Army Calls ‘Birther’ Doc’s Bluff

Military.com ^ | April 9, 2010 | Bryant Jordan

[EveningStar]

It's guts ball time for an Army surgeon who has vowed not to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit unless President Obama provides evidence that he's a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

In response to previously published statements by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army presented an official letter of counseling that directs him to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., on April 12 to begin deployment preparations with his unit.

[LorenC]

But the "defendant" doesn't have to fight producing it either, it's optional. But he has fought it, and thus my comment about his being reluctant to produce it.

Which of the eligibility lawsuits would have ended if all Obama had done was produce a physical copy of his COLB to the defense?

If none, then what benefit would there have been to produce the COLB, if it wouldn't have ended the lawsuit?

[jamese777]

When a lawsuit is dismissed the judge(s) will often state the reason for the dismissal and a dismissal IS an adjudication. If someone sues YOU and the judge throws their lawsuit out before trial because of lack of standing, lack of evidence, a frivolous suit or for lack of jurisdiction, did you win?

In this instance the courts ruled that there were no grounds to challenge the awarding of Indiana’s Electoral votes to Obama.

I quote directly from the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States, natural-born citizens.”

[BP2]

Lakin addresses his letter to Obama:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
...
Dear Mr. President:

I could be wrong, but hasn’t he recognized Obama as President by addressing him as such?

Go with your first assumption ... YES, you are wrong.

First of all, Lakin is bound by the UCMJ, which actually gives him more protections than a civilian, but also restricts his civil liberties. As such, he does not want to be in violation of Article 88 (Contempt toward officials) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman).

Just because the CinC acts like a uncouth, immature, hoodlum Rat Bastard in a suit, it doesn't mean Lt Col Lakin should follow his lead:

Second of all, to remain above the fray, it is wise for him to let his attorney use phrases like "de facto" in the courtroom or in front of TV cameras, not Lt Col Lakin in a public letter. Again, this is all standard ROE for a military trial, especially one that will eventually find its way into the Federal Court system.

Lt Col Lakin has not "incriminated himself" as jamese777 falsely portrays — jamese's obviously watched too much Cop Rock and Night Court in his teenage years. LOL

The last paragraph of Lt Col Lakin's letter says it all (emphasis added):

"Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders."

[jamese777]

I think I’ll just wait and see what actually happens in the real world with Colonel Lakin.

[edge919]

Moving the goalposts. All of the available evidence says that your two statements are incorrect. You have no evidence to support their accuracy or factual validity. The lack of supporting evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence is a strong showing that you're wrong.

I moved no goalposts. The only person lacking evidence is Obama at proving he was born in Hawaii. So far there is none.

Unless you want to claim that the author is lying about where he got "Indonesia" from, and advance some plausible hypothesis as to why he would lie, it seems the only reason you don't believe him is because his confession does not sync with your preexisting hypothesis.

Find his source for his claim that he read somewhere on the Interent that Obama was born in Indonesia.

Because there are no references in that article to instances where Obama reported having been born in any hospital other than Kapiolani. ZERO.

Friend, you need to do a better job of reading. “Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii …” That is a direct attribution. I remember this article being online before it was 'corrected.' Sorry to destroy your faith in Obama.

[BP2]

If none, then what benefit would there have been to produce the COLB, if it wouldn’t have ended the lawsuit?

Again, my FRiend, it just opens up the can of worms once prima facie is introduced in front of a judge.

You and the After-Birthers are working DAMN HARD this weekend to minimalize a case which has (per your assertions) NO chance of winning and will NEVER go anywhere. There are MILLIONS of things to blog about this weekend ... and yet here you are, seemingly wasting your time, conversing with "crazy people" (the name- calling doesn't seem to work anymore either, does it?)

Yeah ... you should be concerned.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,”
a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” - Judge John W. Guendelsberger, appointed by Barack Obama to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), referencing US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Minor v. Happersett (1874), in turn.

[jamese777]

I moved no goalposts. The only person lacking evidence is Obama at proving he was born in Hawaii. So far there is none.

---

But in America, no one has to prove their innocence. Under our system of laws, others have to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.
No one has come anywhere near close to doing that and there have been ZERO investigations or indictments for forgery, tampering or fraud.

[BP2]

I think I’ll just wait and see what actually happens in the real world with Colonel Lakin.

Why wait. It's happening now. Real-time.

You're just pissed because your attempts to slime and intimated him and other officers who will follow his lead isn't working.

[jamese777]

What’s happening now? Has he been court-martialed? Has he been reassigned? Has he been placed on administrative leave? Has Obama invited him over to the White House for a beer and a look at his COLB?

Colonel Lakin isn’t the first member of the military to try this approach, to the best of my knowledge, he’s the fourth: Lieutenant Scott Easterling, Major Stefan Cook, and Captain Connie Rhodes have preceded him.

The rest of your drivel is too ignorant to waste comment on.

[William Tell]

verity said: "As I said you have no idea what you are talking about. "

I'll ask you again: Would you be among the soldiers firing on the Militia attempting to enforce a Supreme Court order?

[LorenC]

I moved no goalposts. The only person lacking evidence is Obama at proving he was born in Hawaii. So far there is none.

Non-sequitur. The immediate concern was whether Tammy Duckworth ever claimed Obama was born in Indonesia; all available evidence suggests she never did. But rather than addressing this matter, you have attempted to change the subject to the larger issue of Obama proving he was born in Hawaii.

Find his source for his claim that he read somewhere on the Interent that Obama was born in Indonesia.

Moving the goalposts. The article does not state that Tammy Duckworth herself claimed Obama was born in Indonesia, and has never stated such. The article's author is on record as saying that he did not obtain such information from Tammy Duckworth. Demanding even further evidence, namely the specific single website that the author looked at over four years ago, is an irrationally high standard of proof.

Friend, you need to do a better job of reading. “Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii …” That is a direct attribution. I remember this article being online before it was 'corrected.'

Factual error. There is no direct attribution. The UPI article you're referring to does not identify what speech Obama supposedly made such a statement, nor does it quote him saying such, nor has anyone ever managed to produce any speech where Obama made such a quote. The article was corrected because the UPI's statement was an error.

If you can produce the referenced speech where Obama made such a claim, then I welcome you to do so. But like I said, no one has ever been able to identify this supposed speech or quote.

[LorenC]

Again, my FRiend, it just opens up the can of worms once prima facie is introduced in front of a judge.

Non-sequitur. Rather than answer the question, or admit straightforwardly that NO case would have been resolved through the production of the COLB, you've diverted the subject. Frankly, you've implicitly admitted that Obama would only be put through *additional* trouble by producing the COLB.

You and the After-Birthers are working DAMN HARD this weekend to minimalize a case which has (per your assertions) NO chance of winning and will NEVER go anywhere. There are MILLIONS of things to blog about this weekend ... and yet here you are, seemingly wasting your time,

Ad hominem. Rather than respond to the factual errors and logical fallacies I've pointed out, you've attacked me personally.

conversing with "crazy people" (the name- calling doesn't seem to work anymore either, does it?)

Factual error and ad hominem. I haven't engaged in any such name-calling. Specifically, despite your use of quotation marks around "crazy people," I don't believe I've called anyone crazy in any comments here. If I have and have forgotten, please point it out. If you cannot, then I ask that you not attribute any false quotations to me.

[bvw]

Repeat: There was NO trial, no presentation of evidence under subpoena and cross of witnesses. The case was dismissed. The ‘appeal’ only affirmed the dismissal.

The whole cite of the Wong Kim Ark case is spurious, as well — Judicial hubris, as that understanding of the cite in the context of Obama’s legitimacy was not allowed to be counter-argued.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Your response doesn’t answer the basic question. Are you arguing that any soldier can, at any time, refuse to deploy, pending a court hearing on whether there is a reason why the President isn’t really the President?

You might respond “only when we know there is a real question”, but in the legal community, we don’t know what is a real question and what is not, until the court actually hears an argument and makes a ruling. At this point, the argument that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.A. is no more serious an argument than the argument that he isn’t really old enough, or that he didn’t live here long enough, or that he renounced his citizenship, or that he didn’t really win the election. All those arguments could be put forth, and a court would have to make some ruling.

My argument is that, in the meantime, All the evidence is that Obama IS the President. He was in the election, he was certified in 50 states, he received popular votes which gave him electoral votes. The electoral college voted, and certified Obama the winner. The results were sent to congress, and a duly elected congress ratified the election results. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ratified the elections by swearing in the President.

It’s not a “presumption of innocence”, it is a series of steps laid out in the constitution that have been met, and the judgment of both the legislative and judicial branches.

It is now on the opposition to show that these steps were taken in error. But we can’t have our soldiers refusing to obey the lawful orders of their commanding officers simply because they believe that, if a court case was held, Obama would be ruled ineligible for the Presidency.

Because if that were so, any soldier could do that at ANY time for ANY reason; For example, at the time we deployed to Afghanistan, nobody had really sued in court to force Bush to prove he was eligible for the Presidency.

[Reily]

To all

I don't think going to court military or civilian will work.
The place to do this is at the states, pass legislation requiring candidates to be a “open book” before granting ballot access. Basically require him/her to lay out all the documents created by ones life. Birth certificate, school and college records, passport files, military service records, its the most important job in the land its not unreasonable for the person to properly vetted. If the candidate objects, too bad run for something else! The states control this process that's where the energy should be placed. If Zero truly has no problems then no one should object to this! Anyone want to bet the Demo-Rats will scream bloody murder over this!

[William Tell]

CharlesWayneCT said: "Because if that were so, any soldier could do that at ANY time for ANY reason; For example, at the time we deployed to Afghanistan, nobody had really sued in court to force Bush to prove he was eligible for the Presidency."

I am not suggesting that any soldier get a free ride. If the court-martial finds that the soldier disobeyed a lawful order, then punishment is justified. The question is whether any court along the way will consider that the truth of the soldiers assertion is key to the decision to punish him.

If the Supreme Court of the United States will permit a soldier to languish in prison without examining the possibility that the soldier is correct, then the clause in the Constitution which mandates eligibility is worthless. Prior Supreme Courts have already decided that that is not so.

My recollection is that a certain Private New challenged the military's decision to require him to wear UN insignia on his U.S. military uniform. I think he lost at the Supreme Court level, meaning that the military can require our soldiers to wear French clown suits if that is what those in authority wish.

The Supreme Court could just as easily have ruled that the sovereignty of the U.S. cannot be surrendered by having our military appear to be loyal to anything other than the Constitution of the U.S. But Private New did get his day in court.

[Non-Sequitur]

Who qualified him?

The Electoral College when they awarded him the 365 electoral votes he won in the November election and the Senate when they certified the results.

But I was speaking of the hypothetical case where a person was elected and took office, but then was found to not be eligible.

In the case of the presidency, that person is impeached and removed from office, and the vice-president becomes president.

[edge919]

But in America, no one has to prove their innocence.

This isn't about guilt and innocence, but presidential eligibility, which is what Obama has failed to prove. If he's ineligible, he doesn't get put in jail.

[edge919]

Non-sequitur. The immediate concern was whether Tammy Duckworth ever claimed Obama was born in Indonesia; all available evidence suggests she never did.

That's not true. The original evidence suggests she did. The only reason this was changed was because skeptics found the story in trying to research Obama's backstory. This wasn't an error caught by the reporter nor was caught by the paper's editor nor was it caught by Tammy Duckworth and immediately corrected. And as I told you, the reporter's excuse doesn't wash.

But rather than addressing this matter, you have attempted to change the subject to the larger issue of Obama proving he was born in Hawaii.

I didn't change the subject. I told you that the Duckworth correction and Obama's claim of being born in two hospitals was never proven to be 'incorrect.' You're certainly trying to revise the story. Bad form, Mr. Rogers.

Moving the goalposts. The article does not state that Tammy Duckworth herself claimed Obama was born in Indonesia, and has never stated such. The article's author is on record as saying that he did not obtain such information from Tammy Duckworth. Demanding even further evidence, namely the specific single website that the author looked at over four years ago, is an irrationally high standard of proof.

This is how it was written:

"Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai'i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have "a kama'aina connection.

"Both were born outside the country - Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand - and graduated from high school in Honolulu - Punahou and McKinley, respectively."

The reporter says that Duckworth pointed out a connection between the two of them and then followed with what the connection was. Why would he go hunt the Internet to find connections?? That excuse makes no sense. And of course, there's nothing on the Internet outside of this story to claim Obama was born in Indonesia. Maybe she said Obama grew up in Indonesia and the reporter misunderstood her to say Obama was born there. That correction might have made sense. The excuse the reporter offers instead does not. More pathological lies.

There is no direct attribution.

Dude. You are wrong. "Obama described ..." You can't be more direct than that. Just admit you were wrong. The only reason this was 'corrected' was because this was discovered by skeptics who found yet another massive hole in Obama's backstory. These kinds of mismatching details are symptomatic of a pathological liar, except he got elected and now has the clout to go back and tell others they misquoted him or made factual errors and gullible faithers drink it up like a fresh batch of kool-aid.

[BP2]

> Non-sequitur ... Ad hominem ... Factual error and ad hominem ...

If you had paid half the attention in college Poli Sci and Written and Oral Advocacy as you did in Bull Moose Middle School Debate class, we wouldn't be having this conversation. LOL.

> you've implicitly admitted that Obama would only be put through *additional* trouble by producing the COLB.

Please tell me, what “trouble” has Obama incurred in producing ANY COLB? HE NEVER HAS PRODUCED IT.

Your argumentum ad antiquitatem seems to be that a candidate in doubt need not show his so-called birth certificate in court once he's POTUS because NO OTHER president has had to do so. You KNOW the DNC attorneys before the election referenced the online Certification at FactCheck in their court responses. An argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum does not an Eligible President make, and yet that's EXACTLY what happened!

Your reliance on the Certification is a factitious post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. You KNOW the Hawaii Certification is an abbreviated Abstract of the original Birth Certificate, missing more than HALF the data fields of the original certificate, particularly the attending physician, physical location of birth, Registrar Date of ACCEPTANCE, etc.

I can give you DOZENS of ways Hawaii §338 can be abused and loopholed by someone who wished to do so, including sealing original birth records by way of an Adoption via the Hawaii Family Court. I can also provide you with HUNDREDS of examples of criminals who have gone to underground sources to acquire FAKE birth certificates. Your BLIND FAITH in Obama, who has proven his ability to DECEIVE over and over again, is shocking and shows you are utterly disconnected with the real world where illegal aliens, child smugglers and Welfare moochers can acquire a FAKE birth certificate for just a few hundred dollars.

The parents of children entering kindergarten ALL across the nation next year are being asked to produce a copy of their child's ORIGINAL birth certificate, not an abbreviated Abstract. So is Lt Col Lakin. The same level of proof should at least appear in a court room to once-and-for-all Legitimize the ONE man who rules the Executive branch of government.

> I haven't engaged in any such name-calling.

Excuse my dicto simpliciter generalization ... although YOU may not have called anyone names in this thread, it is the norm for Obama supporters who come in here disguising themselves as Conservatives.

However — and please answer this, and without the dodge once again: WHY do you waste your time on a case that your side believes will GO NOWHERE?

The Department of Defense, Justice Department & US Attorneys Office ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE of fighting off this so-called ridiculous and hopeless case. And yet, here you are ... wasting your precious time blogging about it.

Why?