Posted on 03/31/2010 4:22:43 AM PDT by captjanaway
A decorated active duty Army medical officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin (selected for promotion to Colonel), is calling upon his chain of command and his Congressional delegation to force President Obama to release his original birth certificate. He is the highest ranking officer to go public over this controversy and in late February, was notified that he is subject to near-term deployment to Afghanistan.
His military orders include a requirement that he provide "copies of his birth certificate." LTC Lakin is prepared to provide a certified copy of his certification of vital record that lists his birth hospital, physician's name and other key information. He has provided this document for many other required processes, such as his commissioning into the military as an officer, and his marriage license.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
The only paper he can provide from Hawaii is a BC that says it was amended/completed sometime in 2006; And it will say what the amendment is - an amendment to the medical portion of the BC, which will reveal that he was not born in a hospital and that neither he nor his mother saw a doctor in Hawaii within a month of his birth. The BC itself doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence so it would have actually less legal weight than either of the Kenyan BC’s.
We know this because of official responses given by the Hawaii Department of Health.
See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Woops on you.
I spent 5 years as an active duty combat arms commissioned officer, and then another 4 years as an active duty JAG prosecutor (and another 4 years in school at West Point).
The “approved solution” when an unlawful order is issued is to respectfully:
explain to your chain of command that you believe the order is unlawful,
explain to your chain of command why you believe so, and
explain to your chain of command that you refuse to follow it on the grounds that you believe it is an unlawful order.
My parents have to provide a birth certificate for me to play little league baseball.
Could you look in over at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2484275/posts?page=39#39 (starting at post 39, if this doesn’t take you there directly) and respond regarding the legal requirements for both enlisted and officers? I’d like to get a better understanding of this. Thanks for any help you can offer.
THis is good planning on his part.
And BTW, I know LTC (P) Lakin
And this is exactly what he intended to do.
a big finger in Obama’s eye
because he swore an oath to support and defend the Constiutution of the United states.
Against All enemies - foreign or domestic.
No officer ever swore an oath to support any individual.
We need a Sparticus moment in the military. What would Obama do if a huge block of the military demanded the same thing?
SEIU and ACORN ain’t nothing compared to a united military determined to defend the Constitution.
I guess the issue is whether lawful commands can be given by somebody who’s taken the oath to be Commander-in-Chief but has committed forgery in order to make it appear that he is eligible for the position.
The CIC is a civilian position, right? What protocols are in place for the military’s chain of command if the CIC is guilty of crimes - including the crime of falsely swearing he is eligible to be the CIC? If a grunt was found guilty of crimes the military would have to hold them accountable, right? Is the only person in the chain of command who doesn’t get similar scrutiny and accountability the one who holds the nuclear football?
If so it seems incredibly backwards to me.
> well, refusing to obey orders can potentially carry prison
> time, and not the good cvillian prison either, military prison.
It hasn’t happened in other cases, it’s not going to happen with this one, either.
Rachet up the intimidation, Obots — he’s ready and willing and will NOT flinch.
The more sh!t you throw, the more publicity this will get and
then we get to talk about Obama’s father’s Citizenship and the Framers’
definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” instead of focusing the Birth Certificate.
His career is fine and any threats of yanking his
Retirement is not a concern since he and other military
retirees are NOW realizing they will suffer the same fate as
those who have laughably believed in a Social Security “lockbox.”
He’s documented his concerns. Now he’s acting on them.
Correct. The term “G.I” means Government Issue. That along with all the rules they drill into you during boot camp and afterward, mean you don’t question orders unless it is a serious matter. The BC issue is not a military matter, it is a civilian matter. Not saying it is not important, but this guy is toast if he keeps running his mouth.
My brother was three times a PFC in the US Army ... retired as a Lt Col. Airborne Infantry ...
What’s the proper protocol for the military to get rid of enemies within the chain of command?
Let’s suppose that Nidal Hasan was promoted to be in the chain of command and was committing treason against the US. Is there anything that the people under his command could actually do to keep their vow to defend America and the Constitution against people like Hasan?
This isn’t just a baloney issue. We’ve seen that enemies have figured out they can infiltrate our military and get promoted because of political correctness. What is our protection against this happening at all levels of the chain of command?
How do we know the enemy hasn’t infiltrated the White House? He’s already perjured himself to say he was eligible to be there, and committed forgery to make it seem like Hawaii confirms his eligibility, when in fact the Hawaii DOH has indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and the best they have for him doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence.
That sounds to me like somebody who knew he wasn’t eligible and committed at least 2 crimes in order to violate the US Constitution. I’d call that an enemy of this nation. What do you think?
Documentation for my claims is at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Video of LTC Larkin.
Good point there.
May 12, 2009 Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal FascistBy Kyle-Anne Shiver
“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.” - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims. Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic. Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will. Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war
. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.” Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176) Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.
****************************************
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
When it breaks into the public venue as a genuine issue, then all hell will break loose.
It will be a fall election issue.
Yep, been busted a couple times myself when I was a young phart. Woulda had a hell of a retirement if I woulda just kept my mouth shut..
That’s not me.....If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Don’t care whom it is or what the rank or office. Finally finished E7 with dignity :)
The dems running in the fall election will have to come out on record as being either for it or against it and Obama’s political cover on hiding it will evaporate.
Yes , that is a fact, But watch for the FBIs network of Muslim Agents to be activated.Its already started unfortunately in Michigan. What that incident has proven is thatthere is an FBI within the FBI, and their job is to walk hand in hand with the Obama propaganda machine, this is what the fight was about between DHS and the FBI we read about several months ago.
The FBI lost, now it is a bifircated agency with an Obama nazi section, largely run by American Muslim agents and Democrat agents who are in close contact with DHS. So far patriotic FBI agents have intervened enough to keep them from creating a WACO II blood bath.
It will not be easy because between Acorn and tyhe politics of created crisis, the issues for the election will be fuzzy.
I’m glad to hear that you stuck it out to and came out at the E-7 level.
My brother was busted by his self. WW-II PFC to E-6, Late forties, OCS as a PFC on his way up to Captain; where he came out for a divorce and custody battle. Then back to PFC (no slots for captains) for about a year, and then back to Captain and on to Lt. Col. Two full combat tours in Vietnam ... three Bronze Stars ... Now at Arlington (They gave him one hell of a sendoff). A good man.
.
The military swear an oath to support and defend the Constiutution of the United States against ALL ENEMIES both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC!!
BO falls into BOTH categories, IMHO.
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.