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.

[mojitojoe]

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.
______________
I wonder if he had a straight face when he said he doesn’t engage in name calling. Now that’s just funny as hell. I can show you about 200 or more posts where he has called FReepers names and he does it practically on daily basis. He fights with someone every single day. He comes to FR to name call and fight. His past posting history is there for all to see.

[jamese777]

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.

---

You’re absolutely right, Ankeny et. al. was just another in the long list of eligibility lawsuits dismissed without trial by courts across the nation. But the Indiana Judges did take the time to provide guidance to other courts as to the rationale for their decision to dismiss.

As for the use of “Wong Kim Ark v US,” the Indiana Supreme Court, just last week refused to hear this case on appeal so the Indiana Court of Appeals’ use of that citation stands.

“The defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
—Albert Einstein

Obama Eligibility Lawsuits and their current status
Allen v. Soetoro
Freedom Of Information Act Arizona District: Pending

Ankeny v. Daniels (and McCain) Indiana State & Indiana Court of Appeals: Dismissed

Barnett v Obama
formerly Keyes v Obama et al Fed CA Central: Filed

Berg v. Obama et al Fed PA Eastern: Dismissed
3rd Circuit Appeals Appealed Brief FEC
Hearing 26-Oct-2009
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied Hearing

Berg v. Obama Fed DC District: Dismissed

Brockhausen v. Andrade Texas State: Dismissed

Broe v. Reed Washington State Supreme: Dismissed

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et. al., Missouri US District Court, Western District: Dismissed

Cohen v. Obama DC Federal District Court: Dismissed

Connerat v. Browning, Florida State Court: Dismissed

Connerat v. Obama FL Small Claims: Dismissed

Cook v. Good et al GA Middle: Dismissed

Cook v. Simtech FL Middle: Dismissed

Craig v. US, US District Court, Oklahoma Western District
Judgment in favor of defendant
Dismissal Affirmed
SCOTUS Writ Denied 29-Sep-2009

Dawson v. Obama California Eastern District: Dismissed

Donofrio v Wells
NJ State Dismissed
NJ Supreme Court Denied
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied hearing

Ealey v. Obama TX Houston: Dismissed

Essek v. Obama KY Eastern: Dismissed

Gopalan v Obama III et. al CA Southern: Dismissed

Greenberg v. Brunner: Dismissed

Hamblin v Obama/McCain Arizona District: Dismissed Complaint
Case Dismissed.

Herbert v. Obama et al Fed FL Middle: Dismissed

Hollister v. Soetoro Fed DC: Dismissed
Appealed Schedule 26-Oct-2009

Hunter v. Obama, Texas Northern District: Dismissed

Judy v. McCain: Dismissed

Kerchner et al v. Obama et al
1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Fed NJ
Filed
Motion to Dismiss
Answer
Nunc Pro Tunc – 38 17-Aug-2009

Keyes v. Bowen Superior Court of CA: Dismissed Petition
CA Court of Appeals: Appealed

Keyes v. Lingle, Hawaii State: Dismissed

Lightfoot v. Bowen
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied hearing

Marquis v. Reed, Washington State: Dismissed

Martin v Lingle HI State: Dismissed
29643 HI State: Appeal Dismissed

Morrow v. Barak Humane Obama Fed FL Miami: Dismissed

Neal v. Brunner, Ohio State Courts: Dismissed

Neely v. Obama Fed MI: Dismissed

Patriot Heart’s Network v Soetoro, DC: Denied hearing

Rhodes v. Gates TX West: Denied
Rhodes v. MacDonald GA Middle: Denied Rehearing

Roy v. Obama Fed District Court HI: Dismissed

Schneller v. Cortes
PA Supreme Court: Denied
Supreme Court of the United States; Dismissed

Stamper v. US: Dismissed

Strunk Fed NY Eastern: Dismissed
Strunk 2nd Circuit: Denied
Strunk v U.S. Department of State
FOIA Fed District of Columbia
Filed, Discovery staid; 09-5322 DC Circuit: Appealed

Sullivan v. Marshall, NY State: Dismissed

Taitz v Obama, DC Federal District, Motion to Dismiss

Thomas v. Hosemann Fed Dist Hawaii: Dismissed

Terry v. Handel, Georgia State Courts: Denied hearing

Welch v. Mukasey et al NY Northern District: Dismissed

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz CT State: Dismissed

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz
Supreme Court Of The United States: Denied hearing

[BP2]

You’re absolutely right, Ankeny et. al. was just another in the long list of eligibility lawsuits dismissed without trial by courts across the nation.

Well then jamese, you're obviously wasting your time here too ... just like Loren.

Again, the Department of Defense, Justice Department & US Attorneys Office ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE of fighting off this so-called ridiculous and hopeless case ... right??!

[El Gato]

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

Impeached on what grounds, the choices are limited to:

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

Which one of those is "not eligible"?

[LorenC]

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.

Or it was changed because once an error was brought to the newspaper's attention, they corrected it. Like newspapers are wont to do.

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.

Of course it wasn't caught by the reporter; he made the error and has confessed to the same. There's no reason to believe that Tammy Duckworth knows where Obama was born, and there's little reason to think that the editor would have fact-checked the passing reference to Obama in an article about Duckworth. Such minor errors are the exact reason why newspapers HAVE corrections sections. Reporters and editors make mistakes; secret cover-ups need not be invoked.

And as I told you, the reporter's excuse doesn't wash.

But you have failed to provide any valid reason WHY it doesn't wash, apart from your own subjective belief that he's lying.

You're certainly trying to revise the story. Bad form, Mr. Rogers.

I believe you're confusing me with someone else. Someone named, I presume, Mr. Rogers.

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??

Because that's what reporters do? Incidentally, "kama'aina" means someone who was born in Hawaii or has lived there for a long time. The word has no association whatsoever with foreign birth.

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.

Now there you have a possible explanation, and not just saying you don't believe it. I'd propose that the author could have similarly misread an online reference to Obama's youth in Indonesia. Either way, it explains how the mistake was made without resorting to broader accusations. It also fits nicely with the other flaw in the author's explanation, namely that since there was no controversy over Obama's birthplace prior to 2008, there would not have been any opposition websites with such information in 2006.

So we're presented with at least three explanations for the author's reference. One, Tammy Duckworth claimed that her elementary school classmate was born in Indonesia. Considering that Duckworth is SEVEN YEARS YOUNGER than Obama means that he was in middle school by the time she started kindergarten. And you want to believe they met and discussed birthplaces? They weren't classmates or friends. And as the article notes, Duckworth went to a different high school.

Two, that the author got the reference to Indonesia online, either from an unreliable source or through misinterpretation of a source. And that when he says he got the reference online, that's what he remembers about his source for a single tangential sentence in a three-year-old article.

Dude. You are wrong. "Obama described ..." You can't be more direct than that.

Yes, you can. You can say what speech it supposedly came from. The article doesn't. You can quote the actual text that was spoken. The article doesn't. Whatever speech is being cited presumably happened circa election day, when every speech Obama gave was videotaped and broadcast. And you haven't seen any video of this supposed statement, have you? Sure, you can start resorting to allegations of widespread media coverups, but realize that claiming that every news video, ever home video, every cell phone video, and every news report quoting the supposed 'confession' is quite the logical leap. That's quite the elaborate explanation compared to: UPI made a mistake, and eventually corrected it.

What the article DOES do is paraphrase something Obama supposedly said in some unidentified speech. The way the paraphrase is presented, and given UPI's readiness to correct its mistake, the most ready explanation is that Obama referred to his birth hospital without naming it, and the unbylined writer added the specificity of Queens as detail. Again, no conspiracies or cover-ups are necessary.

The only reason this was 'corrected' was because this was discovered by skeptics who found yet another massive hole in Obama's backstory.

Or, it was corrected when the UPI editor looked back at whatever speech the article is about, and found that there was never a reference to Queens in the speech.

[El Gato]

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

All the ones that allege a foreign birth. Which is probably the majority. Only the ones which are on the basis that someone with a foreign national father can not be a Natural Born Citizen, would remain.

Assuming of course that the BC doesn't show a foreign birth, and does not have indications of possible fraud.. such as claiming a home birth, or having a different file number than the COLB posted by the campaign (according to the current Press Secretary).

[El Gato]

If he's ineligible, he doesn't get put in jail.

Not for being ineligible. For fraud, perhaps.

For any treason he's committed or will commit before such time as he's removed, definitely, at least jail.

[Tucson Jim]

Follow the money! Why would anyone spend the money to defend a stance when the production of a valid Birth Certificate would save such money?

[lucysmom]

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).

I see, Lakin addresses his letter to Obama, as the President, because he doesn't want to be guilty of contempt toward officials and then writes:

"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."

So Lakin takes care to show Obama proper respect due a lawful President of the United States so as not to run afoul of the UCMJ, and then announces his intention to not obey any orders until Obama proves to him that he is, indeed, the President and due the respect he takes care to show.

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.

Obama IS the president until he is not the president. Until he is proven to not be eligible for the office he holds, his orders are legal, Lakin is obligated to follow them.

[Bikkuri]

Wow, I was just wondering (Thanks to Mr. Rogers) if he was still around doing PBS shows.. You answered that question for me ;)

RIP Mr. Rogers..
Bikk

(Being overseas has it’s drawbacks >.<)

[Red Steel]

Let's assume that's true for a moment:

1) Are you under the impression that during the past two centuries, Presidential candidates have ever had to show that they did not have any foreign citizenships at birth, or having to swear that they were not born with any dual citizenships? Because I'm unaware of any such test or requirement having ever been applied by election officials.

Not one US president has ever had legal challenges against them for being ineligible for office except for Obama. The natural born linage was unquestionable for all of them except for Chester Arthur who successfully hid his from the public until he was out of presidential office.

2) If having a foreign country grant an automatic citizenship at birth is an absolute disqualification, going forward, how do you propose that future Presidential candidates should demonstrate that no foreign country granted them any such automatic citizenship at birth?

We can start with the states asking for his US birth certificates for starters before they are put on their respective state ballots. From there, one could see if their parents were citizens of the United States at the time of the candidates' birth date.

Damning evidence is mounting against Obama. Evidence that he was never born in the United States. As the Kenyan Minister for Lands, Mr. Erengo stated on March 25, 2010 as a matter of fact in front of the Kenyan Parliament:

"If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion."

No one corrected Minister Erengo about his statement that Obama was born in Kenya and is not a native American - no one did. It doesn't look good for the Obots as the drip, drip, and more drip of evidence as it continues before the Obama Administration implodes from all the lies.

[Bikkuri]

Not only are your comments informative and well-researched, but you make it easy for non-legal minds to get a grasp, and humor is always welcome in these dark days.

---

Well said, and seconded :)


Bikk

[little jeremiah]

Last I checked, they were pretty much leaving that thread alone. For some odd reason; yet they’re bunched up over here.

[Red Steel]

They get taken to the logical and truthful woodshed every where they go. :-)

[EDINVA]

These arguments about the form of the Col’s letter are incredibly silly. Using a proper salutation or showing respect is an ‘admission against interest?’

Have you never noticed Members of Congress and Senators referring to each other as “the honorable Gentleman/woman from xyz?” Civility/manners/etiquette/decorum/hypocrisy, call it what you may, but the language of the Col’s letter doesn’t fall into any category of admission.

[little jeremiah]

A few have done major duty today. I wonder if they have a clue how many people just skip over their repetitive crap and savor the replies that take their lame and already disproved “arguments” apart.

Maybe the others are nursing their bruises.

[bushpilot1]

What are the differences between the following:

1. citizen.

2. naturalized citizen.

3. native citizen.

4. natural born citizen

[edge919]

Or it was changed because once an error was brought to the newspaper's attention, they corrected it. Like newspapers are wont to do.

This wasn't 'corrected' until skeptics discovered it and start discussing the holes in Obama's backstory. There are other details like this one that are reported very differently from place to place on what should be concrete details. How does Obama's alleged 'hometown' newspaper not catch this right away??

There's no reason to believe that Tammy Duckworth knows where Obama was born, and there's little reason to think that the editor would have fact-checked the passing reference to Obama in an article about Duckworth.

Nonsense. She was living in Chicago in 2006 running for office as a Democrat trying to unseat a Republican (just like Obama in 2004). She and Obama met and had to have shared stories, else why would she say they had a "kama'aina connection"??

But you have failed to provide any valid reason WHY it doesn't wash, apart from your own subjective belief that he's lying.

I gave YOU a chance to prove the reporter was right by finding an independent source claiming Obama was born in Indonesia. That's not subjective. I tried to document his claim and couldn't. I have no problem backing up somebody who is telling the truth, but for him, there's no sign.

I believe you're confusing me with someone else. Someone named, I presume, Mr. Rogers.

My bad, Loren, I've been responding to a few too many of you folks at the same time. My apologies.

Because that's what reporters do? Incidentally, "kama'aina" means someone who was born in Hawaii or has lived there for a long time. The word has no association whatsoever with foreign birth.

Thanks. You're supporting my point. Why would a Hawaiian reporter go look up Obama's place of birth on the Internet after being told about a kama'aina connection??

You can say what speech it supposedly came from.

That doesn't make it more or less direct. The description of birth was attributed directly to Obama, not to a third party. Whether it's paraphrased, the source is still identified as Obama.

Or, it was corrected when the UPI editor looked back at whatever speech the article is about, and found that there was never a reference to Queens in the speech.

The speech was made in February 2007. The article was written in November 2008. The correction was apparently made sometime in 2009. What would prompt the editor to look back at the speech cited by this article??

And if you want something even more damning, check this out:

Link to 2004 article identifying Queens Hospital as Obama's place of birth

[Red Steel]

Their usual MO is to start out with a few meek counter posts after a new revelation puts their talking points to shame. They wait for newer talking points from the web and else where before they launch again.

[edge919]

I think we’re pretty close to meeting the burden of proof that Obama has committed and/or was party to fraud. I just get tired of the burden-of-proof strawman over the eligibility question. That burden has to be on the candidate or putative president. It’s his claim that he is eligible and so far he has not been able to support the claim with credible evidence.