BORN IN THE USA? Officer's brother: 'Obama could have made this all go away'

WND ^ | 11/10/10 | Bob Unruh

[FTJM]

An attorney-doctor from Kansas whose brother is scheduled for a court-martial says President Obama could, if he chose, resolve the dispute virtually without effort.

Greg Lakin, whose brother is Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, told talk radio show host Peter Boyles on KHOW radio in Denver that it would be "easy."

"It could have been an easy fix. Obama could have stepped up and done the honorable thing and made this all go away," Greg Lakin said in the interview this week. "Just some type of showing, 'Hey, I was born here … here's some proof.'"

WND reported a new trial date has been announced by the military for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the career Army doctor who decided to refuse an assignment to Afghanistan because of his concern that the orders he was issued in a chain of command headed by Barack Obama were not legal.

According to attorney Neal Puckett, who has represented Lakin since a military judge ordered Lakin could not have access to any information about President Obama's eligibility, the trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14 and run for three days.

He confirmed to WND that there will be new directions for the defense but could not elaborate.

"All I can really say is the case is going to be handled differently from here on out," he said.

Greg Lakin said he fears the military, which he said never has had to confront the possibility that a president may not be eligible and his orders then may be illegitimate, may take the easy way out and simply lock up his brother.

[Non-Sequitur]

That's the sum total of the depth of your analysis?

Given the question, that's about all that was justified. You're the one who suggested that the chain of command trumps the Constitution, not I.

[Non-Sequitur]

Recently Honduras solved that problem with help of military. Seems they grew larger cojones than the US career brass!!!

Last I checked we weren't governed by the Hondurian constitution.

[so_real]

I see your point ... "it does not follow".

[Non-Sequitur]

Translation: The oath you took many years ago, NOW means NOTHING!!!

It means a lot more to me than to you.

Did Lt. Col. Lakin take the oath to the Constitution or to the conduct??

He took an oath. What you want us to believe is that it's OK to dismiss the inconvenient parts when an officer wants to.

[thecodont]

Our legislators let it happen, probably because McCain too was ineligible. It was tough, almost impossible, for Republicans to raise the Constitutional issue about a POW. But law is law. The Democrats were all over McCain's ineligibility, until they decided Obama was who they wanted, and knew they needed McCain running to shield Obama from questions about his British citizenship at birth. Had any Republican spoken up, Hillary would be the candidate. They no doubt would have raised the race issue, claiming that we only used the seldom used natural born citizen requirement on Obama because he is partly black. It was clever maneuvering, but Obama is still ineligible.

One of the best summaries I've read. It covers the political reasons why the Constitution was ignored in this case.

Every congressman is complicit in willfully ignoring the Constitution, Article II. Why willfully? We know from a very recently exposed memorandum from the Congressional Research Service sent to every Congressman in the Spring of 2009 that they all know there is an issue. They were provided with blatently incorrect legal analysis, but were informed that it was Congress which is responsible for vetting presidents. They vetted McCain, but not Obama. They were asked, many if not all Conressmen, to vet Obama. Commander Kerchner sent registered letters in the Summer of 2008. The wall was already up. That is one of the issues raised in the complaint now in the docket of the Supreme Court filed by Commander Kerchner and prepared by Mario Apuzzo. ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com )

Is the political balance NOW in such a state that these issues will finally be addressed? I believe we're closer than we have been.

[Jacquerie]

In order to be removed from office, Presidents are accused and stand trial before a Congress composed of 535 politicians. There is no other way.

You say it is not a political process? Funny.

[so_real]

You have revised the series of events. I did not suggest the chain of command trumps the Constitution. I posited a hypothetical question "if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution" to you (in post 75), because you (in post 57) inferred in your question that Lakin's actions were irreconcilable with his oath because he did not submit to the chain of command when "disobeying the orders of three superior officers". I disagreed with you and explained why. I asked you to defend your position. My question was sincere and reasonable, and you have opted not to provide any level of analysis in response. Furthermore, revisionist history (like the "because there is" argument) wins no agreement or respect from the audience in debate. People catch on quickly when a party shirks a question by rewriting the history surrounding it.

[longjack]

The point isn't that politicians can or cannot be removed from office, the point is that if you're going to state something that claims something unusual it is good etiquette to provide a link to a source so people reading the post can research the claim.

For example, A Governor was removed from office after it was disclosed he was NOT eligible for that office, which may be a precedent for removing a president, backs up your statement and offers interested readers an easy way to assess the credibility of your comment.

Then you have a Governor removed from office after disclosed he was NOT eligible for that office!!! makes a statement, without any verification or relation to the context of the original argument.

[Drew68]

I hope his attorney goes that route. Seems NO ONE is addressing that.

Because it's ridiculous.

[presently no screen name]

Your opinion is not necessarily the last opinion.

[Non-Sequitur]

I posited a hypothetical question "if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution" to you (in post 75), because you (in post 57) inferred in your question that Lakin's actions were irreconcilable with his oath because he did not submit to the chain of command when "disobeying the orders of three superior officers.

Lakin's actions are irreconcilable with his oath because well and faithfully discharging his duties does not include refusing to obey the lawful orders of three of his superior officers. The Constitution doesn't enter into that.

My question was sincere and reasonable...

Your question makes no sense. How does obeying lawful orders conflict with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution?

People catch on quickly when a party shirks a question by rewriting the history surrounding it.

And how am I doing that?

[Red Steel]

You know you’re speaking to the village idiot.

[Non-Sequitur]

He says that these are superior officers

Are you saying that Colonel Roberts, Colonel McHugh or Lieutenant Colonel Judd were not Lakin's superior officers?

Well that argument did not hold up for the NAZI officers at the Nuremburg trial, because we have this concept of lawful orders.

And what was unlawful about an order to report to your commanding officer's office or report for duty with another unit?

An order cannot possibly be lawful if it came from an unlawful President. That is LT COL Lankin entire point.

The orders Lakin is charged with disobeying did not come from Obama. That's the Army's point.

[Red Steel]

The orders Lakin is charged with disobeying did not come from Obama. That's the Army's point.

The unlawful orders originated with Obama for Lakin to deploy to Afghanistan is the point.

[Non-Sequitur]

I actually resign my commission in May, and was Honorably discharged from Navy.

Before you quit, had one of your subordinates refused to obey your orders on the grounds that they were unlawful then what would you have done?

[Non-Sequitur]

The unlawful orders originated with Obama for Lakin to deploy to Afghanistan is the point.

Lakin is not charged with refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. Lakin is charged with refusing to report to the office of his commanding officer as ordered and with refusing to report for duty with one of the units attached to the 101st Airborne.

[Non-Sequitur]

You know you’re speaking to the village idiot.

And yet the village idiot has to explain just where you're wrong in your lame arguments. What does that say about you?

[Sola Veritas]

No desrespect to the waring factions here. I am personnaly tired of arguements about oaths....they keep going in circles with not resolution or agreement.

What I would like to know is what is the “change of direction” the new lawyers for LTC/Dr. Lakin going to be?
That seems to me to be the more interesting question.

[Red Steel]

Lakin is not charged with refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. Lakin is charged with refusing to report to the office of his commanding officer as ordered and with refusing to report for duty with one of the units attached to the 101st Airborne.

He may have scurrilous and silly charges against him that the Army is trying to hang on him, BUT we all know the real reason not to go. That was in support of an unlawful order that originated with Obama.

[Non-Sequitur]

What I would like to know is what is the “change of direction” the new lawyers for LTC/Dr. Lakin going to be?

That is indeed the interesting question. I suppose we'll find out when the court martial kicks off, which I believe is scheduled for next month isn't it?