Main Menu

Alan Keyes endorses Lakin strategy

In a Fox News report we learn that failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes thinks Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is on the right track disobeying orders to force the issue of Obama’s eligibility at a court martial. Keyes said:

It is a matter of common sense that he would be allowed to put on a defense that explains why he did what he did…. And that means he would be allowed to conduct an investigation that would establish his reason.

Not so according to several military lawyers contacted by Fox News:

“He is likely to lose everything and accomplish nothing,” one attorney lamented. “No military judge will say that (obtaining documents) of the president is necessary to prove the charges,” said Philip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military Justice.

One notes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not “common sense” will be the standard by which Lakin will be tried and the only “investigation that would establish his reason” will be a psychiatric examination.

147 Responses to Alan Keyes endorses Lakin strategy

  1. avatar
    Det. Cliff Hanger April 23, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    The fix is in. Obama is going down and word is starting to spread.

    The most recent endorsement of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s claim that no orders issued by the US military are legitimate because President Barack Obama is not a native-born American citizen comes from Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely, who stated in a radio interview featured on Friday by the conservative website WorldNetDaily that he believes Lakin has “a valid point.”

  2. avatar
    richcares April 23, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Sure buddy, now send me your address as I have a bridge for sale at a bargain price.

  3. avatar
    aarrgghh April 24, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    sven, doing what he loves most, spreading manure:

    “The fix is in. Obama is going down and word is starting to spread. … Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Vallely, who stated in a radio interview featured on Friday by the conservative website WorldNetDaily that he believes Lakin has “a valid point.””

    as a paid shill for wnd and fox, vallely’s concern for his reputation is matched only by lakin’s concern for his career.

  4. avatar
    misha April 24, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    Det. Cliff Hanger: Sorry buddy, you’re talking to someone who volunteered for the IDF. You do what your CO says, none of this ‘prove you’re ligitimate’ BS.

    And Sven, or WTF you’re calling yourself this week, from reading your comments, you don’t know sh*t from Shinola.

    Hope that coward enjoys Leavenworth.

    And stop watching Faux News. It’s turning your brain into mush.

  5. avatar
    G April 24, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    It amazes me that some of these kooky perennial candidates still have anyone paying attention to them after all these years. Keyes has been an extreme nutbag with low credibility for decades now. Just like LaRouche.

    I still think Keyes real main issue against Obama is he’s still smarting from being beat by him way back in IL.

  6. avatar
    G April 24, 2010 at 1:10 am #

    Yeah, keep dreaming.

    So, what are you going to say Sven after faces his court martial, gets completely smacked down quickly on any frivolous “birther discovery” and ends up with the punishments that all sane and rational people are predicting?

    Oh yeah, you’ll just try to pretend it didn’t happen and quietly hope we all forget your foolish boasts and failed predictions again, just like you always do.

    Keep dreaming and keep failing. That appears to be all you’ve got going for you.

  7. avatar
    misha April 24, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    “he’s still smarting from being beat by him way back in IL.”

    That’s exactly why. He’ll spend the rest of his life licking his wounds.

  8. avatar
    Lupin April 24, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    I respect conscientious objectors but only if they’re willing to serve time; I hope Lakin sees the inside of a jail cell very soon.

  9. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Alan Keyes should definitely donate big to Terry Lakin. Keyes could donate $100,000.00 perhaps money. It would be the hope that Lakin would raise 3 million Dollar Defense Fund for pursuit of the truth and the protection of our constitution.

  10. avatar
    Arthur April 24, 2010 at 2:04 am #

    Det. Cliff Hanger:

    First, I doubt your prediction that Lt. Col. Lakin’s upcoming court martial will bring Pres. Obama down. But if you’re right and I’m proved wrong, I’ll be happy to acknowledge my error–are you willing to do the same if you’re wrong?

    Second, it is a mistake to think that Maj. General (ret.) Vallely is a source of objective analysis. Since retiring from the military, Valllely’s professional activities and political allegiances suggest that he would support anyone who hoped to discredit Obama.

    For example, aside from working for Fox News as a military analyst from 2001-2007, Vallely works with the Center for Security Policy, a neo-con think tank that is critical of the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. This is the same organization that in 2007 published an opinion piece in which Australian Philip Atkinson, a retired computer salesman and self-taught expert on civilization, argued that democracy is an inadequate method of government. Atkinson also urged the U.S. to make George W. Bush president-for-life, and hoped the President would initiate ethnic cleansing in Iraq in order to repopulate the country with American settlers. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/hail-caesar-by-digby-ive-been-getting.html)

    As an individual, Vallely supports the forced removal of Palestinians from Israel, the Gaza Strip, and West Bank, and rejects the possibility that prisoners held at Gutanamo Bay were abused, calling such accusations a fabrication by liberal media. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Vallely)

    Finally, according to a 2008 report by The New York Times, Vallely was one of several high-ranking retired officers recruited by the Bush administration to spread the administration’s talking points, all the while maintaining the guise of being objective analysts. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all)

    Although Vallely is a graduate of West Point and has a distinguished record of service, his actions during the past 10 years demonstrate that he is partisan, and is unlikely to render an objective opinion on Lakin’s case.

  11. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 24, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    Activist former presidential candidates.

  12. avatar
    sarina April 24, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    Protecting the Constitution?! Yeah trying to remove a democratically elected president!
    All of a sudden all the birthers have turned very “concerned” about the Constitution.
    What did you do when Bush s-it on it 100 times?

  13. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    John: Very kind of you to be so generous with someone else’s money. What exactly would the “Lakin defense team” do with $3,000,000 since the case against him is open and shut; i.e., he disobeyed a lawful order from a superior?

  14. avatar
    Lupin April 24, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    The rank hypocrisy of seditious racists like you who never cared a fig about the constitution when it was repeatedly trampled by the Cheney presidency, but suddenly rediscover it when they wake up as sore losers and whiny babies after the election never ceases to astound me.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Oh, I would think the money is for publicity, not the defense itself.

  16. avatar
    Det. Cliff Hanger April 24, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    MG Vallely graduated from West Point and was commissioned into the U.S. Army in 1961. He graduated from Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College.

    As much as I’d like to believe the keyboard warriors on OCT concerning their prognosis as to probable outcome of LTC Lakin’s court martial, I think I’ll defer to MG Vallely.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Sven wrote: As much as I’d like to believe the keyboard warriors on OCT concerning their prognosis as to probable outcome of LTC Lakin’s court martial, I think I’ll defer to MG Vallely.

    I think I would prefer to defer to the judgment of history, which should be available fairly soon.

  18. avatar
    Arliss April 24, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    This is the only document Obama needs to produce for ANY of these challenges because it is a Valid, Official Certified copy of his BC.

    http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

  19. avatar
    SFJeff April 24, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    Let us just assume for one wildly speculative moment that Lakin is allowed to use his objections to pursue his court case- and even manages to escape a court martial.

    Do Birthers even understand what a precedent this would mean? It would open up the door for any- and all soldiers to refuse orders and claim they don’t believe the President is legitimate- or for instance that his orders are not legitimate.

    And since we are all assuming our soldiers in Afghanistan are there to protect America from future attack, I will also point out that Lakin is putting his political agenda ahead of the safety of the country.

    This is all pure idiocy.

  20. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    Order pizza.

    A whole lot of pizza.

  21. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 24, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    “He graduated from Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College.”

    Does any of that give him a clear, expert understanding of how the Military conducts its law, enough to be able to say that Lakin has a legitimate point?

    If not, then that’s like saying the head of IBM’s marketing department can build you a new computer.

  22. avatar
    US Citizen April 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Because when I think of a winning strategist, I always think of Alan Keyes.

    What’s ironic is that had Keyes become president, Lakin would likely be doing the same thing and treating Keyes’ CIC status as questionable.
    “Presidenting-while-black” is a lonely job…

  23. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    John says:

    Alan Keyes should definitely donate big to Terry Lakin. Keyes could donate $100,000.00 perhaps money.

    Or he could follow the recommendation of the Republican candidate for the Senate in Nevada, and donate chickens.

    It would be the hope that Lakin would raise 3 million Dollar Defense Fund for pursuit of the truth and the protection of our constitution.

    By all means, scrape together every dollar you can and send it to the American Patriot Foundation, which will then funnel it to attorney Paul Rolf Jensen, who just happens to be executive director the the American Patriot Foundation.

  24. avatar
    Dave April 24, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    As for you comment about “keyboard warriors,” I agree that nobody posting here claims expertise in US military law (that I recall) but have based their statements on posts by military law experts at CAAFlog, and other experts who were interviewed by Fox News, all of whom unanimously agree that the President’s eligibility is irrelevant to Lakin’s case.
    So the question is, why are you taking the word of one retired general who has zero legal expertise over about a dozen military law experts?

  25. avatar
    Mary Brown April 24, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    Good. Never a better person to waste his money.

  26. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    One notes that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not “common sense” will be the standard by which Lakin will be tried

    I wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants.

    I wonder also whether, had Obama announced at a press conference that he was indeed born in Kenya, and those officers who report directly to him continued to do so regardless, you guys believe Lakin’s insubordination would be justified.

  27. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    So yguy, you want military officers to decide whether the elected civilian leadership meets their standards and should be obeyed or not? That model has been well-used in places like Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, Nigeria and a host of other countries. Is THAT your model for the US?

  28. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    YGuy: I wonder also whether, had Obama announced at a press conference that he was indeed born in Kenya, and those officers who report directly to him continued to do so regardless, you guys believe Lakin’s insubordination would be justified.

    1. Officers have a duty to obey direct orders
    2. Until the President were impeached, he would remain the de facto President of the United States

    I wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants.

    Common sense is just not a useful concept in issues of law as it is vague, speculative and often at odds with well established legal precedent.

    As to the claim that common sense or lack thereof can become a tool for tyrants, we have seen how “common sense” itself became a tool for tyrants during the Bush administration. If they had only kept to the Constitution, we would not be faced with a severe erosion of our rights and protections thereunder.

  29. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Scientist: So yguy, you want military officers to decide whether the elected civilian leadership meets their standards and should be obeyed or not?That model has been well-used in places like Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, Nigeria and a host of other countries.Is THAT your model for the US?

    I believe yguy is assuming that the President had announced that he was born in Kenya. Even under such a statement, common sense would dictate that until the President were impeached, officers have a duty to obey legal orders, especially those directly issued by their immediate commanders.
    The alternative is just too destructive for our Country.
    I will have to find the discussion in early congress around counting the vote where one of the Congressmen observed that even if at a later time it were found that an elected president were not eligible, such could not be challenged through Quo Warranto because allowing QW to challenge the president would be far more destructive to the office than the unlikely event of a President be found ineligible at a later time.

  30. avatar
    Bovril May 20, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Common sense is

    a. Not common
    b. Rarely rooted in reality

    Commons sense used to say

    The Sun revolved around the Earth
    Leeches and bleeding would cure leprosy
    Swaddling a person in red flannel would fight off Smallpox
    Flies erupted spontaneously from the gaseous effluvium of rot
    Any vehicle that exceeded 30 miles per hour woud crush its riders
    Slavery was part of the natural order
    Jews and Slavs were sub-human
    etc
    etc
    etc

    Shall I continue?

  31. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    It’s also curious that yguy will not accept the President’s statements, backed by documents, that he was born in Hawaii, but would uncritically accept his statements that he was born in Kenya. Wouldn’t he at least want to see documents?

  32. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Scientist: It’s also curious that yguy will not accept the President’s statements, backed by documents, that he was born in Hawaii, but would uncritically accept his statements that he was born in Kenya. Wouldn’t he at least want to see documents?

    Lack of symmetry…

  33. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    Bovril: Common sense is

    a. Not common

    Actually it resides in every human being without exception, though there are many who have, permanently or otherwise, abandoned their own access to it, as it invariably conflicts with selfish desires.

    b. Rarely [Always] rooted in reality

    fify

    Commons sense used to say

    The Sun revolved around the Earth

    […]

    No, you’re thinking of conventional wisdom. Common sense is the faculty by which we may know a thing is true or false despite everyone else on the planet holding to the conventional wisdom. It’s what Winston Smith abandoned to avoid having rats eat his face off. In the vast majority of cases, however, it doesn’t take nearly that level of intimidation to turn a human being into a paragon of abject credulity, as is demonstrated by the Milgram experiment.

  34. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    So you still have not addressed the simple fact that there is no objective standard for “common sense” that there is no evidence that there exists “common sense” which is similar across all humans and there is no reasonable basis to determine what common sense is ‘natural’ and what is ‘abandoned common sense’.

    So far, your position is somewhat shaky.

    yguy: Actually it resides in every human being without exception, though there are many who have, permanently or otherwise, abandoned their own access to it, as it invariably conflicts with selfish desires.

    yguy:
    Actually it resides in every human being without exception, though there are many who have, permanently or otherwise, abandoned their own access to it, as it invariably conflicts with selfish desires.
    fify
    No, you’re thinking of conventional wisdom. Common sense is the faculty by which we may know a thing is true or false despite everyone else on the planet holding to the conventional wisdom. It’s what Winston Smith abandoned to avoid having rats eat his face off. In the vast majority of cases, however, it doesn’t take nearly that level of intimidation to turn a human being into a paragon of abject credulity, as is demonstrated by the Milgram experiment.

  35. avatar
    Black Lion May 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Regarding the seditious Lakin, there is a wingnut site dedicated to defending him, believing in the delusion that somehow Manning’s trial was worth anything and somehow he will get some sort of discovery….

    http://einhornpress.com/ObamaVersusLakinBirthCertificateNews.aspx

    “April 13, 2010: In an article in The Colorado Independent—headlined Radio host Boyles: Birther Lakin no punk; O’Reilly a liar—John Tomasic extensively quotes from Denver talk-radio host Peter Boyles’ interview with Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin’s spokesperson Margaret Hemenway:

    “Lakin is risking everything… this guy, he’s hardly a punk, he’s done his [tours of duty] in the past and now he’s willing to call [the president] out on it. He throws it all away. He loses all his benefits and retirement pay and goes to prison for hard labor. It’s not a punk thing by any stretch.”

    “Lakin thinks the truth matters… The problem is that a lot of powerful important people have already said There’s nothing here. We don’t need to worry about this.’ And their reputations and their image are on the line. It is truly a David and Goliath story. And so, many people want to keep this swept under the rug, because it’s embarrassing to them, because frankly they should have exercised due diligence. They should have vetted this man properly. It didn’t happen. In hindsight it’s a colossal mistake that it was allowed to happen like this, and we still actually are not aware of what Obama’s citizenship status is… You’re asking some people to have egg on their face if it comes out he was not actually born in Hawaii and he was born in Kenya as many Kenyans have said he was. This is a huge problem.”

    “O’Reilly lied. He said he had seen the evidence. Joe Farrah [founder of right-wing site WorldNetDaily] calls him on it. O’Reilly said Well it wasn’t him, it was his staff. Farrah calls the staff on it and then they say No, the only thing they saw was what was on the internet… They look like fools.”

    I just would like to point out that you know you are reaching for the straws when you use the shady liar Joseph Farah or WND as a reference for the truth….Whoever the person is that is pushing this site is one delusional puppy….

    “In another Peter-Boyles interview, Glenn Beck pointed out that “I’m not a birther” (one who seeks the truth about Obama’s questionable past and his birth certificate) and “it doesn’t matter to me.” Beck demonstrated in his game of dodge ball with Boyles that he was ignorant of the issues, and his arguments were weak, especially since he pointed out that “the Constitution matters.” If so, then why doesn’t he point out and discuss in one of his phony TV weeping sessions that “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”—Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution? Apparently Fox News’ Muslim investors have shut off his nozzle also. Rush Limbaugh has curiously been silent on this important issue, except for suggesting that neither God nor Obama has a birth certificate. Do you suppose he and his network bosses have heard the Arab money-bell jingle also?”

  36. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    ” wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants”

    In my opinion, the rule of law, and a culture that embraces the rule of law is what protects a nation from tyrants.

    A general in a country with no culture of the rule of law might decide that ‘common sense’ tells him that the elected government is bad for the country and install himself as leader. I would go further and say most tyrants believe that they are the best suited leaders for the countries, based upon their own common sense.

    And to quote Albert Einstein “Common sense is the collection of prejudice acquired by the age of eighteen”

  37. avatar
    Black Lion May 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Scientist: It’s also curious that yguy will not accept the President’s statements, backed by documents, that he was born in Hawaii, but would uncritically accept his statements that he was born in Kenya. Wouldn’t he at least want to see documents?

    It is because anythng that supports the birthers view is truthful, and anything that doesn’t is automatically viewed with suspicion. For instance anything that Obama wrote in his book is allegedly the truth, but anything that Obama said is not. Similarly when anonymous Kenyan politicans say he was born in Kenya they are telling the truth, the birthers never demand any additional evidence, but when the Governor of HI or the Director of the Health Dept make a statement they are automatically lying or the birthers demand additional supporting evidence….The hypocrisy is stunning….

  38. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    “Actually it resides in every human being without exception, though there are many who have, permanently or otherwise, abandoned their own access to it, as it invariably conflicts with selfish desires.”

    Evidence please. My common sense tells me that you are incorrect.

  39. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    yguy: I wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants.

    You do realize that what Lakin’s proponents characterize as common sense may, or may not accord with an objective definition of common sense?

    You also realize, do you not, that there may be layers of common sense which conflict with one another?

    Example, Keyes lawyer says it is “common sense” to allow Lakin to explain why he broke the law.

    However, it is easy to think of examples where it is “common sense” to disallow such an explanation. Say I kill a guy because he’s an awful man – not because he broke any laws, or to save lives, but because he was a truly hateful individual. I planned the murder, lay in wait, and executed the guy in cold blood. Should I be allowed to spend time maligning the man’s reputation in order to fully present my “he needed killin'” defense?

    When a judge excludes evidence or testimony, it is based on a common sense belief that jurors can be confused by extraneous information. The law excludes character assassinations of the victim because it has come to the common sense conclusion that sometimes jurors might be convinced of the hatefulness of the victim and inappropriately set free a killer. It recognizes the common sense conclusion that murder shouldn’t be sanctioned because the victim is an unsavory character.

    Ditto evidence supporting other irrelevant defenses.

    Of course, common sense should have led you to recognize that Dr. C’s statement above was meant to challenge Keyes’ notion that his common sense should dictate what evidence is admissible, rather than the common sense enshrined in the rules of evidence. So, clearly, different persons’ common sense can lead to different conclusions.

    And, common sense can lead to different conclusions at different times. It was the common sense conclusion at the Founding that those born in a country were naturally going to be more loyal to that country than those who weren’t. That conclusion was based on a world where people didn’t move around very much. It was based on a philosophical understanding of allegiance that doesn’t necessarily accord with our own. I think it is a pretty common sense conclusion that Bob Hope and Arnold Schwarzenegger are better Americans than Benedict Arnold or Aldrich Ames. I think it is a pretty common sense conclusion that there is often no more committed person than a convert. I think it is a pretty common sense conclusion that Americans can judge for themselves whether an immigrant who has served as Governor of California is worth of the Presidency and can take into account the fact that he starred in some terrible movies and was a former citizen of Austria.

    And, common sense has lead people into some very wrong decisions. It was a common sense conclusion that blacks and whites should not marry. Look at the effect on the children, its proponents would say. Society will judge the couple. Surely God put the different races on different continents for a reason. Few people would now make these arguments about the interracial couple, but would make the same arguments against the gay couple.

    And scientist’s example of the sun is an apt one. Every sensory input you have should tell you that the sun rotates around the Earth. It is only by very non-common-sense mathematics that it becomes obvious that it is the other way around. Can you explain the math?

    You cited Winston Smith from 1984. I recommend this article by Orwell discussing how divorced from reality and common sense our knowledge has become:

    It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramus as soon as he strays away from his own specialty? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that “everyone knows” the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.

  40. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    “Common sense is the faculty by which we may know a thing is true or false despite everyone else on the planet holding to the conventional wisdom.”

    I was carrying my 2 year old home one night and she looked up at the moon and said “Ball”

    See she wasn’t going with convential wisdom, she was using common sense.

  41. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    SFJeff:
    And to quote Albert Einstein “Common sense is the collection of prejudice acquired by the age of eighteen”

    Then, semantics aside, either he was not referring to the faculty I’m talking about, or that faculty doesn’t exist, in which case the idea of self-governance is chimerical.

    Which do you prefer?

  42. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    yguy: Then, semantics aside, either he was not referring to the faculty I’m talking about, or that faculty doesn’t exist, in which case the idea of self-governance is chimerical.

    I find that warranting a bit more than a mere assertion.

  43. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    nbC:
    I find that warranting a bit more than a mere assertion.

    Let me explain where you have failed so far. You have failed to show that there exists a concept of ‘common sense’ which is relevant to the discussion which is both objective and universal and can be distinguished from ‘false common sense”.

    All philosophy aside, you have a long way to go to support your original statement about common sense and the law.

  44. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    SFJeff: “Common sense is the faculty by which we may know a thing is true or false despite everyone else on the planet holding to the conventional wisdom.”

    There is no such faculty that can reliably help us determine whether something is true or false. What there may exist is an ability that helps us to more reliably detect true and false but as anyone knows, humans are incredibly easy to confuse. Something you yourself seem to have admitted to as well. As such, the concept of common sense becomes less and less relevant to your ‘argument’

  45. avatar
    G May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    yguy:
    Then, semantics aside, either he was not referring to the faculty I’m talking about, or that faculty doesn’t exist, in which case the idea of self-governance is chimerical.Which do you prefer?

    No.

    I have no problem with how you wish to define common sense. Oh, wouldn’t it be wonderful if that was the case and rational common sense was applied universally in such a fashion.

    However, as with many things in life, here is where theory and the reality on the ground diverge.

    The problem is the application and use of the term “common sense”. Others have already pointed this out, but you seem to have missed the actual point they are making, so I’ll give it a try.

    “Common sense” is being applied subjectively and there is no objective standard to its usage or application in conversation, except for one person to use it try to defend their personal viewpoint over others. That is what you are doing here.

    Therefore, “semantics aside”…well, there in lies the rub, doesn’t it? After all, your entire focus is nothing but a subjective argument over semantics. Your application and usage of the term “common sense” does not invalidate others, who disagree with you and apply such a term differently.

    Such a subjective semantic argument is therefore pointless, as it is not rooted in any objective fact and serves no purpose that to argue for the sake of arguing.

  46. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    How this for some common sense regarding l’affaire Lakin?

    1. The people vote for a President.
    2. Lt Col Lakin gets 1 vote like everybody else.
    3. Once that person is certified by Congress, they get to be President for 4 years.
    4. Lt Col Lakin’s opinion doesn’t over-ride his countrymen’s
    5. Then in 4 years rinse and repeat. Once again Lt Col Lakin is treated the same as everyone else.

    That is not only common sense, that is “equality before the law” and “equal protection”. You could even call it “fair and balanced”. Putting Lt Col Lakin above the law would be the antithesis of common sense.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    G: Such a subjective semantic argument is therefore pointless, as it is not rooted in any objective fact and serves no purpose that to argue for the sake of arguing.

    I’m proud of you!

  48. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Greg:

    You also realize, do you not, that there may be layers of common sense which conflict with one another?

    It’s not possible to realize nonsense.

    Example, Keyes lawyer says it is “common sense” to allow Lakin to explain why he broke the law.
    However, it is easy to think of examples where it is “common sense” to disallow such an explanation.

    I’m sure there are, but that is no more remarkable than it is to observe that plugging different variables into the same equation yields different results.

    Of course, common sense should have led you to recognize that Dr. C’s statement above was meant to challenge Keyes’ notion that his common sense should dictate what evidence is admissible,

    Again, the idea that two people who comprehend the same simple set of elementary facts could correectly draw from them different conclusions is nonsense. Otherwise every science is a pseudoscience.

    rather than the common sense enshrined in the rules of evidence.

    Common sense does not reside in words, only in their authors or readers; and neither could take a COLB as dispositive in the matter of Obama’s birth on the basis of common sense.

    It was the common sense conclusion at the Founding that those born in a country were naturally going to be more loyal to that country than those who weren’t.

    More likely it was based on the commonsensical realization that on average the former will be more loyal than the latter.

    It was based on a philosophical understanding of allegiance that doesn’t necessarily accord with our own.

    Speak for yourself.

    I think it is a pretty common sense conclusion that Bob Hope and Arnold Schwarzenegger are better Americans than Benedict Arnold or Aldrich Ames.

    I think not. Had the bullet which ended up in Arnold’s leg come to rest in his heart instead, he’d have died a hero; and I don’t know what Shwarzenegger ever did that makes him any more heroic than Neville Chamberlain.

    I think it is a pretty common sense conclusion that there is often no more committed person than a convert.

    It’s also a commonsensical conclusion that any country worth living in would be able to produce from within its own borders people qualified in every sense to hold public office, and that restrictions along those lines don’t violate anyone’s unalienable rights.

    And scientist’s example of the sun is an apt one. Every sensory input you have should tell you that the sun rotates around the Earth.

    And common sense tells you not to jump to conclusions.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    yguy: SFJeff:
    And to quote Albert Einstein “Common sense is the collection of prejudice acquired by the age of eighteen”

    Then, semantics aside, either he was not referring to the faculty I’m talking about, or that faculty doesn’t exist, in which case the idea of self-governance is chimerical.

    I think that Einstein was saying that experimental evidence is more reliable than common sense. An example is that the ancients thought that when an arrow was fired from a bow it received a property called “impetus” and that when the arrow ran out of impetus, it fell straight to the ground. In reality arrows follow a parabolic path.

    The application to birthers is their common sense understanding of legal principles, which differs from how the law actually works. Certainly I have learned that a number of my “common sense” notions about the law were just plain wrong.

  50. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    yguy: Again, the idea that two people who comprehend the same simple set of elementary facts could correectly draw from them different conclusions is nonsense. Otherwise every science is a pseudoscience.

    Now you are confusing science with common sense. The former is based on observation, testing and hypothesis formation, the other one is a concept which is vague, subjective and depends on how one individual processes information to reach a ‘truth’ about his environment.

    You appear to be conflating different concepts and confusing the argument by refusing to present a coherent analysis as to what ‘common sense’ is and how it can be objectively inferred.
    So far I have seen little that indicates that you have made much of an effort here.

  51. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    yguy: Common sense does not reside in words, only in their authors or readers; and neither could take a COLB as dispositive in the matter of Obama’s birth on the basis of common sense.

    This ‘argument’ is merely an assertion. Fine, you want to assert that your common sense dictgates that a COLB is not ‘dispositive’ in the matter of Obama’s birth and yet it is the common sense way to establish Obama’s birth on US soil, which is all that matters when it relates to the question of Obama’s eligibility.
    You seem to define common sense as a rejection of factual data in favor of what ifs and speculation, never satisfied with what is known and always suggesting that there is a possibility that we have missed something.
    And yet, common sense dictates that a COLB, which is sufficient for the US government to establish US citizenship and birth on US soil, should be sufficient to establish at least two components of the eligibility requirement.

  52. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    yguy: It’s also a commonsensical conclusion that any country worth living in would be able to produce from within its own borders people qualified in every sense to hold public office, and that restrictions along those lines don’t violate anyone’s unalienable rights.

    Hardly that common sense. You already indicate how this is a value argument about ‘worth living in’.

    Furthermore, the concept of unalienable rights is another vague subjective concept which is not based in common sense as much as common acceptance.

  53. avatar
    G May 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    yguy: It’s also a commonsensical conclusion that any country worth living in would be able to produce from within its own borders people qualified in every sense to hold public office, and that restrictions along those lines don’t violate anyone’s unalienable rights.

    And we did. And we have. And there is no actual evidence of it ever being otherwise.

    Beyond quoting that, I’ll hold back from making more pointed commentary on all the irony I found in the rest of your statements.

  54. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    G:
    Oh, wouldn’t it be wonderful if that was the case and rational common sense was applied universally in such a fashion.

    For tyrants and their supporters, no, it wouldn’t.

    “Common sense” is being applied subjectively

    You assume a fact not in evidence.

    and there is no objective standard to its usage or application in conversation,

    I have no idea what that phrase is supposed to mean, but common sense IS an objective standard.

    except for one person to use it try to defend their personal viewpoint over others.That is what you are doing here.

    That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that, the reality of common sense being damaging to the goal of justifying the lack of transparency regarding Obama’s eligibility, others are trying to deconstruct that reality to the point of annihilation so as to defend their personal viewpoint over mine. πŸ™‚

  55. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think that Einstein was saying that experimental evidence is more reliable than common sense. An example is that the ancients thought that when an arrow was fired from a bow it received a property called “impetus” and that when the arrow ran out of impetus, it fell straight to the ground. In reality arrows follow a parabolic path.The application to birthers is their common sense understanding of legal principles, which differs from how the law actually works.

    Not at all a fitting parallel, since the law only “works” the way judges say it works; and absent common sense, the only thing stopping any judge from making a ruling comparable to “1+1=3” is his or her fear that doing so would result in removal from office.

  56. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    yguy: I have no idea what that phrase is supposed to mean, but common sense IS an objective standard.

    So you claim but you have failed to show any logic, reason or argument. In fact, as several people have shown, your claim appears to be fallacious (that means erroneous)

  57. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    yguy: Not at all a fitting parallel, since the law only “works” the way judges say it works; and absent common sense, the only thing stopping any judge from making a ruling comparable to “1+1=3‘ is his or her fear that doing so would result in removal from office.

    You’re jumping all over the place here. Legal rulings are nothing like mathematical truths. So your premise causes you to reach a flawed conclusion.
    Furthermore, there are more reasons for judges to make flawed rulings than the one you provided.

    Good luck on showing that there is such a thing as ‘objective common sense’.

  58. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    yguy: That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that, the reality of common sense being damaging to the goal of justifying the lack of transparency regarding Obama’s eligibility, others are trying to deconstruct that reality to the point of annihilation so as to defend their personal viewpoint over mine. πŸ™‚

    You’re not making much sense here. So far your viewpoint is anything but common sense.

    Unless you can provide a coherent argument, I’d say that we rightly reject your assertions that there exists an objective measure of common sense.

    Assertion is not a logical argument btw.

  59. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    I have yet to see any evidence to support any of your statements about “common sense” Yguy.

    So I will go back to refuting an earlier argument of yours- and say that common sense is not only a poor substitute for following the law, but a dangerous substitute.

  60. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    I think not. Had the bullet which ended up in Arnold’s leg come to rest in his heart instead, he’d have died a hero

    And where’s your impassioned defense of Aldrich Ames.

  61. avatar
    Walter White May 20, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Scientist: How this for some common sense regarding l’affaire Lakin?1. The people vote for a President.
    2. Lt Col Lakin gets 1 vote like everybody else.
    3. Once that person is certified by Congress, they get to be President for 4 years.
    4. Lt Col Lakin’s opinion doesn’t over-ride his countrymen’s
    5. Then in 4 years rinse and repeat.Once again Lt Col Lakin is treated the same as everyone else.That is not only common sense, that is “equality before the law” and “equal protection”.You could even call it “fair and balanced”.Putting Lt Col Lakin above the law would be the antithesis of common sense.

    Not true. The de facto officer doctrine applies if there are no complaints lodged when the alleged defective officer assumes command at the time the complainant is engaged.

    In United States v. Jette, 25 M.J. 16 (C.M.A. 1987), our Superior Court
    faced a very similar situation. Rejecting that appellant’s claim that the putative
    convening authority “was not empowered to act as convening authority because he
    did not assume command in accordance with . . . service regulations,” the court
    found that the officer “functioned as the commander” and that there was “no
    evidence . . . any other officer challenged [his] right to command.” Id. at 18-19.

    Lakin has indicated he formally wrote an email in Nov. 2009 for guidance on procedure to complain about the credentials of the CiC. If Lakin can prove he began to question the qualifications of the CiC in Jan. 2009 but did not know the procedure, then the de facto officer doctrine will not apply to Obama in this case.

  62. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    Walter White: The de facto officer doctrine applies if there are no complaints lodged when the alleged defective officer assumes command at the time the complainant is engaged.

    You should keep researching, Walter. If you start now, maybe you’ll get why you’re wrong by the time Lakin’s court martial is concluded and he is found guilty.

  63. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    SFJeff: I have yet to see any evidence to support any of your statements about “common sense” Yguy.

    What have I said about it that isn’t self-evidently true?

    So I will go back to refuting an earlier argument of yours- and say that common sense is not only a poor substitute for following the law, but a dangerous substitute.

    You really couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Nothing could be more obvious, for example, than the testimony of common sense to the fact children ought not be molested; and if everyone acted accordingly, the laws against it would become mere historical artifacts.

  64. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    Re Walter White’s post- I am no expert on De-Facto officer doctrine, but I do take some odd pleasure in reading court cases. In US versus Ross, ACM 36139, which quotes Jette, they also have this quote which I found interesting:

    “The power to act as a convening authority attaches to the office of
    command, not the particular person occupying it.”

    I read this as saying the authority to give orders would attach to the office of President, not to the President himself.

  65. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    “What have I said about it that isn’t self-evidently true?”

    Everything?

    “Nothing could be more obvious, for example, than the testimony of common sense to the fact children ought not be molested; and if everyone acted accordingly, the laws against it would become mere historical artifacts.”

    What constitutes a child? What constitutes molestation? As repugnant as I find your example, there will be areas of disagreement. While I would agree that anyone who was sexual with my 11 year old would be molesting her, there are societies in which 12 year old girls are wed against their will. I would consider what happens to them to be molestation, but apparently the ‘common sense’ within those societies doesn’t agree.

    Some persons beileve female circumcision would be sexual mutilation, some people think male circumcision is sexual mutilation.

    So I say again.

    You have offered no evidence to support your assertion.
    You apparently believe that ‘common sense’ should trump the law, while I believe that the law can protect me from you imposing your ‘common sense’ judgement upon me.

  66. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    yguy: What have I said about it that isn’t self-evidently true?

    Quite a bit actually. Which is why we ask you to support something that you believe to be self evidently true. Should not be too hard then?

    Or?…
    Common sense suggests that you may have realized that it is…

  67. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    yguy: Nothing could be more obvious, for example, than the testimony of common sense to the fact children ought not be molested;

    To what extent? And indeed why do you believe that this is ‘common sense’ rather than a common decision to punish people who violate what society has decided to be amoral?
    After all the Greek thought it quite normal for young boys to have physical relationships with older men and some societies marry their children at a very young age.
    Other societies believe that children may be given corporeal punishment. And so on. Until you can find a logical foundation for your claims, your appeals are ad hoc and not very convincing.

  68. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Walter White: Not true. The de facto officer doctrine applies if there are no complaints lodged when the alleged defective officer assumes command at the time the complainant is engaged.

    That does not seem to be quite correct. But regardless, Lakin will face the simple fact that there is at least a de facto president and that the chain of command between Lakin and his direct commands have no issues of legality. In fact, under UCMJ, it’s the office not the officer that is relevant. So the orders will be found to be legal, regardless of the eligibility of the President. Furthermore, the eligibility of the President cannot be raised in Court as it is a political question.

    SInce QW cannot even be used against a President, the de facto officer doctrine becomes even less relevant as a duly elected president is the de facto president.

  69. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Walter White: If Lakin can prove he began to question the qualifications of the CiC in Jan. 2009 but did not know the procedure, then the de facto officer doctrine will not apply to Obama in this case.

    Oh yes it will, the President will remain the de facto officer and Lakin will not be granted discovery due to the fact that this is a political question.

    Bummer

  70. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    SFJeff: What constitutes a child? What constitutes molestation?

    I’m reminded of a thread someone started about what constitutes the unforgivable sin. After reading some of the guesses I responded by speculating that the interest in the question could be accounted for by a hidden desire to commit only sins that were forgivable.

    Similarly, if an adult finds himself or herself attracted to another person and has to ask whether it’s a child or whether what is contemplated is molestation, common sense says don’t take one more step in that direction.

  71. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    In United States v. Jette, 25 M.J. 16 (C.M.A. 1987), our Superior Court
    faced a very similar situation. Rejecting that appellant’s claim that the putative
    convening authority “was not empowered to act as convening authority because he
    did not assume command in accordance with . . . service regulations,” the court
    found that the officer “functioned as the commander” and that there was “no
    evidence . . . any other officer challenged [his] right to command.” Id. at 18-19.

    Note also the ‘any other officer’ challenged [his] right to command. In other words, the mere fact that Lakin argued from the start that President Obama may not be qualified, without providing any evidence, may become a significant factor as well.
    Note that Lakin did not necessarily argue that President Obama were not eligible but rather that until he were provided with the long form, he could not obey Obama’s orders or any orders for that matter.
    This is not an issue of de facto officer doctrine as much as Lakin’s request that President Obama shows himself to be eligible to a level of satisfaction which meets Lakin’s needs.

  72. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    NbC:
    Which is why we ask you to support something that you believe to be self evidently true. Should not be too hard then?

    Actually it’s impossible, by the very definition of “self-evident”, which excludes propositions which require external support.

  73. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    Some other interesting points

    In Blackwell on Tax Titles it is said that neither the title of an officer de facto nor the validity of his acts as such can be indirectly called in question in a proceeding in which he is not a party. The effect of this rule is to render the acts of an officer de facto as valid and effectual as though he was an officer de jure.

    Since the President is not a party to the Court Martial proceedings, it will be a tough act to circumvent the de facto officer doctrine.

    The only appropriate way to test the title is through Quo Warranto and Quo Warranto does not apply in this case for a variety of reasons

    1. Lakin is not an interested party
    2. Quo Warranto cannot be used against a President

  74. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    yguy: It was the common sense conclusion at the Founding that those born in a country were naturally going to be more loyal to that country than those who weren’t.
    More likely it was based on the commonsensical realization that on average the former will be more loyal than the latter.

    This is not a matter to be determined by so-called common sense but by empirical data. I am unaware of any data that supports the statement (or contradicts it for that matter). In science, we don’t waste time arguing over what “should be” or what “might be”. We strive to discover what “is”.

    nbC: , the idea that two people who comprehend the same simple set of elementary facts could correectly draw from them different conclusions is nonsense. Otherwise every science is a pseudoscience.

    In science there are often competing conclusions to explain a set of facts. In order to determine which is correct generally requires additional facts. You really should think before you type.

    yguy: It’s also a commonsensical conclusion that any country worth living in would be able to produce from within its own borders people qualified in every sense to hold public office, and that restrictions along those lines don’t violate anyone’s unalienable rights.

    I don’t think anyone is saying that there are no native-born citizens capable of holding office. The point is that there is no good reason to exclude those who are not native-born other than that some guys who lived 250 years ago decided to. The vast majority of countries do not distinguish between born citizens and those who become citizens by choice. The US is free to go it alone. However, my common sense point is that if you are driving down the highway and all the cars in your lane are going the other way, you should give strong consideration to the possibility that you, not they, are wrong.

  75. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    yguy:
    Actually it’s impossible, by the very definition of “self-evident”, which excludes propositions which require external support.

    So I can claim that you are self-evidently wrong and I do not need to meet any further requirements? That’s beyond common sense.

    So now we have your claim about common sense which you claim is self evident but as others have shown, hardly seems to be so as it defies logic and reason.

    So now you are faced with nothing more than a position of ‘self evident’ which you insist cannot be supported by external evidence and which has been shown to be flawed through logic and reason.

    Common sense dictates thus that your position is not self-evident.

  76. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    “Walter White’/AKA Sven: The de facto officer doctrine is actually irrelevant here. President Obama is the legitimate President inder the law. He won the Electoral College vote and the vote was certified by Congress. If Schwarzenegger did that he would be legitimate. The time to deal with questions of eligibility is during the campaign and in an adversarial system, the persons to raise them are the opponents. The place to bring those complaints is in state court, by challenging the placement of said person on the ballot. Those suits would succeed against Schwarzenegger because he was born in Austria and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (and he can’t claim US citizenship from his parente either). Those suits would fail against Obama because he can prove he was born in Hawaii and there is NO evidence (as opposed to speculation) otherwise. Lakin has no evidence regarding Obama’s birth, so his case is junk.

    It’s really that simple.

  77. avatar
    NbC May 20, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    yguy: SFJeff: What constitutes a child? What constitutes molestation?

    I’m reminded of a thread someone started about what constitutes the unforgivable sin. After reading some of the guesses I responded by speculating that the interest in the question could be accounted for by a hidden desire to commit only sins that were forgivable.

    Nice, in a very indirect manner you are accusing others of having hidden desires to commit molestation.
    Not only should such a response be rejected as unnecessarily ad hom but also as avoiding addressing the issue.
    Logical fallacy after logical fallacy my dear friend and it does not help to strengthen your argument any.
    Has it occurred to you that strengthening your argument through logic, fact and reason is a far more efficient way to support an argument?

  78. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Scientist:
    This is not a matter to be determined by so-called common sense

    Yes, it is.

    In science there are often competing conclusions to explain a set of facts.

    In which case at least one of them is incorrect, which vioates a condition on which I based the claim you were hoping to find fault with.

    You really should think before you type.

    “Physician, heal thyself.”

    The point is that there is no good reason to exclude those who are not native-born other than that some guys who lived 250 years ago decided to.

    I believe I’ll just let this stand as a testament to your respect for the Constitution, such as it is.

  79. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    yguy: , the idea that two people who comprehend the same simple set of elementary facts could correectly draw from them different conclusions is nonsense. Otherwise every science is a pseudoscience.

    scientist: In science there are often competing conclusions to explain a set of facts. In order to determine which is correct generally requires additional facts. You really should think before you type.

    What does common sense tell us about Schroedinger’s cat? Seems like yguy still lives in the clockwork universe where if we know the locations and velocity of every particle, we can tell the future.

  80. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 10:29 pm #

    yguy: This is not a matter to be determined by so-called common sense

    Yes, it is.

    Well then, common sense says that the case has been determined and decided. It’s self evident.

    I too can play these games even though I do feel a bit silly right now, it shows that using yguy’s approach nothing really can be decided and that common sense becomes a concept that can be used together with self-evident to turn anything in an unassailable fact.
    The problem of course is: it does not work. Logic, reason and fact show that there exists no such thing as objective common sense. And certainly, the concept of common sense has limited value when it comes to issues involving politics, emotions, philosophy and legal issues, to mention a few.
    The only place where common sense plays a role is either through common acceptance or through rigorous scientific testing. Which is why we can say that touching a glowing rod of steel with bare hands will self-evidently lead to a burn and that common sense dictates that we should not touch hot iron with out bare hands.
    But common sense, without a testable framework has no objective value. And even common sense, as determined through common acceptance is not necessarily universal.

  81. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    NbC:
    Nice, in a very indirect manner you are accusing others of having hidden desires to commit molestation.

    I’ll give you this much: it was predictable that someone would jump to such a silly conclusion.

    Has it occurred to you that strengthening your argument through logic, fact and reason is a far more efficient way to support an argument?

    That can only be done to the satisfaction of an audience which respects those qualities. Any other will naturally accuse a truthful, logical and reasonable person of untruthfulness, illogic and irrationality.

  82. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    Greg: What does common sense tell us about Schroedinger’s cat?

    It seems to me that by claiming common sense and self-evident, one can quickly prevent any discussion to continue as one has effectively insulated oneself and one’s ‘argument’ from reason and logic.

  83. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    yguy: Yes, it is.

    No, it isn’t

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

    yguy: the Constitution

    There is nonsense as well as things of value in the Constitution, as in the Bible, the Koran, the writings of Confucious or any historical work. It is foolish to value all statements in those sources equally.

    The natural born citizen clause is like those chapters in the Bible where so-and-so begat so-and-so. Hardly the thing that those who love the documents should place front and center.

  84. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    I’ll give you this much: it was predictable that someone would jump to such a silly conclusion.

    it’s not a silly conclusion, it is common sense.

    That can only be done to the satisfaction of an audience which respects those qualities. Any other will naturally accuse a truthful, logical and reasonable person of untruthfulness, illogic and irrationality.

    Again, rather than presenting an argument, you assert that your audience may be lacking the respect for these qualities. But it seems self evident, nay common sense that your position is not one of logic and reason and that truth has to suffer.

    While you may believe that empty rhetoric is going to strengthen your argument, your combination with ad hominems only serves to further weaken any claim to logic you may have had.
    So far, when asked to show that there exists such a thing as objective common sense, in a manner relevant to the discussion, you asserted that it exists, you called it self-evident and admitted that this meant that you did not have to provide any external proof or evidence.
    I am not too impressed so far with either your claims relevant to the birther issues nor your ability to defend your positions.
    That should be self evident and in fact, from my perspective quite common sensical.
    Of course YMMV, further underlining that what is self evident need not be and that common sense is at best a subjective state.

  85. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    Okay, we’ve heard your silly arguments equivocating about the definition of common sense, yguy. Let me ask you for some direct statement.

    Do you agree, or disagree with Keyes that it is “common sense” that Lakin should be allowed to give his explanation for why he disobeyed orders?

    Do you agree or disagree with my contention that the rules of evidence are based on “common sense?”

    If you agree the rules of evidence are common-sense-based, then if the court-martial decides that Lakin should not be allowed to give his explanation, then how do you square the two statements?

    If you disagree with that contention, then is your definition of common sense dependant on whether you agree with the outcome? The child molester shouldn’t be allowed to give irrelevant evidence about why he molested the child, but Lakin should be allowed to give irrelevant evidence about why he disobeyed a direct order?

  86. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 20, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    …….the mere fact that Lakin argued from the start that President Obama may not be qualified, without providing any evidence, …….

    Accordingly, no one need ever respect, or obey, the orders or the office of any civilian or military official in the U.S., since any or all of them by some evaluation MAY NOT BE QUALIFIED, and the uncertainty of the complainer about how any law, claimed relevant, should be legally interpreted, entitles the complainer to paralyze the entire government by arbitrarily demanding to endlessly be shown (and subsequently reject) as many constantly changing standards of “proof” as are imaginable.

    He’s heading to Leavenworth, by the estimation of all my military friends..

    Benji Franklin

  87. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    Scientist:
    he natural born citizen clause is like those chapters in the Bible where so-and-so begat so-and-so. Hardly the thing that those who love the documents should place front and center.

    I would agree, that of all the parts of the Constitution, the natural born clause seems to be somewhat outdated and hardly that important compared to far more fundamental rights. Of course, not everything in the Constitution can be of the same importance, especially when society continues to evolve and with it our understanding of the Constitutional principles.
    While the NBC clause may have served to lay to rest some early concerns about some European royalty gaining access to the office of the president, in today’s world such a situation seems far less relevant.
    Even though the Constitution limits the office of the President to those born on US soil, I do believe that it may be time for some Constitutional changes. The problem with this is that the appetite for such is not that strong because any Constitutional change will likely open up flood gates of ‘amendments’ to the citizenship clause, including amending it to exclude the historical jus soli citizenship to those whose parents are not legally in our Country or not permanent residents.
    It’s not that the Constitution does not need to be amended, it’s the fact that the process itself precludes this from being a real possibility.
    I personally see nothing wrong with allowing naturalized citizens who have spent at least the last 14 years in the United States, when elected by the US citizens and duly sworn in, to be our President and I am not sure if the Courts could even stop this from happening but my personal opinion is that we should not ignore our Constitution because we believe some of its provisions no longer serve a useful purpose.
    Common sense?

  88. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    Nice attempt to restore some focus. Much appreciated.

  89. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    nbC-I agree with your response. I’m not saying we SHOULD ignore the Constitution, even, despite its less than esential nature, the NBC clause. Naturalized citizens should respect the Constitution and not run. If they do, their opponents can challenge their placement on the ballot and make their ineligibility a campaign issue. Voters should respect the Constitution and not vote for them. If they win, Congress should not find them qualified. But if somehow none of that happens, the Constitution says they are President, despite their not being NBCs. Because different parts of the Constitution contradict each other (otherwise the Supreme Court would be out of work). Where such is the case, the presumption has to lie with the voters.

  90. avatar
    Greg May 20, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    On the topic of Constitutional provisions that have outlived their usefulness or are otherwise just strange, I suggest you look for this forthcoming book about the “odd clauses” of the Constitution.

  91. avatar
    yguy May 20, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    Greg: Okay, we’ve heard your silly arguments equivocating about the definition of common sense, yguy.

    Actually I haven’t been the least bit equivocal.

    Let me ask you for some direct statement.
    Do you agree, or disagree with Keyes that it is “common sense” that Lakin should be allowed to give his explanation for why he disobeyed orders?

    Yes.

    Do you agree or disagree with my contention that the rules of evidence are based on “common sense?”

    Couldn’t tell you just now, since I don’t know which you think are applicable here.

    If you agree the rules of evidence are common-sense-based, then if the court-martial decides that Lakin should not be allowed to give his explanation, then how do you square the two statements?

    Granting the premise, and assuming all applicable laws/regulations are commonsensical, that decision could only be reached through faulty reasoning.

    If you disagree with that contention, then is your definition of common sense dependant on whether you agree with the outcome? The child molester shouldn’t be allowed to give irrelevant evidence about why he molested the child, but Lakin should be allowed to give irrelevant evidence about why he disobeyed a direct order?

    There is no way to justify molesting a child in any context. Not so for insubordination, obviously.

  92. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    yguy: There is no way to justify molesting a child in any context. Not so for insubordination, obviously.

    And yet we have cultures where children are exposed to female circumcision so it is indeed possible to justify what some would consider molestation. In other words, the statement is tautological, just like common sense as the definition is not a subjective one.

    Actually I haven’t been the least bit equivocal.

    Quite fascinating…

  93. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    yguy: Do you agree, or disagree with Keyes that it is “common sense” that Lakin should be allowed to give his explanation for why he disobeyed orders?

    Yes.

    Do you agree or disagree with my contention that the rules of evidence are based on “common sense?”

    Couldn’t tell you just now, since I don’t know which you think are applicable here.

    Another fascinating lack of symmetry here.

  94. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    yguy: I wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants.

    More likely, as the good Doctor has outlined, the level of discrepancy is directly proportional to one’s flawed understanding of concepts of law rather than to ‘common sense’.

  95. avatar
    Greg May 21, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    yguy: Actually I haven’t been the least bit equivocal.

    Fallacy of equivocation – It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

    Common Sense:
    Online dictionary – Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment – common feelings of humanity
    yguy – The one true conclusion that must be drawn if one has perfect knowledge of all the facts. How we tell right from wrong even when the masses believe something else. Orwell, blah, blah, pseudoscience, blah.

    Which definition do you think Dr. Conspiracy was using in his original posting?

    Basing an argument on your own personal definition of a term, or picking a definition not used by the original proponent is called an argument by equivocation.

    Couldn’t tell you just now, since I don’t know which you think are applicable here.

    Irrelevant evidence and explanations should be excluded. If an explanation cannot, in any legal sense, exonerate the defendant, it would only serve to confuse a jury.

    Granting the premise, and assuming all applicable laws/regulations are commonsensical, that decision could only be reached through faulty reasoning.

    So, either one of the two premises is wrong, or the court uses faulty reasoning. To summarize, here are the possibilities:

    1. Keyes (and you) are wrong that it is “common sense” to allow Lakin to present his reasons why he disobeyed orders, despite their utter irrelevance to his guilt or innocence.
    2. The rules of evidence are not based on common sense – and defendants should sometimes be allowed to introduce their reasons for committing crimes, despite its utter irrelevance to innocence.
    3. The court-martial (and the unanimous community of military lawyers who understand and credit the court-martial’s logic) applied faulty logic.

    You can take issue with the way I’ve phrased the options, but, those are the options, right?

    Or, is there a fourth option?

    4. Lakin’s explanation is not irrelevant to his innocence.

    If that’s so, then can’t we eliminate the two least likely explanations and condense the argument as follows. Either:

    1. Lakin’s explanation is relevant, and it is therefore, common sense to allow it; OR,
    2. Lakin’s explanation is irrelevant, and it is, therefore, common sense to disallow it.

    If the argument boils down to this, then your argument isn’t really about the nature of common sense, or the epistomological certainty of conclusions – it’s about whether there is a legal way in which the President’s presumed ineligiblity could get Lakin off.

    There is no way to justify molesting a child in any context. Not so for insubordination, obviously.

    So, take my murder example above then. (Victim’s a sleaze, but not a criminal, I premeditate and lay in wait.) Some killings can be justified, just not the one in question. Some insubordination can be justified. Lakin’s explanation, nowever, is not a legal justification or defense for his actions. Legally, it is irrelevant to the fact-finder’s decision.

    Is there some “common sense” rule that excludes the “he needed killin'” defense but allows Lakin’s irrelevant defense?

    I think not. I think your “common sense” equivocation is a way to impugn the character of those who oppose you – who know facts that you don’t that will result in an outcome you disfavor. The court is going to determine that Lakin’s story is irrelevant. Their decision will be based on common sense. You desperately want to believe that Obama is ineligible and that Lakin should be allowed to prove it. So, you’ll ignore the common sense reasons the court uses and cry faulty reasoning.

    But, way to get the topic off of Lakin and onto the nature of knowledge.

    By the way, I’m still waiting for you to explain how Aldrich Ames is a better American and more suited to the Presidency than the California governor.

  96. avatar
    G May 21, 2010 at 2:29 am #

    yguy: That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that, the reality of common sense being damaging to the goal of justifying the lack of transparency regarding Obama’s eligibility, others are trying to deconstruct that reality to the point of annihilation so as to defend their personal viewpoint over mine.

    And that is what your entire argument boils down to. Your viewpoint, which is completely subjective, differs from others and that upsets you. You choose to misuse words like “fact” and “common sense” constantly as if, somehow, hearing yourself say something is the way you want it to be will make it true. Well, good luck with that, but nobody’s buying it here.

    Until you have any actual evidence to back up your assertions, your arguments continue to fall in the realm of nothing but your personal subjective opinion.

    To which we have every right to disagree and dismiss outright.

  97. avatar
    G May 21, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    yguy:
    Actually it’s impossible, by the very definition of “self-evident”, which excludes propositions which require external support.

    Similar to how the HI COLB is self-authenticating, right? By your own words, you have now confirmed that no further evidence is needed and that document stands on its own merits.

  98. avatar
    G May 21, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    yguy: That can only be done to the satisfaction of an audience which respects those qualities. Any other will naturally accuse a truthful, logical and reasonable person of untruthfulness, illogic and irrationality.

    LOL! One of these days, you should start actually listening to your own advice.

    Your value statements are often contradictory to your position of argument here. Your examples and explanations have not demonstrated rational logical flow well either and you have provided not a shred of evidence other than one subjective and speculative scenario after another to support your positions.

  99. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 21, 2010 at 4:38 am #

    SFJeff: ” wonder if the good Doctor understands that the degree to which the law is in discord with common sense is directly proportional to the utility of the former as a vehicle for the empowerment of tyrants”In my opinion, the rule of law, and a culture that embraces the rule of law is what protects a nation from tyrants. A general in a country with no culture of the rule of law might decide that common sense’ tells him that the elected government is bad for the country and install himself as leader. I would go further and say most tyrants believe that they are the best suited leaders for the countries, based upon their own common sense. And to quote Albert Einstein “Common sense is the collection of prejudice acquired by the age of eighteen”

    “Law in discord with common sense” translated into German: “Gesundes Volksempfinden”. The German Wikipedia has a good article on it, but the Dutch one is better. Interestingly, no English article. Should be remedied soon.
    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGesundes_Volksempfinden&sl=nl&tl=en

    Note the phrase “offense to common sense”.

  100. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 6:44 am #

    Greg-Lakin’s case is actually worse than your example of a murderer wanting to present evidence that the victim was a sleaze bag, It would be more akin to a case where there is no evidence at all that the victim was a sleaze bag, but the accused wants to argue that he MIGHT have been a sleaze bag and then wants the court to conduct an inquiry into the victim to help him show it.

  101. avatar
    Lupin May 21, 2010 at 7:09 am #

    The problem with Lakin’s defense (leaving aside the fact that it seems to be legally DOA) from a purely philosophical standpoint is that it is at its heart unprincipled, not to say craven.

    I watched a wonderful documentary called SIR! NO SIR! about those soldiers who refused to serve in Viet-Nam and their acts of insubordination, whether legally justified or not, were certainly motivated by the highest moral reasons.

    But what is Lakin actually saying? I’m okay to go and kill “furriners” in the defense of my country, but only if I think my President is legitimate depending on some obscure point of constitutional law.

    What kind of moral stance is that?

    At best, it is entirely nonsensical, making a mockery of centuries of military traditions; at worst, it is an immoral, craven way of escaping one’s obligations.

    As I have mentioned before, my father, my two grandfathers, my uncle and my godfather served in the military. I am not indifferent to the moral dilemmas mentioned above, but I feel only anger towards the coward Lakin.

    I hope he gets the harshest possible sanction available.

  102. avatar
    Greg May 21, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Here’s what yguy’s argument of “common sense” reminds me of:

    MARGARET Father, that man’s bad.

    MORE There is no law against that.

    ROPER There is! God’s law!

    MORE Then God can arrest him.

    ROPER Sophistication upon sophistication!

    MORE No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.

    ROPER Then you set man’s law above God’s!

    MORE No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester. I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .
    (He says this last to himself)

    ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he’s gone!

    MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

    ROPER So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

    MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    ROPER I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man’s laws, not God’s-and if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    ~~~~

    yguy would cut down all the laws to get to his “common sense.”

  103. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Irony of ironies, a birther attempting to argue common sense:

    Common sense would say that a pregnant 18-year old would have her baby where she and the baby’s father and her parents lived, where advanced medical care was available, where no struggle for independence was going on. The story that she would make an expensive, time-consuming journey halfway around the world to a place where she didn’t know a soul, where medical care was certainly not better than at home, where there was civil unrest, all to commune with her husband’s other wife and his parents who disapproved of their marriage (if it even was a legal marriage) lacks all sense, common or otherwise.

    Now let’s hear yguy, Mr “Common Sense” address that one!!!

  104. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    For those with a more limited literary background, the quotes above were from “A Man for All Seasons”.

    Quite apropo as it deals with mans identity, his place in the world and the abuses of those who would ignore and twist the law for their own personal and selfish reasons.

    In fact thinking about it….trial, pre-determined verdict, manufactured “evidence”, “common Man” as jailer, jury foreman and executioner, corpulent and crapulent central figure…..Damn, The Rev Manning was doing an Off, Off, Off Broadway re-interpretive parody of the play.

    Damn, must let Variety know, I smell a Tony, now if it had only be set to music………

  105. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    To return to Yguys “Common Sense” theme.

    To summarize.

    Common Sense is a purely deterministic, subjective set of individual personal beliefs, prejudices and opinions.

    These memes may have some basis in direct observational analysis but are in no way dependant upon it.

    This belief structure is rarely capable of direct measure or rational analysis or direct challenge

    Common Sense is capable of supporting both “good” and “bad” actions and activities and is frequently tied to the ethical framework of an individual. (ethics is neutral and not good or bad)

    It is mutable and fluid and culturally/religiously/ethnically/geographically/intellectually linked to personal beliefs.

    It may be modified by observation by and instruction to the individual

    Said personal belief structure is usually but not invariably tied to and modified by the culture/tribe/group or sub group an individual belives themselves to be a member of.

    By it’s very nature other people have different views on what is “Common Sense”

    Ergo “Common Sense” is an inherentlly flawed method to arrive at a rational, reproducible, consistent and measurable result when more than one person is involved.

    This is at the root of why the law is in many way the antithesis of common sense. it AIMS to be rational, reproducible, consistent and measurabel.

    Based on the above Yguy your original thesis around Lakin and the UCMJ is at best simplistic and not capable of intellectual acceptance.

    Break the law
    Get caught
    Be charged
    Be tried
    Be found guilty
    Be convicted

    I wonder how long AFTER Lakin is convicted will the (demonstrably limited numbers of) Birthers support him and his family?

    Or will they simply drop him like a dead skunk and move to the next insanity de-jour….after all, that’s only Common Sense…….

  106. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Let’s dispose of the notion that Lakin’s order to deploy is due to Obama’s presence in the White House:

    1. The request for more troops for Afghanistan didn’t originate with Obama, but, rather, with the Generals who are Lakin’s superiors. If anything, Obama showed a reluctance to approve the request.

    2. Congress could stop the deployment by passing a resolution to deny funding. So, tacitly or actively, they support it.

    3. The 3 people who would have (or had) claims on the presidency if Obama had been/were disqualified are Hillary, McCain and Biden. By their actions and statements during and after the campaign, there is no reason to think they would have refused the request.

    Thus, it is a real stretch for Lakin to claim he would not have received the order, but for Obama being President. In fact, it is likely that had any of the others been President, the order would have come a few months sooner.

    Epic fail even on those grounds.

  107. avatar
    Walter White May 21, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Bovril: To return to Yguys “Common Sense” theme.To summarize.Common Sense is a purely deterministic, subjective set of individual personal beliefs, prejudices and opinions.These memes may have some basis in direct observational analysis but are in no way dependant upon it.This belief structure is rarely capable of direct measure or rational analysis or direct challengeCommon Sense is capable of supporting both “good” and “bad” actions and activities and is frequently tied to the ethical framework of an individual. (ethics is neutral and not good or bad)It is mutable and fluid and culturally/religiously/ethnically/geographically/intellectually linked to personal beliefs.It may be modified by observation by and instruction to the individualSaid personal belief structure is usually but not invariably tied to and modified by the culture/tribe/group or sub group an individual belives themselves to be a member of.By it’s very nature other people have different views on what is “Common Sense”Ergo “Common Sense” is an inherentlly flawed method to arrive at a rational, reproducible, consistent and measurable result when more than one person is involved.This is at the root of why the law is in many way the antithesis of common sense. it AIMS to be rational, reproducible, consistent and measurabel.Based on the above Yguy your original thesis around Lakin and the UCMJ is at best simplistic and not capable of intellectual acceptance.Break the law
    Get caught
    Be charged
    Be tried
    Be found guilty
    Be convictedI wonder how long AFTER Lakin is convicted will the (demonstrably limited numbers of)Birthers support him and his family?Or will they simply drop him like a dead skunk and move to the next insanity de-jour….after all, that’s only Common Sense…….

    I wonder how many Obama supporters will offer an apology to LTC Lakin when we find out Obama’s COLB has the word “AMENDED” on it, the Soetoro adoption records are unsealed and Soetoro’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day.

    Come on. I need some good comedy today. Tell me how a non-citizen is qualified to be POTUS.

  108. avatar
    Black Lion May 21, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Sven says,

    “I wonder how many Obama supporters will offer an apology to LTC Lakin when we find out Obama’s COLB has the word “AMENDED” on it, the Soetoro adoption records are unsealed and Soetoro’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day.

    Come on. I need some good comedy today. Tell me how a non-citizen is qualified to be POTUS.”

    The answer would be NONE Sven. You want to know why? The reason why is we all know that Lakin can’t win and better yet President Obama was never adopted. And there has stlll never been a “non-citizen” as President because President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I will admit that I am not sure about this “Soetero” guy since I have no clue who he is. This Soetero guy could have been adopted, has this magical CLN form and be ineligible to be President. So whenever this “Soetero” person runs for office, I will be there with you demanding these documents and agreeing that this person is not eligible to be President. Fortunately for us no one named Soetero has run for President or is currently the President of the US.

    However I will thank you for the good laugh you gave us this morning. This magically “Soetero” guys is the funniest chapter in your book so far. I am looking forward to his next adventure in your novel. Maybe you could have him working for the CIA and KGB in Afganistan in the min-1980’s….Kind of like a Vince Flynn meets WEB Griffin….

  109. avatar
    Black Lion May 21, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    The following editorial is from a NM newspaper….

    Obama’s Birthers Should Check Out My Daughters’ Papers
    HARRY MOSKOS
    Of the Journal

    Every time I think the flap over President Barack Obama’s birthplace is about to fade away, the issue suddenly pops up again with quickened vigor.
    This time, an Army physician is fighting his deployment to Afghanistan by challenging not only whether his “commander in chief” is eligible to be president, but also the legality of his orders.
    Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who has been in the Army 18 years, questions whether Obama’s “certificate of live birth” is valid. This question has been raised by birthers before. Among other issues, they question the validity of a “certificate of live birth” over a “birth certificate.”
    The issue hits close to home since our two daughters, like Obama, were born in Honolulu. We lived in Hawaii from 1963 to 1969 while I was with the Associated Press in its Honolulu bureau.
    Finally, I thought, enough of my procrastination. My wife, Victoria, and I went to our bank safety deposit box to look at the birth records of our daughters.
    Obama and our daughters were born roughly within a four-year period. The president was born on Aug. 4, 1961. Our first child, Tina, was born on Oct. 25, 1964; Xrisanthe followed on Nov. 14, 1965.
    There are other similarities that, in my opinion, give credence to the legality of Obama’s birth records but will do absolutely nothing to satisfy the birthers:
    Obama’s document reads “Certificate of Live Birth.” The documents for both of our daughters also read “Certificate of Live Birth” — the words “birth certificate” are nowhere to be found on their state of Hawaii documents.
    Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, the same hospital where our daughters were born.
    News stories since this controversy started have listed the late Dr. Rodney T. West as the physician who delivered Obama. Coincidentally, West was my wife’s doctor and I see his name on the certificate for Xrisanthe’s birth. Tina was born on a Sunday and one of West’s associates at the Straub Clinic handled the delivery.
    Honolulu newspapers published the Obama birth announcement in this format: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6035 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.” The same format was used in announcing the birth of our daughters: “Mr. and Mrs. Harry Moskos, 1547 Haloa Drive, daughter, Oct. 25.”
    The Obama address was that of his grandparents. Although they had a major role in raising the future president, the use of this address is another sore point with the birthers. But the name of a legitimate doctor, hospital, birth records and announcement uniformity, and an actual address should leave little doubt that our president is legitimately holding office. In addition, state officials in Hawaii on several occasions have verified the validity of Obama’s birth and the related documents.
    Nevertheless, the debate will go on long after Obama leaves office. Perhaps a quote by Mark Twain from “Pudd’nhead Wilson” best summarizes this controversy: “One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.”

    http://epaper.abqjournal.com/Olive/ODE/AJEDITIONS/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=SkQvMjAxMC8wNS8xNw..&pageno=MTA.&entity=QXIwMTAwNA..&view=ZW50aXR5

  110. avatar
    Greg May 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    Walter White: I wonder how many Obama supporters will offer an apology to LTC Lakin when we find out Obama’s COLB has the word “AMENDED” on it, the Soetoro adoption records are unsealed and Soetoro’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day.

    In 25 years, I think, anyone can access Obama’s birth certificate. When that happens and it becomes clear that there has been no amendments, you’ll apologize to everyone who has had to read your fiction, right?

  111. avatar
    Dave May 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Walter White:
    I wonder how many Obama supporters will offer an apology to LTC Lakin when we find out Obama’s COLB has the word “AMENDED” on it, the Soetoro adoption records are unsealed and Soetoro’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day.Come on. I need some good comedy today. Tell me how a non-citizen is qualified to be POTUS.

    So we are working with hypotheticals here. If the odd things you posit here (amusingly preceded with “when”) where true, they would have no bearing on LTC Lakin’s case. As has been explained exhaustively on this blog, the President’s eligibility has nothing to do with a soldier’s duty to follow orders. if LTC Lakin had obtained competent legal advise, he would know that. (I can’t help thinking that he does know that, but that is purely speculation.)

    A non-citizen is of course not qualified to be President.

    For comedy, you might try Dr. Taitz’s latest filing. She thinks the nomination of Kagan is grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal order, and introduces this argument in a reply.

  112. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Walter White: I wonder how many Obama supporters will offer an apology to LTC Lakin when we find out Obama’s COLB has the word “AMENDED” on it, the Soetoro adoption records are unsealed and Soetoro’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day.

    Obama’s COLB was released and did not show the word amended on it.
    And of course, even if Obama lost his nationality, his return to the US took care of that. Remember that under US court rulings, parents cannot take away a child’s citizenship and children are too young to make a well informed decision.

    So other than speculations, Sven has nothing to offer.

    Furthermore, Lakin will still be sentenced for disobeying orders as his violations of the UCMJ do not depend on President Obama’s eligibility.

    Nice try though…

  113. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    Greg:

    Which definition do you think Dr. Conspiracy was using in his original posting?

    It doesn’t matter, since the relevant definition is that intended by Keyes, and which is very likely consistent with my own – which I suspect is why you feel the need to distort it to the point of incoherence.

    Or, is there a fourth option?

    Of course there is, since there is quite a bit more law involved than just the rules of evidence.

    Lakin’s explanation, nowever, is not a legal justification or defense for his actions. Legally, it is irrelevant to the fact-finder’s decision.

    This remains an unfounded assertion.

  114. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    G: that upsets you

    What a comforting thought that must be. 8)

  115. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    yguy: This remains an unfounded assertion.

    That’s ironic given that you have yet to support many of your assertions. That you understand the concept seems to be even more troublesome.

    And you seem to recognize this as you seem to feel it necessary to make more unfounded assertions such as

    which I suspect is why you feel the need to distort it to the point of incoherence.

    Interesting…

  116. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    yguy: And that is what your entire argument boils down to. Your viewpoint, which is completely subjective, differs from others and that upsets you. You choose to misuse words like “fact” and “common sense” constantly as if, somehow, hearing yourself say something is the way you want it to be will make it true. Well, good luck with that, but nobody’s buying it here.

    Let’s restore its proper context, shall we ?

    And that is what your entire argument boils down to. Your viewpoint, which is completely subjective, differs from others and that upsets you. You choose to misuse words like “fact” and “common sense” constantly as if, somehow, hearing yourself say something is the way you want it to be will make it true. Well, good luck with that, but nobody’s buying it here.

    Makes far more sense

  117. avatar
    Dave May 21, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    yguy:
    [Responding to Greg’s comment “Lakin’s explanation, nowever, is not a legal justification or defense for his actions. Legally, it is irrelevant to the fact-finder’s decision.”]

    This remains an unfounded assertion.

    Greg’s assertion is a point of law. LTC Lakin’s lawyer Jensen has stated an intention to challenge this point (or rather, he has pretended in press interviews that it is clearly false). So in LTC Lakin’s case, we can’t say for sure that it’s false until the judge says so.
    However, Greg’s assertion can’t be described as “unfounded.” Nobody has yet located an expert on military law who doesn’t think Jensen’s position is utterly meritless.
    And it’s important to note that LTC Lakin will not get the discovery he seeks until after Jensen convinces the judge of this very questionable legal theory.

  118. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    G:

    Actually it’s impossible, by the very definition of “self-evident”, which excludes propositions which require external support.

    Similar to how the HI COLB is self-authenticating, right?

    Not really, no. Self-authentication per FRE 902 implies admissibility, not incontrovertibility. Self-evident truths can also be controverted, but only with lies.

  119. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    yguy: Not really, no. Self-authentication per FRE 902 implies admissibility, not incontrovertibility. Self-evident truths can also be controverted, but only with lies.

    Unless the self-evident truth itself is a lie. After all, calling something self-evidently true does not make it so.
    Sorry yguy but you cannot hide behind assertions, time to do some real work to establish a foundation for your assertions.
    I know it can be hard but without it, you have nothing to fall back on.

  120. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    yguy: Similar to how the HI COLB is self-authenticating, right?

    Not really, no. Self-authentication per FRE 902 implies admissibility, not incontrovertibility. Self-evident truths can also be controverted, but only with lies.

    So even though something is self-evident, it can still be proven wrong, but it requires lies? The COLB is self-evident truth of Obama’s birth on US soil but still you insist that it can be controverted but only with lies.

    Interesting.

  121. avatar
    NbC May 21, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Dave: [Responding to Greg’s comment “Lakin’s explanation, nowever, is not a legal justification or defense for his actions. Legally, it is irrelevant to the fact-finder’s decision.”]

    This remains an unfounded assertion.

    Actually it is well founded in legal precedent. US v New comes to mind. ‘The President made me do it’, is just not a defense for disobeying direct orders from immediate commanders and missing a troop movement.
    That Lakin insisted that unless President Obama presents sufficient evidence to Lakin, he would not follow orders, is no excuse for him actually doing so.
    Common sense indeed.

  122. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    I have to join Scientist here and point out that common sense tells us that:

    If voters know a candidates father was not a U.S. citizen, yet overwhelmingly vote for him, common sense tells us that the voters believe that he is a natural born citizen.

    If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears a President in as President, common sense tells us that he has no objections to the eligibility of the new President

    Common sense tells us that a 6 year old American can’t renounce his citizenship.

    Common sense tells us that a pregnant American woman wouldn’t travel to Africa to give birth- and then ask her mother to commit fraud to ensure her son would be considered a natural born American citizen.
    Common sense tells me that the motiviations of the first challenges to the President’s eligibility were based upon political opportunism, designed to play upon the fears of certain racist voters.

    Common sense tells me that it is no mere coincidence that the first black American to get elected President is also the first one with not only questions as to his eligibilty, but to also have a rainbow of theories describing why he couldn’t be eligible.

    Common sense tells me that if President Obama was really not eligible, that John McCain or Hillary Clinton would have had both more motiviation and more resources(and actual standing) to discover and publicize his ineligiblity than Orly or Mario.

    Common sense tells me that if there were really any serious question as to President Obama’s NBC eligibiilty that some right wing blow hard with actual credentials would have jumped on the opportunity, rather than two bit attorneys and dentists.

    Common sense tells me that after a President is elected by a majority of voters, confirmed Congress and sworn in, that he is our legal President

    Common sense tells me that allowing soldiers to refuse orders because they question the eligiblity of the chain of command would be disastrous for our military and the safety of our country.

    Common sense tells me that when the state of Hawaii says that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, then I don’t need to look at another birth certificate.

    Common sense tells me that most birthers will never accept that the President is legitimate, regardless of any evidence offered.

  123. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Dave: For comedy, you might try Dr. Taitz’s latest filing. She thinks the nomination of Kagan is grounds for reconsideration of the dismissal order, and introduces this argument in a reply.

    I’m surprised she didn’t cite the switch from Standard Time to Daylight Saving Time as grounds for a do-over.

  124. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    Self-evident truths?? You mean as in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Yet the man who wrote those words must not have really believed them, since he owned other men as slaves.

  125. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    Scientist: Self-evident truths??You mean as in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

    Exactly.

    Yet the man who wrote those words must not have really believed them, since he owned other men as slaves.

    Your point being…?

  126. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    yguy:
    Exactly.
    Your point being…?

    Apparently, some “truths” are more “self-evident” than others.

  127. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    That even something that is ‘self-evident’ is open to different interpretations by different people.

  128. avatar
    Dave May 21, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    I can’t help noticing that it’s been two weeks since LTC Lakin issued a press release. Wonder what’s going on. Hasn’t been a gap that long before.

  129. avatar
    Rickey May 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    Dave:
    Greg’s assertion is a point of law. LTC Lakin’s lawyer Jensen has stated an intention to challenge this point (or rather, he has pretended in press interviews that it is clearly false). So in LTC Lakin’s case, we can’t say for sure that it’s false until the judge says so.
    However, Greg’s assertion can’t be described as “unfounded.” Nobody has yet located an expert on military law who doesn’t think Jensen’s position is utterly meritless.

    My prediction is that Lakin will be allowed to raise his reasoning for disobeying his orders – during the sentencing phase.

  130. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Sef:
    Apparently, some “truths” are more “self-evident” than others.

    The deniability of any truth is proportional to its inconvenience. That says nothing of intrinsic truth value.

    SFJeff: That even something that is ’self-evident’ is open to different interpretations by different people.

    So his slave ownership was based on an interpretation of his proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    Do tell.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    Scientist: Self-evident truths??You mean as in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”Yet the man who wrote those words must not have really believed them, since he owned other men as slaves.

    Well there you are venturing into the area of “natural law” which is the province of Emerich de Vattel, although for him monarchy was the law of nature and presumably a self-evident truth. I very much doubt de Vattel would have said that all men were created equal.

  132. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well there you are venturing into the area of “natural law” which is the province of Emerich de Vattel, although for him monarchy was the law of nature and presumably a self-evident truth. I very much doubt de Vattel would have said that all men were created equal.

    it is true that many species in nature show a dominance heirarchy that resembles human monarchies. A critical difference is that the alpha is not a heriditary position, but is open to any member of the band that can fight their way into it. The experience of hereditary dynasties is that the successors rarely measure up to the founder.

    As a natural model I’m partial to the bonobos, a species related to chimpanzees. They settle their differences by having sex orgies.

  133. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    yguy: The deniability of any truth is proportional to its inconvenience. That says nothing of intrinsic truth value.
    SFJeff: That even something that is ’self-evident’ is open to different interpretations by different people.
    So his slave ownership was based on an interpretation of his proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    Yguy

    The “deniability” sentence has neither grammatical or logical content, it’s just a string of words without apparent meaning could you please explain what you mean by it.

    The whole “Self Evident” truth of all men being created equal was actually “all men being created equal except for these categories of people”. So not even vaguely a “Self Evident Truth”. it was a lofty statement without even the pretence of being linking to the facts on the ground.

    In fact, to repeat my point earlier,YOUR truth and “common sense” is as a purely deterministic, subjective set of individual personal beliefs, prejudices and opinions.
    You can believe it, hold it tight, polish and fondle it, it doesn’t alter what it is or rather is not.

    I won’t even bother with your venture into “natural law” that was adequately torn apart by various folks earlier.

  134. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    “So his slave ownership was based on an interpretation of his proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

    My statement stands- something that is ’self-evident’ is open to different interpretations by different people

  135. avatar
    Walter White May 21, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    NbC:
    Obama’s COLB was released and did not show the word amended on it.
    And of course, even if Obama lost his nationality, his return to the US took care of that. Remember that under US court rulings, parents cannot take away a child’s citizenship and children are too young to make a well informed decision.So other than speculations, Sven has nothing to offer.Furthermore, Lakin will still be sentenced for disobeying orders as his violations of the UCMJ do not depend on President Obama’s eligibility.Nice try though…

    The expatriate, the parent, the milkman nor the dogcatcher can take a child’s citizenship away. Only the Secretary of State can do that.

    A renouncement of citizenship is a request. An expatriate does not lose their citizenship until the Secretary of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN). The issuance of a CLN is completely discretionary. The current SoS might state she wouldn’t issue a CLN to child under the age of 16 for any reason, ever … never … could not … would not … not going to happen. The SoS of 1966-70 may have read a report put together by a Foreign Affairs Officer where a child, living outside of the United States and having a State Dept Locally Engaged Employee appointed as temporary guardian for the child on this issue, and decided to issue the CLN.

    For an adult, the issuance of a CLN is final. The former U.S. Citizen can petition the US Federal Court to rescind the CLN due to fraud, but they are no longer a US Citizen until the Federal Court rules the CLN is invalid.

    For a child, the CLN is held in suspense and not finalized until 6 months after the child’s 18th birthday. Regardless of what happens in the child’s life, the child must be pro-active to rescind the CLN, i.e. sign a statement rescinding the renouncement and taking an oath of allegiance to the US. Change a name, voiding an adoption or moving back to the US won’t rescind the CLN.

  136. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Walter White: For a child, the CLN is held in suspense and not finalized until 6 months after the child’s 18th birthday. Regardless of what happens in the child’s life, the child must be pro-active to rescind the CLN, i.e. sign a statement rescinding the renouncement and taking an oath of allegiance to the US. Change a name, voiding an adoption or moving back to the US won’t rescind the CLN.

    Love your imagination. But they are at odds with the legal jurisprudence.

  137. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Walter White:
    The expatriate, the parent, the milkman nor the dogcatcher can take a child’s citizenship away. Only the Secretary of State can do that.A renouncement of citizenship is a request. An expatriate does not lose their citizenship until the Secretary of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN). The issuance of a CLN is completely discretionary. The current SoS might state she wouldn’t issue a CLN to child under the age of 16 for any reason, ever … never … could not … would not … not going to happen. The SoS of 1966-70 may have read a report put together by a Foreign Affairs Officer where a child, living outside of the United States and having a State Dept Locally Engaged Employee appointed as temporary guardian for the child on this issue, and decided to issue the CLN.For an adult, the issuance of a CLN is final. The former U.S. Citizen can petition the US Federal Court to rescind the CLN due to fraud, but they are no longer a US Citizen until the Federal Court rules the CLN is invalid.For a child, the CLN is held in suspense and not finalized until 6 months after the child’s 18th birthday. Regardless of what happens in the child’s life, the child must be pro-active to rescind the CLN, i.e. sign a statement rescinding the renouncement and taking an oath of allegiance to the US. Change a name, voiding an adoption or moving back to the US won’t rescind the CLN.

    And what evidence do you (or anyone else) have that a CLN was EVER issued in Obama’s case?

  138. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    According to the Wikipedia page on CLN the following MUST occur:

    The citizen has unequivocally admitted in writing an intent to lose U.S. citizenship

    The renunciation was made at a U.S. diplomatic office outside the U.S. before a U.S. diplomatic officer

    The renunciation must be made voluntarily. Grounds for arguing that renunciation was not voluntary are financial hardship (e.g., the need to get a job in another country) or family pressure.

    and/or

    The person has signed an oath of allegiance to the foreign state, renouncing allegiance to all other states.

    The person is clear that they know exactly what they are doing.

    It is abundantly clear that, for a child, these criteria would be essentially impossible to be met. So the probability that this happened for Obama is infinitesimally small (and no, you don’t get to integrate).

  139. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Bovril:
    YguyThe “deniability” sentence has neither grammatical or logical content,

    That is a misperception on your part.

    it’s just a string of words without apparent meaning could you please explain what you mean by it.

    Nothing could be simpler: the greater the conflict between the truth and the desire for what one is not entitled to, the easier it is to deny that inconvenient truth, however obvious it is.

    The whole “Self Evident” truth of all men being created equal was actually “all men being created equal except for these categories of people”.

    This, of course, is the semantical equivalent of “a=b, where a>b”.

    So not even vaguely a “Self Evident Truth”. it was a lofty statement without even the pretence of being linking to the facts on the ground.

    Assuming arguendo that the bolded characterization is substantially accurate, how does it preclude the proposition from being self-evidently true?

    In fact, to repeat my point earlier

    To what end? Do you really think I haven’t heard such deconstructionist drivel countless times up to now?

  140. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    “To what end? Do you really think I haven’t heard such deconstructionist drivel countless times up to now?”

    To amuse myself and others. I am under no illusion that rational argument will sway you.

  141. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    yguy: That is a misperception on your part.Nothing could be simpler: the greater the conflict between the truth and the desire for what one is not entitled to, the easier it is to deny that inconvenient truth, however obvious it is.This, of course, is the semantical equivalent of “a=b, where a>b”.Assuming arguendo that the bolded characterization is substantially accurate, how does it preclude the proposition from being self-evidently true?To what end? Do you really think I haven’t heard such deconstructionist drivel countless times up to now?

    Ygut,

    Again, the above is purely your opionion and reflects rather more on your ethical and moral viewpoint than the law thank God.

    I might add that by yoiur very own words yiu have heard this “drivel” , “countless times”

    I submit that “Common Sense” as well as verifiable repudiation by multiple sources (your words) renders my view inherently both more valid, accepted and acceptable than your.

    Petard meet hoist

  142. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    yguy: To what end? Do you really think I haven’t heard such deconstructionist drivel countless times up to now?

    Funny how you seem to believe that calling something makes it so.

  143. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Bovril:
    I submit that “Common Sense” as well as verifiable repudiation by multiple sources (your words) renders my view inherently both more valid, accepted and acceptable than your[s].

    I’m sure it does, using Einstein’s definition. 8)

  144. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Sigh…

    Nothing so far to support your assertions…
    I should not have held my breath πŸ™‚

    yguy:
    I’m sure it does, using Einstein’s definition.

  145. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    Come on Yguy, at least attempt to argue your points, so far….no content, no facts, no substantive background.

    I’m sure you can attempt to do better.

  146. avatar
    yguy May 21, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Bovril: I’m sure you can attempt to do better.

    Negative. I cannot pretend your rebuttals are anything but transparent sophistry. All I have to offer is truth, to which you are so plainly allergic. Don’t like it? Don’t read it.

  147. avatar
    SFJeff May 22, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    “All I have to offer is truth,”

    Once again you confuse truth with opinion. You consistantly provide unsupported opinions as universal truths. In my opinion, your opinions are incorrect.