Posted on 03/31/2010 9:00:21 AM PDT by americanpatriotfoundation
DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. “I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president’s eligibility under the constitution to hold office”, said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only “natural born” citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama’s continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin’s efforts to seek affirmation of the president’s eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration’s “transparency” initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey’s pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon’s Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
Exactly. Thanks. It’s just for the record.
Daddy O was NOT a US citizen at the time of baby’s birth and never became a citizen. He got his education here and went back to his country and his Kenyan wife and children.
Pretty much all the birther "facts" are nothing more than fabrications that have been repeated over and over again on the internet so often they take on an appearance of truth.
The '81 Pakistan travel ban...
Mayo Soetoro's Hawaiian BC...
The "I'm not running for President" exchange between Obama and Keyes...
The list goes on and on. When asked, nobody can find the original source. They just give the same answer you did, "It's all over the net! It must be true!"
The Barry and Alan thing was nixed right from the start by a freeper in the know. I haven’t heard it in a while until you brought it up. And the Paki travel one, also. Have no idea what that Mayo thing is about, never saw it before. Your claims are weak but you seem to be pushing it.
I don’t have your source for comparison, but in the past people have linked to a story about records obtained from Occidental that is now acknowledged to be false.
it was an april fools joke since found to be untrue...
Please show me where that is the law. I have never ever read that before. It used to be that in the year that he was born that the father had to be a US Citizen to be considered naturally born, but that law has since changed.
i apologize.
i always check out something like this which i did and i had multiple sources) before posting esp when it comes to the bc issue.
Sounds like you’re wondering about Lt. Col. Lakin’s motives.
Anyone in his position (who’s also paying attention) is faced with a difficult choice between 1) having to submit to his commanders no matter what, and 2) the possibility of issuing illegal orders.
Those with the highest sense of morals and an understanding of basic constitutional principles will find greater weight with #2.
Those who are more likely to follow the crowd and act according to blind faith in their leaders will more likely choose #1.
I would say Lt. Col. Lakin is a man of particularly strong character, with an extremely high sense of morals who possibly also has a strong independent streak.
Wow! Talk about putting it all on the line for principle and patriotism! May he find equally impressive representation and counsel. He’s going to need it! The sooner they find out where all the smoke is coming from the better for all of us. Got to be a fire somewhere.
I agree with your assessment.
A comment from http://back-spin.blogspot.com/2010/03/could-david-headley-have-become.html
Anonymous said...
YOu asked: “Is that really what the founders wanted? “
They wanted the voters to have the choice. They also allowed the voters to vote for criminals and Tories (Remember the Tories? They were the Americans who fought against the Revolution. Yet there is no mention of them not being eligible.)
So, what you are asking is whether the child of illegal aliens is worse than a criminal. Or, if not, why are criminals eligible and the children of illegal aliens not eligible?
The fact is that the writers of the Constitution believed that a person born on US soil became different from people born elsewhere. That is why Naturalized citizens are not allowed to become president. But all citizens at birth, especially all who were born in the USA are eligible.
That does not mean we have to vote for them, of course. So, you have every right to vote against the child of an illegal alien. But that does not mean that she or he should not be eligible, and there is certainly no evidence that the writers of the Constitution thought that such a person should not be eligible.
Courts have already ruled that the children of two non-US citizens and the children of illegal aliens are Natural Born Citizens.
For example:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Is this the intent of the founders?
YES. Here is what Madison says about it:
In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, Madison said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
There is only one criterion of allegiance, he says, and that is the place of birth. He does not say that you have to have two US parents to be loyal, or that the citizenship of the parents affects loyalty. He says that the only criterion is the place of birth.c
Contrary to what some allege, Perkins v. Elg very clearly states that native and natural born are the same:
See http://openjurist.org/307/us/325/perkins-v-elg-elg
(Excerpt from SCOTUS decision):
‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; ...”
and
(Excerpt from SCOTUS decision):
“First.—On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case—that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States—the Court adverted to the ‘inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, 169 U.S. page 668, 18 S.Ct. page 164, 42 L.Ed. 890. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.1 And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, at citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.”
Read the whole decision at the URL above.
You're citing case law to people who view this not as a matter of fact, but as an article of faith. It's futile. They will believe what they wish to believe, and any volume of unimpeachable and incontrovertible fact will be dismissed as "trolling" or subterfuge.
When people would rather base their positions on hearsay, supposition and urban legend, facts become irrelevant, as does anything that impedes their political narrative they cling so tightly to.
Yet they cite cases as if they supported their views, when they clearly don’t. But there might be a few that remain open to reason. Isn’t that why you’re still here?
Amen to that!
If Madison thought birth place alone was the sole criterion of citizenship why would the framers have gone to the trouble of mentioning natural born citizen in the Constitution and differentiated it from, “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution.”? Why would Chester A. Arthur have lied continuously about the circumstances of his birth?
I’ll research the cases you mention but it would seem to me that declaring the children of non-citizen immigrants native born citizens allows for dual allegiance or worse. Certainly the framers thought of that, worried as they were of foreign, especially an aristocratic one, influence on the newly minted country.
The question of place of birth and duel citizenship are red herrings in all this. Obama’s father was a British citizen and that prevents Obama from being a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen does not mean he was born here but that both his parents were citizens and he was born in the US or born somewhere else where one or both of his parents served in the military or for the consular service. The definition of a natural born citizen was taken by the writers of the constitution from,The Law of Nations, a book Benjamin Franklin read and gave to fellow framers. British common law defined native citizens as anyone born anywhere to a British citizen, which we fought a war over when the impressment of our citizen sailors by the British Navy led to the War of 1812. Unless statute law has changed Obama has never been qualified to hold the office. Neither was Chester A Arthur, whose father was a Canadian or Irish citizen but definitely not American at the time of Arthur’s birth. Any lawyers out there who can comment on the statute law regarding this, if it has changed, are welcomed to.
If Madison thought birth place alone was the sole criterion of citizenship why would the framers have gone to the trouble of mentioning natural born citizen in the Constitution and differentiated it from, “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution.”? Why would Chester A. Arthur have lied continuously about the circumstances of his birth?
I'm not going to disagree with that, he would have to be fairly independant to get to the LCol rank in the first place, and being personally troubled by thinking his president may not be legitimate I can see how that would give him pause and make him consider if hes doing the right thing following orders.
That said, the law is fairly clear on what orders a military member is required to follow (more or less all of them) and which he's not (outright murder, violating Geneva Conventions, commiting war crimes, etc). To my knowledge this doc hasn't recieved orders that would place him at odds with the UCMJ or international law.
When soldiers start not following orders and go their own way the whole system breaks down, people start dying. The fact he's a doctor and not on the front lines patroling with the men doesn't excuse him of that. Being a junior officer myself, for a superior one to break out and go his own way is distrubing. If it was one of my own men that did that he'd be charged and in the brig before my Sgt finished putting his boot up his @ss.
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.