Main Menu

Farah takes credit for birther movement

It's his fault

Thanks to commenter charo for the link to an article in the Washington Independent from last February. Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

As we talked, Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News joined the conversation and followed up on Farah’s claim that the “birther” controversy had been bad for WND.

“The birth certificate theory is really popular on the internet,” said Bunch.

“Well, it’s popular because of us,” said Farah. “We essentially created it, didn’t we? That wasn’t a decision made because there was a constituency out there waiting for this, [or] it was a way to make money. Those people had to be found.”

I agree with Farah. WorldNetDaily is the only outlet with the Internet reach necessary to explain the numbers of people who echo questions about Obama’s birth certificate.  (For print, we might add the Globe magazine.)

33 Responses to Farah takes credit for birther movement

  1. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    As I said, follow the money. Farrah, like Apuzzo is a tool.

  2. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    I can’t help reflect that, since the success of your Mars Rovers, the most outstanding thing done by America and Americans has been the election of Mr. Obama, the son of a Kenyan student, to the highest office in your country.

    There is much to criticize about what America does overseas, but the election of Barack Obama has been universally considered a major triumph and a shining example.

    I will readily admit that, while we have very popular non-white public figures such as Yannick Noah or Harry Roselmack, I do not believe the French would elect someone like them President. Maybe I’m wrong. Who knows.

    The notion that Americans would themselves conspire to tear down and destroy that tremendous achievement (notwithstanding disagreement on policies) seems insane. I am really sorry to see it on display here, week after week.

  3. avatar
    ellid December 1, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    Lupin: I can’t help reflect that, since the success of your Mars Rovers, the most outstanding thing done by America and Americans has been the election of Mr. Obama, the son of a Kenyan student, to the highest office in your country.
    There is much to criticize about what America does overseas, but the election of Barack Obama has been universally considered a major triumph and a shining example.
    I will readily admit that, while we have very popular non-white public figures such as Yannick Noah or Harry Roselmack, I do not believe the French would elect someone like them President. Maybe I’m wrong. Who knows.The notion that Americans would themselves conspire to tear down and destroy that tremendous achievement (notwithstanding disagreement on policies) seems insane. I am really sorry to see it on display here, week after week.

    The more I’ve seen over the last few years, the more I’m inclined to move to Canada. I’m a seventh generation American, descended from someone who fought in the Revolution, and I am sickened by how hellbent this country seems on its own destruction.

  4. avatar
    Lupin December 1, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    ellid: The more I’ve seen over the last few years, the more I’m inclined to move to Canada. I’m a seventh generation American, descended from someone who fought in the Revolution, and I am sickened by how hellbent this country seems on its own destruction.

    I don’t want to get too far OT, but objectively, even if you hate President Obama and/or his policies, the entire “Obama Conspiracy” is really undermining America’s reputation and influence. Fortunately, I don’t think anyone takes it seriously beyond your borders.

    The contrast was starker with the Clinton impeachment, which provoked total incomprehension abroad.

    It is one of the many odd things that the birthers who think they’re fighting FOR America are objectively undermining it.

  5. avatar
    Steve December 1, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    Yep, they’re making a lot of money off hard-working morons.

  6. avatar
    Daniel December 1, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Well you have to admit it’s easier for Farah to invent conspiracies to appeal to rednecks than it is to actually create and staff a valid journalism organization.

  7. avatar
    charo December 1, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    Wow, I just saw my name up there in the post with a note of thanks.

    I’m nearly as famous as my namesake now 🙂

  8. avatar
    Zixi of Ix December 1, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Lupin:
    I will readily admit that, while we have very popular non-white public figures such as Yannick Noah or Harry Roselmack, I do not believe the French would elect someone like them President. Maybe I’m wrong. Who knows.The notion that Americans would themselves conspire to tear down and destroy that tremendous achievement (notwithstanding disagreement on policies) seems insane. I am really sorry to see it on display here, week after week.

    I truly hope I’m misunderstanding you; but you seem to be saying that its a good thing that we’ve elected President Obama because he’s an African American. If so, I couldn’t disagree more.

    I sincerely believe that President Obama was elected because his fellow Americans thought he was the most qualified candidate, not primarily or even secondarily because of his race.

    This (to me) is what makes the birther conspiracy so disgusting. Too many birthers insist that Obama was elected because of race, discounting the fact that he is in possession of a distinguished education and seems to be a very intelligent man. They can’t accept the fact that other Americans might primarily look at characteristics other than race.

    Birthers can try to fool themselves and others that their quest isn’t about race, but for many, it clearly is. If you read the forums on FR, it’s rare to see a birther thread that doesn’t have at least an unchallenged racist comment or two.

    I don’t see Obama’s race as a good thing or bad thing. His race doesn’t make him a better (or worse) leader or decision maker. If he succeeds, it won’t be because of race. If he fails, it won’t be because of race.

    If I’ve misunderstood you, I sincerely apologize.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    Zixi of Ix: but you seem to be saying that its a good thing that we’ve elected President Obama because he’s an African American.

    I think perhaps Lupin meant that American did a good thing by not allowing Obama’s race to be an impediment to his election.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    charo: Wow, I just saw my name up there in the post with a note of thanks.

    I owe so much to so many commenters for so many reasons that it is impractical to mention them all, and so I don’t usually even try. But in this case, it seemed appropriate. It really was an important piece of information, and the basis of the whole article.

  11. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 12:29 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Zixi of Ix: but you seem to be saying that its a good thing that we’ve elected President Obama because he’s an African American.

    I think perhaps Lupin meant that American did a good thing by not allowing Obama’s race to be an impediment to his election.

    I agree with you, Dr. C -that is how I interpreted what Lupin said as well.

    Zixi of Ix: I sincerely believe that President Obama was elected because his fellow Americans thought he was the most qualified candidate, not primarily or even secondarily because of his race.

    Me too. That is why I voted for Obama. He was a refreshingly inspiring candidate who convinced me that he was very intelligent and knew what he was talking about. I agreed with many of the positions and ideas he espoused on the campaign trail. Compared to the seemingly endless bumbling failures and mistakes of the prior 8 years, his positions were a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, my only other real choice was McCain…who seemed very different as a candidate from the man I had voted for in the 2000 primaries. The selection of Palin as VP combined with his bad campaigning decisions and irrational actions when the financial meltdown hit compared to Obama’s calm and measured handling of the issue were the final issues that completely sealed the deal for me and made my decision a no-brainer. Any concerns of depth of experience I might have had were fully dispelled and outweighed by the emerging picture of what a complete disaster a McCain presidency would become, from my POV.

    I don’t share this because I want or care if any one agrees or not. I respect others that voted for McCain and had their own reasons for doing so. I’m just sharing the thought process I went through and why I voted the way I did and what I was drawn to in the candidate.

    It is definitely true that the issue of his race is an interesting and important historical milestone for America to achieve and be proud of in general – but that was not a reason that drove or motivated my vote in any way. It simply is what it is.

  12. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: charo: Wow, I just saw my name up there in the post with a note of thanks.

    I owe so much to so many commenters for so many reasons that it is impractical to mention them all, and so I don’t usually even try. But in this case, it seemed appropriate. It really was an important piece of information, and the basis of the whole article.

    Yes, that was definitely a good find. Kudos well deserved & earned, Charo! 🙂

  13. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2010 at 1:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think perhaps Lupin meant that American did a good thing by not allowing Obama’s race to be an impediment to his election.

    Yes, this is exactly what I meant. He was elected by a strong majority despite his race.

  14. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    It is an un-alloyed good thing that we elected an African-American to be President. It is something I had hoped would happen in my lifetime, but figured was still decades away. But, since the English language is imprecise, saying that it is a good thing we elected him (because he’s black) is not the same as saying it’s a good thing we (elected him because he’s black.) The same sentence can imply the sentiment I expressed in the beginning of this post or that race was the motivating factor for his election.

  15. avatar
    Rickey December 2, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    Greg:It is an un-alloyed good thing that we elected an African-American to be President. It is something I had hoped would happen in my lifetime, but figured was still decades away. But, since the English language is imprecise, saying that it is a good thing we elected him (because he’s black) is not the same as saying it’s a good thing we (elected him because he’s black.) The same sentence can imply the sentiment I expressed in the beginning of this post or that race was the motivating factor for his election.

    And of course virtually all of our Presidents have been white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and all have been male. At one time it was believed that a Roman Catholic could not be elected President, so members of that faith were understandably gratified when JFK was elected in 1960. A similar sense of accomplishment will be felt when a woman is elected President.

    I was happy when Obama won, and it was especially gratifying because he won in spite of his race. However, that does not mean that I voted for him because of his race. I would not have voted for Alan Keyes or Michael Steele if they had run for President, but if either had run and won I would still acknowledge that a major barrier had been broken.

    Likewise, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would not have voted for Sarah Palin, but if either had won it would have represented a significant breakthrough for women.

  16. avatar
    JohnC December 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    I’m happy Obama won, too, although I see that as irrelevant for the purposes of this website.

    I’d love to see more people here who think Obama is a misguided “socialist” in his policies, but nonetheless view birtherism as the vapid, fact-free phenomenon that it is. I really don’t want to think that nowadays clear-headed logic is confined solely to those of a particular political persuasion.

  17. avatar
    Black Lion December 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    New news regarding Lakin….Hilarious stuff…

    http://www.riseupforamerica.com/

    IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN ARIZONA- PLEASE TELL THEM ABOUT THIS.

    A group has organized a “Support Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin Day” series of rallies on Monday, Dec. 6, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in front of Sen. John McCain’s Office, 5353 N. 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85016 [Phone: (602) 952-2410].

    The next rally will begin at 12 noon in front of Sen. Jon Kyl’s office, 2200 E. Camelback, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [Phone: (602) 840-1891], with the final rally at 2 p.m. in front of Rep. Trent Frank’s office, 7121 W. Bell Road, Glendale, AZ 85308 [Phone: 623-776-7911].

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/support-terry-lakin-day-offices-of-john.html

    SITE: for Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, Bio, latest News, Court Martial
    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

  18. avatar
    Steve December 3, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    JohnC: I’m happy Obama won, too, although I see that as irrelevant for the purposes of this website.I’d love to see more people here who think Obama is a misguided “socialist” in his policies, but nonetheless view birtherism as the vapid, fact-free phenomenon that it is. I really don’t want to think that nowadays clear-headed logic is confined solely to those of a particular political persuasion.

    I know this may sound like a bad reason for voting for him, but a big part of why I voted for him was to spite birthers, people who claimed he was Muslim, etc.The more crap people threw against the wall, the more I wanted to vote for him. It bothered me how many people seemed to believe so many provably wrong things (Muslim, Kenyan, etc) or made a big deal out of rather petty issues, such as not wearing a flag pin or not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem. I didn’t want him to lose because I didn’t want people like that to feel vindicated.

    On the issues, Obama was closer to where I was than McCain, but I would have been comfortable with McCain as President. I would not have been comfortable with Sarah Palin as Vice President.

  19. avatar
    DP December 3, 2010 at 5:47 am #

    Thought I’d share some of the fine work Farah has helped inspire. I was checking out good old Free Republic, and came across this gem from some sad speciman of humanity callued bushpilot1:

    “The Indiana court was trickery and a play with words..the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Obama..if he was born in Hawaii.

    The 14h amendment cannot make a natural born citizen any more than a box of cracker jacks.

    The word natural means descent..posterity..means descent..forefathers means descent..obama has no claim to any of the above..

    Obama has no kindren blood to our ancestors…would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson accept him as their kindred blood..you know the answer.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635498/posts?q=1&;page=201

    See Comment 215.

    But I’m sure he’d protest if you (accurately) called him a racist. What a bunch of total low lifes.

    If there’s any small consolation, I guess it’s that the dittohead he was arguing with at least called him out on it.

  20. avatar
    aarrgghh December 3, 2010 at 7:22 am #

    DP: If there’s any small consolation, I guess it’s that the dittohead he was arguing with at least called him out on it.

    bushpilot1 is freeperville’s resident vattel-worshipper. he believes every precept in american law comes straight from “the law of nations” and you’d better too, or else. i doubt he even knew who vattel was a year ago.

    if you get a birfer talking long enough, something admittedly not that difficult, eventually everyone with a functioning neocortex figures out just how full of crap she is.

    tired_old_conservative, the dittohead who calls out bushpilot1, also calls out infamous constitutionalist, savior-of-the-republic and homemaker butterdezillion on her tiresome game earlier in the same thread:

    But you don’t even understand what you document.

    Lind never claimed that the President is irrelevant to the military. That is what you say because you are either incapable of understanding what she did write or simply refuse to accept an outcome that does not conform with your emotional desires.

    Brigade commanders do not have the authority to invade another country independent of a lot of people, not just the President. And mindlessly parroting the Authorization of Force like an addled six-year-old does not constitute documenting an intelligent argument.

    You have a fixation in your head that is an erroneous interpretation of the law. It leads you to not only ask nonsensical questions about Congress authorizing individual military officers to invade countries, a wrong-headed and pointless hypothetical grasping at the wrong issue, but to expect others to take them seriously.

    Outside of your own head, you’ve documented nothing meaningful. You will acknowledge nothing but the insistence that you are correct. You flatter yourself that this constitutes anything but a study in the pathologies of the mind.

    the tragic bug and feature of every birfer seems to be the ability to alienate all their potential allies.

  21. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 7:32 am #

    aarrgghh: eventually everyone with a functioning neocortex figures out just how full of crap she is.

    LMAO

  22. avatar
    aarrgghh December 3, 2010 at 7:32 am #

    today’s gem from bushpilot1:

    Judge Lind..when did you become a pawn for Obama..when did you sell out..what did Obama’s goons offer you..a promotion…Judge Lind..you are an example why..women never should have been given a position of authority in the military.

  23. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    aarrgghh: bushpilot1 is freeperville’s resident vattel-worshipper. he believes every precept in american law comes straight from “the law of nations” and you’d better too, or else. i doubt he even knew who vattel was a year ago.if you get a birfer talking long enough, something admittedly not that difficult, eventually everyone with a functioning neocortex figures out just how full of crap she is.tired_old_conservative, the dittohead who calls out bushpilot1, also calls out infamous constitutionalist, savior-of-the-republic and homemaker butterdezillion on her tiresome game earlier in the same thread:the tragic bug and feature of every birfer seems to be the ability to alienate all their potential allies.

    Better quote from that thread aimed at our old friend Butterdezillion….

    To: butterdezillion
    I’m asking for a simple citation that would show Congress has authorized military officers to “use appropriate force” independently of the President, which Lind’s entire argument rests upon.
    Lind’s entire argument doesn’t rest on that. She does not say that military officers can take action independent of the President. She does not say that Congress can authorize individual officers to attack countries. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject that you have.

    If that’s too much to ask, there’s a serious problem here, and it’s not me.

    There is no serious problem. You’re misinterpretation of what Judge Lind said leads you to this nonsense question.

    Lind should have known that it’s not enough to say that Congress authorizes SOME orders. What she has to show is that Congress authorized THESE orders to be given independently of the President. She should have cited the appropriate Congressional authorization for THESE orders, showing they are authorized independently from the President.

    Lind doesn’t say that Congress authorized SOME orders. Linda doesn’t say that Congress gives any direct orders to the military. Lind says that Congress has defined the Defense Department’s roles and responsibilities and the way in which the armed forces legally operate. Congress has authorized not individual orders, but the legality of giving orders and the legal requirement for obedience to orders.

    When she talks about independent statutory authority, she is talking about the legal structure of the armed forces. That has been established by Congress. It has the Constitutional power to do so, and has done so in Article 10 of the United States code. Among other provisions Article 10 requires the Secretary of the Army to establish the authority of officers to give orders. That has been done in Army Regulations. Officers in the Army are this legally required to obey the orders of a superior officer provided those orders don’t essentially require the commission of a crime. Period. That legal requirement exists whether the President is eligible or not. It has statutory authority whether the President is eligible or not. Lakin’s superior officer has no obligation to justify the order to deploy in any way.

    It is the role of Congress to determine if the question of the President’s eligibility should be raised. Until it does so, the President is presumed lawful and would be operating under the de facto officer doctrine anyway. In our system of government, once a President’s election is verified by Congress and he is inaugurated, that’s it. Individual members of the military don’t get to independently decide if their civilian rule meets their personal interpretation of the Constitution. If you want that, go live in Turkey.

    That’s also the same reason we didn’t get to quit fighting in Vietnam until someone proved to us there was a Constitutionally legitimate authorization of that war. Which, by the way, is a potentially valid question. But that wasn’t our call. And legal orders remained legal orders. The reason for that is the exact one Lind cites.

    Why do you think she didn’t do that?

    Because no one in the Legislative, Executive or Judicial Branch, or the military specifically, has ever contemplated anything working in the fashion you describe. The question you ask is, from a legal perspective, gibberish.

    199 posted on Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:26:43 PM by tired_old_conservative

  24. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 8:59 am #

    aarrgghh: today’s gem from bushpilot1:

    OTC does go after the idiotic bushpilot….

    To: tired_old_conservative
    Every one who has read a book knows Obama is illegal. The problem I have is the misinformation being spewed..it is not logical obama is a legal president..there are few who have done as much research as I have on this subject… This goes beyond LTC Lakin..we are in the realm of treason..there is an active campaign to surplant the constitution.. LTC Lakin is a stepping stone..to their goal..
    If I read anything..making obama a natural born citizen I would cease posting..on the subject..but I have found nothing supporting obama. We are in the mists of a Civil War.. the Courts must intervene..but I am afraid it is too late..the die was cast..with the passing of the 14th Amendment and the fraudulent election of obama. The republicans and the democrats are nothing more than pawns for trinkets.

    213 posted on Friday, December 03, 2010 12:23:29 AM by bushpilot1
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

    ——————————————————————————–

    To: bushpilot1
    Yeah, yeah, I know. Every generation thinks the world is going to heck as it gets older. The wolves are always circling in the dark while the camp fires slowly die out. Except experience has taught me that mindset primarily serves just to inspire a sense of significance in the people addicted to it. It also saps will and resolve.
    Buck up! We lost an election in 2008. It happens. That didn’t doom us. We won back one house of Congress in 2010. It happens. That doesn’t guarantee victory in 2012. Victory will go to the side that keeps its head, crafts a plan, and rides it with a little luck. Talk of a Civil War ain’t gonna’ cut it.

    If you haven’t read anything supporting Obama as a natural born citizen, you should read more. There’s a court case from last year that specifically said he was. Whether you agree or not, that’s a lot stronger pedigree than anything the birthers have got. So get over it. And whining about the 14th Amendment 143 years after the fact ain’t winning any elections either.

    The die is never cast. The future belongs to what Reagan asked us to be, the happy warriors who don’t lose their heads over nonsense.

    **** the wolves. America has kicked their tails before, and we will do it again.

    214 posted on Friday, December 03, 2010 12:43:36 AM by tired_old_conservative

  25. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    DP: Thought I’d share some of the fine work Farah has helped inspire. I was checking out good old Free Republic, and came across this gem from some sad speciman of humanity callued bushpilot1:“The Indiana court was trickery and a play with words..the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Obama..if he was born in Hawaii.The 14h amendment cannot make a natural born citizen any more than a box of cracker jacks.The word natural means descent..posterity..means descent..forefathers means descent..obama has no claim to any of the above..Obama has no kindren blood to our ancestors…would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson accept him as their kindred blood..you know the answer.”http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635498/posts?q=1&;page=201See Comment 215.But I’m sure he’d protest if you (accurately) called him a racist. What a bunch of total low lifes. If there’s any small consolation, I guess it’s that the dittohead he was arguing with at least called him out on it.

    And the response….

    To: bushpilot1; El Sordo
    The Indiana court was trickery and a play with words..the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Obama..if he was born in Hawaii.
    The 14h amendment cannot make a natural born citizen any more than a box of cracker jacks.

    The word natural means descent..posterity..means descent..forefathers means descent..obama has no claim to any of the above..

    Obama has no kindren blood to our ancestors…would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson accept him as their kindred blood..you know the answer.

    Ahem…

    In your case, we seem to be at the root of this, don’t we? And it really has nothing to do with the Constitution or the law. I’ll let your own words speak for you, because they do so distastefully enough. It’s a nice bit of “blood and soil,” though. Would fit right in with some of America’s historical enemies.

    Let’s just say I think somewhat more highly of the ideals of this country than you.

    P.S. That stuff definitely is not an election winner. Keep it in the closet.

    218 posted on Friday, December 03, 2010 1:40:53 AM by tired_old_conservative

  26. avatar
    Welsh Dragon December 3, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    bushpilot1 probably needs medical treatment for his Vattel obsession. – yesterday he was claiming as evidence that a 1889 painting of George Washington’s first inauguration showed Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ under the Bible Washington has his right hand on!

    It’s actually a cushion but even if it was what would it prove?

    Any day now I expect him to ‘discover’ that Moses had copy with him when he brought the ten commandments down from Mount Sinai!

  27. avatar
    Black Lion December 3, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    This is the actual article that initiated the FR debate….

    “Lakin not allowed witnesses, documents, explanation at court-martial Dec. 14!
    Lakin Family Attempts to Avoid Confrontation Ignored by Obama

    Letters obtained by The Gazette reveal the extent to which a decorated Army officer and his brother struggled to resolve concerns over the President’s eligibility prior to the officer being court-martialed.

    The Lakins are long-time Greeley residents. Three Lakin brothers; Dr. Greg Lakin, Capt. Gary Lakin USCG and Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin graduated from University High School in 1977, 1980 and 1983 respectively. The brothers’ parents still live in Greeley and have a long history of supporting humanitarian causes in the area.

    Lt. Col. Lakin is currently scheduled to be court-martialed Dec. 14 for disobeying orders to deploy after exhausting numerous attempts to resolve issues regarding the President’s eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief. The specific issue involved is the Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.

    Dr. Greg Lakin has previously been a member of the Greeley Police Department and was a prosecutor in Hawaii. Greg, who was interviewed on the Peter Boyles radio show on Nov. 9, said Lakin, “mulled over this for a long period of time” before he made his decision to refuse to deploy to Afghanistan. He strongly disputed the contention that his brother was a coward for deploying, noting Terry had already served in both Bosnia and Afghanistan.

    In an interview with the Gazette, Dr. Lakin shared copies of letters he and his brother sent to the President and Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle asking for a resolution of this issue. Greg said the letters were written with a very humble spirit in an attempt to seek information verifying Barack Obama’s birthplace.

    Lt. Col. Lakin sent a letter to the President prior to being charged saying, as part of the deployment orders, he was required to submit his long form birth certificate and he was “glad to obey this order, and will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital.” He said he “attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the relentless questions surrounding your eligibility, but was informed that I lack standing. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation.” He went on to explain the reason for his request had nothing to do with personal differences. “Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm’s way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but want to do so with the knowledge and peace of mind that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed.”

    Dr. Lakin, in his first letter to the president prior to his brother’s arraignment, implored Obama to put the matter to rest stressing his brother tried to resolve the matter through proper channels but was rebuffed. “Approximately 20 months ago while continuing to serve in the Army he attempted to seek clarification regarding your birth certificate through proper military channels. Lt. Col. Lakin filed his requests through the normal chain of command (as the military advised) but continued to meet with frustration as the Army was unable to provide any clarification with regard to your place of birth. He believes this raises a Constitutional issue, a Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.” He stresses that his brother would gladly deploy in an instant once his questions have been answered, saying Terry “remains ready and willing to continue to serve his country in areas of conflict – as he has done in Afghanistan and Bosnia. I believe that upon meeting with my idealistic and principled brother you would find him professional, compassionate and worth helping.” Dr. Lakin even suggested a way to defuse the situation saying that “a meeting with him or our family, whether you chose to do this in private or public setting, would likely defuse this matter.”

    He also sent a letter to Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle who he met several times while he was a prosecuting attorney in Maui County. He told her that “a short meeting or phone with him or family (whether done privately or publicly – your choice), would completely defuse this matter.”

    Dr. Lakin sent another letter to the President after the initial court-martial date was set. In the letter Greg told the president he was a supporter who was pleased to see him elected in 2008. He reiterated that Terry made this decision only after other options had been exhausted. “It is a shame that no one above him in the military ranks and no one in Congress, who represents him, could address his concerns so that he could have avoided the prospect of such an enormous penalty for staying faithful to the oath he swore as an officer.” He went on to say that Col. Lakin was far from alone in his concerns saying, “Many others in uniform share this concern and have conveyed their support to my brother.”

    Showing he understands the divisiveness the issue has caused, he told the President, “We should use all means necessary to avoid an escalated controversy this fall when his court-martial is scheduled. There is much strife and tension in this nation now and this would not be healthy or productive.” Emphasizing the desire to find a resolution of the eligibility issue once and for all so the matter could be put to rest, Lakin said, “My family stands ready to provide any further information you might need and to offer our assistance to try to broker any compromise or negotiation that might be acceptable to all parties. We are deeply distressed over this situation, and do not believe that Terry deserves to be imprisoned simply for seeking assurances that he is following legal orders.”

    Greg stated that he has not received any response to his letters and is concerned the Army will simply take the easy way out by avoiding the issue and simply lock up his brother. He said based on his experience as a prosecutor in situations like this where there is no case law, “Judges go in with a pre-determined idea how they are going to decide it and take case law and policy statements to say whatever they want. There is no magic law that supports either position.”

    Greg said if his brother is not allowed to present evidence on his behalf and is convicted he would be forced to leave his practice to advocate for his brother saying, “My reluctant but determined response would be to forego my busy medical practice treating drug addicts and elderly patients to organize a public outcry for America’s new military political prisoner.”

    As the issue drags on, more members of the media appear to be mentioning the issue. Conan O’Brien joked about the President being ineligible in one of his monologues. Rush Limbaugh, who has previously made comments regarding Obama’s birth certificate, said last week, “We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”

    Saturday Night Live has also mentioned the issue with an opening skit having Sen. Harry Reid asking the President to produce his birth certificate. ABC News Jake Tapper questioned White House Security Advisor David Axelrod’s statement that the President has released his birth certificate asking specifically about the long form containing the name and signature of the attending physician.”

    From: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=6890

  28. avatar
    ballantine December 3, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    Welsh Dragon: bushpilot1 probably needs medical treatment for his Vattel obsession. – yesterday he was claiming as evidence that a 1889 painting of George Washington’s first inauguration showed Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ under the Bible Washington has his right hand on!It’s actually a cushion but even if it was what would it prove?Any day now I expect him to discover’ that Moses had copy with him when he brought the ten commandments down from Mount Sinai!

    That is pretty funny. I thought our presidents had to be sworn in with their hand on a stack of the Law of Nations. Try this experiment. Ask a well educated lawyer who Vattel was. I have done it multiple times and have yet to get anything back but a blank stare.

  29. avatar
    Greg December 3, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    DP: Obama has no kindren blood to our ancestors

    Obama’s the opposite of Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin mother, so no input from a human father. Apparently, Obama was born with no input from a human mother. (Like Athena, he sprang from his father’s forehead?)

    This guy traced Obama’s mom’s line back to Massachusetts in the 1600s. But, none of that blood was shared with Obama.

  30. avatar
    Northland10 December 3, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    Greg: This guy traced Obama’s mom’s line back to Massachusetts in the 1600s. But none of that blood was shared with Obama

    If I recall corectly, the old thinking of reproduction was that the male provided everything and the female was nothing more than a “fertile field” for the man to plant in. Therefore, the child was only a descendent of the father by blood. Modern understanding of biology, of course, disputes that assumption, but some habits die hard.

  31. avatar
    JohnC December 3, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Black Lion: The 14h amendment cannot make a natural born citizen any more than a box of cracker jacks.The word natural means descent..posterity..means descent..forefathers means descent..obama has no claim to any of the above..</P

    Sorry, but wishful thinking does not make for valid constitutional analysis.

    James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” said this just two years after the Constitutional Convention:

    It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

    If the word “natural” as used in Article II of the Constitution means “descent,” that fact was evidently well hidden from the person most responsible for bringing it into existence.

  32. avatar
    DP December 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    JohnC: Sorry, but wishful thinking does not make for valid constitutional analysis.James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” said this just two years after the Constitutional Convention:It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.If the word “natural” as used in Article II of the Constitution means “descent,” that fact was evidently well hidden from the person most responsible for bringing it into existence.

    It’s interesting that the 14th amendment citizen idiocy is kind of coming out into the open now. Do you think that’s because the other arguments are tired, shopworn, and visibly failing,but the racism simply can’t accept a black man as a President? So it moves on to ever more transparent fig leaves.

    By 2012, do you think they’ll be pointing out the obvious historical and Constitutional significance of the Founders wearing white wigs?

  33. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    DP: By 2012, do you think they’ll be pointing out the obvious historical and Constitutional significance of the Founders wearing white wigs?

    or tights?