release his certified birth records. So what it boils down to this, obama MUST keep this out of court,and continue to find ways to have the trial dismissed before it makes it a open trial. There is no question that having dual citizenship at birth disqualifies obama from holding office,but it can not be proven without that certified copy of his birth certificate showing his father was Kenyan.
Thanks, El Gato.
He knew the consequences. I just can't believe that he actually thought he'd come out of this unscathed or that Obama would be forced to produce anything. Surely after a career in the military he should have known better than that?
You don’t seem to understand accepting illegitimate orders and killing people is a criminal and immoral act.
Where has he said that he thought he would come out of this unscathed?
He knows better than you do that in doing this he is tossing his career aside, no matter what the outcome, even if he wins and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is ineligible his career is over as well as his private life, and there will be people in this country that will want to murder him for forcing Obama out of office.
There are things worth doing that are greater than the life of just one man or is that a concept so foreign to you that you cannot grasp its magnitude?
” There are things worth doing that are greater than the life of just one man or is that a concept so foreign to you that you cannot grasp its magnitude? “
Sadly, most people do NOT grasp this anymore.
So you’re saying that since the SecDef is still Bush’s SecDef all is well?
What would happen if Obama had nominated somebody else but Gates said he was going to stay on because he was confirmed in 2006 and his term doesn’t legally expire until 4 years (2010) (as I just found out from further reading)?
Would Gates remain the SecDef, or does the new president coming in have the right to name his own cabinet?
IOW, is Gates legally and officially Bush’s SecDef, or Obama’s? Did Obama appoint Gates, or legally have any responsibility for Gates allegedly holding the position right now?
The reports I’ve seen all say that Obama nominated Gates in Dec 2008. His not having to be re-confirmed doesn’t mean he didn’t have to be nominated.
But as of Jan 20, 2009 none of Obama’s nominations were Constitutional. Because Obama failed to qualify by then, only Joe Biden could nominate a cabinet, according to the 20th Amendment.
This article notes that cabinet nominations could not officially be made until he was officially sworn in as President. However, being sworn in as President is not the only Constitutional requirement for the President to exercise the presidential powers. He also had to qualify. Obama didn’t, and thus couldn’t nominate anyone. Here’s the site: http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/January/20090121151740esnamfuak0.4309656.html
FACT: Yeah, we understand very well your long shot wishful thinking, no surprise here!!!
You could add more coal to the mysteries; namely the three unsolved killings in his church he attended for 20 years. The Saga of their dear leader, the usurper, is a total open book with no prints, which the "worship", hmmm!!!
Google no longer shows the sites they showed just a couple days ago which said that Obama announced he would nominate Robert Gates, so I had to look in my history to find what I could. Here’s one.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/biographies/ig/Obama-Cabinet/Secretary-of-Defense.htm
Well said!
“Just because you keep repeating the same thing, ad nauseum, won’t make it true. I’m sorry.”
Well, how about a “new” or old things for a change???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2565896/posts
That is an inaccurate statement. The State of Hawaii CAN’T say where Obama was born because the probative value of his amended BC has never been allowed to be legally determined.
What Fukino said is that they have records claiming Obama was born in Hawaii. According to HRS 338-17 that is all she CAN say with legal accuracy - but she’s actually forbidden by HRS 338-18a from saying even that. Okubo would say she is forbidden by HRS 338-18a from even saying that much TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
So please stop repeating that inaccurate statement.
Your wording is intentionally misleading: “BS, the SecDef then and now is Bob Gates, appointed by George Bush. He is a holdover, and never left the office, so was not appointed by Obama.” Um, Gates could not hold the position if he were not appointed to continue that position. That he did not need Senate confirmation does not negate that he HAD TO BE APPOINTED by Obama to continue as HIS Sec Def.
I don’t think a person is able to testify as to who their parent was, since they could not have been aware of the birth facts at the time. Even if he testified under oath, I think it would still have to be considered hearsay regarding the facts of his birth.
Somebody who witnessed the birth would have to swear to the facts of the birth, which is why it’s so essential that a doctor or other witness see the mother and child either during or soon after birth - because they alone would be a neutral witness to confirm what the parents might claim.
My sister had 5 of her 7 children at home, attended by a midwife. She and the baby were both examined shortly after by a doctor who completed the birth certificates. It was vital that there be eyewitnesses who could say that, yes, this child came out of this mother’s body on this day.
Who the father of the child is would be another question, which could only totally be determined by paternity tests, but the birth certificate would at least be the legal claim of who the father was.
But he won't win and the question of Obama's eligibility won't ever enter into it because it's totally irrelevant to the charges he's facing. Did he honestly think that he would ever be able to get any documentation on Obama at all. Was he really that naive?
There are things worth doing that are greater than the life of just one man or is that a concept so foreign to you that you cannot grasp its magnitude?
There are also fool's errands. Just because someone wants to take something on when he has absolutely no chance of accomplishing his goal doesn't mean he's brave or gallant or noble. Often it means he's a fool.
So you're saying that Colonel Roberts did not have the authority to order Lakin to report to his office and Colonel McHugh did not have the authority to order Lakin's transfer? You base this on what?
Lakin’s commanders could order Lakin to Afghanistan just as independently of Obama and SecDef Gates as they could order him to Iran. If they can order him to A-stan and he has to obey then they could order him to Iran and he would have to obey.
Wild hyperbole aside, neither officer ordered Lakin to Afghanistan. Roberts ordered him to report to his office and McHugh ordered him to report to the 101st Airborne.
Would he have to obey if his brigade commanders ordered him to combat operations in Iran? Why or why not?
Again, you're just being silly. Or is it your contention that every American serviceman and woman in Afghanistan and Iraq are there illegally?
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.