Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works

http://www.commandertaffy.com/thestory ^

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

For Immediate Release 2/13/2013

There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."

This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.

Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.

Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.

[edge919]

The “Natural Born Citizen” section of the ruling begins on Page 10. The quotation above is in specific reference to Barack Obama.

Sorry, but a "specifice reference" would contain his name. The part you quoted does NOT contian his name. They COULDN'T say that Obama was a natural-born citizen because they had no legal proof Obama was born in the United States. Read the decision. As I explained to rogers, this is a circular statement. Look at the first part: they says, "Based on the language of the Article II, Section I, Clause 4: ... nothing in that language says persons are NBC if they are born in within the United States "regardless of the citizenship of their parents." And the court admitted by footnote that there is no "guidance" in Wong Kim Ark that makes ANYONE a natural-born citizen "regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...

All they did was create a reason NOT to accept the plaintiffs' argument AND to say the lower court did not err. That's not the same thing as making a positive declaration that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

[butterdezillion]

You said that combat operations were authorized for Afghanistan. Who authorized those? Under the Authorization for the Use of Force that Congress gave in the War on Terror (shortly after 9-11-01), who did Congress say had the sole responsibility to decide when, where, and to what extent force would be used in the war on terror? I don’t believe Afghanistan was specifically mentioned, nor any other country; it was left to one specific person to decide when, where, and to what extent combat would be employed to confront terrorism. What person was that?

IOW, combat in Iran or any other country including Afghanistan WAS authorized, but with the stipulation that combat in any specific place could only happen when one specific person decided there would be combat operations there. What person is that? What one person could - right now - order my nephews in the USMC to board a plane to Iran to engage in combat there? Why can’t anybody else give that order RIGHT NOW?

[Nero Germanicus]

There were only two persons under consideration in Ankeny v Daniels, John McCain and Barack Obama. The three judge panel had already discussed Senator McCain’s eligibility and they then moved on to discuss Barack Obama.
The section of the decision that I referenced begins with: “With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.” Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.
Parse the words of the ruling to your heart’s content. The Ankeny ruling ordered that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was found to have acted properly in issuing Certificates of Ascertainment for the Indiana Electoral votes to Barack Obama’s Electors in 2008.

The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.

The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions. For example, in Larry Klayman’s Florida ballot challenge, the judge hearing the reconsideration lawsuit after the first lawsuit was dismissed quoted from the Ankeny decision: Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

[Mr Rogers]

Congress authorized President GW Bush to determine WHERE the war on terror would require operations. By then funding it, they gave their approval. That was the subject of a court case concerning Kosovo, and the court found that funding combat by Congress was the same as Congress authorizing combat operations, since they wouldn’t fund what they did not approve.

So again, CONGRESS - which has responsibility for declaring war - authorizes combat operations.

The President does not have the right to declare war. As CINC, he supervises the war, but Congress retains the power of the purse. If Congress doesn’t pay for operations, the President cannot pay the fuel to move anyone anywhere.

Further, you are ignoring the fact that Obama IS recognized as the President by the Congress, and therefor they give him the authority to act as such. If Congress desired it, they could remove Obama from office tomorrow. Congress, not the courts, has authority to remove a sitting President, just as they had the right to reject all of his electoral votes if they believed him unqualified.

Further, Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All 3 branches of government recognize Obama as President. Obama IS currently the President of the USA. He has been put there by the votes of a majority of voters, two times, and accepted in office by Congress and the courts.

The US military cannot overthrow a sitting President. I believe Jim Robinson once pointed that out to you, in a discussion concerning Lakin - that the military doesn’t determine who the president is. The voters and Congress and the courts do that.

I am ashamed that a majority of Americans voted Obama in office once. Far worse was that they did it a second time. But that is the REAL WORLD - a place birthers don’t recognize since they do not live there.

In 2001-2005, GW BUsh was President. The loonie left could claim he was selected, not elected, but it didn’t matter. The American people believed GWB won without the majority vote. All 50 states, most members of Congress and thus the courts accepted him as President. Then as now, the military didn’t get to decide. We do not live in a banana republic, where the President serves at the pleasure of the military.

I have no idea why you think the military determines who the President is, but you are wrong.

[Mr Rogers]

“Do you understand what that is saying?”

Yes, because I am sane and you are not. You are one of the very few people stupid enough and crazy enough to think the Ankeny decision didn’t conclude that Obama was and is a NBC, eligible to hold office. Birthers may not live in the real world, but even 99% of birthers are better connected with reality than you are.

[BigGuy22]

"I am just breezing over what you say because I’m looking for a specific rebuttal to what I said."
__

Big mistake. I have made several specific rebuttals to what you've said. You've just ignored them. I'll try again.

The guy could be sitting in Gitmo as a foreign enemy combatant, and the military would still be “lawfully” doing whatever he tells them to do, throughout the chain of command. That’s what she said.

NO, that's not what she said. She didn't say a word about doing "what he [the President] tells them to do." The orders in question came independently from Col. Roberts, and not in any sense from President Obama. I've told you that repeatedly. Your logic completely falls apart in the face of those facts.

every person in the military would HAVE to obey a known foreign enemy combatant in the White House

NO, that's not what she said. She did not say a word about obeying the person in the White House. She was talking about orders given by Lakin's commanding officer, given under his own independent authority by act of Congress.

If Joseph Stalin took an oath of office to be POTUS, everything the chain of command ordered at his bidding would be lawful

NO, that's not what she said. She said nothing about orders coming at the POTUS's bidding. She said that when your commanding officer tells you to report to his office, you better do it.

You are either completely ignorant or shamelessly lying. Read Col. Lind's opinion. She did not say anything like what you are pretending she said.

[WildHighlander57]

“...... He lost his natural born citizenship status,forever,when he was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in 1968.......”

How did 0 get to be a natural born citizen in the first place?????

[butterdezillion]

Look, pal, I never said that Obama gave the orders to Lakin. I said that if Joseph Stalin had taken an oath to be POTUS and ordered the military to do combat operations, all the orders that were given to carry that out would be lawful, according to Lind.

And that IS what she said.

You’re a waste of my time.

[butterdezillion]

The Authorization for the Use of Force did not mention Bush by name, IIRC. It used a different term for the person - which indicated Congress specifically made the LEGAL authority to decide where and when we would use combat dependent on the POSITION. A position that GW Bush was not holding when Lakin received his orders.

What position was that?

[Mr Rogers]

The OFFICE of the President?

You Do realize, do you not, that Congress & the Supreme Court, along with all 50 states, every foreign country and every government entity consider Obama to be the President of the US?

And you DO realize that CONGRESS has authorized combat operations in Afghanistan, as the Constitution allows, and the President only administers what they have authorized?

While the order to go to his CO’s office had NOTHING to do with Obama, the order to deploy was fully legal - authorized and funded by Congress, under the Constitution. The slot existed. The ARMY filled it with a body. And the ARMY had the right to fill that slot.

Anyone who refuses to obey an order does so at his own risk. If the order is obviously illegal - a crime - then he will be found innocent. But there was NOTHING illegal about an order to deploy. Even if Congress found Obama ineligible and threw him out of office in special session this afternoon, all the military deployment orders of the last 4+ years would still have been valid and legal. And that is in part because CONGRESS authorized the action! The President cannot start a war unilaterally. He can only administer what Congress allows. The war in Afghanistan is a function of the US Government, not Obama.

As Jim Robinson has pointed out to you before, it isn’t the job of the military to decide who sits in the Oval Office. As many others, including me, have pointed out: The civilians control the military, not the other way around. And frankly, the Founders would have been appalled that any American would have argued otherwise.

Lakin’s duty wasn’t to Obama. It was to the USA. The enlisted I knew who tried to refuse to deploy because GWB was “selected, not elected”, faced a similar choice: deploy or go to jail. They didn’t have the right to decide President Bush wasn’t a valid President. And it is shameful that you think they had that right...

[BigGuy22]

"And that IS what she said"
__

That is absolute, total BS. If you think she said that, let's see a quote. I've read her opinion in full several times, and I've quoted from it here. You are lying. She said nothing like that

She said not a single word about whether orders coming from Obama would have been lawful. The orders didn't come from him, so the question of whether they would have been lawful if they had come from him was irrelevant to the issues in the court-martial, and she said that in her opinion.

You can say it as many times as you like, but a lie is still a lie. Col. Lind's opinion is available online. Have you even looked at it? If there's a quotation in it that supports your position let's see it. Otherwise -- BS. Nothing but pure, unadulterated BS.

[Mr Rogers]

If Joseph Stalin was elected to the Presidency by the majority of voters of the USA, IAW the Electoral College, and approved and accepted as such by Congress, and took an oath from the CJ of the Supreme Court,

and if he had gone to Congress and been given approval for combat operations, and Congress funded the costs of the war, then

yes, the orders that were given to carry that out would be lawful.

But your hypothetical is stupid.

[BigGuy22]

"yes, the orders that were given to carry that out would be lawful."
__

My point, however, is that nothing in Col. Lind's opinion speaks to that question. She was ruling only on orders that came from people other than the President, people with authority from Congress and in command positions over Lakin.

[Tau Food]

You seem to be getting unduly angry about this mess.

Let me propose to you a hypothetical in a separate field. Suppose that a young man named Joe Stalin applies to his state licensing agency to take the test to receive a physicians license. Suppose that the licensing board fails to discover that young Joe is lacking some required prerequisite to take the test and he then takes the test, passes the test and is given a license to practice medicine in the state.

Suppose that "Dr. Stalin" then begins practicing medicine in a large hospital and after performing a relatively routine surgery writes an order that the patient should be given an important medicine at 7:00 p.m. that evening. Nurse Penelope is assigned that patient that evening. Nurse Penelope once dated Dr. Stalin and she knows that Dr. Stalin did not have all of the proper prerequisites to take his licensing test. She thus concludes that Dr. Stalin should not have been permitted to take his licensing test, that Dr. Stalin should not have received a license and that Dr. Stalin is not her mind a real doctor. Accordingly, when she learns shortly before 7:00 p.m. that "Dr. Stalin" has been treating the patient, she refuses to provide the patient with the prescription medicine ordered by Dr. Stalin. The patient does not die, but becomes temporarily very sick because administration of the medicine was delayed until after Penelope finds her supervisor and tells her supervisor that she won't comply with Dr. Stalin's orders (because in her mind he isn't really a doctor) and the supervisor later finds someone else to administer the medicine.

The supervisor then reports this incident to hospital administrators, who fire poor Penelope for what the hospital deems to be "just cause" as described in the termination provisions of her employment contract. Penelope then sues the hospital, claiming that there was no "just cause" for her termination because she could not in good conscience behave as though Dr. Stalin's orders were the orders of a real, qualified treating physician.

You be the judge.

[Mr Rogers]

You are right. The military made a point of pressing charges that would keep the whole eligibility issue out of the question.

That wasn’t because the military was worried about LOSING on the legality of orders to deploy to combat, but because they didn’t want to give Lakin a microphone for him to spew nonsense over. Lakin was going to lose either way. The military chose an approach that robbed Lakin of what he & his idiot supporters wanted: a platform for their nonsense. It was an intelligent and effective move by the prosecutors.

The Democrats largely opposed the Korean War. There were folks then who wanted to avoid deploying based on it being an unconstitutional war. None of them received any sympathy. Nor should Lakin. It isn’t the military’s job to decide those issues. That belongs to Congress.

[BigGuy22]

“That wasn’t because the military was worried about LOSING on the legality of orders to deploy to combat, but because they didn’t want to give Lakin a microphone for him to spew nonsense over. Lakin was going to lose either way.”
__

Yes, I think that’s correct. And in Footnote 3, toward the end of her ruling, Col. Lind mentions in passing the de facto officer doctrine:

“The Court recognizes the existence of the de facto officer doctrine, recognized and described by the Supreme Court 111 Ryder v. U.S, 515 U.S 177 (1995). In light of the Court’s ruling that judicial review of the issues of whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is otherwise qualified under the Constitution to hold office is precluded by the political question doctrine, the Court declines to address the applicability of the de facto officer doctrine in this case.”

It’s interesting to me that she cites as her reason for not invoking it the political question doctrine. I might have expected her instead to depend on the fact that the orders didn’t come from the President. But I’m not the Chief Judge of the 1st Judicial Circuit, so I’m happy to defer to her understanding of the law.

[x]

Suppose that "Dr. Stalin" then begins practicing medicine in a large hospital and after performing a relatively routine surgery writes an order that the patient should be given an important medicine at 7:00 p.m. that evening.

Which one?

This guy?

Or this guy?

[Tau Food]

The one on the bottom looks a lot like Nurse Penelope. ;-)

[butterdezillion]

No, what would be equivalent is that the nurse follows orders for about 2 years while she asks for the medical community to check into the dr’s credentials. They refuse, saying that if he’s dispensing medicine he must already be a qualified doctor. So she refuses to dispense the prescriptions that this follower of the Hemlock Society prescribes, saying it violates the Hippocratic Oath that she took, to preserve life - in order to force somebody to examine whether this guy is from the Hemlock Society and only got his license through fraud, forgery, and perjury.

They fire her and throw her in jail because she didn’t follow orders, saying it wouldn’t matter if he got his license through fraud and was really a member of the Hemlock Society intending to kill his patients. Even if the nurse KNEW he was dispensing medicines with the intent to kill, his intentions/qualifications/crimes committed to get his license would be “irrelevant”. Her job is just to do as she is told; the Hippocratic Oath she took means nothing.

Now you be the judge.

[Tau Food]

Well, obviously, you've changed the facts considerably. Judges aren't permitted to make up new facts.

However, if I'm the judge and poor Penelope came to me with the story that you have forced upon her, I would order a preliminary mental examination for her.

And, until the licensing authority decides to pull Dr. Stalin's license, I would continue to treat him as he is - a licensed physician.