Main Menu

The Lakin strategy

This article is speculation.

The “cover story” doesn’t make sense. Lakin says that he demands that President Obama prove his eligibility to him and that’s why he’s willing to sacrifice his career, to resolve the uncertainty over Obama’s eligibility. Lakin swore to uphold the Constitution and he says he can’t do that as long as he has doubts about the President.  But Lakin has an attorney and that attorney will have already told Lakin that Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof is no defense. Lakin will not be able to force Obama to do anything, and no documents will come to light, and those who question the President’s eligibility will be no better off after Lakin is packed off to jail.

So what is Lakin’s strategy given that it is inevitable that he destroys his distinguished career and gains none of his stated goals? He could have just resigned.

The motivation, it seems to me, is political. Lakin makes himself a martyr. The military will come down on Lakin with a heavy hand and he will have no defense. He will be seen as a sympathetic figure by the far right. His fate will motivate others. I don’t doubt that Terry Lakin is a patriotic minded person. He probably believes that President Obama is a disaster for the country, and his only option to remove Obama is to make Obama seem cruel and dictatorial, and spark a popular uprising at the polls and in the mid-term elections.

My view is that Lakin will only motivate those who are already bitter opponents of the Administration. He will have done it all for nothing.

158 Responses to The Lakin strategy

  1. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    While his lawyer might tell him he can’t use Obama’s ineligibilty as defense, if Lakin goes to trial, that defense will have to be entertained because whole timeline, sequence of events, a Lakin’s action are completely tied to that defense. If the defense were not allowed, it would hard to believe a jury would convict Terry Lakin on his actions. The jury in weighing the facts, could not reconcile Lakin’s motives. Clearly I think the jury would ask themselves and of the court why a decorated Army MD decided to wake one day and decides not to deploy to Afganistan. Without bringing the eligiblity up at the trial, the case against Terry Lakin would make no sense.

  2. avatar
    Mary Brown April 16, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    John, he disobeyed a lawful order. We value military service in my family. The Congress, not the Lt. Colonel, declares an election valid. The military must remain apolitical. No member has the right to question the validity of an election that followed Constitutional process. I hope he is tried, convicted and sent to Leavenworth. He has brought dishonor to all who serve their country, not a political agenda.

  3. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    A valid election by no means Obama was eligible or even vetted on that point. If Lakin is refused to use Obama inelgiblity for a defense, it might be wise for Lakin to not be cooperative until the court grants his due process. While Lakin is bound by the UCMJ to follow orders, he bound by his oath to defend to US Consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Lakin believes firmly that he cannot and in all good conscience follow orders from Commander in Chief whose eligiblity is in question.(Lakin spent a year trying to determine if Obama was eligible to no sucess) The court will to determine if Lakin’s oath to Constitution trumps the upholding of USMJ regulations. Bear in mind that enlisted men do swear and oath to follow orders of the POTUS and their superiors addition to upholding the US Constitution. Lakin is an Officer and his first duty and honarable oath goes to upholding the US Constitution not following military orders.

  4. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    Interestly enough, there is no check in system to determine if the candidate who won an election is in fact eligible to serve that position. It is mostly an honor system. Congress merely certified the election as valid and lawful to the extent that the voting process was legal and correct and the votes were valid; not that Obama was constitutional eligble to serve as the POTUS.

  5. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Lakin isn’t taking a politcal stance nor is he asking a political question; Lakin is asking a legal consitutional question that has yet to be answered. The political process has long since been over and Obama’s eligiblity still has not been verified.

  6. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    I guess Lakin’s defense would be something like the following:

    Lakin’s first duty and honarable oath is to uphold the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, not adhereing to UCMJ regulations. If Obama is in fact ineligible to serve as the POTUS, the Lakin cannot in good faith and in good conscious follow military orders that derive and stem themselves from a ineligible Commander in Chief which would violate his oath.

    If such a defense were sucessful, Lakin would not be found guilty and would be given the opportunity to announce in resignation from the US Army.

  7. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    The SYSTEM is that there are 535 elected representatives empowered to register an objection. It only takes 2 objections, one from each House, to bring the proceedings to a grinding halt and force the matter to debate and vote in each house.

    No one objected. Had there been any valid grounds to object, certainly some brave representative of the “party of no” would have managed to write their objection on a piece of paper and submit it to the the Vice President, a Republican who intensely dislikes Obama and who surely would have been delighted to entertain a proper objection.

  8. avatar
    Kathryn N April 16, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    Don’t you know that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove motive to establish guilt?

  9. avatar
    Bovril April 16, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    John,

    To say you are being disingenuous is at best a compliment.

    I’ll type slowly and in big letters so you get it.

    A COURT MARTIAL DEALS IN ACTIONS, ACTIVITIES AND CONSEQUENCES, MOTIVATION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE COURT.

    LAKIN IS BEING COURT-MARTIALED NOT TRIED IN A CIVILIAN COURT.

    HE IS BEING TRIED UNDER THE UCMJ NOT THE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CODE

    THE CONVENING OFFICER MAKES THE JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT IS APPLICABLE

    WHAT IS APPLICABLE IS WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE ONLY

    THE CASE IS ABOUT DIRECT INSUBORDINATION, REFUSAL TO FOLLOW LAWFUL ORDERS AND REFUSAL TO DEPLOY (PLUS WHATEVER ELSE THE COURT DEEMS FIT)

    THE ONLY MATTERS UNDER REVIEW RELATE TO THOSE MATTERS.

    Bugger all to do with anything other than

    Were you given a direct order to deploy, Y/N

    Were these orders issued by your immediate chain of command or administrative chain of command Y/N

    Did you deploy as per your orders Y/N

    Were you informed as to the consequences of your defiant refusal to follow orders Y/N

    Were you informed, as part of your counseling that after your refusal to follow orders that you would be liable to punishment up to and including court martial Y/N

    That’s it, no “I wanna see the bad mans BC” will be entertained and after the first whine like that the judge will inform him and his lawyer that they will be held in contempt.

  10. avatar
    Kathryn N April 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Assuming Lakin were to raise such a defense, President Obama would actually have to be ineligible to serve as president for it to stand any chance at all of success. Since President Obama was born in Hawaii and is thus a natural born citizen,and since he is over the age of 35 and has lived here for over 14 years, that defense will not succeed.
    Of course, since Lakin has no right to refuse a valid order from his chain of command, his defense would fail in any case. He’s really, really screwed.

  11. avatar
    catbit April 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    John, Lakin does not have the authority to make the determination that the President is an enemy to the constitution. Like it or not, President Obama was elected by the people in the manner the constitution lays out. He was confirmed by congress in the manner the constitution lays out. That is all that matters – Obama’s eligibility is a matter of Lakin’s opinion, and nothing else. Lakin did not have nor does he have the authority to raise issue, particularly where it involves the military. What he is doing is, in essence, staging a personal coup de tat, and in essence, he himself has now become an enemy to the very constitution he purports to protect.

  12. avatar
    Dave April 16, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    We get used to the expectation that redress of violations of law happen in the courts — but the Constitution makes quite clear that, where the President is concerned, redress happens in Congress.
    Maybe you can explain to me why birthers aren’t bugging their Congressmen to do something about this. I really don’t get this. Birthers complain about the judges, who actually can’t do anything about it, but the Congressmen get a pass.

  13. avatar
    Dave April 16, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    What you say here is exactly what I’ve been thinking — Lakin must already know that this has no chance of success.
    I’d just add that, when the court inevitably doesn’t allow him to even discuss the President’s eligibility, one might expect his press releases to spin that as an astonishing injustice.

  14. avatar
    Dave April 16, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    You are being too generous. Before an issue of fact can even be discussed, you first have to convince the judge that the law says that issue of fact can affect the outcome of the case. Here, before the defense can raise the President’s eligibility, they will have to explain to the judge where the law says that an ineligible President means you don’t have to follow orders. Unfortunately for them, there is no such law. So in this case the President’s eligibility will not be a factual issue.

  15. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm #

    “Lakin must already know that this has no chance of success.”

    I don’t think so, his delusions are commmon among wingnuts, I’m sure he has been led to believe this will go somewhere, his regrets will occur when he fails. Wingnut hate is like that.

  16. avatar
    LCDR USN RET April 16, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    Obama has met the requirements to hold the office of POTUS. He was born in the USA, is over 35 years, and has resided in the USA for 14 years. His COLB is an accepted document for legal purposes issued by competent authority in the state of Hawai’i. Has a sitting President ever been required to provide a vault copy of their birth certificate? Lakin has fallen on his own sword.

  17. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    Interestly, Lakin is not actually stating that Obama is ineligibile but rather that he has A DOUBT to Obama’s inelgiblity and therefore cannot in good faith and good conscious follow orders without violating his oath.

    Incredibly and believe or not, Lakin shares Judge Carter’s view that the issue of Obama’s eligiblity but be determined:

    “Let me remind, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge Carter

    Does this remind you of someone – LtCol. Terry Lakin

    If Obama is ineligible is not good for the country and tha he is Commander In Chief.

    I think Terry Lakin rest his case.

    He should certainly think bringing Judge Carter’s warning and sentiment in his trial.

  18. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    read john’s post to confirm “delusions are commmon among wingnuts”

  19. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Lakin’s star witness – Judge Carter. Judge Carter will explain to the court why it would be bad for the country that if the Commander In Chief be ineligible.

  20. avatar
    Dave April 16, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    Well, then I guess his defense team better be ready to explain where the law says that soldiers who doubt the President’s eligibility are not required to follow orders.

  21. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Obama gots something to hide. If he got nothing to hid then produce the Birth Certificate. Obots have been able to reconcile this nagging concern.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=141745
    Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama ‘American’
    ‘If you’re not willing to produce birth certificate, you’ve got something to hide’

  22. avatar
    Steve April 16, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    John,
    The question has been answered. Many, many times. Some people, such as Lakin, just choose not to accept the answer.
    That’s nobody’s problem but his own.

  23. avatar
    Dave April 16, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    You’re losing me — what does this have to do with Lakin?

  24. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    Obama is definitely hiding something with his Birth Certificate. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Let take a look at some things.
    1. Thousands and Thousands of people have asked Obama to produce the Birth Certificate – Nothing Happend.
    2. Countless Lawsuits have asked for the BC. – Nothing
    3. Countless petitions have been sent to Obama to release the BC – Nothing
    4. Senators, Congressman and other elected public officials have voiced their concerns to Obama to release the BC – Nothing.
    5. A Congressman wrote a letter directly to Obama to release his BC – Nothing
    6. Lakin (A military Solider) asked Obama to release the BC – Nothing

    I think it is safe to say that Obama is hiding something about his BC.

  25. avatar
    BatGuano April 16, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    I think Terry Lakin rest his case.

    a doubt based on an internet rumor……… yep, that’s a pretty solid defense.

    the birthers remind me of a modern day tokyo rose.

  26. avatar
    John April 16, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    I think the defense can easily be show that Lakin’s order might necessarily be presumed lawful in strictest sense because of the overehleming doubt that Obama is in eligible to serve as Commander In Chief. Remember, thate Obama authorized the deployment of 30,000 troops to Afganistan. Lakin’s orders are no doubt derived from this order and directive.

  27. avatar
    richCares April 16, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    “overehleming doubt that Obama is in eligible”

    See what I mean, wingnuts very delusional! Poor john, lost in space!

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

    John: I think it is safe to say that Obama is hiding something about his BC.

    Obama released his birth certificate in June of 2008. My only question is why a small army of folks sprung up trying to deny that simple fact.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    Read the Constitution and guess again.

  30. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    “Since President Obama was born in Hawaii and is thus a natural born citizen”

    ….in your opinion.

    How in the world can you people make this statement as fact when you were not present at his birth….or are you claiming that as well?

    Yes, I ‘think’ he was born in Hawaii – but I have no idea if he was or not. If you think that the COLB ‘proves’ anything, you’re a fool. Common sense can tell you that he was and you can ‘believe’ he was, but you do NOT, let me repeat that, YOU DO NOT know it for a FACT.

    Common sense should also tell you there is more to this than is being told. There is something there that Obama wishes to conceal. What it is, is anyone’s guess…but there is one thing for CERTAIN – no one knows ANYTHING for a FACT…I’m not even sure Obama knows for a FACT.

    Get a grip people.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    John: Lakin believes firmly that he cannot and in all good conscience follow orders from Commander in Chief whose eligiblity [sic] is in question.

    So you are saying Lakin is going for an insanity defense?

  32. avatar
    richCares April 17, 2010 at 12:05 am #

    My daughter was born in Hawaii in 1965, when she needed a passport she supplied her hospital BC, she was told it was not acceptable, she had to get a state issued BC. The state sent her a COLB and she got her passport, it was identical in format to Obama’s. It is the only certificate that Hawaii currently sends. So stop saying Obama did not show it. You either don’t know or are an idiot! You can call Hawaii Dept of health to confirm what they supply (but birthers never check).

  33. avatar
    John April 17, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Obama never released his BC. What is online is completely invalid. No seal, no signature and the BC has been altered (Certificate Number Blacked Out) which makes it completely invalid. Factcheck claimed that saw they real thing but all we have are bunch of pictures and whatever them claim to have seen have seen has never been seen again. Obama has yet to release his BC. And if the BC is somehow valid, Obama only released the Certification of Live Birth and not the actual Birth Certificate. Recall, the COLB merely is a document that points to real BC which Obama won’t release. The fact that Hawaii only issues the COLB is a strawman argument since Obama can easily authorize that the real underlying BC be released.

  34. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:07 am #

    I might be wrong, but my money says he will NOT be court martialed.

    Time will tell, but I don’t think they can take that chance, as that could possibly give him standing – and they just cannot afford for anyone to have standing. That would bring down Obama’s house of cards.

  35. avatar
    nBC April 17, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    The COLB is sufficient and has been released. DOH of Hawaii has confirmed obama’s natural born status through birth on US soil.

    Bummer
    Lakin threw it all away for nothing but perhaps he had nothing really to care for either.
    The hope of a few days of limelight may have been too tempting.
    Too bad it never happened

  36. avatar
    John April 17, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Obama never released it. I suspect that the State Department requires a State issued document to get a passport. The fact that Hawaii only supplies the COLB is a strawman argument since Obama has the ability to release the underlying real BC.

  37. avatar
    nBC April 17, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Hint de facto officer doctrine

  38. avatar
    nBC April 17, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    Why would he when the COLB is sufficient. Obama released his COLB, how come you never went to inspect it?

  39. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    No, common sense should tell you that all available credible evidence backs up that Obama is NBC and that only various bits of debunked myth, outright falsehoods, misinformation and biased paronoid rumors exist to contradict that.

    Your whole argument for “FACT” is laughingly ironic, since not one iota of argument against Obama comes anywhere close to meeting your criteria.

    So, EPIC FAIL there, Scott Brown, you transparent hypocrite, you.

  40. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    “Has a sitting President ever been required to provide a vault copy of their birth certificate?”

    Has a sitting President ever other governments claim his birth location was other than the US?

    Has a sitting President ever had his wife claim as his ‘home country’ somewhere other than the US?

    Has a sitting President ever claimed to have been a dual-citizen (governed by British Law) at birth?

    There is always a first time for everything.

  41. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Get ready to fail again.

    My bet is that a) he will be court martialed and b) nothing in this case gives him your “mythical” standing, sorry.

  42. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 12:17 am #

    John: this is my authentic birth certificate.

    See how it compares to Obama’s COLB.

  43. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    I’m with richCares on this.

    Do I think he believes he will become elevated as a “martyr” for the cause – YES.

    But I think he, as richCares so well put it, fully believes his birther BS and also the dream of “mythical standing” the Hemenway’s have fed him. I’m sure he really believes he can succeed and be vindicated and therefore, he will be shocked when the inevitable reality of his fate finally sinks in.

  44. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    John,

    Unfortunately, Obama isn’t required to show anything simply because citizens ask for it…and that fact doesn’t prove anything.

    I’m not sure countless lawsuits have asked for the BC.

    Again, Obama isn’t required to respond to petitions.

    Voicing opinions still doesn’t require Obama to respond – whether it be a citizen or a Congressman. And I certainly think it is in Obama’s best interest to ignore Lakin’s charges and requests.

    Yes, I think common sense would tell you that Obama wants to conceal something, but it could be something entirely disassociated with his eligibility.

    But then common sense appears to be in short supply by the Obots.

  45. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    Judge Carter’s point was it was bad for the country for such rumors to persist.

    On that point, I agree – these birther myths are nothing but crap gossip that is insulting and degrading to this country. Such false rumors are bad for this country.

    Judge Carter’s statements did not in anyway indicate that the Judge had any questions about Obama’s eligibility.

    So, keep failing John.

  46. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    “The COLB is sufficient and has been released. DOH of Hawaii has confirmed obama’s natural born status through birth on US soil.”

    Really? Please point me to the evidence that states the COLB is sufficient proof in determining if someone is a NBC.

    I was born in 9-1961 and my COLB was NOT sufficient for the State Department to issue me a Passport as a US Citizen, let alone a NBC.

    Please point me to the evidence that the COLB posted on Fact Check contains the exact information as is contained on the BC on file at the Hawaii DOH. I’ve never seen a statement to this affect.

    Please give me the credentials of the person who confirms Obama’s NBC status and their authority to do so.

    You can type out a statment such as I quoted above, but that doesn’t make it a FACT or the TRUTH.

  47. avatar
    JoZeppy April 17, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    There is no way to get standing out of this mess. First off, the charges that Lakin will face have nothing to do with Obama’s status. Lakin can no more refuse an order to deploy than a buck private refuse to clean a latrine. Obama didn’t give the order. He was ordered to deply by a superior officer. He disobeyed that order. Saying, “but I haven’t seen Obama’s long form BC” isn’t a defense, so he doesn’t get to go on a fishing expedition through the president’s personal documents. And even if he did, the president could produce the same COLB that’s been floating on the internet for about 2 years…you know, the one that says “prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii” on it…and the end of the story.

    Furthermore, his dishonorable discharge doesn’t magically create standing either, as all the harms he suffered are entirely self inflicted (just ask Orly about that).

    Lakin is going to be made an example of. Not sure if they’re going to send him to Leavenworth, but he’s going to get booted out of the army, and loose all of his retirement benefits. Only way he slavages anything of his career is to cop a guilty plea and hope they leave him with something

  48. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 12:33 am #

    “Has a sitting President ever claimed to have been a dual-citizen (governed by British Law) at birth?”

    James Buchanan and Chester Arthur.

  49. avatar
    JoZeppy April 17, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    If your star witness is someone who has no knowledge about the facts surrounding what you are charged with, you are screwed indeed.

  50. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Well, for once Scott Brown, I actually agree with most of your statements in this post.

    My only quibbles is the last two sentences:

    Yes, I think common sense would tell you that Obama wants to conceal something, but it could be something entirely disassociated with his eligibility.

    Common sense here only leads to reasoning that Obama has no need to pander to these birther requests. Although a number of people have speculated that there might be things in his past he doesn’t want to reveal, that is mere speculation, with nothing to base it upon other than someone’s personal suspicions.

    But then common sense appears to be in short supply by the Obots.

    Well, so far the “Obots” record on predicting how these birther cases and antics will turn out has been 100% correct, so where common sense applies in those regards, the “Obots” are doing pretty well.

    In terms of “birthers” however, it seems that common sense is not merely in short supply, but practically non-existent.

  51. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Isn’t that odd – the State Department wouldn’t accept my COLB – which looks identical to Obama’s. I was born in Sept. of 1961.

    I was told to go back to my DOH and get the long form. My DOH didn’t want to give it to me, said the COLB was sufficient, until I told them it was for a Passport. Then suddenly, they were like – yeah, you’ll need the long form for that – they don’t take COLB’s. The only was to get the long-form is to VERBALLY request it and provide a legitimate reason for needing it. They are there – you just have to ask for it.

    But who cares? Obama himself admitted that he was governed by British Law at birth – which gives rise to question his NBC status. I’m not saying he isn’t – just saying that I question it.

    Odd…huh? I’m thinking I need to look into this and see if I was discriminated against.

  52. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    “how come you never went to inspect it?”

    Where was it on display for people to inspect?

    And exactly WHO released the COLB?

    Obama, his campaign staff, or FactCheck?

    If it was his campaign staff or FactCheck, where did they get it? Who at Factcheck authenticated it? What are their creditials that gives them the authority to authenticate such a document?

    I’m not saying it is not real – I’m just asking how the average citizen is supposed to know that it is real?

    I mean – I saw the Kenyan BC online, but that doesn’t make it real – ya know? And I’m guessing any organization could have stated on their website that they authenticated it – but that doesn’t make it so – ya know?

  53. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Let’s examine John’s own stats:

    Let take a look at some things.
    1.Thousands and Thousands of people have asked Obama to produce the Birth Certificate – Nothing Happend.
    2.Countless Lawsuits have asked for the BC. – Nothing
    3.Countless petitions have been sent to Obama to release the BC – Nothing
    4.Senators, Congressman and other elected public officials have voiced their concerns to Obama to release the BC – Nothing.
    5.A Congressman wrote a letter directly to Obama to release his BC – Nothing
    6.Lakin (A military Solider) asked Obama to release the BC – Nothing

    For one thing, I have no doubt that there are many “thousands” of birthers out there. For a country of well over 300+ million people, that is a statistically insignificant population. Even if there were 3 million true birthers, that would still be under 1% of the population.

    So, I’m not impressed nor surprised that this country has a population consisting of thousands or even several million people who are completely nuts.

    Nor is it significant that a bunch of ranting nuts are filing tons of frivolous cases and filing endless petitions and such. All that tells you is that a small segment of the population is obsessed with pursing this wild goose chase.

    The only significant take away from all of your stats is the results – NOTHING, as you correctly noted in every one of these cases.

    The fact that these crazy requests & cases go absolutely nowhere and fall on deaf ears should tell you something – that they have no real basis in fact or law and are nothing but a fool’s errand and utter waste of time.

  54. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    “Well, so far the “Obots” record on predicting how these birther cases and”

    I hardly think this has anything to do with common sense at all.

    If someone doesn’t have standing to bring a law suit – it takes common sense to predict the outcome? Or does it just take an understanding of the law? Obots have a good understanding of the law (whereas Birthers seem to love to beat their heads against the legal books) – but common sense is another animal altogether.

  55. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    “Has a sitting President ever had his wife claim as his ‘home country’ somewhere other than the US?”

    Jackie Kennedy and Ireland.

  56. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    That’s funny. My wife and I just applied and got our passports last year, because the laws went into effect requiring passports to travel to Canada.

    I’m a US NBC and I provided my COLB (no doctor or hospital listed on it) and had no problems getting my passport. Had it within 6 weeks and already used it to visit Canada without any problems.

    Therefore, your story doesn’t pass the smell test. Either there are other factors involved as to why you were denied a passport that you are intentionally neglecting to tell us, or you’re making it up.

  57. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    Well said, JoZeppy!

    That pretty much sums up this whole situation and what can result from it.

  58. avatar
    JoZeppy April 17, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    “The COLB is sufficient and has been released. DOH of Hawaii has confirmed obama’s natural born status through birth on US soil.”Really? Please point me to the evidence that states the COLB is sufficient proof in determining if someone is a NBC.I was born in 9-1961 and my COLB was NOT sufficient for the State Department to issue me a Passport as a US Citizen, let alone a NBC.Please point me to the evidence that the COLB posted on Fact Check contains the exact information as is contained on the BC on file at the Hawaii DOH. I’ve never seen a statement to this affect.Please give me the credentials of the person who confirms Obama’s NBC status and their authority to do so.You can type out a statment such as I quoted above, but that doesn’t make it a FACT or the TRUTH.

    1) Did you miss the line on the bottom of the COLB “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of bith in any court proceeding.” It says he was born in Hawaii, thus, sufficent evidence of NBC.

    2) The Hawaii COLB is sufficient for a US Passport. What is required is “registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth” all of which were shown by the pictures of the birth certificate.

    3) It’s a COLB, it is based on the information on record. That’s how the thing works. It is prima facie evidence. It’s a self authenticating document. Until someone provides reasonable evidence to the contrary, the document speaks for itself.

    4) The COLB is a self-authenticating document. That is all you need to confirm his NBC status. No further confirmation or credentials required.

  59. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 12:56 am #

    Common sense would encompass things such as making a statement of opinion as FACT – which of course it is not.

    You can say you ‘think’ Obama is a NBC, or you ‘think’ the COLB is authentic and sufficient – but you cannot make these statements as FACTS.

    Here is where the Obots cannot grasp common sense. I’m guessing that none of the Obots were present AT or DURING Obama’s birth; therefore, you simply cannot make a statement of opinion as FACT. Common sense can tell you that you think it is true, but you cannot be 100% certain that what you state is a FACT. You can believe the COLB is authentic and common sense tells you that it probably is, but you cannot make a statement that it is 100%, because you do not know it for a FACT.

    Are you telling me that you have never been presented with evidence of something as FACT only to find out later that it wasn’t?

    Common sense tells us that there is something being concealed. It may or may not have a darn thing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS…but common sense tells us that there is some disagreement as to some detail about his birth/parents/name/etc. Who knows! Seems everyone wants to claim he was born in different places, and seems there is a problem placing a marker in the exact location of his birth.

    Therefore – common sense tells us that we cannot issue statements of FACT about Obama’s birth, because no one knows for a FACT.

  60. avatar
    JoZeppy April 17, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    Obviously your COLB wasn’t exactly like Obama’s. To be acceptable by the state department of a passport, the document has to have “registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth.” All of these are present in the pictures of Obama’s COLB. Which was missing on yours?

  61. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    “the State Department wouldn’t accept my COLB…I was told to go back to my DOH and get the long form. My DOH didn’t want to give it to me, said the COLB was sufficient, until I told them it was for a Passport. Then suddenly, they were like – yeah, you’ll need the long form for that – they don’t take COLB’s. The only was to get the long-form is to VERBALLY request it and provide a legitimate reason for needing it. They are there – you just have to ask for it.”

    I call BS. Provide a link stating a COLB is insufficient. Because it worked for me, when I got my passport and driver license.

    How about other people here?

    “Where was it on display for people to inspect?” Obama’s Chicago headquarters. You should have gone there if it was so damn important.

    Hawaii State Vital Records Office:(808)586-4533. Call them.

  62. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    I didn’t neglect to tell you any factors involved. My husband and I travel quite a bit and the laws were just going into effect that you needed a Passport to travel out of the country. This was right around Katrina, and I was worried that I would not have my Passport in time (as it was being issued out of the Louisiana, so my County Clerk told me), because my application was returned stating that the COLB was insufficient and that I MUST supply a long form. My DOH concured that yes, I would need the long-form since the COLB was insufficient to get a Passport. My COLB looks identical to Obama’s.

    My husband had his long-form and that was what was used to originally request his – so there was no problem and his was sent immediately.

    I was born in September of 1961 to two US Citizen parents with no extenuating circumstances. Just an average US Citizen. I’m telling the truth – I’m sorry if I’ve given you any reason to believe that I am being less than honest or leaving out pertinent information.

    I HAD to have a long-form to get a Passport, which I now have and have traveled extensively to several countries using it with no problems.

    I could say the same to you – that perhaps your story doesn’t pass the smell test, or that you are making it up or have left out pertinent information – but I have no reason to do so. You seem to be sincere in your post and I believe what you say, sorry to say that I am not afforded the same consideration.

  63. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 1:15 am #

    “The COLB is a self-authenticating document. That is all you need to confirm his NBC status. No further confirmation or credentials required.”

    And you’ve actually seen this self-authenticating document – when and where?

    Because we all know that there is no such thing as Photoshop. I’m NOT saying the COLB is not authentic – I’m saying that you CANNOT say with 100% certainty that the document is authentic.

    Unless you personally witnessed the Hawaii DOH presenting it to Obama or his appointed agent, then you simply CANNOT state for a FACT that what you’ve seen is authentic. Common sense might tell you that it probably is authentic, but you cannot state it is for a FACT.

    That’s all I’m saying. Everyone on this site wants to go on and on about this FACT and that FACT, but statements of opinion are not FACTS.

  64. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    The most birthers can muster is 600K people. That’s not even 1%. Obama is absolutely correct to ignore them. Anything else gives them legitimacy, and mobs should never be appeased.

    Personally, I am enjoying watching them squirm. The Repugs are going to run Romney and Jindal: a soap opera look alike, and Howdy Doody. Speaking of Romney, his father ran for prez, and he was born in Mexico to a polygamy household. Where was this crowd?

  65. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2010 at 1:26 am #

    I have seen 10 separate photos of the self-authenticating document here:
    http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    And I know enough about Photoshop to know that the 3-d photos, from multiple angles, on the Factcheck.org site could not easily be manipulated. A flat scan is one thing — getting all the shadows right in 3-d is something entirely different.

  66. avatar
    BatGuano April 17, 2010 at 1:26 am #

    Mayor joins chorus questioning if Obama American’

    “The mayor could not be reached for comment regarding the statement as of press time.”

  67. avatar
    Scott Brown April 17, 2010 at 1:27 am #

    “You should have gone there if it was so damn important.”

    It wasn’t important to me. I don’t care where or even if he was born.

    My point is that you Obots leave absolutely no room for error.

    Personally, I think he was born in Hawaii.
    Personally, I think the COLB is authentic.
    But I simply CANNOT make either of those statements as FACT, because I do not know for 100% if they are facts.

    I would not be willing to bet a huge sum of money or even my first born as to the accuracy of those statements. Would you? That is my only point. We are all entitled to our opinions – but that’s what they are – OPINIONS – not FACTS.

    If you kept an open mind, then the little things that keep cropping up with regards to Obama would nag at you a bit. Something inside would say – what is it that is being concealed. Why are there so many conflicting stories, odd occurrences, and sealed records.

    I’m not saying there is anything bad being concealed – only that common sense would tell you that something is. But you are so hellbent on wanting to prove he is legit that you have thrown common sense out the window and closed your eyes to anything that might be amiss with the information you are being fed.

    What are you afraid that you might find if you were to actually question what is being concealed?

  68. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 1:28 am #

    Scott Brown,

    The actual physical document *was* on display during the 2008 campaign at Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, IL, for anyone who wanted to go see it and the campaign directly issued a challenge early on when they released the online copy for anyone who wanted to see it for themselves to go there.

    That is where FactCheck.org’s reporting came into the picture. They had been directly sent the online copy previously but they took it upon themselves to take the Obama campaign up on their challenge and see the ACTUAL PHYSICAL DOCUMENT for themselves!

    http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates).

    Multiple detailed photos follow. Go to the link and see for yourself.

    I think it is pretty telling that none of the so-called “birther” sites nor “birther laywers” investigating this issue bothered to make this simple trip to see for themselves when they had the chance.

    Most of these folks started making noise about the issue while the campaign was still active, so there’s no excuse why they would completely avoid the simplest and most direct invitation to see the actual document for themselves.

    Gee, I wonder why…

    Because seeing that the actual document existed and was exactly what Obama’s campaign said it was would go contrary to their intended purpose to mislead, lie and slander Obama. These birther sites and birther lawyers have never had any intention to pursue the truth. They want to mislead and confuse the gullible and fleece them wherever possible.

  69. avatar
    richCares April 17, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    “I was told to go back to my DOH and get the “long form

    you are a lying sack of SSSSS!

    my family has 3 passports from COLB, and Feds are required by law to accept it, you lie dear birther!

  70. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 1:40 am #

    “What are you afraid that you might find if you were to actually question what is being concealed?”

    Probably his parents did not marry until after he was conceived. I don’t care if they were never married. But the fundies will bray about it, and ramp up their smears. And he should not give those reptiles any ammunition.

    My wife and I are enjoying that this Christian pharmacy went out of business.

    Youser!

  71. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    I was worried that I would not have my Passport in time (as it was being issued out of the Louisiana, so my County Clerk told me), because my application was returned stating that the COLB was insufficient and that I MUST supply a long form.

    A Lousiana short form is different than Hawaii’s short form. See: http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/faq.asp?ID=1&CID=17#Faq-1278

    The Lousiana short form does NOT contain as much info as the Hawaii COLB — therefore it could not possibly look “identical” to Obama’s. For one thing, it apparently is printed on a card — so there would be a pretty large discrepency as to size. It also is missing things such as the father’s name, and various other details.

  72. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    No Scott Brown, I’m not buying your concern trolling here.

    First of all, I call BS or on your State Department story. You are either leaving out the real reasons why your COLB was not accepted or making up the whole thing. If you provided a legitimate COLB document with proper seal & signature, that is all you need.

    This whole “long form” story is utter crap and I challenge you to show ANY official statement requiring such.

    Second, we’re NOT afraid of anything being found – We are healthy skeptics whose purpose here is to DEBUNK myths, falsehoods and lies. We vigorously look into these claims and fight against misinformation.

    Believe me, if any legitimate info came about that turned out to be true, showing Obama was not who he said he was, we’d be all over it.

    However we are now nearly 2 years into all this birther BS and every bit of credible evidence to date supports the default assumption that Obama is an NBC and not a single piece of credible evidence exists to make a rational person question that assumption.

    Therefore, yes, using simple “common sense” I have no rational reason to in any way doubt that Obama is NBC and that the birth certificate he provided is anything other than legitimate.

    No other scenario is supported or holds up to scrutiny.

  73. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    Scott Brown: I was a civilian volunteer with the IDF. Could you imagine what would happen if I said to my CO ‘I don’t have to do it if I don’t want to’?

    Lakin has a screw loose. They are going to make an example of him, and rightly so. The only order he can refuse is like Calley and My Lai.

    Them’s the facts.

  74. avatar
    BatGuano April 17, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    I’m guessing that none of the Obots were present AT or DURING Obama’s birth; therefore, you simply cannot make a statement of opinion as FACT.

    by that logic the existence of new zealand and china are only my opinion and not a fact because i have not had personal physical contact with them.

  75. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 2:10 am #

    JoZeppy: thank you. I think they’ll send him to Leavenworth, to make an example.
    Insubordination can never be tolerated.

    It snowballs. Remember that soldier in Kuwait who threw a hand grenade into a tent?

    That’s why.

  76. avatar
    richCares April 17, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    More proof scott is a lying sack of SSSSS!

    birthers never check anything and assume we don’t, the dip sh___! scott brown the lier should just stay away till he catches the truth bug.

  77. avatar
    misha April 17, 2010 at 2:18 am #

    I want physical proof that “Austrailia” exists. All the kangaroos I’ve seen have been in zoos.

    I know Israel, Jordan, Canada, Taiwan, Japan and Korea exist, because I’ve been there – but that’s all I can attest to.

    So your premise is correct: all the other places may not be real, until I actually go there and confirm it for myself.

    Thanks for pointing this out.

  78. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    But see, you don’t seem to understand what common sense actually is, do you?

    Common sense simply means that the evidence at hand is sufficiently credible that you do not have reason to doubt it.

    Just because you can come up with mere hypothetical speculation to suggest some other slight possibilities does not in any way invalidate a predominate likelihood or a sufficiently prevailing theory.

    There is a big difference between the realm of what is POSSIBLE and what is PLAUSIBLE.

    In an abstract sense, it is always possible that my parents lied to me my entire life and I am not their actual child by birth. As I have no memories of my birth, I can’t be “100% certain” of my “true parentage”. However, such is scenario is not plausible, based on the evidence at hand, (birth certificate not withstanding, I also definitely share enough physical features in common with them and other members of my family that such factors alone make any speculation about being adopted seem ridiculous). Therefore, it would be completely silly and the exact opposite of applying “common sense” for me to consider any possibility other than FACT that they are my true birth parents, even though there are definitely times I wish they weren’t.

    Which is all this birther myth stuff is. Wishful thinking untethered from reality by folks who are not happy that Obama is president.

    In terms of Obama’s BC, I have NO legitimate reason whatsoever to doubt that the document he presented is anything other than what he & the state of HI claims it to be. Nor have I seen any sufficient evidence to make me suspicious that he’s actually concealing anything.

    Therefore, the likelihood that the person who campaigned publicly for 2 years and was elected president and has been serving as such for well over a year; who previously served as both a IL state Senator and a US Senator with security clearances; who provided a BC that says born in Honolulu HI, who also has 2 separate 1961 HI newspaper birth announcements attesting to such, as well as the Republican Governor of HI and the HI DOH backing it up; is who he says he is – HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE.

    All birthers have is meaningless alarm and speculation that I find utterly baseless and laughable and nowhere near plausible.

    For those who speculate that maybe there is some embarassing detail in his family history that might turn up on more detailed documents – well, I guess that’s possible, but so what? The HI short form clearly states the relevant info to the issue of eligibility – PLACE OF BIRTH: HONOLULU, HI. As that is an abstract taken from the “long form”, that detail would not change.

    Why is the name of the hospital, his baby footprints, religion of his parents, etc. relevant at all? Nothing changes the only MEANINGFUL details to the issue of his eligibility in this situation and that is the place of birth. Again, HONOLULU, HI settled that issue 100%, so anything else or other gossip/speculation is completely meaningless and irrelevant.

    Come back when you have ACTUAL evidence to support and prove that he’s not NBC and I’ll listen. Until then, you’ve got nothing. Of course, I’m not holding my breath.

    Until then, COMMON SENSE tells me that all evidence supports the most likely truth – our US president, Obama, is a US NBC.

  79. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2010 at 2:47 am #

    Nothing has been “concealed”.

    Obama obtained one or more copies of the CURRENT, OFFICIAL form used by the state of Hawaii to certify births in 2007. One can assume that he got those by sending off a check and requesting a birth certificate, and the timing of the request means it is likely that it was done in contemplation of being asked at some point to document place of birth during his presidential candidacy.

    When the issue came up during the campaign, Obama’s staffer scanned and posted that document — the OFFICIAL FORM CURRENTLY USED by the State of Hawaii — online.

    When people questioned the validity of the scanned version posted online, Obama made the document freely available to media to inspect and representatives of Factcheck.org made arrangements to view, handle and photograph the document.

    The birthers are playing games. No matter what Obama produces, they would ask for more. But Obama is right to STOP with production of the OFFICIAL document that was provided to him by the state of Hawaii. Just because birthers ask for garbage doesn’t mean that Obama has to give it to them.

  80. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 2:49 am #

    This post is in response to “Scott Brown” (who is either really a woman or a gay male, since you reference your “husband” in your post.), as the comments seem to be embedded as far as they will go:

    Did you get a chance to read Expelliarimus’ response on your LA BC yet and follow the link?

    If you are being an “honest” person here, then I think he’s provided the answer of why you feel the way you do – your LA short form BC is different than the HI short form (and obviously different than the OH one I have):

    “Both certificates are certified copies of birth records and have a raised seal.

    Short-form birth certificates (birth cards) are $9.00 and include the name at birth, date of birth, parish of birth, father’s initials, mother’s last name and first initial, file date and issue date.

    Long-form birth certificates are $15.00 and include the name at birth, date of birth, parish of birth, hospital of birth, mother’s residence at time of birth, mother and father’s full names, parent’s place of birth, age of parents at the time of birth, file date and issue date.”

    So, maybe you were telling the truth that your “short form” was insufficient for a US Passport and maybe that is why you are jumping to the conclusions you make.

    For now, I’m willing to give you that benefit of the doubt and suspect that you are allowing your personal experience with your state’s document to jump to rash conclusions and affect your perception of Obama’s situation, without realizing that you are comparing apples to oranges.

    Your state’s “short form” apparently only provides the initials of the father, for one thing and not the full name – which requires your state’s “long form” to obtain.

    A US Passport is a FEDERAL document, which means that the passport application must be supported by a standard minimum set of information, regardless of which state it comes from. Your situation could simply result because LA’s “short form” provides insufficient minimum standard detail (such as full name of both parents) for the FEDERAL passport application requirements.

    My BC has full formal name of both parents -including middle name spelled out. If you look at Obama’s “short form” BC from HI, it does as well.

    Therefore, your “short form” is NOT the same as mine nor Obama’s in terms of the information it provides and is more limited.

    Hence, your personal situation at needing further documentation does not translate to other states, where such state provided “short forms” seem to be just fine and fully sufficient for obtaining passports, drivers licenses, etc.

  81. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 17, 2010 at 3:16 am #

    John…

    The birth certificate will not be an issue in court…

    Basically, here are the two scenarios…

    1. Obama is eligible. Therefore, even Lakin acknowledges that the order to deploy is valid. It’s a valid order.

    2. Obama is ineligible. Therefore, the De Facto Officer Doctorine kicks in. This means that any order issued is valid. It’s a valid order to deploy.

    So, whether or not Obama is eligible has no relevance to the case, considering that either scenario leaves it being a valid order to deploy. Therefore, whether or not the President is eligible is not relevant to the case.

  82. avatar
    Rickey April 17, 2010 at 3:33 am #

    When I applied for a passport, my New York birth certificate was not accepted even though it was issued a week or so after I was born, because in those days birth certificates did not have raised seals. I had to order a new copy. The new copy has a raised seal, but it contains less information than Obama’s COLB. It lists my name, the names of my parents, the city and state where I was born, and the date of birth. That’s it. No hospital name, no doctor’s name, no race of parents. Yet the State Department accepted it as proof of my citizenship and I was issued a passport.

    My original birth certificate, by the way, was sufficient for me to enlist in the U.S. Navy, and the Navy believed that I was a citizen because I was given a Top Secret clearance.

    I do not believe “Scott Brown’s” story. Either it never happened, or we are not being told the entire story.

    John is grossly ignorant. He does not understand how legal proceedings work, and he certainly does not understand how a court-martial works. Simply put, a belief that the president is ineligible, no matter how sincere, is not a defense for disobeying a direct order.

    Mark my words, John. If Lakin asks for permission to subpoena Obama’s records, it will be denied. If Lakin asks to subpoena Judge Carter to testify, it will be denied. If Lakin asks to subpoena Obama to testify, it will be denied.

    Ever since the first birther lawsuit was filed, the birthers have been wrong about every legal point which has come up. First they thought that the Supreme Court had ordered Obama to produce his so-called “vault” birth certificate. Wrong. Then they thought that Wrotnosky’s lawsuit would do the trick. Wrong again. Then they thought that Cook or Rhodes would get them standing. Wrong again. Then they thought that Judge Carter was going to order discovery. Wrong. Then they thought that Orly’s quo warranto action would get them to discovery. Sorry, wrong again.

    Judge Lamberth wrote that Orly’s lawsuits are quixotic. But in truth it is Lt. Cdr. Lakin who is tilting at windmills, and the windmills are going to win.

  83. avatar
    Lupin April 17, 2010 at 4:25 am #

    What is that strange thing you call ‘make sense,’ captain?

    Seriously, I think your premise is false. You assume those people have to make sense. They don’t.

    The history books are full of people like Lakin.

  84. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2010 at 4:29 am #

    Actually, I don’t see how Obama’s eligibility is a factor at all. Obama didn’t order Lakin to deploy — some military officer gave that order. Even if hypothetically Obama were unqualified for office, it wouldn’t render the entire US military into a nullity.

    Armies are a hierarchy, and individual’s are responsible to the person next up the chain of command, not beyond that. Soldiers don’t decide whether or not to obey the order of a Sergeant based on their opinion of the Colonel; a Lieutenant doesn’t decide whether to obey the order of a Captain based on whether he thinks the Major has authority.

    It would theoretically be possible for the US to lose its President in time of war, and for some period to intervene before the successor took office (imagine that a bomb drops on Washington) — but that wouldn’t mean that surviving military officers would be divested of their power to give orders to defend the country. On the contrary — if for any reason the ranking officer in the hierarchy can’t or won’t act, then it falls to the next highest ranking officer to take command. Obama’s purported ineligibility would have no impact on the authority of the Army Chief of Staff (George Casey, who held that position prior to the time Obama became President)

  85. avatar
    US Citizen April 17, 2010 at 4:29 am #

    To illustrate how misled you are in your assumptions of fact (something you’re adamant about further on in your posts), a court martial HAS NO JURY.

    It is judged by 3 high ranking officers.
    A 2/3rds decision is necessary to convict.
    So all that is needed is for 2 officers to say Lakin is wrong and that’s that.

  86. avatar
    Lupin April 17, 2010 at 4:46 am #

    Lakin is a disgrace to the uniform and he should be cashiered pronto. That the birthers stand up for, even encourage, such behavior show how truly unpatriotic they are.

    As for Obama’s birthplace, there is such a preponderance of evidence, from multiple, independent sources (including that doctor who remembers hearing contemporaneously about his birth) that the entire birther argument at this point reeks of sedition.

  87. avatar
    sarina April 17, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    Scott:

    Where you present when Reagan, The Bushes, Clinton where born? What about Spiro Agnew?

    Why nobody was claiming their BC?

  88. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    Are you under the age of 10?

    In 2000, George W. Bush sued in Federal Court to argue that Gore had not won in Florida and to stop the recount. He had standing to sue. He hired the best lawyers in the nation. You guys have Orly Taitz.

    There’s a reason why the courts enforce the standing rule.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 9:33 am #

    Rickey: The new copy … lists my name, the names of my parents, the city and state where I was born, and the date of birth. That’s it.

    No Date Filed?

  90. avatar
    sarina April 17, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    John:

    Remember that Judge Land said:

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland” simply saying something is so does not make is so”
    A short form BC has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961″

  91. avatar
    sarina April 17, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    John:

    So do you think the “Republican governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle is “hiding” Obama’s long form birth certificate?

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    Scott Brown: I would not be willing to bet a huge sum of money or even my first born as to the accuracy of those statements. Would you?

    I would certainly bet every nickel I have that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    misha: The most birthers can muster is 600K people

    If you are referring to the WorldNetDaily online petition, I suggest that is not a reliable number. Their petition form does next to no validation. You can sign the petition as many times as you want just so long as there is a change in one of the three items: first name, last name, email. The email does not have to be valid.

    See: http://wnd500000.blogspot.com/

  94. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    How in the world can you people make this statement as fact when you were not present at his birth

    I can claim that it is a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, despite the fact that I am not a time traveler. I wasn’t there on the moon, but I know for a fact that we landed there. I wasn’t here for the American Revolution, but I can state for a fact that George Washington existed.

    This is an epistemological debate, Scott. I know that nothing can be proven to a metaphysical certainty, not even your existence (“I think, therefore I am.).

    But, I also know that you have to draw a line, somewhere.

    In civil court, you have to prove something is “more likely than not.” It is certainly more likely than not that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    In criminal court, you have to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. Even you have said it is “silly,” to think that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Even you say that “common sense” tells us that he was born in Hawaii. That means that the only doubts left are unreasonable!

    Is Obama hiding something? I think the more likely explanation is that he sees that you birthers discredit everyone you associate with. Did you notice that Orly was disinvited from the Tea Party recently? Why do you think that is? Also, it is pretty clear to any observer that you and the birthers won’t be satisfied with any documentary evidence. For example, Berg won’t be satisfied until Obama proves multiple negatives – that he never traveled on a foreign passport, that he never lost his citizenship, etc. Donofrio/Apuzzo won’t be satisfied until Thomas Jefferson rises from the dead to explain that Natural Born Citizen means born here, even to aliens. Orly Taitz won’t be satisfied until the head of the Social Security Administration comes to her dental office and explains in detail how Obama’s SSN was not granted to a dead man from Connecticut!

    Obama has released enough information to assuage the doubts of the reasonable observer, leaving only doubts that are “silly,” and against “common sense.”

    You’re saying that if Obama doesn’t go out of his way to assuage every silly doubt, he’s hiding something.

    At the absolute best you’ve got a fact, that Obama hasn’t released everything you want to see, that is explained by a nefarious reason (he has something to hide) and a multitude of non-nefarious reason (it would only assuage silly doubts, not releasing it infuriates the birthers, making everyone they associate with look like cranks). My common sense tells me to take the simpler, non-nefarious explanation.

    Your common sense, however, like that of all conspiracists says to always take the nefarious reason.

  95. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 9:54 am #

    Do you think that every officer that has doubts should be allowed shirk their duty?

    Did you say this under the last President, when officers claimed that the Iraqi war was illegal?

  96. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 9:57 am #

    If you have nothing to hide, drop trou.

    John, Orly was called crazy by the Tea Party members. She was disinvited.

    So, because Obama doesn’t want to show his BC to a group called crazy by the Tea Party, he has something to hide?

    His COLB was sufficient to assuage all reasonable doubts, leaving only the crazies behind. He doesn’t have something to hide just because you guys are crazy!

  97. avatar
    sarina April 17, 2010 at 9:58 am #

    John evidently you are lying.

    We (my husband, me and my two sons) have a short form BC, they have the same format exactly like Obama’s, different state, NO DOCTOR’S NAME on it! With THIS BC we got our passports & DL. We went on a cruise with NO problems.

    My nephew has a short form BC he is attending mechanical aviation school and every time he has to take a test he has to show his BC and he had no problem showing his short form BC too.

    Missouri Health Dept issue ONLY short forms go and check for yourself.

    In the future long forms will be obsolete, people are getting rid of p-a-p-e-r, slowly so you can understand. There is an old article on the Star Bulletin,type Born identity and read it. NO MORE LONG FORMS!

  98. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    Have you read Descartes? I know for a FACT that I exist (“cogito ergo sum”), but I cannot know for a FACT that YOU exist. You can give me all the birth certificates you want, all the evidence you want, but I still won’t be able to know for a FACT that you exist, since you are not part of my consciousness.

    Therefore, I have to conclude that you have something to hide. Specifically, you are hiding the fact that you are simply a figment of my imagination.

    Man, it is too early in the morning for this sort of epistemological debate.

    We know that Obama was born in Hawaii to such an extent that even you acknowledge it is silly to think he wasn’t. He’s satisfied all reasonable doubts, you want him to satisfy unreasonable doubts!

  99. avatar
    Greg April 17, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    That’s not how it works. The defendant doesn’t prove that the order shouldn’t be “presumed” lawful and then the other side proves it was lawful.

    There is a very strong presumption that the order was lawful. The defendant has to prove that it was completely unlawful.

    The de facto officer doctrine states that even if Obama were ineligible, and even if Obama were Lakin’s commanding officer (he is not according to the UCMJ), the orders he has already issued are lawful.

    To have a defense, Lakin must prove one of the following:

    1. An Obama impersonator signed the order.
    2. Orly Taitz, pretending to be Queen of the U.S., issued the order.
    3. He’s in Afghanistan already.
    4. It wasn’t an order, it was a helpful suggestion.
    5. He didn’t follow the order because Taitz was holding a gun to his or his daughter’s head.
    6. He didn’t follow the order because he doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong.

  100. avatar
    Northland10 April 17, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    I would suspect the miltary takes a dim view of refusing orders because of “doubts.” That would not go over very well on the battlefield.

  101. avatar
    racosta April 17, 2010 at 11:39 am #

    ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
    A right wing technique to give authority to a false argument (made up). Also constantly used by birthers (see scott brown). Phony degrees, phony stories are common and visiting right wing blogs gives you many examples of this. Scott brown’s passport story is common there, he just picked up on it as his own, common birther crap. Lying to prove a point is a common trait on the right (i.e. lying for Jesus). They don’t check and expect you won’t either.

  102. avatar
    BatGuano April 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    A Lousiana short form is different than Hawaii’s short form.See: http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/faq.asp?ID=1&CID=17#Faq-1278The Lousiana short form does NOT contain as much info as the Hawaii COLB — therefore it could not possibly look “identical” to Obama’s.

    interesting. i wonder how many other states have a similar card. are they labeled as a COLB ? it would be helpful to research exactly what are the official federal requirements for a birth document and how many states offer “short forms” that don’t meet those requirements.

  103. avatar
    SFJeff April 17, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    “And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge Carter”

    John- do you note however that Judge Carter doesn’t say he wouldn’t be Commander in Chief if he wasn’t qualified, only that it wouldn’t be good for the country if he wasn’t. Judge Carter understands ‘de facto’ officer concept.

  104. avatar
    SFJeff April 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Scott,

    I was born in 1958, and the State Department accepted my certified ‘short form’ when I got my passport.

    I am going to have to remember Scott’s line of reasoning when the next President is elected that I don’t like- question his legitimacy. Insist he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was qualified before he was elected.

    And since that whole 2 citizen parents thing is a concern for at least 4 or 5 Americans we will need to insist on DNA blood testing of all the candidates, and their families. And once we have proven who his ‘real’ parents are, we will need concrete evidence that they are actual citizens to- though after listening to Dan Gordon, I am not certain whether they need to be citizens of the United States, of the ‘several states” or of a State.

    Actually, as I think of it- there are so many things still not defined, how can we possibly even elect another President?

  105. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    What you’re basically saying is the De Facto Officer Doctorine basically trumps the defense of it being a invalid order if Obama was ineligible.

    Obama’s ineligibility will have no relevance to the hearing, because no matter what that fact leads to, the outcome is the same…

    It’s like saying, “Well, I didn’t shoot him. I stabbed him with a knife.” to try to beat a murder complaint.

  106. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    It’s not beyond a reasonable doubt that they want to be proved by. We’ve already crossed that threshold, SFJeff. It’s beyond any doubt that they insist that we judge Obama by.

    We have to remove any doubt that the President was born on Krypton to Jor-El and Lara.

  107. avatar
    BatGuano April 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    …It’s like saying, “Well, I didn’t shoot him.I stabbed him with a knife.” to try to beat a murder complaint.

    i think a better analogy would be ” yes, i shot and killed him. but it was because i saw on the internet that there was a rumor of the possibility that he might, maybe, want to cause me harm.”

  108. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    “I could say the same to you – that perhaps your story doesn’t pass the smell test, or that you are making it up or have left out pertinent information.”

    You just outed yourself as a woman, and yet you’re writing under the name of “Scott Brown.”

    I think the only thing failing the smell test here is you.

  109. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    To be charitable: it IS possible John is telling the truth, and he was just dealing with very incompetent people that day. It DOES happen.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett: To be charitable: it IS possible John is telling the truth, and he was just dealing with very incompetent people that day. It DOES happen.

    That reminds me of the story of my trying to get a South Carolina drivers license. They wouldn’t give me a license because they said I was not a resident (even though I had moved here and had a job here and the cop who pulled me over warned me that I better get a SC license pronto). I just went to different highway department office, filled out the same form the same way and got my license with no problem.

  111. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    John, Congress not the individual judges eligibility. Congress has declared his election valid. The Lt. Colonel is bound by that decision. Trust me. My family has had someone in service continuously since 1939. My husband, who is a retired officer, says this “Lakin theory” is ridiculous and would destroy the military. He is, by the way, quite apolitical. He is just commenting on your premise. The Lt. Colonel should be sent to Leavenworth. That’s my opinion.

  112. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    His question is political since the election has been validated by Congress through the Electoral system.

  113. avatar
    Bob Ross April 17, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    Scott how can you claim to not be a birther and yet continue to use debunked birther bullshit

  114. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Amen, Misha. These people do not understand that if the military is allowed to question the eligibilty of a government we are on our way to becoming a military dictatorship. That is why there are such strict controls. It is for the good of the country as well as those in Military Service. And Calley, the coward, should have questioned as some did in that situation.

  115. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    My Transcript of Birth from NY State which has less information than Obama’s COLB is sufficent.

  116. avatar
    Stephen April 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    “The motivation, it seems to me, is political. Lakin makes himself a martyr. The military will come down on Lakin with a heavy hand and he will have no defense. He will be seen as a sympathetic figure by the far right. His fate will motivate others.”

    So, what happens if Lakin is court-martialed and then receives clemency from the President? Will that make him less of a martyr or will the Birthers spin that into a new conspiracy? Can Lakin refuse such a clemency (because the President isn’t the President)?

  117. avatar
    Bob Weber April 17, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    Thomas Jefferson was offered, and freely accepted, French citizenship from the French Assembly. So during the Quasi-War (1798-1800) between France and the U.S., the Vice-President was a dual-citizen of France and the U.S! Voters did not seem to think this was significant, as Jefferson was elected as POTUS in 1800.

  118. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    I agree. That would be interesting to know. I wonder if the passport processing folks already have such a list easily compiled?

  119. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 17, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    I’m saying that you don’t even get to De Facto officer doctrine because the issue would NOT be Obama’s authority, but only the authority of whatever military officer signed the deployment order.

  120. avatar
    Ropes End April 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Below are the State Department requirements for a birth certificate (taken straight from the application). LA has one of the few short form certificates that doesn’t meet the requirements.

    APPLICANTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. A birth certificate must include your full name,
    the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such
    records.

  121. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Scott, if the President were to reply to these birth theories he would give them status. They deserve none. If someone were to accuse me of producing a false teaching certificate I would not reply. If a court ordered me to reply I would-but to the court. Never to the individuals. I am assuming that if I did not reply the individuals involved would talk about “common sense tells us” as you do. I totally concur that the President is wise to ignor these people unless a legal entity requires him to do so. Otherwise, he gives status to a lie. It is both immoral and foolish to do so.

  122. avatar
    2XS April 17, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    “the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders”

    ” officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

  123. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Thank you very much for providing this info!

  124. avatar
    G April 17, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    True.

    But Lakin’s not going to win an argument claiming his order from his direct command to deploy to Afghanistan is unconstitutional.

    He’ll end up with the court martial and penalized to some extent as a result. The only real question to what extent will he be punished for his willful disobedience.

  125. avatar
    Mary Brown April 17, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Why would a State issue a short form that is useless in many circumstances? Leave it to Louisiana.

  126. avatar
    Rickey April 18, 2010 at 12:13 am #

    Oops, forgot to mention that.

  127. avatar
    Rickey April 18, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    Yes, the de facto officer doctrine is really a theoretical argument in this case.

    What many people don’t realize is that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but not a member of the armed forces. The president is a civilian. Lakin refused to obey a military order, not a presidential order.

  128. avatar
    sarina April 18, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    John

    1. Just a bunch of birthers have been asking for Obama’s bc ..not thousands and thousands of people.
    Remember that the House voted unanimously 378-0 declaring Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace a clause included reads:

    “whereas the 44th President of the US, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on Aug 4 1961”

    2. Countless lawsuits have been dumped.

    3. Countless petitions= toilet paper

    4. Senators, Congressman yeah, birthers

    5. and 6. Same as above: Birthers!

    Obama is the President he doesn’t have to show s–t to anybody. Congress gave him his votes he was sworn in TWICE, Gosh why the birthers can’t understand that?

  129. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 18, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    There’s one other thing that he might argue…

    7. The order itself is so facially invalid that it does not matter who ordered it. This basically is so that troops who are ordered to line up and execute a bunch of civilians are not prosecuted for the fact that they disobeyed that order.

    An example is…

    Your commanding officer orders you to go from building to building and kill every civilian that you see…

    Your commanding officer orders you to round up all the Jews and send them to the gas chambers…

    Things along those lines.

  130. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 18, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    For use in non-legal activities, such as registering a child for Baseball, Boy Scouts, or other activities where you don’t need to prove citizenship status.

  131. avatar
    2XS April 18, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    Since he has taken no oath to obey orders he is not being disobedient. What he can be charged with is dereliction of duty. But if his duty is to defend the Constitution and he believes Obama is a usurper then he is carrying out his duty. I’ll bet he isn’t court martialed but is discharged with loss of rank and benefits.

  132. avatar
    nBC April 18, 2010 at 2:51 am #

    Since he has taken no oath to obey orders he is not being disobedient

    Nonsense, officers and enlisted men are all bound by the UCMJ.

    This myth about oaths is hurting Lakin

  133. avatar
    Bovril April 18, 2010 at 6:35 am #

    Since he has taken no oath to obey orders he is not being disobedient. What he can be charged with is dereliction of duty. But if his duty is to defend the Constitution and he believes Obama is a usurper then he is carrying out his duty. I’ll bet he isn’t court martialed but is discharged with loss of rank and benefits.

    2XS

    Are you really as stupid as your comments denote ?

    You do understand why the military are called “The Armed Services”…?

    Phrases like

    “I served from NNNN to NNNN”
    “My duty station was….”

    Should kinda clue you in to the whole man (or woman) under service thing.

    Service means you take orders it really is that simple.

  134. avatar
    US Citizen April 18, 2010 at 6:49 am #

    Scott,

    Try this one on for size:

    Let’s say that a gay man was to go to Disneyland.
    A group of anti-gays hear of this and claim that because Disneyland is a family oriented park and a gay cannot conceive a family, he shouldn’t be allowed to attend.

    Disneyland lets the gay man into the park, but now people are stopping him everywhere he goes in order to ask for his ticket stub.
    Well, this gay man doesn’t have to show them it.
    He’s already in the park.
    He’s been accepted into the park by Disneyland themselves.
    It isn’t up to others to question it at that point.
    The fact he is IN the park is enough to satisfy Disneyland.
    They accepted his ticket.
    Just because others don’t feel gays should be there, doesn’t mean squat.
    They have no jurisdiction and are only bothering the man.

  135. avatar
    BatGuano April 18, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    …Things along those lines.

    ok, so he believes his current orders are on par with the my lai massacre and the hallocost. why did he not protest before ?

  136. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 18, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    I don’t know. But that is about the only time that you can be issued an order, and say, “No, sir. I will not do that.”

  137. avatar
    Scientist April 18, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    But his orders at this point are simply to deploy. Nothing illegal. Whether you think it wise or unwise, the Afghan War is approved by Congress, the UN and the Afghan government. No soldier has the basis to refuse deployment.

    You are correct that an order to kill unarmed civilians is illegal and not only can, but must, be disobeyed. That isn’t the case here, though.

  138. avatar
    Rickey April 18, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    I’ve done some research on lawful v. unlawful orders. The Manual for Courts-Martial states:

    “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”

    An order given by a superior officer is presumed to be lawful. Military courts have consistently held that for an order to be unlawful, it must require the subordinate soldier or sailor to commit an illegal act.

    No matter what Lakin thinks of Obama’s eligibility, there is nothing in his orders which could even remotely be construed as requiring him to commit an illegal act.

    For those who say that commissioned officers are not required to follow orders, think again. Article 90 of the UCMJ:

    Any person subject to this chapter who—

    (1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or

    (2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 18, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    I might have to read it again, but is Lakin saying he is refusing to deploy because he questions the order, or is he refusing to deploy to defend the constitution by “forcing the issue” of Obama’s eligibility during court martial? Won’t work.

  140. avatar
    Keith April 18, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    The only thing that Lakin gets out of this is martyrdom and, if he goes to prison, he can claim, rather gratuitously, that he was a political prisoner.

    Can he parlay that into elective office? Maybe hes aiming to be Palin’s running mate in 2012?

    Time will tell, I suppose.

  141. avatar
    G April 18, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

    Well, since any so-called “martyrdom” will be limited to an extremely small number of extremist nutbags, that’s not much of a prize for throwing away your entire military career, pension and reputation.

    Most folks, especially in the military (including most conservative sane members of the military) are only going to loathe someone who is a Blue Falcon and openly violates the UCMJ and pulls a stunt to get out of a standard deployment order to a war zone.

    If he ends up in Leavenworth for this, I think he’ll have enough problems trying to get a fast food restaurant to want to hire him, let alone try to get enough traction for a post-prison political career. No one will want to touch him with a ten foot pole. They might want to spit on him, but they won’t want to touch him.

  142. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- April 19, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    The wingnut circuit is always willing to shell out cash money for martyrs.

  143. avatar
    G April 19, 2010 at 3:28 am #

    Well, as the old saying goes, “a fool and their money is soon parted”..

    …but that is no different than the entire “birther-related” industry of lawyers & crap websites like WND who make their living off of conning these dumb bast*rds already…so I don’t see any gain as all the martyrdom deal would be doing is further fleecing the already fleeced.

  144. avatar
    US Citizen April 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    I just don’t see Lakin as having any solid publicity platform capable of generating money equal to what his gov pension would have been in aggregate.
    If he actually serves some time, his release date may come after Obama is out of office too.
    Then he’ll likely have an even smaller audience.
    I simply don’t see him becoming a popular spokesman for *any* cause with sufficient support necessary to generate a livable income.
    Perhaps a book deal at best, but would YOU buy “Diary of a traitor”?

  145. avatar
    Hey You! April 20, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    All you birthers are just racists going by another name. You’re so desperate to call Obama a nigger that you can’t stand it. You hate the fact that a black was elected POTUS and you’ll do anything you think you can to try and discredit him. Your arguments are nothing but a bag of lies and bullshit. Your phony patriotism is sickening. Why not cut the crap and just put the sheet on your head? Either that, or just shut up and get back in your trailer, losers!

  146. avatar
    Black Lion April 20, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    AIM Columnist Promotes Discredited Birther Claims
    Topic: Accuracy in Media

    An April 16 Accuracy in Media column by Margaret Calhoun Hemenway — spokesperson for Terry Lakin, the Army officer in the thrall of birther extremists who has decided to throw away his military career by refusing to obey orders because he claims Barack Obama is not eligible to be president — not only fails to disclose that she’s the spokesperson for Lakin, she embraces discredited claims about Obama’s birth certificate.

    First, Hemenway misleads about the nature of the criticism in 2008 of the birth certificate Obama released, asserting that FactCheck.org “lied” when it claimed that the birth certificate it examined was “original.” In fact, birthers like Jerome Corsi were claiming at the time that the certificate released by Obama’s campaign was itself a fraud — a claim that has never been credibly proven. FactCheck’s use of “original” did not refer to the vaulted copy in Hawaii’s archives but, rather, to the authenticity of the certificate released by the campaign.

    Hemenway then baselessly suggests that Obama’s parents and/or grandparents faked his original certificate by lying to authorities about where he was born. Again, there’s no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

    Hemenway adds: “When juxtaposed with statements by Obama’s maternal grandmother, Kenya’s Ambassador to the U.S, and now a Kenyan cabinet minister and Parliamentarian, that Obama was born in Kenya, calls for Obama to release his original birth certificate are wholly justified.” Hemenway is lying when she sayas that Obama’s grandmother said Obama was born in Kenya. As we’ve detailed, this claim comes from an anti-Obama minister who has chosen to dishonestly treat the grandmother’s erroneous answer to a mistranslated question by him to the grandmother as a statement of fact.

    Further, statements by Kenyan officials about Obama’s birth cannot be taken seriously because it’s apparent they are speaking more from national pride in Obama’s heritage rather than from factual knowledge about the circumstances of his birth.

    Hemenway obviously wants to win the lawsuit for Lakin, but she won’t do it by peddling discredited lies.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  147. avatar
    Black Lion April 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    The Post and Fail actually conducted an interview with Hemmingway….Doc, you may want to take a look at it…full of misinformation….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/19/spokesperson-for-army-doctor-challenging-obamas-eligibility-speaks-with-the-post-email/#comments

    MRS. RONDEAU: Thank you for agreeing to an interview at such short notice, Mrs. Hemenway. I’ve read the website set up for Lt. Col. Lakin, and I know he had contacted his senators and representative before deciding to stop following orders. What response did he get from his chain of command, and specifically, from General George Casey?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: He made an Article 138 inquiry, and the letter that came back said something like “No one in the Department of Defense,” and this was to include General George Casey, “can answer this question, and you lack standing.” So that was obviously not a satisfactory answer. Lt. Col. Lakin did reach out often to coworkers and superiors struggling with this issue and tried to get help with it. I worked at the Pentagon for five years, and it is extremely disappointing that our military leadership knows that other officers have done this, that other officers have been involved in a lawsuit, and that after you’ve had more than one, you’ve had a few, and then it becomes more than a few…you would think it would dawn on someone that they needed to figure out how to talk to service members about this issue. Instead, everyone looks at the floor and averts their eyes; they can commiserate sometimes, but no one will say anything.

    MRS. RONDEAU: Why should they go anywhere into harm’s way if a Usurper is ordering it?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: The other thing I realize about the military is that someone who hasn’t thought a lot about this issue or hasn’t had the opportunity to read the things that you and I have read may not know this is an issue. I have tested this on people whom I know don’t read a lot of the same things I read; they don’t have time to read blogs. They probably read The Washington Post that shows up on the doorstep in the morning. I tried this on a friend of mine who is a career civil servant, and she couldn’t believe it. Her first comment was, “I don’t know how did this happened. How did he never show a birth certificate?” and I explained it to her at some length, and then she said, “That makes me really mad, because I just jumped through hoops to get my son a passport.” And then they get angry because there is a basic American understanding that we are all equal under the law; no man is above the law, and they don’t know how he did this.

    MRS. RONDEAU: And they don’t know that there are several different ways to obtain and COLB in Hawaii. From what I have read, in 1982, Hawaii added a fifth way for a person to obtain a “birth certificate,” and you could walk into the Health Department as an adult, present a little evidence of a birth there and get a COLB. You didn’t have to be born there to get the piece of paper.

    MRS. HEMENWAY: I’ve thought about the logic of why Hawaii’s system might be the way it is. On an island, people move around a lot; they probably have friends and family on the Mainland. I think it’s easy to travel on and off. I think it feels restrictive being on an island and you want to get off…I think that with all that movement, they probably became lax about documents. I’m not excusing it, but I can see how that might have arisen like that.

    MRS. RONDEAU: You mentioned something just a minute ago about the foreign parent. Have you or Lt. Col. Lakin read that the foreign parent alone, if we interpret “natural born Citizen” strictly, could disqualify Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: I’ve seen the disagreements among lawyers and looked at all the different positions myself…Gary Kreep, Donofrio, Apuzzo, and I asked my father-in-law as well. I’ve also asked the attorney, whose name is not public yet, who is going to be representing Lt. Col. Lakin. I know there’s disagreement and I’m always hoping that it doesn’t become a disagreement that divides us from the ultimate purpose of having Obama divulge his original birth certificate, but this is when I tell most people to not step on toes and don’t get people worked up over “he’s a dual citizen.” I just say, “Look, if he was born in Kenya, under the laws of the time, he could never be natural born, and she could not transmit U.S. citizenship to him.”

    MRS. RONDEAU: Do you anticipate having to put together a team of attorneys, or do you think the one you have will be enough?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: I think he’s going to be very good. I think he’s a bulldog; he’s very smart and politically-savvy as well, which I think is necessary. He hasn’t done any of these cases before, and I know there would be a temptation to try to run it in that way as if it’s some conspiracy as opposed to a voluntary eruption of a lot of people around the country who are upset about this and are tired of being deceived and having people misrepresent what has actually been presented.

    MRS. RONDEAU: What is it like for the Lt. Col. to go through each day when his supposed commander-in-chief will not prove that he is eligible?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: He (Obama) would rather have soldiers’ deployment orders rescinded than take a few seconds to produce his original birth certificate. He’s done this time and again, with other soldiers getting their deployment orders rescinded, and he’s sitting on that document and won’t make that phone call to Hawaii and say, “Release the record.” Obviously, he can’t…if he could, he would have done it long ago. I tell people, “Think about this: he admitted to using cocaine.” Now I know that he broke the law, so I don’t trust him. I have never used an illegal drug, and I had to get a security clearance. It wasn’t that I was thinking about that when I was young, but I’m glad I didn’t, because I might not have been able to do the work that I did. I’ve been in a position of public trust.

    MRS. RONDEAU: So she really didn’t do the research?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: No. And the worst thing that O’Reilly said, and this again shows that he just doesn’t think deeply, or he’s slipshod in his research, which is possible, too – he basically offered up the birth announcement. Remember before, he said, “We’ve got the COLB.” This time we’ve got the birth announcement. And he used the left-wing line (and I’ve already been through this in many fights with these people earlier) – there was a plot to make him president from 1961. And it’s so silly…not even considering if this is how it works, what happens is that when Vital Statistics is informed of a birth, it generates a birth announcement. I’ve been told by my contacts in Hawaii that it’s automatic, that the newspapers automatically publish this information. The problem is, it’s the same document which none of us has seen. So whatever is on that document, whether it was one parent coming in with an affidavit – we don’t have a hospital, no attending physician – he still misses all those key points. No newspaper ad is evidence of anything.

    MRS. RONDEAU: A grandparent could have placed that announcement even if the baby had been born overseas.

    MRS. HEMENWAY: Yes, and they also brought up that Hawaii state officials had at one point said that paper records had been destroyed but then reversed themselves and said they still have the paper records. That’s what got Lou Dobbs off-track because Joe Klein had had his staff call Hawaii and was told the paper records were destroyed, and then they gave Lou Dobbs the impression that Obama couldn’t get a paper document, then they reversed themselves after the show aired.

    MRS. RONDEAU: I have a paper document that someone mailed to me, and I’ll be doing a story about it soon. There are some differences between the document I have and the alleged Obama document.

    MRS. RONDEAU: How did you become involved in the eligibility issue?

    MRS. HEMENWAY: When I finally got involved in a serious way was when my husband came home and told me that his dad was facing financial sanctions from Judge Robertson, and I went through the roof. He’s 83, and I had thought he was doing research. I didn’t know know that he had actually filed the lawsuit. So we’re sitting there thinking, oh my gosh, on his income, with a sick wife, he doesn’t need this, and how dare they do that to him!

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Yes, that is full of misinformation, and to my eye intentional misinformation.

  149. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    As a souvenir the parents can carry around in your wallet and show to friends, etc. The real one can be stored in safety deposit boxes and the postcard can be kept in a drawer for casual purposes.

    I once had a wallet sized version of my high school diploma which was labeled that it wasn’t ‘proof of graduation’. Only the full sized version with the raised seal was ‘proof’.

  150. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    Doc, agreed. Hemmingway’s accusations and smears in her “interview” were disgusting…The longer Obama is President the more desperate it seems that the Post and Fail becomes…

  151. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 10:02 am #

    For all of the birthers that thought that the Army was going to back down from prosecuting Lakin, we finally find out as usual they were wrong….

    “The charges were preferred today and LTC Lakin was informed of them today.

    Two charges were preferred. First was a missing movement charge with one spec for missing a flight from BWI to Charlotte, North Carolina to deploy “in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move. Second was an Article 92 charge with four specs. The first spec alleges violation of a lawful order issued by a lieutenant colonel to report to the Brigade Commander’s office (that would be the office of Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Gordon R. Roberts) at 1345 on 31 March 2010 by wrongfully not reporting as directed. The second spec alleges violation of a lawful order by failing to obey a memorandum signed by COL Roberts ordering him to report as directed. (Based on the spec, I’m not sure where the memo ordered LTC Lakin to report.) The third spec alleges violation of a lawful order by COL McHugh requiring LTC Lakin to report to Fort Campbell on Temporary Change of Station orders not later than 1500 on 12 April 2010. The fourth spec alleges willful dereliction of duty by failing to report to Fort Campell in accordance with his Temporary Change of Station orders. (Specs 3 and 4 may reflect a Jones-inspired pleading in the alternative.)

    The spec under Charge I is punishable by total FF and up to two years of confinement. Specs 1 through 3 of Charge II are each punishable by up to six months of confinement. Spec 4 of Charge II is punishable by up to six months of confinement. But if, as appears to be the case, there’s some pleading in the alternative for contingencies of proof purposes, it looks like the max confinement under Charge II will be either 18 months or 12 months. So the max authorized punishment for the offenses as charged is between three years and four years. And, of course, an officer can be dismissed for a finding of guilty of any offense tried by a GCM.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/04/22/charges-preferred-against-ltc-lakin/

  152. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    The Post and Fail so called legal expert commenter spin…No wonder why they are 0-67 in cases…They really don’t understand the law….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/22/charges-filed-against-officer-who-challenged-obamas-eligibility/

    Leo Patrick Haffey says:
    Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 5:37 PM
    Clearly BHO’s concealed birth & citizenship documents are, “A discretionary act or omission by a commander, that adversely affects the member personally, and that, for example, is:

    – In violation of law…”

    AFI 51-904, Complaints of Wrongs Under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (30 Jun 1994) [3] (para. 2-7) defines a “wrong” as:

    A discretionary act or omission by a commander, that adversely affects the member personally, and that, for example, is:

    – In violation of law…

    Army:
    AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 November 2005), Chapter 20

    Air Force:
    AFI 51-904, Complaints of Wrongs Under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (30 Jun 1994) [3] (para. 2-7) defines a “wrong” as:

    A discretionary act or omission by a commander, that adversely affects the member personally, and that, for example, is:

    – In violation of law or regulation.
    – Beyond the legitimate authority of that commander.
    – Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
    – Clearly unfair (for example–selective application of administrative standards/action, either in the type of standard/action applied or in the severity of the penalty imposed, which results in a clearly unfair application of the administrative standard/action).

    Navy and Marines:
    JAGMAN (JAGINST 5800.7E), Manual of the Judge Advocate General (20 JUN 07), Chapter 3
    defines wrongs as:

    “Any act, omission, decision or order, except those excluded by subsection 0304, taken, caused, or ratified by a “commanding officer,” under color of that officer’s military authority that:

    (1) results in personal detriment, harm, or injury to a military subordinate;
    (2) is without substantial basis, unauthorized, arbitrary and capricious, unjust, or discriminatory;
    (3) is properly capable of redress in command channels.”

    (Article 1150 of Navy Regulations lays out similar complaint procedures for Navy and Marine Personnel to supplement Art. 138)

    Leo Patrick Haffey says:
    Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM
    Bob1943,

    “I have also heard the argument that the orders did not come from Barry, but from Lt. Col. Lakin’s immediate superior officers.”

    That is not the issue. This is the issue:

    Clearly BHO’s concealed birth & citizenship documents are, “A discretionary act or omission by a commander, that adversely affects the member personally, and that, for example, is:

    – In violation of law…”

    jim delaney says:
    Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 5:47 PM
    Re “discovery”, I plan to research this area of the law a little more, particularly with respect to discovery rights in a court martial proceeding. But, at this juncture anyway my understanding is that even in a court martial situation discovery is a bedrock right of any defendant. Thus, the burden of proof will necessarily be upon Obama’s legal team to prove that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be Commander-in-Chief and that, therefore, his orders his military chain of command are, indeed, lawful. In keeping with LTC Lakin’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution, he is duty bound to follow orders from the CIC, but only if the orders are lawful. As for LTC Lakin’s “standing” to question Obama’s eligibility, it seems to be a slamdunk. As defendant, he is within his rights to prove his innocence through the discovery process. My hopes are really buoyed by this case. I genuinely believe this could be the breakthrough which those seeking the truth about Obama’s eligibility have been pursuing. Unquestionably, a acutely uncomfortable conundrum for Obama’s legal team.

  153. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Leo Patrick Haffey says:
    Friday, April 23, 2010 at 7:54 AM
    Sharon,

    Gen. Valley statement, “A retired Army general and national security policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has “a valid point” and should use his “right to discovery” to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born citizenship status.”

    The end of B. Hussein Obama’s regime is near.

  154. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    These people are living in such a delusional fantasy world, its sad. They set themselves up for constantly getting their hopes utterly crushed.

  155. avatar
    SFJeff April 23, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    “Now I know that he broke the law, so I don’t trust him”

    I think that statement pretty much shows the unbiased nature of her ‘investigation’

  156. avatar
    Rickey April 23, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    The charge sheet can be viewed here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30359983/LTC-LAKIN-CHARGED-Chargesheet-apf-14-chargesheet

    The American Patriot Foundation wants to raise $500,000(!!!!) to pay for Lakin’s defense.

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

    Of course, they don’t tell anyone that the “noted civilian California trial lawyer” who is going to represent Lakin, Paul Rolf Jensen, is a director/secretary/executive director of American Patriot Foundation.

    So American Patriot Foundation is trying to raise a half million in donations in order the pay the legal fees of Paul Rolf Jensen, who is the executive director of American Patriot Foundation. What an ingenious scam! I wonder who will be auditing Jensen’s bills?

  157. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    Rickey, but the entire birther movement is a scam. They have conned these borderline racists that the President is part of some great conspiracy and if you keep sending us money we will fight until you run out of money….And realize that somehow it went from $50,000 to $500,000 overnight….I guess the saying is correct…There is a sucker born every minute….And with the birthers it seems like every second…

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    The President of the United States is a civilian. This UCMJ stuff doesn’t apply.