Posted on 12/14/2010 6:12:11 AM PST by george76
FORT MEADE, Md. -- A military court was set to hear the case Tuesday of an Army doctor charged with refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because he says he doubts whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and therefore questions his eligibility to be commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, an 18-year Army veteran from Greeley, disobeyed orders to report earlier this year to Fort Campbell in Kentucky to prepare for deployment, saying he believed the orders were illegal.
In videos posted on YouTube, Lakin aligned himself with so-called "birthers" who question whether Obama is a natural-born citizen as the U.S. Constitution requires for presidents.
Lakin said in the videos that any reasonable person looking at available evidence would have questions about Obama's eligibility to be president and that he had "no choice" but to disobey orders. Lakin said he would "gladly deploy" if Obama's original birth certificate were released and proved authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
“That Obama refuses to produce undeniable proof that he is eligible for the office he holds is enough to question weather he can legally order troops into battle.”
Agreed. I’m also sick of those who mock the ‘birfers’ on the right, and certainly also the left, who in so doing completely disregard a portion of the United States Constitution. I didn’t know we got to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution applied to the United States. Oh, that’s part of being a RAT socialist? Why would anyone on the right want to side with them? We should all be birfers proudly by default of the fact that we’re defenders of the USC. Unless we don’t care.
Care to explain an affirmative defense, Professor?
Say what?
Agree 100% the MSM and TV at large elected Obama. All very well planned and orchestrated right down to Oprah.
Obama is not eligible to be POTUS until proven otherwise. . The scary thing to me about Obama is Who is He? Where was he born? Who trained him? Is he an American, . or Indonesian, Russian, Kenyan? Anyone who's done any research about him on the internet has to conclude he's a hard core communist. Whom does he work for? The UN? Soros? . . and Soros works for Putin? So many possibilities, and, as you say, anyone with a room temperature IQ has to at least thought of these things. Man, do I miss Reagan. . .
Waiting for Sarah and the total, Total Tsunami coming in November 2012!
Dude,
You’re raggin’ NS pretty bad over this.
He’s no more an Obot than you are. The bottom line WRT Lt. Col. Lakin is that he chose badly. He does not have the standing to demand Zero produce a long form BC and neither do we.
This is the responsibility of the Secretaries of State of the states who have such a statute on their books which require validation. None of them did that with Zero in 2008.
It also was the responsibility of the DNC chair (who lied) and convention chair (Pelosi - who lied), the Electoral College electors(who never demanded proof) and ultimately with VP Cheney who dropped the ball and never demanded proof. VP Cheney could have demanded the long form BC, but did not. This issue was certainly in play when the EC met and VP Cheney was certifying the election.
The simple fact is Lt Col Lakin is going to the stockade for a few years for not following a lawful order.
Whether we like it or not, Zero IS the president until 1-20-13 or he is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Thus the order to Lt. Col Lakin was lawful.
I hate Zero as much or more than anyone, but there has to be the acceptance of certain facts and realities. And the reality he is the lawful president. But until someone who has the standing (i.e. Electoral College electors, Secy of State of one of the states) demands the long form Birth Certificate, at the appropriate time, we’re stuck with this POS.
Really the requirements for the job are really simple. 35 years old, NBC etc.
So without a valid BC how can he claim to have proved the first two requirements?
Sounds good to me.
At least two of the charges were based on orders made in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. By declaring Obama's eligibility as irrelevant, Judge Lind is basically stopping a jury from hearing Lakin's reasonable questions about Obama's constitutional eligibility as it relates to his officer's oath and a directive from the White House for a troop surge in Afghanistan. Thus, Lakin can't ask these officers he disobeyed: Was your order in direct support of Obama's surge? Would you have made this order if there was no surge? Would you have made this order if it was known the president was not constitutionally empowered to be your commander in chief? Can you, independent of the chain of command, order troops to deploy for combat operations any time and any place you choose??
Dude?
Remember, when Rome persecuted the Church, that’s when the Church grew..... the Obots want to suppress this issue, but, Lakin has caused this issue to come to the forefront of national attention, don’t lose heart.
So long as there are Birthers like you then matters like this will never truly be forgotten.
And as Colonel Lind quite correctly pointed out when she denied the relevence of that information, the President and Congress share control over the military; that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government of the sea and land forces; and that under the authority granted them by Article 10 of the U.S. code, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense have the responsibility for assigning, detailing, and prescribing the duties of all members of the army. Lakin was given orders by individuals who get their authority from powers granted by Congess, not Obama. And this authority includes assigning them to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Lakin's sense makes no more sense than that used by Watada and Huet-Vaughn when they refused to deploy as ordered.
I will go on record as saying that I am not nor have I ever been a Birther. I will also go on record as saying that as soon as Birthers come up with solid evidence supporting their claims then my position would most likely change.
I will go on record and say that there is hope that you can repent, correct your error of your ways, or in your mind, say that you will consider that birthers might be right ?
You are entitled to hope.
As apropos to your name, this argument is a non-sequitur. Congress's shared constitutional authority doesn't make the authority of an ineligible president/CinC irrelevant, especially when we have a surge that was ordered directly under his authority. Congress is NOT the commander in chief, so there is plenty of relevance to having a commander in chief who is a fraud. Second, the statutory description of the SecDef specifies that he is at the discretion and direction of the president. Ignorning this part of the chain of command is idiocy. Why would we admit to a chain of command that includes Congress, the SecDef, Secretary of the Army and all the officers in between, but not the president?? Even you would be honest enough to admit this was terrible reasoning on Lind's part, no??
But that does not mean that all orders of all kinds come from the CinC. Lakin was charged with refusing to obey the lawful orders of three superior officers. Obama eligibility or ineligibility had no bearing on whether those orders were lawful or not. Obama could be unmasked and removed from office tomorrow and those orders would still be as lawful then as the day they were issued.
Ignorning this part of the chain of command is idiocy.
Then by your definition every order given by every officer and NCO flows up to Obama. And if he is ineligible then every order given is illegal. So by rights nobody should be obeying any orders at all given by anyone in the military until the matter is settled. Does that about sum it up?
I don't disagree with this. There are certainly a multitude of functions within the military that are discretely independent and separate from the chain of command. Jensen went a little overboard in saying that all authority flows through the commander in chief (although there have been quotes from either the UCMJ or other military manuals that basically reinforce this general idea). For example, the authority to convene a court martial can originate from the president, thus it seems plausible that a servicemember could challenge that authority on the basis of an ineligible president.
Then by your definition every order given by every officer and NCO flows up to Obama.
I didn't say that. The court suggested that whatever shared authority exists within Congress and SecDef, etc., somehow overrides or substitutes for any presidential authority (basically treating him as figurehead with no discernable authority).
And if he is ineligible then every order given is illegal. So by rights nobody should be obeying any orders at all given by anyone in the military until the matter is settled. Does that about sum it up?
An ineligible, illegal president compromises our entire military structure, so if there is no accountability in Congress or the courts, then it might be the next best recourse for the military to disobey the fraud in the White House. It's an extreme measure, yes, but perhaps this is the only way to really do the right thing. Obama fits the definition of a domestic enemy by failing to prove his legitimacy. There would appear to be an obigation for our military to intervene on behalf of defending the Constitution.
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.