Main Menu

Lakin gets jail time

LTC Terry Lakin, convicted of 4 charges, received a sentence of 6 months confinement, loss of pay and benefits, and dismissal from the Army. Lakin could have also received a fine and 3 more years confinement.

It’s not about Obama

Birthers, having nothing real to base their conspiracies on, read information into anything. Indeed the most damning evidence against Obama’s eligibility is that they haven’t seen something! I was talking to deep birther today at the birth certificate factory, and he said that he expected that Lakin would not get jail time because every moment Lakin was in jail, he fans birther enthusiasm. I told him that the sentence would be decided by 8 Army colonels, not Barack Obama.

Read more:

, ,

203 Responses to Lakin gets jail time

  1. avatar
    richCares December 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    “WND reports the truth”
    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

    they also say that the earth is 600 years old, that’s true!

  2. avatar
    Jason December 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/hearing-update-dec-16.html

    It is a tragedy for LTC Terry Lakin to spend even one day in jail. However, this relatively lenient sentence is a victory for the defense, since the prosecution asked the sentencing panel for Terry to serve two years in jail as his punishment.

    LTC Lakin invited his court martial by defying military orders in order to try to get an answer through his chains of command to a simple question- is the Commander-in-Chief Constitutionally eligible to serve as a “natural born” citizen?

    It is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. It is a critical question that demands an answer. Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.

    LTC Lakin made an heroic effort at great risk to his stellar military/professional career- to learn the truth and to uphold his officer’s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. In the end, the Army denied him due process, the traditional right of American citizens to evidence they need to defend themselves against criminal charges– and disallowed any expert witnesses related to the eligibility crisis. LTC Lakin essentially was denied the opportunity to mount a defense of his actions.

    LTC Lakin was accused of many false things by the Army during the course of the trial. The lead prosecutor (CAPT Phil O’Beirne) told the sentencing panel that your job is not to help SafeGuardOurConstitution find Obama’s birth certificate- and earlier he suggested that soldiers not let tthe Constitution cloud what they do– he quoted MacArthur’s famous quotation, duty, honor, country, but said the military’s job was only to fight wars. The military, however, most fundamentally protects the American Government and the rule of law.

    Because there was no discussion permitted at trial of the real issues that motivated LTC Lakin to take this drastic step that he did- there was no opportunity to question the Army about the break in the chain of command that severed LTC Lakin, ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, from the CINC who ordered the surge to the same country. Captain O’Beirne tried to explain that unlawful orders are things like shooting prisoners which is consistent with COL Lind’s comment earlier that only “palpably legal” orders should be disobeyed. But should a decorated officer like LTC Lakin go to jail because no one in the Army- and no one in the White House- can produce a “palpably legal” document that proves that the Commander-in-Chief can lawfully command the U.S. Armed Forces?

    Some supporters are discouraged that LTC Lakin appeared remorseful in court. We applaud the commitment LTC Lakin demonstrated to this important cause and know the heartache and hardship this conviction brings to his family and friends- but we salute him for raising this issue so publicly and courageously. We also praise his legal defense for its efforts and demonstrated skill in winning a much shorter conviction than what the prosecution sought.

    Nevertheless, this sentence is an abomination– we strongly urge LTC Lakin’s supporters to call their Congressmen and Senators- and demand that LTC Lakin be pardoned. LTC Lakin’s commander- Major General Karl Horst– can also suspend his sentence.

  3. avatar
    Salem Poor December 16, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    While I doubt that this will happen, but I would like to see one, just one of member of the birther leadership apologize to Terry Lakin (I no longer see an justification for referring to his rank) for using him to further their own misguided, irresponsible and deluded agenda. Now that they have used him, I hope they find a way to support him in trying to put his life together.

  4. avatar
    Salem Poor December 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Jason: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/hearing-update-dec-16.htmlIt is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1.

    It is nothing short of astounding that an active duty member of the U.S. military would even think of “demanding” that their commanding officer, much less the CIC provide proof of their authority.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Jason: It is a tragedy for LTC Terry Lakin to spend even one day in jail. However, this relatively lenient sentence is a victory for the defense, since the prosecution asked the sentencing panel for Terry to serve two years in jail as his punishment.

    James, John, David, etc. slipped the ban. Not to worry.

  6. avatar
    richCares December 16, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    the delusions of JASON are too severe to be cured with therapy, it seems the rest of his life is tied into bull pupu as was Lakin’s. Those birthers I have met are estranged from their families. more that likely so is JASON.

  7. avatar
    Dave December 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    Since Jason re-emits all the birther talking points about LTC Lakin, I guess I’ll take the opportunity to repeat that the most bafflingly nonsensical birther talking point is this one:

    It is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. It is a critical question that demands an answer. Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.

    I am used to birthers saying things utterly divorced from reality — but this statement is even divorced from their own version of reality. If you live in the birther universe, where the President’s eligibility is required to make orders legal, then proof of the President’s eligibility is proof of the legality of orders and hence proof of LTC Lakin’s guilt. So how does that avert a trial?

    This has been pointed out innumerable times, but it doesn’t seem to phase the birthers one bit.

  8. avatar
    Keith December 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    Salem Poor: (I no longer see an justification for referring to his rank)

    According to CAAFLog, he retains his rank and remains a member of the military until the appeals process is completed and he can be court-martialled again if he fails to obey orders again. Of course he now has to take orders from PFC’s at Leavenworth.

    Apparently, within the prison population at Leavenworth, prisoners who are there for ‘failure to deploy’ kind of offenses, are barely one rung up from child molesters. Many prisoners have had several tours in a war zone and don’t take too kindly to those who shirk.

  9. avatar
    US Citizen December 16, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    Jason,

    The only person that can pardon Lakin is Obama.
    Somehow I don’t think this is in the cards tho.
    Besides, how could Lakin ever accept such a pardon from a man he doesn’t recognize to be the president?

    As for Obama stepping forward to end this- he did and before he was even elected.
    But you- “The Birthers” – refuse to believe it.
    You refuse to believe newspaper announcements of his birth, the testimony of the Health Director of Hawaii, the (republican) Governor of Hawaii, the DNC, the RNC, the FBI, CIA, NSA, State dept… everyone.
    Only a crazy person could embrace the notion that all of these people and institutions were lax or “in on the scam.”

    Stick a fork in him- Lakin is done.
    ….and I very much doubt any birthers will be there in 6 months to offer him financial support for the future.
    Will you?

  10. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    richCares: they also say that the earth is 600 years old, that’s true!

    So now it’s 600. Christians can’t make up their minds.

    Judaism considers creationism an attack on the 1st Amendment, and an attempt to theocratize education and the country. That’s why I will NEVER vote GOP.

  11. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    US Citizen: how could Lakin ever accept such a pardon from a man he doesn’t recognize to be the president?

    ….and I very much doubt any birthers will be there in 6 months to offer him financial support for the future.
    Will you?

    Well, Jason?

  12. avatar
    Steve December 16, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    Jason: and no one in the White House- can produce a “palpably legal” document that proves that the Commander-in-Chief can lawfully command the U.S. Armed Forces?

    Obama did produce a “palpably legal” document.
    Sorry you missed it.

  13. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Jason: LTC Lakin’s commander- Major General Karl Horst– can also suspend his sentence.

    What’s his e-mail addy and ‘phone number?

  14. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Jason: It is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.

    Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Jason: Captain O’Beirne tried to explain that unlawful orders are things like shooting prisoners which is consistent with COL Lind’s comment earlier that only “palpably legal” orders should be disobeyed.

    The only order Lakin can refuse is if it would result in another My Lai.

  15. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 16, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Under current rules a person may not apply to the president to be pardoned until they have completed five or more years after their sentence is completed. Thus it’s true that President Palin will have the opportunity to parole LTC Lakin for his courageous acts.

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm #

    Salem Poor: Terry Lakin (I no longer see an justification for referring to his rank)

    I guess I can’t refer to him as ‘Soon-to-be-mister Lakin’ any more…

    How does ‘the coward formerly known as LTC Lankin’ sound?

  17. avatar
    misha December 16, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): President Palin will have the opportunity to parole LTC Lakin

    You betcha. Also.

  18. avatar
    richCares December 16, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    “So now it’s 600. Christians can’t make up their minds”
    sorry, I checked with WND and Chuck Norris, it’s 6.000 years. I asked them about the large clay buildings that Egypt buit before the flood, why didn’t the flood wash them away, no answer.

  19. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 16, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    I don’t waste time trying to spell convicted felon’s names properly… 😉

  20. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.

    That’s of course a lie as evidenced by the release of his COLB and the official statements of the Department of Health of Hawaii.

    Have you no shame?

  21. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    misha: So now it’s 600. Christians can’t make up their minds.Judaism considers creationism an attack on the 1st Amendment, and an attempt to theocratize education and the country. That’s why I will NEVER vote GOP.

    OT: “DMV employee resigns over letter condemning customer to hell”

    A California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employee who allegedly wrote a letter to a transgender woman and condemned her to hell has resigned, officials said Thursday.

    According to Yust and her attorney, the DMV employee used her confidential personal information to send the letter.

    “I have learned that the reason for the vast majority of gender change operations is the client’s homosexual orientation,” the letter dated October 22 states. “The homosexual act is an abomination that leads to hell.”

    Yust said she also got a pamphlet from a church, which she said contained offensive material directed at her sexual orientation and gender.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/california.transgender.dmv/index.html

    also: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/thelittlejew.htm

  22. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    . LTC Lakin essentially was denied the opportunity to mount a defense of his actions.

    Being caught red handed and having provided all the necessary evidence to establish his guilt, Lakin had nothing much of a defense to start with.
    The Judge ruled, following military case law as well as the Supreme Court guidance, that the decision whether or not the order was lawful, is an issue of law and thus can be determined by the Judge.
    Anyone familiar with US v New or the various other rulings would have been able to predict the outcome.

    And of course, Lakin could have defended himself in various ways: 1) Insanity plea, 2) I did it, please be gentle with me… 3) take the issue to trial

    He chose 2 to end any further appeal opportunities of the eligibility issue and the only remaining issue is the missing a troop movement charge which can be reviewed ‘de novo’ by the CAAF.

    You break the law and then find that you have not many options left to you.. Well, duh….

  23. avatar
    richCares December 17, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    curious, 30 birthers on 1st day then on day 3, the sentencing, 6 birthers. Maybe we can fit this into a song like “99 bottles of beer on the wall”

  24. avatar
    US Citizen December 17, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    Fwiw, “Internet Powerhouse” Andy Martin predicted basically everything wrong.
    He surmised that Lakin would not get kicked out the Army, not get jail time and indeed would be returned to active duty.
    He lost all three bets.

    That’s something that IS consistent with birthers: They’re almost ALWAYS wrong.
    There has to be a way to bet against these guys legally.
    One simply has to embrace an alternative opinion to theirs and you’d likely win.

    And now we need a new song with “You’re OUT OF the army now….”

  25. avatar
    Keith December 17, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    US Citizen: There has to be a way to bet against these guys legally.
    One simply has to embrace an alternative opinion to theirs and you’d likely win.

    You wouldn’t be able to get any odds. Bookmakers are not by nature delusional people.

  26. avatar
    Lupin December 17, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    (Back from a business trip.)

    I am somewhat disappointed by the rather lenient sentence — I expected at least a full year since Lakin is not only a fool but from what I quickly read on CAAFLOG an obnoxious fool as well, and I thought the army didn’t suffer those gladly, as the saying goes.

  27. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 6:22 am #

    Lupin,

    In most ways, the length of confinement is the least of Lakins worries

    He now has a permanent marker on his records that will follow him for the rest of his life.

    That must be declared to any employer

    That is going to be on his credit history, record and score

    Which means that his ability to qualify fpr the necessary insurance to practice will be severely restricted

    Whilst having lost TRICARE access for himself and his family

    And 18 years of accumulated pension and associated rights

    With a probability that any state in which he wants to practice will restrict or deny a licence due to at the least a depraved indifference to his patients.

    6 months…..out in 5…that’s the beginning

  28. avatar
    Judge Mental December 17, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    According to Jason……”Captain O’Beirne tried to explain that unlawful orders are things like shooting prisoners which is consistent with COL Lind’s comment earlier that only “palpably legal” orders should be disobeyed”.

    I very much doubt that any Colonel has ever made the nonsensical remark that only palpably legal orders should be “disobeyed” and I’m absolutely certain that Lind didn’t lol.

    Palpably illegal orders are quite another matter.

  29. avatar
    AnotherBird December 17, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Judge Mental: According to Jason……”Captain O’Beirne tried to explain that unlawful orders are things like shooting prisoners which is consistent with COL Lind’s comment earlier that only “palpably legal” orders should be disobeyed”.
    I very much doubt that any Colonel has ever made the nonsensical remark that only palpably legal orders should be “disobeyed” and I’m absolutely certain that Lind didn’t lol.
    Palpably illegal orders are quite another matter.

    It seems to be just spam from Jason. Instead of putting forward his own argument he decided to cut and past. Hey, he may have written the original article, but this doesn’t diminish the astute observation you made and others.

  30. avatar
    BatGuano December 17, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    AnotherBird: It seems to be just spam from Jason. Instead of putting forward his own argument he decided to cut and past.

    if i remember correctly jason originally came on here with his only concern being how did obama travel to pakistan in 1981. after we showed him there was no travel ban and the impossibility of indonesian citizenship……… jason was incredibly able to find new concerns !!!

  31. avatar
    Ted December 17, 2010 at 9:33 am #

    Viking (Phil Cave): Under current rules a person may not apply to the president to be pardoned until they have completed five or more years after their sentence is completed. Thus it’s true that President Palin will have the opportunity to parole LTC Lakin for his courageous acts.

    While the pardon regulations say this, they do not limit or control the President’s absolute discretion to pardon a criminal who applies at an earlier time or even one who does not apply at all.

  32. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    Ted: they do not limit or control the President’s absolute discretion to pardon a criminal who applies at an earlier time or even one who does not apply at all.

    I know that a man of principles like Lakin, would refuse to accept a pardon from an illegal president.

  33. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 9:57 am #

    Jason: http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/hearing-update-dec-16.htmlIt is a tragedy for LTC Terry Lakin to spend even one day in jail. However, this relatively lenient sentence is a victory for the defense, since the prosecution asked the sentencing panel for Terry to serve two years in jail as his punishment.LTC Lakin invited his court martial by defying military orders in order to try to get an answer through his chains of command to a simple question- is the Commander-in-Chief Constitutionally eligible to serve as a “natural born” citizen?It is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. It is a critical question that demands an answer. Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.LTC Lakin made an heroic effort at great risk to his stellar military/professional career- to learn the truth and to uphold his officer’s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. In the end, the Army denied him due process, the traditional right of American citizens to evidence they need to defend themselves against criminal charges– and disallowed any expert witnesses related to the eligibility crisis. LTC Lakin essentially was denied the opportunity to mount a defense of his actions.LTC Lakin was accused of many false things by the Army during the course of the trial. The lead prosecutor (CAPT Phil O’Beirne) told the sentencing panel that your job is not to help SafeGuardOurConstitution find Obama’s birth certificate- and earlier he suggested that soldiers not let tthe Constitution cloud what they do– he quoted MacArthur’s famous quotation, duty, honor, country, but said the military’s job was only to fight wars. The military, however, most fundamentally protects the American Government and the rule of law.Because there was no discussion permitted at trial of the real issues that motivated LTC Lakin to take this drastic step that he did- there was no opportunity to question the Army about the break in the chain of command that severed LTC Lakin, ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, from the CINC who ordered the surge to the same country. Captain O’Beirne tried to explain that unlawful orders are things like shooting prisoners which is consistent with COL Lind’s comment earlier that only “palpably legal” orders should be disobeyed. But should a decorated officer like LTC Lakin go to jail because no one in the Army- and no one in the White House- can produce a “palpably legal” document that proves that the Commander-in-Chief can lawfully command the U.S. Armed Forces?Some supporters are discouraged that LTC Lakin appeared remorseful in court. We applaud the commitment LTC Lakin demonstrated to this important cause and know the heartache and hardship this conviction brings to his family and friends- but we salute him for raising this issue so publicly and courageously. We also praise his legal defense for its efforts and demonstrated skill in winning a much shorter conviction than what the prosecution sought.Nevertheless, this sentence is an abomination– we strongly urge LTC Lakin’s supporters to call their Congressmen and Senators- and demand that LTC Lakin be pardoned. LTC Lakin’s commander- Major General Karl Horst– can also suspend his sentence.

    Amazing….I thought that the birthers believed that President Obama was not the “legal President”? Yet they write the following line; “Nevertheless, this sentence is an abomination– we strongly urge LTC Lakin’s supporters to call their Congressmen and Senators- and demand that LTC Lakin be pardoned.” Really? It would have to be a Presidential pardon. If Obama is not the President then why would Lakin accept a pardon from President Obama? Hilarious. The guy disobey’s a direct order yet the birthers claim his sentence is an “abomination”. I will agree with them on that one. He should have received at least a year of confinement. He got off easy.

  34. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    “Mr. Puckett then turned to the looming “You had your chance” comment. “Did he personally disrespect COL Roberts? No. Mr. Jensen did that. He didn’t direct that or authorize that. That was Mr. Jensen.” In light of the government’s failure to rebut that allegation from LTC Lakin’s unsworn statement when the government had the relevant witness available, I assume that’s true, though the way Mr. Puckett argued it seemed to introduce some facts from outside the record. (I don’t believe that LTC Lakin stated that he neither directed nor authorized Mr.Jensen to make that remark, though I have no reason to believe that statement was untrue.)”

    -CAAFLOG

  35. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 10:05 am #

    Ted. (1) Under your scenario the president would have to explain why he was making a special exception for Lakin, neither he nor any other president would do that. (2) Only recently has President Obama granted some pardons (one of them was for a military person). Obama has been roundly criticized for being among to worst when it comes to the granting of pardons. (3) LTC Lakin cannot apply to this President because, I believe he is a usurper who is not lawfully a president, therefore any pardon issued would not be legal, (4) finally, because the issue is not about an act from the usurper president that has already occurred, the de facto officer doctrine doesn’t apply. LTC Lakin has to be consistent does he not? If it is a principle and not for political theater?

  36. avatar
    Ted December 17, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    Viking (Phil Cave): Ted. (1) Under your scenario the president would have to explain why he was making a special exception for Lakin, neither he nor any other president would do that. (2) Only recently has President Obama granted some pardons (one of them was for a military person). Obama has been roundly criticized for being among to worst when it comes to the granting of pardons. (3) LTC Lakin cannot apply to this President because, I believe he is a usurper who is not lawfully a president, therefore any pardon issued would not be legal, (4) finally, because the issue is not about an act from the usurper president that has already occurred, the de facto officer doctrine doesn’t apply. LTC Lakin has to be consistent does he not? If it is a principle and not for political theater?

    Agree with everything you say. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t misstating what the law of pardons (as opposed to the practical realities of how pardons work) actually is.

    In case my comment suggested I was somehow behind Lakin: I’m not a birther, I think the convictions and the sentence were just.

  37. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:24 am #

    Tomorrow, Obama will still be President, Lakin will be in jail, and you will wake up with the shocking realization that our time on this earth is finite, and rather than spending time with your loved ones or creating something to make the world a better place, you spent your days annoying people on the internet.

    Jax

    (Quote of the Day)

    Now there is an irony meter explosion in all directions 🙂

  38. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Ted: In case my comment suggested I was somehow behind Lakin: I’m not a birther, I think the convictions and the sentence were just.

    You must preface your comment with this information first. Then you’ll have to wait for a team to search every comment you have ever made who will look for inconsistencies and such before your case is handed over to the “sock puppet” specialization team. Final clearance is sanctioned by a 2/3 vote.

  39. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:35 am #

    charo: You must preface your comment with this information first. Then you’ll have to wait for a team to search every comment you have ever made who will look for inconsistencies and such before your case is handed over to the “sock puppet” specialization team. Final clearance is sanctioned by a 2/3 vote.

    No you don’t Ted…We take you at your word. There are some here that like to play the part of the “concern troll” or who have claimed that they were just asking questions….And there are some that like to lurk and comment without much to say because they originally appeared as some sort of birther type but all so called arguments were eviserated and then decided to pretend to “not take sides” so to speak….

  40. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    Black Lion:
    No you don’t Ted…We take you at your word.There are some here that like to play the part of the “concern troll” or who have claimed that they were just asking questions….And there are some that like to lurk and comment without much to say because they originally appeared as some sort of birther type but all so called arguments were eviserated and then decided to pretend to “not take sides” so to speak….

    Just joking around.

  41. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    charo: Just joking around.

    OK then….Although I am not sure Ted would realize that….

  42. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:51 am #

    The Freepers are their usual primate selves, slinging their poo all over their cage….Although one did have an interesting sig line….“LTC Lakin sought a judicial solution to a political problem.” Awesome recap of the entire Lakin fiasco…

    Some classics…

    He courageously made a point.

    He is not a fool. I suppose you would be saying the same thing to those military leaders who tried to assasinate Hitler.

    Lakin was not so naive to think he could “unseat “ Obama.
    he was making a point….one that only an officer in the military could make.

    I see him as a hero…not a fool.

    15 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:33:28 PM by Recovering Ex-hippie

    So when the truth finally comes out regarding Obamas’ crime of pretending to be president, and when all the laws and directives enacted since 2008 are found to be illegal, and the country is set on its’ ears constitutionally, LTC Larkin can then sue for millions of dollars because he was right.

    30 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:43:11 PM by PWK arch

    Who wrote this a DUer?

    He could be.

    The CAAFLOG blogger and owner Sullivan is a leftist ACLU supporter who represented and praised Gitmo terrorists. He also complained that the terrorists he represented did not get full access to discovery under the liberal UCMJ rules of Article 46. Sullivan certainly did not complain when LTC Lakin was not given any rights to discovery and witnesses under the same UCMJ Article.

    41 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:49:32 PM by Red Steel

    What a “DISGRACE” to Our Country!!

    LTC Lakin went through the Chain of Command for 2 1/2 years to ask about Mr. Obama. Questioning if Mr Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS?

    Many in the Chain-of-Command agreeded with him but; no one else had the “guts” put their life on the line.

    Lt Col Lakin had an impecable Military Record…. He is Highly Decorated for his Outstanding Service to Our Country!! He was recommended to be promoted to Full Colonel.

    This Honorable Officer lost everything because Mr Obama is a “coward”!! Mr Obama needs to come forward & release his records & his past history!!

    Lt. Col Lakin should be restored to his Rank & full Military Priviliges…. Mr Obama is the person who should go to jail for his “Fraud” against the American People!!

    Mr Obama’s “Legal” father was never a US Citizen. He was a Kenyan with British Citizenship…. This gave Mr Obama “British Citizenship”!!!

    This disqualifies Mr Obama from becoming POTUS!!

    MR Obama knows that he is inelligible to be POTUS….. That is Fraud & Treason!! Punishable by life in Prison!!

    44 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:50:32 PM by ebysan (ebysan)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2643672/posts

  43. avatar
    US Citizen December 17, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    Keith:
    You wouldn’t be able to get any odds. Bookmakers are not by nature delusional people.

    You’re completely correct given professional bookmakers.
    I was thinking more along the lines of more affluent birthers taking some cheese.
    They’re rare, but exist.
    Collection might be a chore tho… 😉

    I’m still waiting for Jason and any other birthers to commit to supporting Mr. Lakin now that they’ve egged him on with their blogs and posts.

    I’m speaking especially to you, Orly Taitz.
    Your piss poor research and town crier blogging were interpreted as the truth by a previously honorable doctor in the United States Army.
    Your popcorn farts of fictitious and concocted claims have time and again been proven wrong by every possible means of investigation, case law and appraisal… yet you continue to leave a path of destruction everywhere you go.

    The people at Politijab and Obamaconspiracy have a 100% prediction success and you, Orly, have lost every case and $20 thousand dollars.
    By no possible manner of evaluation have you been a success at anything you’ve done.
    Even as a dentist, you’re a complete failure and a Lincoln-sized embarrassment to the trade and your own marriage vows.

    YOU, a foreigner, have deliberately caused Mr. Lakin, a good person, great distress.
    In doing so, you’ve undermined a small portion of the US’ defense system also.

    You should be ashamed that your own vile hatred of the highest ELECTED official of the US has caused you to take naive people’s money, time and financially supported futures for their children.

    You have no class, no skills, no shame, and only the adulation of clowns.
    You dishonor the title of lawyer and of Jew and are undeserving of the title of Mensch by your very own people and ancestors.
    You give woman, lawyers, Jews, patriots, fashion and even the English language a bad name.

    -Rant off

  44. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    And BZ still appears pushing her discredited nonsense….

    Judge Lind ruled that whether a valid President approved the use of force is IRRELEVANT to whether the deployment orders are lawful.

    If that is true, then any brigade commander in the country could lawfully order troops to invade Iran today, and if anybody disobeyed those orders they would get the sentence Lakin got. They would not even be able to BRING UP the small, “irrelevant” fact that the only person lawfully able to authorize combat in Iran had never done so.

    That’s what we’re talking about. That is how far the military leadership was willing to go in order to protect King Obama. They are willing to decree a lawless command structure to cover for Obama.

    Obama’s coup has extended to the military, with the military leadership happily taking off her clothes and bending over for the perpetrator.

    68 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:03:12 PM by butterdezillion

  45. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    charo: “Mr. Puckett then turned to the looming “You had your chance” comment.“Did he personally disrespect COL Roberts?No. Mr. Jensen did that.He didn’t direct that or authorize that.That was Mr. Jensen.”In light of the government’s failure to rebut that allegation from LTC Lakin’s unsworn statement when the government had the relevant witness available, I assume that’s true, though the way Mr. Puckett argued it seemed to introduce some facts from outside the record. (I don’t believe that LTC Lakin stated that he neither directed nor authorized Mr.Jensen to make that remark, though I have no reason to believe that statement was untrue.)”-CAAFLOG

    I read many good comments about Colonel Roberts and of course, his honorable and courageous actions earned him the MOH. I don’t understand why he left a false impression for a case that was already sound. Technically, Jenson was speaking for Lakin; however, Colonel Roberts testified that Lakin said the words. Trial Counsel used the “You had your chance” to put LTC Lakin in the worst possible light. The phrase became a mantra for the call to give Lakin the fullest extent of the punishment. That phrase generated more contempt than any other testimony.

  46. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    It is unbelievable how the Freepers can make up their own interpretations of actual facts…

    So he had questions, and sought answers. What were the answers?

    From this thread.
    The Congress AND many in the Military, including many of LTC Lakins’ commanders ACKNOWLEDGE there IS an issue with Barry’s eligibility. YET, they ALL pass the damn buck. This is totally unacceptible! Question is, what can be done besides writing yet MORE letters which history has proven does NOTHING.

    He sought advice and confirmation of Barry’s eligibility and his orders being lawful from:

    * legal assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds – Result = Ignored him
    * his commander and supervisor – Who acknowledge there IS an issue. – Result = They don’t know what to do
    * Submits Article 138 complaint to his company commander – Result = they tell him his Article 138 complaint was deficient, so the Army didn’t have to answer it.
    * LTC Lakin then writes letters to his congressional “representation” – Result = 1 Senator ignores him, the other say’s the issue was “twittered” and therefore resolved and his Congressman forwards this issue to military affairs but apparently doesn’t get answers to Lakin’s questions and concerns.
    * After being transferred to the Pentagon, he raised the issue with his clinic’s commander – Result = Commander acknowledges there IS an issue BUT had no guidance as to what to do.
    * LTC Lakin then submitted another Article 138 complaint, this one routed through General Casey – Result = General Casey wasn’t in his chain of command, so his Article 138 complaint wouldn’t be addressed.
    * LTC Lakin then goes to Capitol Hill for face-to-face meetings with one Congressman and high-level staffers. They acknowledge there IS an issue BUT but the media ridiculed it. Result = they let it go.

    1 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:23:12 PM by rxsid
    My comment on that.

    “Obviously he didn’t decide to disobey his deployment orders simply based on an opinion. He sought advice and guidance at every level of command and through his Congressional representatives and what he got back from them did more to confirm his reservations than to pacify them. The DoD proved itself unaccountable for its own command structure and it remains in that state today.”

    79 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:14:20 PM by TigersEye

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2643672/posts?q=1&;page=51

  47. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    charo: I don’t understand why he left a false impression for a case that was already sound.

    I take back the words “for a case that was already sound.” It doesn’t matter whether the case was solid or not.

  48. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    More hilarity…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2643672/posts?q=1&;page=51

    I would think they wouldn’t go to SCOTUS again without some additional proof.

    There is another option open to Lakin now if he can indeed show injury. Quo Warranto. It’s a fast track to challenge an office holder’s bona fides.

    Leo Donofrio had researched this in depth quite a while ago. Cannot locate Leo’s pages on this currently, but the web site below will give you an idea of what it entails. A lot more info is out there via google.

    http://www.constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm

    134 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:36:09 PM by joedel

  49. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    Interesting…

    Concern About Obama’s Eligibility Throughout the Chain-of-Command
    http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ^ | 12/16/2010 |

    ###

    This snippet posted below was published by Col. Sullivan from the CAAFlog blog(anti-Lakin). I’m very surprised Col. Sullivan was able to keep his ridicule of LTC Lakin down to a minimal in his latest writings on LTC Lakin’s court-martial.

    What this blog shows is that there are real concerns about Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be CiC all the way up the chain-of-command. I can’t wait until the official trial transcripts are released.

    Snippet via CAAFlog;

    LTC Lakin continued that he became the chief of primary care at the Pentagon’s clinic in July 2009. Mr. Puckett then observed that the purpose of the hearing was for the members to determine an appropriate sentence.

    He then discussed the origins of LTC Lakin’s offenses.
    He testified that he started to have concerns about the Constitution during the primary elections, when he was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

    He learned that there was controversy as to the natural-born-citizen status of both major political parties’ general election candidates. He said Senator McCain provided everything he could to address his status, including a birth certificate with the doctor’s name and hospital’s name.

    He compared that with the lack of scrutiny that Senator Obama received. He had questions about the image of a certificate of live birth on the Internet and relatives stating they were present at his birth in Kenya. He said he had an open mind, but he was skeptical. One candidate went through scrutiny, but there was a lack of information as to the other.

    Mr. Puckett pressed, “Why were you so interested in this?”

    I think he expected the answer to be because of the oath of office, but LTC Lakin instead gave an answer about reading newspapers. LTC Lakin testified that after the election, he became “extremely concerned.” He said the issue wasn’t about politics or anything else (probably an implicit denial of racism) but the Supreme Law of the Land.

    He stated that he “wanted a valid Commander-in-Chief.” He testified that after the election, he was no longer comfortable with being selected for deployment. He was “concerned that the Constitution wasn’t being followed.”

    He believes his “oath as an officer is to protect and defend the Constitution.” He believed questions about the President’s eligibility “may weaken the Constitution.” He said he doesn’t know if the President is ineligible and he doesn’t believe that anyone can know.

    Neal Puckett asked, “What did you do as a soldier.”

    LTC Lakin said his “sought out advice” from his command and from his friends. He contacted legal assistance at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, who said they would research the issue and get back to him, but then they would never return his calls. He talked to his commander and supervisor who said there was an issue and there were questions, but they did not know what to do to answer them.

    He then filed an Article 138 complaint. He was asking, “Please, someone in my command, tell me there’s not an issue about illegal orders.” He submitted the Article 138 complaint to his company commander and asked him to forward it. The reply he received back was that his Article 138 complaint was deficient, so the Army didn’t have to answer it.

    LTC Lakin then wrote letters to his two Senators and Congressman. One Senator didn’t reply. One said the issue had been raised “and Twittered about and been found not to be an issue.” His Congressman forwarded his letter to Military Affairs.

    He continued to “pursue what else I could do.” When he was transferred to the Pentagon, he raised the issue with his clinic’s commander. He “acknowledged concern” but had no guidance as to what to do.

    LTC Lakin then submitted another Article 138 complaint, this one routed through General Casey. (BTW, it would later come out that he was referred to Paul Rolf Jensen while he was at Aberdeen Providing Ground, so it seems likely that he was working with Mr. Jensen at the time he filed this Article 138 complaint.)

    The response he received back was that General Casey wasn’t in his chain of command, so his Article 138 complaint wouldn’t be addressed.

    LTC Lakin then became aware he was “on the short-list for deployment. This greatly concerned me.” He went to Capitol Hill for face-to-face meetings with one Congressman and high-level staffers. He was told that the issue was a concern, but the media ridiculed it, so they let it go.

    He was advised to go to Afghanistan and then raise the issue while he was on deployment. He considered this a “worse” option. He said it would be “extremely wrong to raise this in a combat zone.”

    Mr. Puckett asked, “You thought if the Commander-in-Chief wasn’t eligible, you thought your deployment order might retroactively be considered an illegal order.” LTC Lakin agreed.

    Mr. Puckett asked when LTC Lakin first sought the advice of an attorney. He answered that it was two-and-a-half years ago. He was the leader of an intermediate level school small group.

    There were JAGs in the group. He discussed his concerns with the JAGs and asked what he should do. One of the JAGs referred him to Paul Jensen and LTC Lakin called him. He said he “ultimately hired” Mr. Jensen.

    He then testified about receiving his deployment orders. At the bottom of the orders, it said he had to bring a copy of his birth certificate. He said, “I thought, there’s an issue here.” That was followed first by laughter from the birthers in the audience, and then by applause, bring another sharp, “Members of the gallery!” from Judge Lind.

    He said that in March 2010, he turned to Mr. Jensen for legal advice. When asked about Mr. Jensen’s advice, LTC Lakin replied, “There’s a Kenyan birth certificate.” He said that on Mr. Jensen’s advice, he decided not to deploy.

    Mr. Puckett then asked, “Who made the decision to say to your command, I’ll deploy if the President shows he’s eligible?’” LTC Lakin said he did.

    Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose fault was it?” LTC Lakin replied, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett asked, “Whose responsibility was it?” LTC Lakin answered, “Mine.” Mr. Puckett elicited LTC Lakin’s response that he didn’t think his orders were illegal, but he “still thought there was a constitutional issue.”

    He agreed with Mr. Puckett that he used his deployment orders as a vehicle to increase the level of attention that the issue would receive. He confirmed that there were “lots of people urging you to stick to your guns.” In a reply likely to hurt him with the members, he answered: “Yes, including enlisted members and officer members.”

  50. avatar
    Dave December 17, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    BL — about ORYR’s “Birthers in the Chain of Command” post — I’m used to birthers spouting a bunch of BS to make a point, but as often happens with ORYR, he spouts BS and I’m left struggling to guess what his point is. His assertion that LTC Lakin’s chain of command is rife with birthers seems unlikely, to say the least, but what are we supposed to conclude if it’s true? Is this post to convince us all that birtherism isn’t dead? It seems if you have to BS this hard to prove your issue isn’t dead, well, then your issue isn’t doing too well.

  51. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Black Lion: And BZ still appears pushing her discredited nonsense….Judge Lind ruled that whether a valid President approved the use of force is IRRELEVANT to whether the deployment orders are lawful.If that is true, then any brigade commander in the country could lawfully order troops to invade Iran today, and if anybody disobeyed those orders they would get the sentence Lakin got. They would not even be able to BRING UP the small, “irrelevant” fact that the only person lawfully able to authorize combat in Iran had never done so.That’s what we’re talking about. That is how far the military leadership was willing to go in order to protect King Obama. They are willing to decree a lawless command structure to cover for Obama.Obama’s coup has extended to the military, with the military leadership happily taking off her clothes and bending over for the perpetrator.68 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:03:12 PM by butterdezillion

    The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”

    So whether Obama is or isn’t the President is irrelevant to the issue of whether he can authorize combat operations.

    To even BE the “President elect”, Congress had to already have certified him as the electoral winner. So the issue of “qualifying” is at that point beyond any authority or power that Congress has, if they ever even HAD any authority to judge someone’s Presidential qualifications.

    IOW, even after the states are done with their role and after Congress is done with its role, there is still the hurdle of “qualifying”, which must be accomplished by Jan 20th if not before. There is no other branch of government that is given any authority or responsibility to determine whether the President elect and VP elect have “qualified” by Jan 20th. Therefore the Third Article applies, which says that all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution or the law are to be decided by the federal judiciary.

    There are cases within the federal judiciary that raise the issue of whether Obama can “act as President” according to the 20th Amendment. Only the federal judiciary – not the military – can decide those cases.

    Lind has allowed the military to usurp the role of the federal judiciary. The military can’t interpret the Constitution and judge in matters of fact between Obama and Biden, to say which is to “act as President”. Furthermore, the military can’t decide whether Obama and Biden were ever even LAWFULLY declared to be the winners of the electoral vote, since Cheney didn’t ask for objections as required by law.

    Article 92(1) – under which Lakin was charged – says that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution. If the Constitution requires Joe Biden to “act as President”, then the authorization for Lakin’s deployment order was unconsitutional, thus making the order itself unauthorized.

    The point: the Constitutionality of the authorization for the troop surge is critical to the lawfulness of Lakin’s deployment order.

    When Lind denied Lakin the opportunity to defend himself on the grounds of unconstitutionality and unauthorized orders, she violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.

    Regardless of how he pleaded, she denied him those rights, and that should allow him to file a lawsuit, if there’s any justice left in this country, which is probably not likely at this point.

    237 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:48:44 PM by butterdezillion

  52. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    charo: I don’t understand why he left a false impression

    It might be good to wait for the transcript of the trial to be released.

  53. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    Dave: BL — about ORYR’s “Birthers in the Chain of Command” post — I’m used to birthers spouting a bunch of BS to make a point, but as often happens with ORYR, he spouts BS and I’m left struggling to guess what his point is. His assertion that LTC Lakin’s chain of command is rife with birthers seems unlikely, to say the least, but what are we supposed to conclude if it’s true? Is this post to convince us all that birtherism isn’t dead? It seems if you have to BS this hard to prove your issue isn’t dead, well, then your issue isn’t doing too well.

    Dave, I can rarely get ORYR’s points myself. He usually contradicts himself within his long meaningless screeds….He is similar to BZ…They think they are knowledgable but have no clue…

  54. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Black Lion: The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”So whether Obama is or isn’t the President is irrelevant to the issue of whether he can authorize combat operations.To even BE the “President elect”, Congress had to already have certified him as the electoral winner. So the issue of “qualifying” is at that point beyond any authority or power that Congress has, if they ever even HAD any authority to judge someone’s Presidential qualifications.IOW, even after the states are done with their role and after Congress is done with its role, there is still the hurdle of “qualifying”, which must be accomplished by Jan 20th if not before. There is no other branch of government that is given any authority or responsibility to determine whether the President elect and VP elect have “qualified” by Jan 20th. Therefore the Third Article applies, which says that all cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution or the law are to be decided by the federal judiciary.There are cases within the federal judiciary that raise the issue of whether Obama can “act as President” according to the 20th Amendment. Only the federal judiciary – not the military – can decide those cases.Lind has allowed the military to usurp the role of the federal judiciary. The military can’t interpret the Constitution and judge in matters of fact between Obama and Biden, to say which is to “act as President”. Furthermore, the military can’t decide whether Obama and Biden were ever even LAWFULLY declared to be the winners of the electoral vote, since Cheney didn’t ask for objections as required by law.Article 92(1) – under which Lakin was charged – says that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution. If the Constitution requires Joe Biden to “act as President”, then the authorization for Lakin’s deployment order was unconsitutional, thus making the order itself unauthorized.The point: the Constitutionality of the authorization for the troop surge is critical to the lawfulness of Lakin’s deployment order.When Lind denied Lakin the opportunity to defend himself on the grounds of unconstitutionality and unauthorized orders, she violated his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.Regardless of how he pleaded, she denied him those rights, and that should allow him to file a lawsuit, if there’s any justice left in this country, which is probably not likely at this point.237 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:48:44 PM by butterdezillion

    More BZ, she is on a roll with her lack of understanding…

    We don’t lawfully know whether Obama was elected to the office or not, because the law that dictates how the electoral results are to be certified was not followed. No judge has ruled on whether that breach of the law invalidates the certification. The federal judiciary can’t just step in and say, “Wait, wait, wait, that doesn’t count!” They can only decide there was a problem when a case is brought before them, and to this point the case which appears to have standing hasn’t yet made it to SCOTUS. It was dismissed because the law was ignored by the judge so the judge could claim that not only had Twitter already decided the case, but not enough is at stake. (cough)

    How do you know I haven’t taken an oath to faithfully execute the office of the presidency? If I have taken it would that make me be the president? What WOULD make me the president?

    I know you’re going to say I’m being silly but my point in all this is that there are LEGAL requirements that must be fulfilled before a person running for president can “act as President”. The Constitutional requirements are:

    1) must win the electoral vote, as certified by Congress according to the Constitution as codified through statute
    2) must “qualify” by Jan 20th. The qualifications for Presidential eligibility involve, age, residency, and natural born citizenship status
    3) must take a specific oath of office

    Those are all legal steps. If *I* stand up and say I met the requirements that doesn’t make any legal difference. And anybody in the world should be able to sue me to show that I did NOT meet the requirements just because I said I did. If there is any controversy or case presented which questions my claims, the federal judiciary is to decide whether I am right or the claims against me are right.

    The first 2 steps have been contested. If #1 hasn’t been met then step #3 is no more legal proof of presidency than if I made the oath here in my bedroom. I can say it all I want, but if I don’t meet the Constitutional requirements my simply saying it is so doesn’t make it legally so.

    Chief Justice Roberts could swear that I took the presidential oath here in my bedroom but that would not make me the president OR give me the right to “act as President”. And anybody who wanted to contest my presidency should have a right to have the requirements of the Constitution interpreted and applied to my case. Even if Chief Justice Roberts administered the presidential oath of office to me it wouldn’t make me the President, or give me the right to “act as President”. The requirements ALL have to be met.

    And it is up to the federal judiciary to decide all controversies and cases arising from the Constitution and the laws.

    Until the federal judiciary decides the cases, not one of us can know whether the requirements have ALL been lawfully met. And it is very, very interesting to me that all 3 steps have some SNAFU involved so that there could be question as to whether ANY of them have been lawfully met. All the SNAFU’s coming at the hands of people who knew far in advance what they SHOULD legally do but who have somehow botched it up. The only one the Obama folks even PRETENDED to care about being done the legally correct way was the oath of office, and even at that the second time the oath was taken they didn’t allow video to be made of it so we have to depend on the testimony of the witnesses who were all Obots except Roberts.

    The only reason Obama is PRESUMED to be POTUS is because he’s had the audacity to move into the White House and nobody has kicked him out yet. The federal judiciary is still thinking about whether they should do their jobs on deciding whether the Constitutional requirements have been met.

    334 posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:42:31 PM by butterdezillion

  55. avatar
    sponson December 17, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    As someone who alternately scorns and pities the tiny “birther” contingent, I have to say it would be pretty amusing to see President Obama pardon Lakin as a holiday gesture of goodwill. It would be a moment of head-exploding confusion for that crowd, since as pointed out above his pardon would supposedly be based on a non-existent authority as a “usurper” President. Lakin’s acceptance of Obama’s authority to pardon him would come on top of his testimony at trial that showed he regretted his actions and no longer feels he has the right to disobey orders over any imagined eligibility issue.

  56. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    charo:
    I read many good comments about Colonel Roberts and of course, his honorable and courageous actions earned him the MOH.I don’t understand why he left a false impression for a case that was already sound. Technically, Jenson was speaking for Lakin; however, Colonel Roberts testified that Lakin said the words.Trial Counsel used the “You had your chance” to put LTC Lakin in the worst possible light. The phrase became a mantra for the call to give Lakin the fullest extent of the punishment. That phrase generated more contempt than any other testimony.

    Col Roberts never testified that Lakin said it Roberts testified that he was told by LTC Judd that Lakin said it. From CAAFlog:

    The first was COL Roberts. The prosecution began by asking him whether, until a few weeks ago, he was the only Medal of Honor recipient on active duty. He indicated he was. The trial counsel then had him talk about his professional background. He repeated the testimony that when he asked LTC Judd whether LTC Lakin was going to report to him as ordered, LTC Judd told him the response was, “You had your chance.”

    There are three possibilities:

    1. Colonel Roberts may have misunderstood what he was told by LTC Judd. Colonel Roberts may have inferred that the response came from Lakin when in fact it came from Jensen.

    2. LTC Judd may have mistakenly attributed the remark to Lakin.

    3. Lakin may have made the remark but decided to blame it on Jensen.

    I would say that #1 is the most likely scenario, particularly since the prosecution did not try to rebut Lakin’s testimony that he did not say it. Some people have suggested that Jensen couldn’t have said it, because he was back in California, but the remark may have been made during a phone conversation rather than in person.

  57. avatar
    DP December 17, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    These people are malignant cartoons. Look at this nonsense from Fee Republic:

    “Grand Jury deliberations are secret. No one is going to alert BO in advance of his arrest. He has been given the option of resigning. That is his last notice.”

    And he links to the Citizen Grand Jury nonsense.

    Oh, the humanity!

  58. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Black Lion: (quoting butterdezillion)
    Article 92(1) – under which Lakin was charged – says that an order is not lawful if it is contrary to the Constitution.

    As usual, butterdezillion doesn’t know what she is talking about.That provision of Article 92 means that the order itself must be contrary to the Constitution; i.e., the order must require the person being given the order to do something which violates the Constitution.

  59. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Rickey: As usual, butterdezillion doesn’t know what she is talking about.That provision of Article 92 means that the order itself must be contrary to the Constitution; i.e., the order must require the person being given the order to do something which violates the Constitution.

    Rickey, did you expect anything different? BZ continually mistakes the law in order to claim it says something it does not. She is the worse kind of birther. She believes that she knows more than real laywers, constitutional experts, and the military in this case. And when she is confronted with her mistake, she attacks and still repeats the same nonsense….Even some of the freepers are getting tired of her act….

  60. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Rickey: LTC Judd told him the response

    Do you know if LtC Judd testified?

  61. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Black Lion: BZ continually mistakes the law in order to claim it says something it does not.

    My favorite BZ misrepresentation is that the Hawaiian DOH has made a ” statutory admission” that the President’s BC is amended. This is entirely based on the “it’s not what they said but how they didn’t say it” theory.

    My second favorite is that all the microfilm copies of the Honolulu Advertiser have been replaced, every single one throughout the world.

    Man, is she delusional.

  62. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Rickey: would say that #1 is the most likely scenario, particularly since the prosecution did not try to rebut Lakin’s testimony that he did not say it. Some people have suggested that Jensen couldn’t have said it, because he was back in California, but the remark may have been made during a phone conversation rather than in person.

    The problem with hearsay… Because that “response” was so controversial, it seems odd to me that Colonel Roberts didn’t address it with Lakin.

    I didn’t realize I missed parts of the updates from CAAFLOG. Of note:

    “Timothy Mayhack of North Pole, Alaska. He was a CW3 helicopter pilot during the same deployment that LTC Lakin and COL Willoughbee had be on. He was a colleague and friend of LTC Lakin. He seemed like an odd duck during his direct. His cross would reveal that he is a birther.”

    Calling him an odd duck after he already knew Mayhack would turn out to be a birther seems kind of convenient, but the updates seemed to be generally fair. Anyways, here we have another birther in Mayhack. So we have a sports figure, military serviceman, a commenter’s mother-in-law (bat guano I think), my mother-in-law,… they are everywhere.

    I don’t believe the research being conducted by a commenter here is going to pick up the true number of birthers.

  63. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    BZ’s bias continuously leads her down roads of failure. Her intense interest in the outcome appears to somewhat cloud her ability at reason and logic.

    Recently she mentioned, after Lakin was found guilty, throwing acid in the faces of our leaders and that she would spit on the military. The usual backpedalling followed and she asked for her posting to be removed, nevertheless, a valuable insight into what makes our friend tick and what ticks her off.

    See this posting

    God, damn sin and everyone who refuses to repent of it. This is what You died for. This is why You had to suffer hell, because there is real, rotten, stinking sin that has control over this world and has infected every one of us in this world. Sin that clings to us and would ruin Heaven if it was allowed to enter There. I want to hit Obama, Puckett, and Lind. I want to sear them with burning acid until the smirk on their damned faces burns into oblivion. I want them to get what they deserve for what they are doing to Lakin, to this country, and to all of us who love both Lakin and this country.

    A prayer…

    Wow

  64. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    charo: I don’t believe the research being conducted by a commenter here is going to pick up the true number of birthers.

    Yeah, people do hold to beliefs internally while contradicting themselves externally. Fascinating conflicts…
    Some just believe anything they read or hear that supports their biases. Ignorance and fear…

  65. avatar
    Daniel December 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    charo: I don’t believe the research being conducted by a commenter here is going to pick up the true number of birthers.

    Might that be because the results are apt to show the number of Birthers is actually far fewer than you want them to be?

  66. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    You guys really can’t be objective? Doc suggested there could be millions. It is the degree of making oneself known as a birther that will register on the radar. Take Luke Scott for example. Who knew he was a birther until the interviewer’s radar detected that could be the case. How about Mayhack? I wonder who knew he was a birther?

    Be objective.

  67. avatar
    Dave December 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    charo:
    I don’t believe the research being conducted by a commenter here is going to pick up the true number of birthers.

    As I’ve commented before, what makes it really hard to count the birthers is that the count probably depends hugely on the definition.

  68. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    I don’t remember who is compiling research, but it is my understanding the findings will be based on internet participation only. Maybe he is extrapolating that somehow to society as a whole.

  69. avatar
    Daniel December 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    charo: You guys really can’t be objective?

    You are the one who declared that you don’t believe the results, before the results are even in. I don’t find that position to be an objective one.

  70. avatar
    Dave December 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    About Luke Scott — I’m surely speculating — but I do know that journalists, even sports journalists, nose around and find out all they can about a subject before an interview. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the interviewer knew for a fact that Luke Scott was a birther, and that’s why he asked the otherwise inexplicable leading question.

  71. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    Dave:
    As I’ve commented before, what makes it really hard to count the birthers is that the count probably depends hugely on the definition.

    To some people, Dave, the nuances are irrelevant.

  72. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan December 17, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    charo wrote: I don’t understand why [COL Roberts] left a false impression for a case that was already sound. Technically, Jenson was speaking for Lakin; however, Colonel Roberts testified that Lakin said the words [“you had your chance”].

    COL Roberts never testified that LTC Lakin said the words, “You had your chance.” Rather, he testified (twice) that he asked LTC Judd whether LTC Lakin would report as ordered. LTC Judd conveyed the response, “You had your chance.” LTC Judd had testified before COL Roberts testified and neither party ever recalled him to ask him who provided that message to him to convey to COL Roberts. So COL Roberts never created any false impression. He accurately provided the information he knew — which was that LTC Judd relayed that response.

    In his unsworn statement, LTC Lakin said Mr. Jensen made that statement to LTC Judd — which must have been by telephone, because LTC Lakin said that Mr. Jensen was back in California that day. Mr. Puckett, during his sentencing argument, also said that Mr. Jensen made the statement and that LTC Lakin had neither directed him nor authorized him to do so. I believe those statements to be true, in part because the government could have (and no doubt would have) easily recalled LTC Judd to the stand during its case in rebuttal if he would have testified that it was LTC Lakin and not Mr. Jensen who made the comment to him.

  73. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

    Dave: About Luke Scott — I’m surely speculating — but I do know that journalists, even sports journalists, nose around and find out all they can about a subject before an interview. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the interviewer knew for a fact that Luke Scott was a birther, and that’s why he asked the otherwise inexplicable leading question.

    I thought it was a set-up also and said so on the thread, but at the time, I considered it a spontaneous set-up.

  74. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: charo wrote:I don’t understand why [COL Roberts] left a false impression for a case that was already sound. Technically, Jenson was speaking for Lakin; however, Colonel Roberts testified that Lakin said the words [“you had your chance”].COL Roberts never testified that LTC Lakin said the words, “You had your chance.”Rather, he testified (twice) that he asked LTC Judd whether LTC Lakin would report as ordered.LTC Judd conveyed the response, “You had your chance.”LTC Judd had testified before COL Roberts testified and neither party ever recalled him to ask him who provided that message to him to convey to COL Roberts.So COL Roberts never created any false impression.He accurately provided the information he knew — which was that LTC Judd relayed that response.In his unsworn statement, LTC Lakin said Mr. Jensen made that statement to LTC Judd — which must have been by telephone, because LTC Lakin said that Mr. Jensen was back in California that day.Mr. Puckett, during his sentencing argument, also said that Mr. Jensen made the statement and that LTC Lakin had neither directed him nor authorized him to do so.I believe those statements to be true, in part because the government could have (and no doubt would have) easily recalled LTC Judd to the stand during its case in rebuttal if he would have testified that it was LTC Lakin and not Mr. Jensen who made the comment to him.

    He did testify to a hearsay statement, but the impact was still the same. Would you agree that the statement was crucial in the presentation of the case? If Lakin had no idea that was going to be said, there was no way to deflect it until after the fact.

  75. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Crucial in the sense of character evidence.

  76. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    Does the TC prep the witnesses prior to the trial as in civilian courts?

  77. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    charo: Does the TC prep the witnesses prior to the trial as in civilian courts?

    Yes, AND the defense, unlike some civilian courts, has a right to pretrial interviews with the witnesses.

  78. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: which must have been by telephone,

    That seems a little confusing. If Jensen was in California, then did LtC Judd call Jensen to tell him to tell LtC Lakin to report to the commander’s office? Or did he call LtC Lakin, who directed him to talk to his lawyer? Am I missing something?

  79. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    I guess the question for me is, was Colonel Roberts right to make the assumption about that statement, particularly when it was used at trial? I am further guessing that Lakin had stopped obeying orders concerning his deployment and was speaking through his attorney. From what it sounds like, Lakin had to be brought to Colonel Roebrts for the meeting. I find it amazing that the “you had your chance” was not the first order of business at the meeting.

  80. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan December 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    charo, the statement was HUGE in the case — it seemed to have a big impact in the courtroom. The defense had an opportunity to seek an interview with COL Roberts before the court-martial. I would be surprised if such an interview didn’t occur, though I have no independent knowledge of whether it did or didn’t. LTC Judd was held subject to recall after he testified, so the defense could have chosen to recall him to the stand to determine who made the statement to him. The defense didn’t do that. Rather, LTC Lakin addressed it himself and then Mr. Puckett addressed it during argument. As someone who watched the entire court-martial, I found LTC Lakin’s statements of remorse concerning his actions toward COL Roberts to be credible. I believed him when he said he never would say such a thing to COL Roberts. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect the members did as well.

    But my main reason for chiming in to respond to your original comment was that, to me, it appeared to suggest that COL Roberts was somehow being sneaky. I can’t adequately convey what an impressive officer and leader COL Roberts appeared to be — with or without a Medal of Honor. I wouldn’t want to leave unrebutted a comment that seemed to suggest that he was anything less than candid in his court-martial testimony.

  81. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan December 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    gorefan — that’s a very good question and it was never made clear why LTC Judd was talking to Mr. Jensen over the phone on 31 March. We can all imagine scenarios in which that might have happened, but imagine is all we can do because it wasn’t clear from the testimony.

  82. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan December 17, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    charo — we had comments that crossed in the mail. COL Roberts’ testimony never assumed anything about the statement. He simply said words to the effect of, “The response I got back was, ‘You had your chance.'” It wasn’t attributed to anyone, other than that message was conveyed through LTC Judd.

  83. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Charo,

    Since I presume you’re talking about my project then yes, I will not be going to every household in the USA, placing every individual under a polygraph, interrogating them via “Enhanced” techniques and pulling finger nails to ascertain their Birfoon tendencies….tempting though the thought may be.

    What I am doing is taking a set of sound, expandable, statistically appropriate steps to model the numbers of Birfoons.

    As I have stated already and as you can check yourself in a casual maner, there is simply NOT a significant number of active Birthers out there.

    Recent testing samples

    In the late and unlamented GretaWire forum, the number of ACTIVE Birfoon posters was under 30 with less than another 20 semi passive and possibly sock puppets.

    Orly World which is almost exclusively Birfoons and in general extreme ones at that, has 39 unique active Birfoon posters in the last 200 threads

    FreeRepublic has a lot of folks who loath Obama for a swathe of reasons but the Birther contingent over 200 Birfoon rich threads and 2500+ posts has 42 unique Birfoon ID’s of which 16 are sufficiently similar in name, post content and other identifier to match to old GW and/or Orly posts

    3 primary sites (2 active, 1 inactive) with a grand total of 71 unique birfoons with 6 that had questionable content sufficient to label them potential Obot pranksters or sock puppets.

    USA Today Communites thread on Luke Scott and his Birther comment, 1585 comments, 205 unique Birther ID’s, 15 linkable to existing Birther ID’s

    The numbers of Birthers simply don’t appeat to be there.

  84. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: charo, the statement was HUGE in the case — it seemed to have a big impact in the courtroom.The defense had an opportunity to seek an interview with COL Roberts before the court-martial.I would be surprised if such an interview didn’t occur, though I have no independent knowledge of whether it did or didn’t.LTC Judd was held subject to recall after he testified, so the defense could have chosen to recall him to the stand to determine who made the statement to him.The defense didn’t do that.Rather, LTC Lakin addressed it himself and then Mr. Puckett addressed it during argument.As someone who watched the entire court-martial, I found LTC Lakin’s statements of remorse concerning his actions toward COL Roberts to be credible.I believed him when he said he never would say such a thing to COL Roberts.I have no way of knowing, but I suspect the members did as well.But my main reason for chiming in to respond to your original comment was that, to me, it appeared to suggest that COL Roberts was somehow being sneaky.I can’t adequately convey what an impressive officer and leader COL Roberts appeared to be — with or without a Medal of Honor.I wouldn’t want to leave unrebutted a comment that seemed to suggest that he was anything less than candid in his court-martial testimony.

    Charo, I sat next to Dwight through the whole trial, and we discussed these types of points during breaks in the trial. I agree 100% with each of the comments Dwight has made about COL Roberts, LTC Judd, and this issue of “you’ve had your chance.” I also believe that it was Jensen, not LTC Lakin who made the comment. For all of his actions, I just can’t imagine him saying something like that to COL Roberts, that does not seem to be how he speaks either in tone or language. I’m applying a little bit of “statement analysis” technique to this as well as evaluating how the “evidence” was presented. See e.g., http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_4_73/ai_n7068940/

  85. avatar
    Northland10 December 17, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    nbc: BZ’s bias continuously leads her down roads of failure. Her intense interest in the outcome appears to somewhat cloud her ability at reason and logic.

    BZ, Lakin and other birthers have shown us the danger, inherent in us all, to create an obsession that blocks our ability use reason and logic, to see facts and truth, and even severs our relationship with others and, for those of a religious nature, God (which goes hand and hand with others). The obsession is our own “false god” which prevents us from seeing and understanding “the handwriting on the wall.” This obsession, born from, among other things, fear, loss, or pride, will often mutate itself into a greater obsession of hate. Any wonder why there is so much emphasis on forgiveness and mercy in the various scriptures? It is not only for others but for the saving of our own selves/soul.

    The warning to us all is, the obsession need not be just about conspiracy or greed, but can be found in the most noble activities. We are completely able to make an idol of caring for the sick and hungry.

  86. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Ooops hit the submit button by accident..

    If we extrapolate active versus passive individuals using the same sort of numbers as you see in politics, activism and participatory events, a figure of approx 3% tends to rear it’s head.

    Even if that number is wrong and Birthers contend that they have say a 1:500 ratio then you are still looking at truly small numbers in the scheme of things.

    The work is going to take some time and the results, work documents, assumptions etc will be made available for anyone to look at.

    Until then Charo I would suggest my samples and assumptions better your belief

  87. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: charo, the statement was HUGE in the case — it seemed to have a big impact in the courtroom.The defense had an opportunity to seek an interview with COL Roberts before the court-martial.I would be surprised if such an interview didn’t occur, though I have no independent knowledge of whether it did or didn’t.LTC Judd was held subject to recall after he testified, so the defense could have chosen to recall him to the stand to determine who made the statement to him.The defense didn’t do that.Rather, LTC Lakin addressed it himself and then Mr. Puckett addressed it during argument.As someone who watched the entire court-martial, I found LTC Lakin’s statements of remorse concerning his actions toward COL Roberts to be credible.I believed him when he said he never would say such a thing to COL Roberts.I have no way of knowing, but I suspect the members did as well.But my main reason for chiming in to respond to your original comment was that, to me, it appeared to suggest that COL Roberts was somehow being sneaky.I can’t adequately convey what an impressive officer and leader COL Roberts appeared to be — with or without a Medal of Honor.I wouldn’t want to leave unrebutted a comment that seemed to suggest that he was anything less than candid in his court-martial testimony.

    I don’t want to disparage the Colonel. I always think of military officer as very detailed. In my mind, if the statement were made by Jensen versus Lakin, then Colonel Roberts would have known it because he would have confronted Lakin with it. Or would have made sure that Lakin actually made the statement before giving really damaging testimony. I think Lakin was completely sandbagged. How do you prepare for something that you have no idea will be said?

  88. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    Bovril: Ooops hit the submit button by accident..If we extrapolateactive versus passive individuals using the same sort of numbers as you see in politics, activism and participatory events, a figure of approx 3% tends to rear it’s head.
    Even if that number is wrong and Birthers contend that they have say a 1:500 ratio then you are still looking at truly small numbers in the scheme of things.The work is going to take some time and the results, work documents, assumptions etc will be made available for anyone to look at.Until then Charo I would suggest my samples and assumptions better your belief

    Alrighty then.

  89. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    charo: I think Lakin was completely sandbagged. How do you prepare for something that you have no idea will be said?

    There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that the statement was made. So are you saying Jensen sandbagged LtC Lakin?

  90. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Thank you gentlemen, Mr. Cave and Mr. Sullivan, for your insights. In defense of Colonel Roberts, he took the word of LTC Judd because he had no reason to look behind his relaying if the statement.

    Viking (Phil Cave): LTC Judd was held subject to recall after he testified, so the defense could have chosen to recall him to the stand to determine who made the statement to him.The defense didn’t do that.

    I wonder if LTC Judd were recalled, that it could have lead to opening up more issues and that Puckett felt it would be better to just let Lakin deny it. Maybe Jensen said that “I speak for Lakin now and blah blah” more damaging stuff. Speculation gets you nowhere.

  91. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm #

    gorefan:
    There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that the statement was made.So are you saying Jensen sandbagged LtC Lakin?

    The question is who made the statement? There seems to be a consensus to believe Lakin when he said Jensen said it. If Lakin had no idea that occurred, how could he have prepared for it?

  92. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 2:56 pm #

    charo:
    I wonder if LTC Judd were recalled, that it could have lead to opening up more issues and that Puckett felt it would be better to just let Lakin deny it.Maybe Jensen said that “I speak for Lakin now and blah blah” more damaging stuff.Speculation gets you nowhere.

    I don’t know why he wasn’t recalled by either side. But I agree that Neal may have thought that recalling Judd was not good for several reasons: yes, it would open up more adverse information, also, at that point he knew Lakin was not testifying. By only having Judd and then resting what perception do you create for the members? There’s a tactical issue there perhaps. Bottom line, I’m still attributing the comment to Jensen as emblematic of how he would talk to an adverse party.

  93. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    Thanks again, Viking.

  94. avatar
    BugZptr December 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    For LTC Lakin this whole issues seemed to be about the birth certificate. Certain of his supporters were saying that all Obama had to do was release the certificate and Lakin would deploy.

    Now I note that in some circles, DrKate’s blog for example, the Vatel crowd are turning on those supporters and wondering why they even tried to bring up the birth certificate. According to them that is a red herring, since they hold dear to the 2 citizen parent theory.

    It really seems that the various factions of birtherism can’t agree on which argument they want to push. They spend half their time thinking “why did they waste time on Idea X? If only they had mentioned Idea Y we wouldn’t be in this mess, we would have had discovery by now”

    Which is great for observers such as myself, I get a lot of enjoyment out of watching birthers try to pull in opposite directions.

  95. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    I’ve been following the comments.

    Jensen is a personal injury lawyer, whose practice specializes in dog bites.

    He knows zero about military law, and he actually harmed Lakin, just like that stupid refusenik dentist.

    And to think, I actually got arrested at a Soviet embassy demonstration, for that crowd.

  96. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    gorefan:
    There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that the statement was made.So are you saying Jensen sandbagged LtC Lakin?

    Actually, that appears to be a good way to sum it up.

  97. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    BugZptr: I get a lot of enjoyment out of watching birthers try to pull in opposite directions.

    Yeah, Orly and Berg cannabalizing each other. Popcorn.

    Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy.

  98. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    charo: The question is who made the statement?

    I understand that, I’m just not sure who you think sandbagged LtC Lakin? If he didn’t even know that such a statement was made, then why attribute the statement to Jensen? Did he make that up? Are you saying his unsworn testimony was a lie?

  99. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    charo: Actually, that appears to be a good way to sum it up.

    I just saw this.

  100. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    gorefan:
    I just saw this.

    I miss comments to me all the time. That’s probably a good thing!

  101. avatar
    JM December 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Do you consider me a “birther” if

    a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?
    b) I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?

    I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.

    You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.

    Does all of that make me a “birther”?

    What is the minimal definition of it?

    Honest question.

  102. avatar
    misha December 17, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    JM: You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.

    Excellent points. I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?). Hope this helps.

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

    JM: I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani

    Why did Kapi’olani Hospital go to all the expense to print up its 100th anniversary magazine with the following statement:

    “Nearly half of Oahu’s babies are born at Kapiolani. Many public figures, civic and business leaders can claim their birthplace here. In fact, our 44th President Barack Obama commended “the excellence of Kapiolani Medical Center the place of my birth.”

  104. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    More birther nonsense by Lonestar1776…What a moron, especially when he disparages the officer that had to deploy in Lakin’s place….H/T to BadFiction…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jpm3L5SCTI&feature=player_embedded#!

  105. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Black Lion: More birther nonsense by Lonestar1776

    He was there for the first two days.

  106. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    JM: Do you consider me a “birther” if a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?b) I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.Does all of that make me a “birther”?What is the minimal definition of it?Honest question.

    Yes. He could have been born either way, or he could have been born as he claims, at Kapi’olani hospital. You make the mistake every other birther makes, that somehow absence of evidence is evidence of your claim. Or in other words President Obama is guilty until proven innocent, or he has to prove every ridiculous theory to be wrong instead of you proving your theory to be correct.

    You have no evidence of any sort of a midwife or affidavit claim. Under your theory George Bush could have been born the same way. All we had was his word that he was born where he claims. What makes you a birther is that in light of all of the evidence that supports a Hawaiian birth, you would prefer to engage in a losing game of “what if” or “he could have”.

    The state of HI has stated on record that President Obama was born there. Dr. Fukino and Governor Lingle have both confirmed this. The COLB states he was born in HI. No evidence has ever been submitted that comes close to contradicting this information. Yet you still “have questions” or speculate that something that you have no evidence of “might have occured”…

  107. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    Bovril,

    Very nice preliminary results…

    charo: I don’t believe the research being conducted by a commenter here is going to pick up the true number of birthers.

    Charo,

    I’ve been helping Bovril with the methodology of his study and I’d like to add a few things to what he said. First off, he has invited public criticism of his methodology – in fact, of all of the posters on this blog, YOU are the one that I would be most interested in hearing criticism from (because of your birther sympathies and willingness to honestly engage). If you have a specific problem with his methodology, tell him – I’m sure he will either justify his process or take your objection into account and both are valuable for improving the integrity of the study. Second, while neither Bovril or I are experts in this sort of thing, this is a perfectly typical type of statistical study which is done regularly – while I’m sure that say, Nate Silver, could do a much better analysis than Bovril, as long as he’s doing a standard type of analysis with a transparent process and is making his data available, I fail to see why his research will be any less valid than any other statistical survey. So I suggest you help with the methodology now (by picking it apart if you can), and then we can all have fun arguing about what Bovril’s results mean when he presents them! 😉

  108. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Just posted on CAAFLog.

    Author: LCDR MC USNR
    Comment:
    I’m here to brag. I’m a former Navy Medical Corps officer and Major Dobson’s uncle. While I loudly complained and raged over his deployment, he never did. He always approached it as one being called to do his duty and NEVER griped about the circumstances. His comportment at the trial was equally honorable. His only hint of complaint was that he was concerned that the sudden deployment denied him training that he felt might have allowed him him to serve his unit better.

    In 12 years of Naval Service, I never met anyone more honorable. Lakin cannot be validly compared to him–the gap is too great.

    To the Birthers: If Lakin is a hero, then you must believe that my nephew, his polar opposite, is a coward and a traitor. Res ipsa loquitur.

  109. avatar
    Black Lion December 17, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): He was there for the first two days.

    Phil, maybe. However his so called summary sure differs from yours and Col. Sullivans….And his “attack” on the Maj. that replaced Lakin was uncalled for as well as his attack on members of the military who did not throw their careers away by supporting Lakin.

  110. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave):
    Bottom line, I’m still attributing the comment to Jensen as emblematic of how he would talk to an adverse party.

    I believe that you are on the money. As I understand it, Jensen’s practice is primarily handling personal injury cases for plaintiffs. I don’t want to paint all of them with the same brush. but many plaintiff attorneys tend to be arrogant and bombastic. From what I have seen of Jensen, he fits that description.

  111. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    JM: Do you consider me a “birther” if
    a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?
    b) I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.Does all of that make me a “birther”?What is the minimal definition of it?Honest question.

    JM,

    The purpose of the study is to estimate birther demographics – in other words, to figure out how many people are birthers in the sense of being willing to say they’re not sure about the President’s eligibility when asked for a poll, how many are chafing to use ‘2nd Amendment remedies’ and how many are in various classifications in between. Where would you put yourself between those extremes?

  112. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    JM: Do you consider me a “birther” if
    a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?
    b) I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.Does all of that make me a “birther”?What is the minimal definition of it?Honest question.

    Yes, you are a birther.

    a) irrelevant
    b) erroneous and also irrelevant

    The legal authority of the State of Hawaii has confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 pm which is sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, one of the three requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

  113. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    charo:

    charo:
    I think Lakin was completely sandbagged.How do you prepare for something that you have no idea will be said?

    Sometimes witnesses say things which nobody anticipates.

    Attorneys in Arizona used to tell a story about a personal injury lawsuit which arose out of a horse bite incident on a dude ranch which was owned by Marriott. The plaintiff’s attorney was having a difficult time establishing that the horse in question had a propensity to bite. Throughout the proceedings the horse had been identified only by its given name, which was an innocuous one.

    Then, without being asked or prodded, while on the witness stand one of the dude ranch employees referred to the horse by its nickname – “Nipper.”

  114. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    JM

    The intent is to start from a base.

    Specifically this

    <strong?Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    And with factual, legally sound items which “theorists” may like to argue about but which are not how the real world works or what the law and Constutution states.

    1. Birth in the USA makes one an NBC
    2. Parental citizenship is completely irrelevant as are age of mother etc
    3. A “short form” BC has been made available as an image on line
    4. Said “short form” was made available for ANY news organization or entity with an interest to inspect
    5. Said “short form” was inspected and no credible refute as to its authenticity has been shown
    6. The multiple official custodian of records statements, the birth index, the newspaper announcements etc further bolster this authenticity.
    7. Adoption of a minor does not and cannot remove the citizenship of said minor
    8. No credible proof has been provided for any such adoption
    9. Birth certificates for out of state births of children of Hawai’in residents exist but did not exist at the time of the Presidents birth
    10. Said BC’s, in exactly the same manner as any other BC show the actual location of birth.
    11. The original of the image of the BC of the President available on line is legally and wholly sufficient to prove birth in the uSA and NBC status as per Article II, Section 1

    If you fell that these statements are indefensible to the point of disqualifying the President you’re a Birther.

    So your beliefs I’m afraid make you a birther and with only a personal opinion without out a legal leg to stand on.

  115. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    Bovril,

    You can count how many of your 11 statements someone disagrees with and use it to rate birthers. You could call it the ‘Orly scale’. (Orly goes to 11)

    Majority Will:
    Yes, you are a birther.a) irrelevant
    b) erroneous and also irrelevantThe legal authority of the State of Hawaii has confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu, HI on the island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 pm which is sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, one of the three requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

    Will,

    If you view being a birther like being pregnant, you loose the ability to ask the question ‘how much of a birther are they?’ which can bring to light all sorts of amusing internal contradictions and rationalizations in the birther psyche… Don’t you want to see where people rank on the ‘Orly scale’?

  116. avatar
    JM December 17, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    Trust me, I didn’t post this time in order to be polemical in any sense. Thanks for your honest reply and question, Slart. The same cannot be said about others.

    I have always said I do not know. I personally do not believe his birth narrative because it doesn’t make any sense, ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters. His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.

    I have actually been a person that tries to get “birthers” to recognize the need for evidence and the fact that, although I think a natural born citizen is clearly a child born to two citizen parents at birth (like they do), the prevailing legal opinion sadly has been bastardized by sellout politicans. Nevertheless, the point is that our definition of NBC is, sadly, not the majority opinion, however correct it may be.

    I think that is a healthy way to think about things. Given the current situation, yes, I am unsure about his eligibility. My private opinion is that he is not, but I realize that this does not matter (yet) so at this point my opinion is irrelevant. The key in my mind, and others, is that NBC needs to be formally defined.

    This is why I can’t understand people being against Secretaries of State checking for eligibility, a Constitutional requirement. At worst it would go to the courts to decide BUT actually define a formal process for CHECKING for eligibility, which I have pointed out many times DOES NOT OCCUR. This is a tragedy. The national archives and federal register admit that there is no formal process for this, as I have linked many times.

    2nd amendment remedies? I don’t believe in violence except in extreme circumstances. This certainly is NOT one of them.

    I hope this has clarified.

  117. avatar
    JM December 17, 2010 at 4:31 pm #

    The part that you guys, like most progressives/liberals, don’t get is that you never complete thoughts all the way through.

    Question: Do States do things that are sometimes deemed unconstitutional? Of course.

    As much as preliminarily the Hawaii legal authority thing is true (obviously, as it has held to now), it just as easily can be shown to be improper in its a) handling of information and b) what it allows.

    Don’t be a child, just stick to the facts and then try to draw proper conclusions.

  118. avatar
    JM December 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Bovril,

    PLEASE READ MY POSTS/POINTS.

    Don’t ignore the critical aspects of my argument or project what you want me to say that I’m not.

    One of the canards that has never been my/our premise is that it’s about citizenship. IT IS NOT.

    IT IS ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and its distinctive use in the Constitution. You cannot deny this fact. So to be productive, consider it.

    Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

  119. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    JM: Bovril,PLEASE READ MY POSTS/POINTS.Don’t ignore the critical aspects of my argument or project what you want me to say that I’m not.One of the canards that has never been my/our premise is that it’s about citizenship. IT IS NOT.IT IS ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and its distinctive use in the Constitution. You cannot deny this fact. So to be productive, consider it.Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

    Look, if you want to be productive, make that argument to your representatives in Congress. Continually posting it on the internet is not productive since none of those who read it have the authority to do anything about it. The only ones that can are Congress, not your fellow Obama-haters on the internet, so posting that crapola to the choir produces absolutely nothing

  120. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) December 17, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    FTSU: They don’t get it. For the some who talked, coherently, with Dwight and me at the trial we gave them that exact same advice. In January see if you can get one of the Republican committee chairmen in the new Congress to issue subpeona’s. Frankly I’d be delighted. Then they get what they already had and we could tell to do what your screen name is. If they can’t persuade one of the new elected’s then it’s over and done and forgotten. Because right now there is no member of the House or Senate who cares. The courts won’t get involved, see the political question doctrine.

  121. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    JM,

    I am afraid you are the one that is failing to read.

    You made two very specific statements and asked whether they made you a birther. The answer is yes

    You are a 7

    1-6 + 11

  122. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 17, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): FTSU:They don’t get it.For the some who talked, coherently, with Dwight and me at the trial we gave them that exact same advice.In January see if you can get one of the Republican committee chairmen in the new Congress to issue subpeona’s.Frankly I’d be delighted.Then they get what they already had and we could tell to do what your screen name is.If they can’t persuade one of the new elected’s then it’s over and done and forgotten.Because right now there is no member of the House or Senate who cares.The courts won’t get involved, see the political question doctrine.

    They know that no one in Congress is going to embarrass themselves by pursuing this issue, Phil. They only post it on the internet to influence the dumb, the gullible, and the delusional.

  123. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 17, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    And then they delude themselves into believing that they are somehow being “productive” by convincing the choir of what they already, mistakenly believe to be true.

  124. avatar
    Daniel December 17, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    JM: premise is that it’s about citizenship. IT IS NOT.

    IT IS ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP

    So natural born citizenship is not a type of citizenship? Are you serious? Could you possibly be so thick that you don’t realize that one of the root words in the phrase “natural born citizenship” is, in fact, “citizenship”?

    Wow….

  125. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    JM: like most progressives/liberals,

    How do you know that? Is that more confirmation bias?

    ” . . . it just as easily can be shown to be improper in its a) handling of information and b) what it allows.”

    Born in the USA makes one a natural born citizen.

    Really? If it’s easy, then do it. Provide credible evidence otherwise you’re still just spouting nonsense and baseless speculations.

  126. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Bovril,You can count how many of your 11 statements someone disagrees with and use it to rate birthers.You could call it the Orly scale’.(Orly goes to 11)
    Will,If you view being a birther like being pregnant, you loose the ability to ask the question ‘how much of a birther are they?’ which can bring to light all sorts of amusing internal contradictions and rationalizations in the birther psyche…Don’t you want to see where people rank on the Orly scale’?

    But even a one makes someone a birther.

  127. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    JM: Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

    How many people are you?

  128. avatar
    kimba December 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    JM: ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters. His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.

    Unprecedented? Really? Tell us for which US Presidents you have seen birth certificate, kindergarten records, baptismal records, passport records, hospital of birth, delivering physicians, college grades, college thesis. Your answer is and must be “None”. No US President has ever released the records birthers demand from Pres. Obama. I submit these items are not even available to be examined by members of the public at the various Presidential libraries. So what’s your beef about “transparency” from the current President? Could it be one very specific thing about him that is different from all 43 preceding Presidents that makes you doubt him, the state of Hawaii, his sister, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the CIA, the FBI, the entire Congress, the prior President and Vice President when they say he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii?

  129. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    JM: ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters. His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.

    Irrelevant and unnecessary. The President doesn’t need to prove anything to your personal satisfaction. Your doubt is irrelevant.

    “That’s a fact.”

    No, it’s your opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.

    “Nevertheless, the point is that our definition of NBC is, sadly, not the majority opinion, however correct it may be.”

    Yeah, it’s such a shame we live under the will of the majority. /sarcasm

  130. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    JM: His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.

    Seriously, then how many other Presidents or Presidential Candidates publicly released their BCs? Or school records? or passport info? or social security info? President Reagan’s BC is on display at his Presidential Library, but it was issued in the early 1990’s (1994, I believe). President Obama released as a candidate.

    If, as you say, that President Obama lack of transparency is unprecedented, then show us proof that other President’s have been more forthcoming then him.

    Broad assertions without facts to back them up, are the signs of someone who has no argument.

  131. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    JM: Trust me, I didn’t post this time in order to be polemical in any sense. Thanks for your honest reply and question, Slart.

    You’re welcome.

    The same cannot be said about others.I have always said I do not know. I personally do not believe his birth narrative because it doesn’t make any sense, ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters.

    How would you suggest he ‘show his personal documents’ – personally, (since proof of birth in the US is sufficient to prove natural born citizenship according to the accepted interpretation of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings) I think that allowing any news organization that wished to inspect a certified copy of a document that is recognized as a birth certificate by all 50 states as well as the federal government and then posting images of that document on the web was a reasonable way to publish the only document necessary to establish President Obama’s eligibility for his office. What would you suggest he have done? What additional information would that have supplied and how would that be relevant to determining the president’s eligibility?

    His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.

    Um, no, it’s not. Show me where President Obama’s predecessors have released any of the documents you are demanding from him. Show me were any previous president has released his birth certificate. Making incorrect, unsupported statements doesn’t help your case that yours is the rational position.

    I have actually been a person that tries to get “birthers” to recognize the need for evidence and the fact that, although I think a natural born citizen is clearly a child born to two citizen parents at birth (like they do), the prevailing legal opinion sadly has been bastardized by sellout politicans.

    Like Justice Gray? (he presided over Wong Kim Ark, if you didn’t know) You are entitled to your own opinion, but it doesn’t have any basis in the laws of our nation. Also, I would note that birthers are anything but unified regarding WHY they believe that the president is ineligible.

    Nevertheless, the point is that our definition of NBC is, sadly, not the majority opinion, however correct it may be.

    Correct in the sense that you think so – okay. Correct in the sense that it has ever been a consensus working interpretation – not so much.

    I think that is a healthy way to think about things.

    I think relying on sources with actual expertise and a proven track record of accurately predicting results is a healthy way to think about things – to each his (or her) own.

    Given the current situation, yes, I am unsure about his eligibility. My private opinion is that he is not, but I realize that this does not matter (yet) so at this point my opinion is irrelevant.

    Okay.

    The key in my mind, and others, is that NBC needs to be formally defined.This is why I can’t understand people being against Secretaries of State checking for eligibility, a Constitutional requirement.

    I don’t think anyone is against this, they just think it would be a waste of time (since no ineligible candidate will ever be elected). Also, any law that wouldn’t accept a certified copy of the COLB as proof of President Obama’s eligibility would be unConstitutional and wouldn’t survive a judicial challenge. Personally, I hope that a law to verify eligibility is passed by some state – it will help President Obama win reelection by unquestionably establishing his eligibility in a high profile way but, given the general level of birther competence, I’m not holding my breath…

    At worst it would go to the courts to decide BUT actually define a formal process for CHECKING for eligibility, which I have pointed out many times DOES NOT OCCUR.

    There is a process which is in place and DID OCCUR. You can argue that it should have been more rigorous, but someone (I believe it was Nancy Pelosi in most states) certified that he was eligible, the people decided to vote for his electors (knowing full well that his father was a foreign citizen – if this were the obvious disqualifying factor that many birthers claim it is, why didn’t more people raise this issue before the election?), the electoral college voted for him, the Congress certified the election (without objection – which, according to the Constitution, would have had to come, IN WRITING, from at least one Senator and one Representative), and he was inaugurated. All of the steps specified in the Constitution or in law were followed (if you claim otherwise, please provide evidence).

    This is a tragedy.

    The tragedy is the time, money, and now careers wasted on this pointless exercise. Given the state our country is in, we need substantive debate about important issues, not a reflexive objection to anything the president says based on ignorance of the law and the Constitution, misrepresentation of his positions and policies as extreme (his actions put him to the right of Nixon, by the way), and despicable propaganda regarding his personal narrative. This is all being done in an attempt to damage the president politically by any means possible. In a time of war. The sheer hypocrisy and lack of patriotism demonstrated by all of this is staggering.

    The national archives and federal register admit that there is no formal process for this, as I have linked many times.

    There is a process in place that can be changed as needed by due process of law – why don’t you work on a bill (that would almost certainly prove President Obama legitimate) instead of spreading ignorance, propaganda, and lies?

    2nd amendment remedies? I don’t believe in violence except in extreme circumstances. This certainly is NOT one of them.I hope this has clarified.

    Glad to hear it. Yes, I believe you have clearly stated your position – do you have any questions about mine?

  132. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Majority Will:
    But even a one makes someone a birther.

    I would agree with that but don’t you think it’s more fun (and informative) to say that JM rates a seven on the Orly scale?

  133. avatar
    kimba December 17, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    In fact JM, there’s actually more proof about Pres Obama’s birth circumstances than any other prior President. In the case of Pres Obama, we have not only his word, a scan of his official birth certificate as well as pictures taken of it by the press are available to any American who wishes to look at it and an official statement from the State of his birth that he was indeed born there. This information was not available for any other US President. For the prior 43 their word was enough. So JM, what is about Obama’s birth story that “doesn’t make sense”? Does Ronald Reagan’s? Do you believe George W. Bush was born in CT? Does it make sense he’s the only one of his siblings with a Texas accent? Come on, what’s your evidence that Pres Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii? You do understand the burden of proof in this country, right?

  134. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I would agree with that but don’t you think it’s more fun (and informative) to say that JM rates a seven on the Orly scale?

    Fun? No. Mildly amusing and slightly annoying? Yes. I think the Mohs Scale of Hardness to gauge figurative skull thickness might work as well.

  135. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    Going to have to add a weighting/listing/scaling for those such as JM who are purely “legal concern” through to the “lock and load” sedition tendency such as “Red Steel” over at Freeperville.

  136. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    JM: Do you consider me a “birther” if
    a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?

    The only detail which is relevant is that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?

    If you are indeed certain that he wasn’t born there, you are a birther. The only way you can be certain that he wasn’t born there is if you have proof positive that he was born somewhere else, and you don’t have any proof whatsoever.

    I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.

    As do other states. In fact, most of our Presidents were midwife born or even born at home without a midwife. Obama could have been born on a remote beach on Molokai with nobody but his mother present, and he would still be a natural born citizen.

    You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.

    You mean the theory for which you have absolutely no evidence? Not that it matters. As long as he was born in the United States, it doesn’t matter who his parents were.

    Does all of that make me a “birther”?

    Yes, Virginia, JM is a birther.

  137. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    Rickey:
    Sometimes witnesses say things which nobody anticipates.Attorneys in Arizona used to tell a story about a personal injury lawsuit which arose out of a horse bite incident on a dude ranch which was owned by Marriott. The plaintiff’s attorney was having a difficult time establishing that the horse in question had a propensity to bite. Throughout the proceedings the horse had been identified only by its given name, which was an innocuous one.
    Then, without being asked or prodded, while on the witness stand one of the dude ranch employees referred to the horse by its nickname – “Nipper.”

    Funny anecdote! Of course the unexpected occurs all the time. I think the prosecution was caught off guard as well because the TC did not recall LTC Judd.

  138. avatar
    JM December 17, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    In time your ignorance of the issues will be exposed.

    “There is a process in place that can be changed as needed by due process of law – why don’t you work on a bill (that would almost certainly prove President Obama legitimate) instead of spreading ignorance, propaganda, and lies?”

    I’m not spreading anything. I have not said anything that is known to be untrue. Unless you are saying that it is not possible for his birth story to be a lie or that the possibility of uncovering the vital records may cause extreme question of the birth story’s veracity (thereby possibly being challenged legally in court) then how can you say I’m spreading lies?

    No official document of any sort has been dispensed or verified in a legal manner. Those who “checked” the supposed certificate were not legal authorities. That’s just a plain fact. They were media people. Fukino did not testify under any oath, and it is impossible to challenge the veracity or reality of her statements without seeing the real evidence (and therefore what she is able to say or do as such under Hawaiian code — which I showed could at some point be unconstitutional).

    I don’t know what the real, original vital records show. All I know, from day 1, is that there is no privacy in them and not showing them is tacit admission, because only people who lack transparency wouldn’t show.

    Regarding the other presidents, each of the previous 3 presidents showed 10x more “private” records than Obama did. Stop playing games. Democrat or Republican, they were far more transparent with “personal” records.

    The first “birthers” were people trying to get McCain. As I am not partisan, I remain doubtful of his story as well. My motivations, unlike majority of the posters here, are not biased.

  139. avatar
    kimba December 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    bovril, I think you’re going to have an easier time correlating “ultra-committed” – the ones who show up at a Lakin trial or a Bergfest – to the “committed” – those who post at blogs or comment on news stories -, than you are scaling that up to a total that includes the “casual” birthers who read or hear the Lakin story on the news, or hear Luke Scott or Nathan Deal and think to themselves ‘yeah, by golly, he does seem like furner”, but don’t comment about it, or even say anything to their friends and family. Glenn Beck has about 2.2 million regular viewers. 90,000 showed up at his DC thing. 4.1% if that tells you anything. If that extrapolation holds in the birther case, if the 25 who showed up at Lakin and Berg is 4.1% of the committed, that makes 610 committed, and 17,872 total if the 4.1% were to hold out to the total. I think that’s low. Perhaps you’ll be able to get a good estimate of the depth of birthism, but perhaps not its width, to use Doc’s analogy. I don’t know what data might estimate casual birthers. I live in a very conservative suburg of a large midwestern city and I can say that I have not yet met a birther in person, and I have talked to a lot of people about Obama and him being from Hawaii and all. No one has ever “bitten” if they had a birther thought in their mind.

  140. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    JM: You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.

    Then why the letters to Sarah Obama,

    “About that same time, another letter crossed the Pacific, this one heading to Africa. It was from Barack Obama Sr. to his mother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama. Though the letter didn’t go into great detail, it said he had met a young woman named Ann (not Stanley). There wasn’t much on how they met or what the attraction was, but he announced their plans to wed.”

    “Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband’s continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she “was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.”

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-27/features/0703270151_1_sen-barack-obama-stanley-ann-dunham-coffee-shops

    Looks like your theory needs some work.

  141. avatar
    Rickey December 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    JM: I think a natural born citizen is clearly a child born to two citizen parents at birth

    Yet you cannot cite a single prominent historian, Constitutional law professor, or Constitutional attorney who agrees with you. You cannot cite a single textbook which was in use anywhere in the United States prior to 2009 which says that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents. Where were you “two citizen parent” people during the 2008 campaign?

    Also, I would suggest that you read the government’s SCOTUS brief in Wong Kim Ark, wherein the government acknowledged that if the District Court’s ruling was upheld, it meant that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. And guess what? The District Court’s ruling was upheld.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

  142. avatar
    gorefan December 17, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    JM: Regarding the other presidents, each of the previous 3 presidents showed 10x more “private” records than Obama did. Stop playing games. Democrat or Republican, they were far more transparent with “personal” records.

    More broad assertions without an iota of evidence to back them up.

    OK, let us play that game. The trhee previous Presidents showed less private records then President Obama. And that is a fact.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Ted: I’m not a birther

    Early on, there was a notorious birther named Ted that spammed the blogosphere with repetitive stuff.

  144. avatar
    kimba December 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    JM: No official document of any sort has been dispensed or verified in a legal manner. Those who “checked” the supposed certificate were not legal authorities. That’s just a plain fact.

    No it’s not. Dr Fukino released two official statements. Absolutely dispensed and verified in a legal manner because Dr Fukino had the legal authority to release an official statement of that nature.

    Oct 31, 2008
    ““Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

    and because people wouldn’t accept her statement as legal and verified, she repeated it July 27, 2009

    ““I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
    records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
    was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    I suggest you personally familiarize yourself with the statutes of the State of Hawaii regarding handling of vital records before you come here with copy and paste of stuff you read and insist it is “fact”.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    Dwight Sullivan: I believe those statements to be true, in part because the government could have (and no doubt would have) easily recalled LTC Judd to the stand during its case in rebuttal if he would have testified that it was LTC Lakin and not Mr. Jensen who made the comment to him.

    And I must add that they seemed completely out of character from what I have seen of LTC Lakin.

  146. avatar
    kimba December 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

    JM: Regarding the other presidents, each of the previous 3 presidents showed 10x more “private” records than Obama did.

    Please list for us those records provided by the previous 3 Presidents, prior to being elected to the Presidency. Add a brief explanation of how you know they were born in the US. Hint: one of the 3 was not born in a hospital.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    JM: Do you consider me a “birther” if
    a) I state that I don’t know what the details of the supposed Hawaiian birth are (but neither do you)?
    b) I am certain that he wasn’t born at Kapi’olani (he wasn’t) as per (a)?I say supposed because he very well could be midwife born or an affidavit claim — something Hawai’i allows.You may have seen my recent theory, which is that his [biological] parent(s) are not who he claims they are.Does all of that make me a “birther”?What is the minimal definition of it?Honest question.

    Not to be too flippant here, but I don’t know if I can define “birther” but I know one when I see one. I might define it as anyone who doesn’t affirm the majority view of the facts of President Obama’s birth, consistent with the reporting of the mainstream media.

    I would include among the birthers anyone who believes that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, or thinks that is an “open question”, or claims that the COLB is a forgery or contains false information.

    I would call the date and time of birth, father and mother name, and place of birth “details” and these are well known and not reasonably in doubt. Other details, such as the name of the attending physician are not known. Some details are known and others aren’t. Some will never be known, for example, did baby Obama pee on the doctor who delivered him?

    Everything that is known points to a birth at Kapi’olani, so if you are certain this isn’t true, I would call you a birther. While I don’t have good documentation that Obama was born at Kapi’olani, I consider it highly implausible given the information that is out there that he was born anywhere else.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    JM: I’m not spreading anything. I have not said anything that is known to be untrue.

    You’re playing games trying to make statements which are maybe technically true but at the same time conveying false impressions. Proving someone ignorant or not is not a welcome activity here.

    You’re welcome to discuss and have a point of view, even a dumb point of view, but I do not tolerate people stirring up the community for the fun of it. People just trying to be clever with word games are not welcome here and are summarily banned.

  149. avatar
    charo December 17, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Bovril,Very nice preliminary results…
    Charo,I’ve been helping Bovril with the methodology of his study and I’d like to add a few things to what he said.First off, he has invited public criticism of his methodology – in fact, of all of the posters on this blog, YOU are the one that I would be most interested in hearing criticism from (because of your birther sympathies and willingness to honestly engage).If you have a specific problem with his methodology, tell him – I’m sure he will either justify his process or take your objection into account and both are valuable for improving the integrity of the study.Second, while neither Bovril or I are experts in this sort of thing, this is a perfectly typical type of statistical study which is done regularly – while I’m sure that say, Nate Silver, could do a much better analysis than Bovril, as long as he’s doing a standard type of analysis with a transparent process and is making his data available, I fail to see why his research will be any less valid than any other statistical survey.So I suggest you help with the methodology now (by picking it apart if you can), and then we can all have fun arguing about what Bovril’s results mean when he presents them!

    I think that surveying the main birther sites will give a pretty good indication of active birthers. I think there are birthers out there just the same who hold beliefs but are not going to bother going to websites or make any kind of noise. I don’t see how you can statistically account for them. If they don’t make any public noise, then you won’t see them. The only impact where you will see it is in the election process.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Not to be too flippant here, but I don’t know if I can define “birther” but I know one when I see one. I might define it as anyone who doesn’t affirm the majority view of the facts of President Obama’s birth, consistent with the reporting of the mainstream media.I would include among the birthers anyone who believes that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, or thinks that is an “open question”, or claims that the COLB is a forgery or contains false information.I would call the date and time of birth, father and mother name, and place of birth“details” and these are well known and not reasonably in doubt. Other details, such as the name of the attending physician are not known. Some details are known and others aren’t. Some will never be known, for example, did baby Obama pee on the doctor who delivered him?Everything that is known points to a birth at Kapi’olani, so if you are certain this isn’t true, I would call you a birther. While I don’t have good documentation that Obama was born at Kapi’olani, I consider it highly implausible given the information that is out there.

    I think it depends on the scenario in which the question is posed. For instance, who knows what politicians truly believe. When it seemed expedient to be a birther, some were supportive of the movement. When it was not, they shied away. During LTC Lakin’s trial, a witness in support of his defense did not want to admit that he was a birther until pushed because it was not a good idea to do it. He was under oath and would not lie, but he did not readily give the answer. Amongst family and close friends, you will get a better answer. Start polling them if there is a relationship of trust.

  150. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    JM: In time your ignorance of the issues will be exposed.

    I’m confident that it is highly unlikely that I will be shown to be the ignorant one here.

    [Me]:“There is a process in place that can be changed as needed by due process of law – why don’t you work on a bill (that would almost certainly prove President Obama legitimate) instead of spreading ignorance, propaganda, and lies?”
    I’m not spreading anything. I have not said anything that is known to be untrue.

    In point of fact you have said several things that I (and others here) know to be untrue. Let’s analyze a paragraph of yours:

    “I have always said I do not know. [No argument here.]I personally do not believe his birth narrative because it doesn’t make any sense, [In what way does it fail to make sense? All of the evidence is consistent with President Obama having been born in Hawaii. If you think differently, present evidence as to why or no one will (or should) take you seriously.] ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters. [Then why didn’t you respond to my request for you to describe how and what President Obama should have released and it’s relevance to his eligibility?] His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable.[Not only do you have no evidence with which to support this statement, it can be easily shown that the reverse is true – both in regard to President Obama’s personal history and in regard to his administration (to see this you may look at what records of previous presidential candidates had been released and what the policies of prior administrations in regard to transparency and compare them to this president. You’ll find that while he could be more transparent, he’s lived up to his promises to be better than his predecessors – if you dispute this, name a standard that President Obama hasn’t met and show us evidence that his predecessors did).] That’s a fact. [You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.]

    You may not have known that you were saying untrue things, but that doesn’t change the fact (note: term used correctly here) that you made a statement that is demonstrably untrue.

    Unless you are saying that it is not possible for his birth story to be a lie or that the possibility of uncovering the vital records may cause extreme question of the birth story’s veracity (thereby possibly being challenged legally in court) then how can you say I’m spreading lies?

    Okay, you’re kind of breaking up here (by which I mean becoming incoherent). Is it possible that the ‘official’ birth story is incorrect? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest that the relevant part of that story (birth in Hawaii) is incorrect? No. Is there sufficient evidence to call the veracity of the COLB into question in a court of law? No. In fact, there is no credible evidence of any sort that casts doubt on any part of the ‘official’ birth story.

    No official document of any sort has been dispensed or verified in a legal manner.

    No court or official with jurisdiction has asked for a document. I’m guessing that Nancy Pelosi was shown the COLB that was provided to FactCheck before she certified the president eligible to the states. If she didn’t see it, then there would be a fraud case against her. Such a fraud case would require (before it could get to the mythical discovery) evidence that what she had certified was false. As no such evidence has come to light so far, this is merely a hypothetical. I would also point out that a certified copy of the COLB is the most that any court or official could possibly require (within the law) with regards to documentation.

    Those who “checked” the supposed certificate were not legal authorities. That’s just a plain fact.[What do you know, you used the term correctly this time… ;-)] They were media people. Fukino did not testify under any oath

    She made official statements in her position as a member of the Hawaii DOH. What does the law say regarding such statements? (to the lawyers here, I would like to know the answer to this question myself.)

    , and it is impossible to challenge the veracity or reality of her statements without seeing the real evidence

    [That’s not the way it works. Unless you can produce some evidence to cast doubt on the veracity of her statements, they must (BY LAW) be taken as true.]

    (and therefore what she is able to say or do as such under Hawaiian code — which I showed could at some point be unconstitutional).

    I doubt this and will assume that while you may think you have shown such a thing the chances that you have done so correctly are equivalent to that of a one legged man achieving escape velocity by jumping…

    I don’t know what the real, original vital records show.

    [Odds are they show exactly what it’s claimed they do, but you have no right to see them whatsoever.]

    All I know, from day 1, is that there is no privacy in them and not showing them is tacit admission, because only people who lack transparency wouldn’t show.

    So you are asserting that no US president has been transparent and every single one has tacitly admitted being ineligible? Or can you give an example of documentation that has been provided by others but not President Obama?

    Regarding the other presidents, each of the previous 3 presidents showed 10x more “private” records than Obama did.

    Prove it.

    Stop playing games.

    I’m not playing games, I’m asking for evidence. You don’t have any, do you?

    Democrat or Republican, they were far more transparent with “personal” records.

    What, specifically, did they do that President Obama did not?

    The first “birthers” were people trying to get McCain. As I am not partisan, I remain doubtful of his story as well. My motivations, unlike majority of the posters here, are not biased.

    I suspect that is another untrue statement.

  151. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    JM: In time your ignorance of the issues will be exposed.

    I wish I had a dollar for every time a birther has spewed that tripe.

    Shameless birther sites like World Nut Daily are rotting people’s minds.

  152. avatar
    Bovril December 17, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    charo:I think that surveying the main birther sites will give a pretty good indication of active birthers. I think there are birthers out there just the same who hold beliefs but are not going to bother going to websites or make any kind of noise. I don’t see how you can statistically account for them. If they don’t make any public noise, then you won’t see them. The only impact where you will see it is in the election process.

    Charo,

    I agree that the active v passive breakdown is difficult but the base line methodology is to say “theorists” are not unique…..

    I had enormous difficulty tracking down the answer to the seemingly simple question…what is the proportion of passive to active individuals in activism activities.

    What I did was to state that “theorists” are the same as other groups having strong personal beliefs questioning an authority of some type.

    Based on these assumptions I looked at various groups including political, personal and sexual beliefs and activism.

    The aggregated average number kept appearing to be circa 3% active, 97% passive.

    Now, if a more rigorous number can be provided, I will be bappy to run with it.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 17, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    Majority Will:
    I wish I had a dollar for every time a birther has spewed that tripe.Shameless birther sites like World Nut Daily are rotting people’s minds.

    I just love how these birthers all come in to try to make a point and yet each and every one of them spews vague generalities devoid of anything substantial. Its so easy to pick them apart

  154. avatar
    Majority Will December 17, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Its so easy to pick them apart

    Especially the birthers who start out as mild mannered, “curious” concern trolls and then eventually unravel like a birther version of the Incredible Hulk.

  155. avatar
    Phil Cave December 17, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And I must add that they seemed completely out of character from what I have seen of LTC Lakin.

    As I’ve posted elsewhere, I agree with Dwight. I also agree with you after having done a little bit of “statement analysis,” a technique the FBI has been using for some time to analyse the written words of a suspect. This is not the language or tone of Lakin. He’s not that confrontational. It seems pure Jensen based on my observation of him on TV and the motions sessions.

  156. avatar
    misha December 18, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    US Citizen: You dishonor the title of lawyer and of Jew and are undeserving of the title of Mensch by your very own people and ancestors.
    You give woman, lawyers, Jews, patriots, fashion and even the English language a bad name.

    Thank you.

  157. avatar
    Keith December 18, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    JM: Fukino did not testify under any oath,

    Yes, in fact, she did.

    On February 23, 2010, in testimony to an Hawai’ian SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, she said that Obama had published images of his official Hawai’ian birth certificate on the web.

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.

    In that once sentence, she confirmed, under oath, that the published image was in fact an image of Obama’s officially issued Birth Certificate and that the information on the published image was correct.

  158. avatar
    misha December 18, 2010 at 3:43 am #

    JM: Fukino did not testify under any oath

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born on Krypton and is a natural-born Kryptonite citizen.”

  159. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 18, 2010 at 4:38 am #

    . This is not the language or tone of Lakin. He’s not that confrontational. It seems pure Jensen based on my observation of him on TV and the motions sessions.

    I’d just point out that the only significance of the implication that Lakin made or authorized that statement was in aggravation of sentence, since it was uncontested that Lakin intentionally failed to report to Roberts when ordered. Being in the military, he is required to obey orders.

    Given the panel’s imposition of 6 months rather than 2 or 3 years confinement, I think in the end they gave Lakin the benefit of the doubt on that in any case. I honestly don’t see any set of circumstances in which a shorter sentence would be imposed — it is an extremely serious offense in the military.

    Here are some examples sentences for individuals who were AWOL or refused to deploy due to opposition to the Iraq war or claimed conscientious objector status:

    Travis Bishop (Army Sergeant; cited religious beliefs as a Christian) – 1 year
    Camilo Mejía, (objected to Iraq war) — 1 year
    Abdullah Webster, (objected to Iraq war citing religious beliefs) – 14 months
    Kevin Benderman (Army Sergeant, served one tour of duty and refused to redeploy because of abuses he had witnessed during the first deployment) – 15 months
    Agustin Aguayo ( objected to Iraq war) – 8 months

    see: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/sentence-reduced-us-conscientious-objector-20100212

    Tony Anderson (objection to Iraq war) — 14 months
    See: http://www.tokyoprogressive.org/en/content/us-conscientious-objector-tony-anderson-sentenced-14-months

    Robin Long (opposition to Iraq war) – 15 month
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Long

    I’m sure I could come up with more examples. The point is, 6 months is definitely on the low end for these sorts of things — so I think the panel definitely showed leniency toward Lakin.

  160. avatar
    ellid December 18, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    JM: Trust me, I didn’t post this time in order to be polemical in any sense. Thanks for your honest reply and question, Slart. The same cannot be said about others.I have always said I do not know. I personally do not believe his birth narrative because it doesn’t make any sense, ESPECIALLY considering how easy it is for him to show personal documents to silence the doubters. His lack of transparency is as a president of the US is unprecedented, incomparable. That’s a fact.I have actually been a person that tries to get “birthers” to recognize the need for evidence and the fact that, although I think a natural born citizen is clearly a child born to two citizen parents at birth (like they do), the prevailing legal opinion sadly has been bastardized by sellout politicans. Nevertheless, the point is that our definition of NBC is, sadly, not the majority opinion, however correct it may be.I think that is a healthy way to think about things. Given the current situation, yes, I am unsure about his eligibility. My private opinion is that he is not, but I realize that this does not matter (yet) so at this point my opinion is irrelevant. The key in my mind, and others, is that NBC needs to be formally defined.This is why I can’t understand people being against Secretaries of State checking for eligibility, a Constitutional requirement. At worst it would go to the courts to decide BUT actually define a formal process for CHECKING for eligibility, which I have pointed out many times DOES NOT OCCUR. This is a tragedy. The national archives and federal register admit that there is no formal process for this, as I have linked many times.2nd amendment remedies? I don’t believe in violence except in extreme circumstances. This certainly is NOT one of them.I hope this has clarified.

    1. The statement that you find it more credible that a heavily pregnant teenager would spend the equivalent of her family’s yearly income to fly into a Third World war zone to give birth in a hospital 1000 miles from her husband’s anti-white family than that she would give birth in a hospital a couple of miles from her home is disingenuous, to say the least. It is also ridiculous.

    2. The President has already released his birth certificate, two years ago. And before you starting yapping that a COLB is different from a “long form,” *you are wrong.* Legally, it is the COLB, issued by the state, that is valid, not whatever the hospital gives you.

    3. You not only are a birther, you know nothing of American history. Barack Obama is the ONLY President to release his birth certificate. He’s also been far more transparent in his presidency than, say, Richard Nixon (remember him? The one who had to resign because of his crimes) or George W. Bush (remember him? The one whose Vice President basically ran the country for most of his first term?).

    4. You are also wrong about the “two citizen” theory of parentage. It is not now and never has been a requirement for natural born status.

    5. Your opinion is not relevant to American law.

    6. You seem unaware that all these birther laws merely require that a candidate produce proof of natural born status. That means – ta da! – a state-issued copy of a birth record, *which is what Barack Obama produced in 2008*.

    7. Thank you ever so much for saying you have no intention of using “Second Amendment remedies.” It comforts me greatly to know that you think America should be spared the agony of a revolution or an assassination because a handful of conspiracy loons hate the idea of a black President.

  161. avatar
    misha December 18, 2010 at 6:47 am #

    ellid: George W. Bush (remember him? The one whose Vice President basically ran the country for most of his first term?).

    Correction: all of both terms. See Iraq.

  162. avatar
    US Citizen December 18, 2010 at 7:18 am #

    Jm, are you aware that Kapi’olani hospital was founded in 1890 by QUEEN Kapi’olani?

    The islanders regularly referred to it as “Queen’s Hospital.”
    In fact, Queen’s Medical Center, as it’s called now, was originally called Queen’s Hospital, but was changed because of the confusion it caused by longtime Hawaiian residents that knew Kapi’olani was queen and founded her own hospital.
    A distinction between the names was necessary for a reason.
    It wasn’t just a whim.

    For example, many people believe Universal Studios Hollywood is actually IN Hollywood.
    It’s not, but it’s advertised exactly that way.
    Why?
    Because Universal Studios is in North Hollywood, also known as The Valley.
    “The Valley” or “North Hollywood” doesn’t conjure up the same emotions as does “Hollywood.”
    One never hears of the “Golden Age of The Valley or famous North Hollywood stars.
    It might also be noted that the Valley is well-known for their large amount of adult film production while Hollywood isn’t.
    Universal is a family park after all.

    The important thing is that Kapi’olani has publicly acknowledged their hospital as Obama’s birthplace.
    If they were wrong, wouldn’t Queens Medical Center take exception to this?
    Wouldn’t others come out and correct them?

    And would a hospital lie, along with the director of health, the republican governor and at the same time fool the FBI, CIA, State Dept, NSA, RNC and all other interested (and quite informed) parties?
    But none of that happened.

    It’s like Orly.
    She’s sued Berg, she’s sued Obama, she’s sued Lisa Liberi.
    But despite Charles Lincoln III stating on a blog that he had sexual relations with Orly in her dental chair, Orly has never said anything to counter it.
    Why? Perhaps it’s because it IS the truth and she knows it.
    Sometimes the exclusion of things can help prove their validity and here, there’s been no hospital stating otherwise, no Kenyan or Indonesia official stating otherwise, no Columbia University official stating otherwise.. on and on.
    The absence of any countering opinion or evidence leaves what’s been told as very likely correct.

    You need to study the theory of Occam’s Razor.
    Simply put, it’s much easier to state the truth than it is to suggest (and especially prove) any other scenario but a simple truth(s) as presented.

    According to Orly and many other birthers, they embrace a belief that suggests all branches of the US Government are in on a secret, being bribed or blackmailed.
    This including judges, the FBI, Secret Service, Senators, Governors, state, district and federal judges too.
    Literally thousands of people that must keep their mouths shut for years despite many being adherents to other political parties and with their whole careers at risk of exposure.
    This is just beyond likely.
    It’s fantasy to believe that thousands of people are party to some hoax or conspiracy.
    Pure fantasy.

    And furthermore, consider that if others had been bribed, some would likely have refused the bribe and blown the whistle on those offering one.
    But not a single official has ever come forward to state their were bribed, threatened, coerced, blackmailed or extorted.
    Not one.

    Even John McCain, who believes Obama was born in Hawaii, avoided mentioning in all his early campaigning that he was actually born in Panama.
    Why? Perhaps because it wouldn’t look so good to many people?

    And please ask yourself why only now do you care about where Obama was born, about his parents and everything else down to his kindergarten records when you never took an interest in previous candidates or presidents in these regards.
    Why?
    Did you not care then if your president was a foreigner, but now are obsessed with the idea?

  163. avatar
    misha December 18, 2010 at 7:45 am #

    US Citizen: And would a hospital lie, along with…the republican governor

    I have written this many times: Linda Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be far better for Israel, than Obama.

    If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

  164. avatar
    HORUS December 18, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    Imagine if the soldiers at Valley Forge wanted to see George Washington’s false teeth to make sure it was him before they would fight.

  165. avatar
    Joey December 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    misha: I have written this many times: Linda Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be far better for Israel, than Obama.If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

    I’m convinced that former Governor Lingle has informed the Republican National Committee to stay away from the birth certificate issue. That’s why nearly no national Republican elected official has said anything about it. Only one politician from either major political party has ever referred to the hospital where Obama was born (Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu) and that politician is Governor Linda Lingle.
    For the record, Governor Lingle gave one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention.

  166. avatar
    Joey December 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    misha: I have written this many times: Linda Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be far better for Israel, than Obama.If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

    I forgot to add that much more important than LInda Lingle being Jewish is that fact that Linda Lingle is a Republican and she is a party loyalist who wants to be the Republican Senator from Hawaii when elderly Democrats Akaka or Inouye retire or pass away.

  167. avatar
    Daniel December 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Joey: I’m convinced that

    That’s the crux of birtherism.

    Make up ridiculous circumstances, ignore all possibilities that contradict what you need to be true, refuse to acknowledge the existence of opposing evidence, and then convince yourself that the ridiculous is all that’s left.

  168. avatar
    Joey December 18, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Daniel: That’s the crux of birtherism.Make up ridiculous circumstances, ignore all possibilities that contradict what you need to be true, refuse to acknowledge the existence of opposing evidence, and then convince yourself that the ridiculous is all that’s left.

    Yep, you’ve nailed it. It was pretty ironic that Lt.C. Lakin’s own civilian attorney, Neal Puckett said almost exactly what you said above in trying to mitigate a harsh sentence for Lakin. In effect, Puckett said, don’t punish Lakin too harshly because he suffered from Obama Derangement Syndrome and was temporarily insane and easily manipulated by the Birther movement.
    Lakin’s own words at trial: “I chose the wrong path.”

  169. avatar
    Northland10 December 18, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    US Citizen: You need to study the theory of Occam’s Razor.

    Their problem is that Occam’s Razor would not work the same way in their “thinking.” We readily apply the simplest explanation, given the facts, to the questions like, “Is he eligible” and “was he born in Hawaii?” However, the birthers and denialists are not asking this question. They have already determined that Obama is “different” (pick a reason) and therefore, not eligible. Instead, there questions is:

    “How is he not eligible?”

    Apply the simplest explanation to that question and you get to, “not born here, only one citizen parent, adopted by Lola, evil coke sniffing drag queen murdering members of his church and stealing their SSNs, etc”

    There are, of course, those who do not care if is eligible or not but just want him out of office before 2012 or 2016. I actually heard that statement from some birther but cannot remember where.

  170. avatar
    US Citizen December 18, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Northland10: There are, of course, those who do not care if is eligible or not but just want him out of office before 2012 or 2016. I actually heard that statement from some birther but cannot remember where.

    Forget birthers, GOP decision makers have done and said the same.

    That’s the crazy thing: Most of these obstructionists have no alternative plans.
    They just want to stop their “opponent.”
    It’s a game to them and they are the players.
    They get paid as long as they stay in the game.
    If we’re talking cruxes, this is the bottom line.
    I *applaud* republicans that show some creativity and pragmatism, but the easiest move in most games is blocking, not commanding the ball.

  171. avatar
    US Citizen December 18, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    misha: misha December 18, 2010 at 3:43 am misha(Quote) #

    JM: Fukino did not testify under any oath

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born on Krypton and is a natural-born Kryptonite citizen.”

    To be a state health director, you take an oath before the job both sworn verbally and in writing that all your statements will be truthful.

    Great satire by Misha :), but after seeing the YouTube video of the lady who’s sure the Reptilians are in charge of the whole shebang, I’m not so sure some birther might not quote you.
    Then you’d know what we’d have…?
    Birthers claiming that “Obots think Obama is Superman!” 😉

  172. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 18, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Fukino didn’t testify under oath? Sorry, testimony taken in any congressional body is testimony that is given under oath, and she testified to the Hawaii Senate that President Obama posted a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate on his campaign website. page 2, line 10

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimony-Jgo-02-23-10-Late

  173. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 18, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    misha:
    I have written this many times: Linda Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be far better for Israel, than Obama.If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

    And it’s not like the GOP hasn’t been looking for “Obama’s Waterloo” for almost two years now. If there ever was an “Obama’s Waterloo,” this would have been it if there was any truth to it, and Lingle would have handed it to them on a silver platter if she, in all honesty, could have.

  174. avatar
    Steve December 18, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: And it’s not like the GOP hasn’t been looking for “Obama’s Waterloo” for almost two years now. If there ever was an “Obama’s Waterloo,” this would have been it if there was any truth to it, and Lingle would have handed it to them on a silver platter if she, in all honesty, could have.

    Garland’s explaination is that McCain, like Obama was a one-world government supporter.
    I don’t know what that has to do with anything. I always thought conservatives were supposed to understand competition, but he doesn’t seem to grasp the concept that an election is a competitive event with a winner and a loser and one does not campaign for one candidate while secretly working to help his main opponent win.

  175. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 18, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Steve:
    Garland’s explaination is that McCain, like Obama was a one-world government supporter.

    They’re all one world government people, Steve. Bush was too.

    he doesn’t seem to grasp the concept that an election is a competitive event with a winner and a loser

    Yeah, something kids don’t seem to grasp either. I remember the losers always wanting a do-over.

    one does not campaign for one candidate while secretly working to help his main opponent win.

    I have my own little conspiracy theory about McCane. (I know. I spell it that way for a reason). I believed, ever since he started winning the primaries in NH and finally won the nomination, that the GOP never wanted their candidate to win the general in 2008. They knew what a mess Bush was going to leave the next guy, with two wars and n economy quickly going south, and they didn’t want their guy getting his hands dirty with that mess; they believed that it would be better to sit on the sidelines and blame the Democrat who got elected for the messes Bush had created. Essentially, McCane fell on his sword for the GOP. They always knew he wasn’t a viable candidate for the office, but they nominated him anyway. Moreover, there were campaign flubs and missteps that befell him that were kind of inexplicable for a candidate who wanted to be president.

  176. avatar
    misha December 18, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: there were campaign flubs and missteps that befell him that were kind of inexplicable for a candidate who wanted to be president.

    Yeah, like choosing a half educated snowbilly.

  177. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP December 18, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    misha:
    Yeah, like choosing a half educated snowbilly.

    lol. Yes, that was one of them, misha. He certainly didn’t pick someone who would have helped him get elected.

  178. avatar
    Majority Will December 18, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    misha:
    Yeah, like choosing a half educated snowbilly.

    Here’s an interesting read in Vanity Fair:

    Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury

    Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake.

    The rest:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPage=all

  179. avatar
    ellid December 18, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Here’s an interesting read in Vanity Fair:Sarah Palin: The Sound and the FuryEven as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake.
    The rest:http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPage=all

    I’ve subscribed to Vanity Fair for over ten years now. It never ceases to amaze me that some of the best political and investigative reporting in America appears in what purports to be a high class celebrity gossip and entertainment magazine.

    God bless Graydon Carter. He’s done a great job.

    Now, if he’d only publish all of the Coaster Correspondence in a book, my joy would be complete….:)

  180. avatar
    Keith December 19, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: I believed, ever since he started winning the primaries in NH and finally won the nomination, that the GOP never wanted their candidate to win the general in 2008.

    I agree, but for a slightly different reason.

    My reasoning goes like this:

    1) ever since Nixon, the GOP ‘power block’ insists on its Presidents to be strictly controlled, essentially a figurehead. The degree of control increased steadily with each Republican President until the control over the Shrub’s entire Presidency was virtually out in the open and tightly managed by Cheney.

    2) in 2008, the ‘power block’ couldn’t really find anyone to run to their specs and McCain had too much rank and file support to deny him. McCain was not well liked by the ‘power block’ because, whatever his other failings, he doesn’t take kindly to ventriloquists arms stuck up his backside.

    3) Once he won the nomination, McCain never got the absolute support of the GOP party machine. To get the support he got, he was required to accept the ‘power block’ VP selection. Palin was chosen to ensure his loss, or at a minimum to indicate that they had given up any hope of wining, much as Mondale’s VP choice of Geraldine Ferraro signaled much the same thing in 1984.

    4) The ‘power block’ would rather have a black Democrat President to hate on for four years, than a Republican President they couldn’t control properly.

    This is not a new ‘theory’ of mine. I have explained it as my interpretation of events to my Australian friends since the day that Palin was nominated. Many didn’t think that a black man could win against a POW hero. I had to point out that he lost any chance he may have had the day he was forced to accept Palin.

  181. avatar
    misha December 19, 2010 at 4:45 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: I believed, ever since he started winning the primaries in NH and finally won the nomination, that the GOP never wanted their candidate to win the general in 2008.

    Keith: Many didn’t think that a black man could win against a POW hero. I had to point out that he lost any chance he may have had the day he was forced to accept Palin.

    I think you are both wrong. I believe Kristol called McCain, and insisted on Palin. He did not believe a black man could beat a white man; he cynically thought McSame would not live out his term, and then the neocons would have a puppet.

  182. avatar
    US Citizen December 19, 2010 at 5:43 am #

    I don’t know if this helps in the quest to quantify the number of birthers, but numbers of Facebook friends might help.
    For example, “3,149 people like Obarack Release Your Records”

    True, many of them are us- trainwreck watchers.
    There’s also overlap from the same accounts being friends to many.
    But it’s something that might help provide an overall view.
    I would guess Orly would have the most and also that hers are predominately us pesky “Obots.” 🙂

  183. avatar
    Bovril December 19, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Us Citizen,

    Thanks for the facebook idea.

    I did initially look at it but decided to not follow it for a number of reasons.

    The Noise to SIgnal ratio is quite stupendous

    Friends of friends linages skewed the numbers

    Extremely difficult to track data of join with any degree of accuracy,

    I estimated that at least 10% were blatant sock puppets additionally with a very high set of Poe Factor punking

    Little information in the “friends” to ascertain their status or categories

    At the end, the work needed to dig useful information out simply wasn’t worth it….although I might add, it is telling that the numbers of such a purportedly huge and significant national movement could only summon a third of the number of “friends”/players as “Hobo Wars” the game…..

  184. avatar
    SueDB December 19, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    Shoot. Who you going to believe, someone who has already admitted guilt in 4 charges who make an unsworn statement (with his lawyer trying to pull his teeth to get something out of him) versus sworn testimony from a highly decorated and respected US Army Officer’
    BDE Commander (CMH) and other US Army Officers… Hmmm…who ya gonna believe???

    One of the most powerful folks on the battlefield in the US Army is the Colonel commanding a combat brigade or the Deputy Commander, Maneuver. He/She sits on the right hand of God.

  185. avatar
    HORUS December 19, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Jason: It is nothing short of astounding that this trial was not averted months ago by Barack Obama stepping forward to provide that necessary and proper assurance to soldiers like LTC Lakin and to the American people- that he conforms to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. It is a critical question that demands an answer. Instead, Barack Obama has continued to conceal all records which would disclose his citizenship status.

    They still refuse to believe that he has already furnished them with his valid Birth Certificate.

  186. avatar
    HORUS December 19, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): Under current rules a person may not apply to the president to be pardoned until they have completed five or more years after their sentence is completed. Thus it’s true that President Palin will have the opportunity to parole LTC Lakin for his courageous acts.

    That’s why Bush could only commute Libby’s sentence, because he had not served any time.

  187. avatar
    misha December 19, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    HORUS: They still refuse to believe that he has already furnished them with his valid Birth Certificate.

    It doesn’t matter. A president must have two citizen parents. Orly and Donofrio say so, and they are the finest scholars in the world – NOT.

  188. avatar
    SueDB December 19, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    HORUS:
    That’s why Bush could only commute Libby’s sentence, because he had not served any time.

    Rules? What rules – See Nixon’s Blanket Pardon
    While the rules are for the general public, they don’t seem to faze the rich and shameless.

  189. avatar
    misha December 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    SueDB: Rules? What rules – See Nixon’s Blanket Pardon

    Federal loan guarantees were started by Nixon, for Lockheed. No one screamed socialist or Marxist.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903076,00.html
    and
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944441,00.html

  190. avatar
    HORUS December 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    Black Lion: Mr Obama’s “Legal” father was never a US Citizen. He was a Kenyan with British Citizenship…. This gave Mr Obama “British Citizenship”!!!

    what morons

  191. avatar
    charo December 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    ellid:
    I’ve subscribed to Vanity Fair for over ten years now.It never ceases to amaze me that some of the best political and investigative reporting in America appears in what purports to be a high class celebrity gossip and entertainment magazine.God bless Graydon Carter.He’s done a great job.Now, if he’d only publish all of the Coaster Correspondence in a book, my joy would be complete….:)

    From the Palin article:

    “When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away;”

    The author had to retract the this information in the article when it was pointed out to him the child was not the Palin’s. So in his retraction, he did a hit piece on the mother whose child actually was whisked away. He also had to justify his extensive use of anonymous sources.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/09/michael-joseph-gross-responds-to-criticism-of-his-article-on-sarah-palin.html

    Another example of painting the wrong picture:

    “Damn right it’s revolting seeing Sarah getting her hair made up like this field hospital is her movie set -”

    (Update 10:30pm PST: Credit is due to various commenters for clarifying that the “hairdresser” in the top photo is, in fact, Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol. This clarification certainly raises questions about the clarity and meaning of the AP caption below stating that Palin was “having her hair done.” Still, the fact that Palin’s daughter was attending to Palin’s hair, as opposed to a professional stylist, only reinforces the concern I raise in the last paragraph of the post about the AP’s objectivity in focusing on these particular images.)

    “And then, the multiple shots of Sarah sanitizing and washing her hands suggests the former Gov is primarily concerned, above all humanitarian else, about catching something.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-ipal_b_795561.html

    Say what? One washes hands to avoid a serious illness and that makes one a non-humanitarian? What do medical personnel strongly advise us all? Wash hands!

    Good grief… Karl Rove will do a much better job. He is already immersed in the preliminary work.

  192. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    A part of Dr. Kate’s post on the proceedings…

    They didn’t even introduce the forged COLB, LOL, guess it would have been perjury. With all the intelligence assets the Army has at its command, all they have to go on to charge Lt. Col. Terry Lakin is that Obama’s orders are presumed’ legal. Shameful. And truly, who needs enemies when you have friends’ like this?

    One result is that the doubt of Obama’s eligibility stands in the transcript of this military Court Martial unchallenged. The Army presented no proof of his eligibility, and history will mark this event as it has when others have exposed a fundamental truth. Lakin’s statement stands that Obama’s orders may be unlawful.

    Instead of doing their duty, the Army focused on the smallest possible thing–missing an order. Lakin is charged with running a stop sign and parking illegally while rescuing thousands from a burning building. The people will not be fooled, and Lakin remains a hero.

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/military-court-hears-doubts-of-obamas-eligibility/

    The trial Dr. Kate is describing seems very different that the one reported on by the obot contingent… 😉 (by the way – great job Phil and Dwight! Thanks guys!)

  193. avatar
    gorefan December 19, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    misha: Federal loan guarantees were started by Nixon, for Lockheed. No one screamed socialist or Marxist.

    The Penn Central Railroad bailout was Nixon’s first bailout.

    BUt the first bailout in the United States was the bailout of the the 13 States when the Federal Government assumed their war debt. Hamilton pushed the deal and President Washington signed it into law.

    The Virginia State legislature was not to happy and passed a resolution against the bailout. In the resolution they wrote:

    “A large proportion of the debt thus contracted by this state has been already redeemed by the collection of heavy taxes levied on its citizens, and measures have been taken for the gradual payment of the balance, so as to afford the most certain prospect of extinguishing the whole at a period not very distant. But, by the operation of the aforesaid act, a heavy debt, and consequently heavy taxes, will be entailed on the citizens of this Commonwealth, from which they never can be relieved by all the efforts of the General Assembly whilst any part of the debts contracted by any state in the American Union, and so assumed, shall remain unpaid” The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the United States Congress, “ Virginia’s
    Remonstrance Against the Assumption of State Debts,” December 16, 1790

    Were Washington and hamilton the first Marxists?

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    By the way, I absolutely refused to put that cheesy photo of Lakin behind bars in my article. I have my standards!

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    gorefan:
    Were Washington and Hamilton the first Marxists?

    The anti-Federalists excoriated Washington about as bad as the Tea Party does Obama.

  196. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The anti-Federalists excoriated Washington about as bad as the Tea Party does Obama.

    I’m sure they showed a great deal more respect to President Washington personally and the office of the presidency than the Tea Party does…

  197. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Slartibartfast: (Quoting Dr. Kate) Instead of doing their duty, the Army focused on the smallest possible thing–missing an order. Lakin is charged with running a stop sign and parking illegally while rescuing thousands from a burning building. The people will not be fooled, and Lakin remains a hero.

    I think the better analogy is a fireman who refused to respond to the fire until the mayor proved he was eligible. Terry Lakin saved no one, and especially not those 16 men from his unit injured in an ambush while he was playing “constitutional hero” stateside.

  198. avatar
    James M December 19, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    misha:

    It doesn’t matter. A president must have two citizen parents. Orly and Donofrio say so, and they are the finest scholars in the world

    But law professor and physicist Jedi Pauly say that only the father confers (capital C) Citizenship. Now who is right? The Jedi or the Dentist?

  199. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    James M: Now who is right? The Jedi or the Dentist?

    Could I have another choice?

  200. avatar
    ellid December 20, 2010 at 7:36 am #

    misha: I think you are both wrong. I believe Kristol called McCain, and insisted on Palin. He did not believe a black man could beat a white man; he cynically thought McSame would not live out his term, and then the neocons would have a puppet.

    The story I’ve heard is that McCain wanted Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who caucuses with the Democrats, as a way to draw Democratic support. The evangelical wing of the Republicans immediately threw a fit because a) Lieberman isn’t a hard line conservative, and b) McCain “owed them” for supporting him despite his not being a hard line conservative in the past. McCain was so pissed he basically said, “to hell with it, who do you want?” and picked Palin as a sop to them.

    It’s possibly the worst decision he ever made, including the Keating mess.

  201. avatar
    kimba December 20, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    ellid: picked Palin as a sop to them

    At the time they picked Palin, no one thought she was a “sop”. She was their answer to Hillary. A woman. A governor. Attractive. Down Syndrome baby for the anti-abortion crowd. They thought she would clinch it for McCain. Her convention speech was very good, delivered well and a big boost for the GOP morale. For a couple weeks, she was an up and coming superstar. Until the Charlie Rose and Katie Couric interviews. when she opened her mouth and everyone realized the speech was a fluke, written for her by someone a lot more informed, and she was completely unprepared for even the softest of softball interviews. Remember the deer in the headlights look when Katie asked her what she read and the foolishness about “Putin rearing his head”? Good times. Cheney, Kristol, Perle probably pooped their pants.

    As far as McCain “falling on his sword”, he won the most primary votes and caucuses. He went into the convention ahead of any other challenger. No one even spoke of challenging him on the floor of the convention. Why wouldn’t they want a GOP President in office with a Dem majority in the Congress – they’d have veto power without a big enough majority to override a veto. The idea they’d throw an election is absurd in my opinion.

  202. avatar
    Majority Will December 20, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    kimba:
    At the time they picked Palin, no one thought she was a “sop”.She was their answer to Hillary.A woman. A governor.Attractive. Down Syndrome baby for the anti-abortion crowd.They thought she would clinch it for McCain.Her convention speech was very good, delivered well and a big boost for the GOP morale.For a couple weeks, she was an up and coming superstar.Until the Charlie Rose and Katie Couric interviews. when she opened her mouth and everyone realized the speech was a fluke, written for her by someone a lot more informed, and she was completely unprepared for even the softest of softball interviews.Remember the deer in the headlights look when Katie asked her what she read and the foolishness about “Putin rearing his head”?Good times. Cheney, Kristol, Perle probably pooped their pants.
    As far as McCain “falling on his sword”, he won the most primary votes and caucuses. He went into the convention ahead of any other challenger.No one even spoke of challenging him on the floor of the convention.Why wouldn’t they want a GOP President in office with a Dem majority in the Congress – they’d have veto power without a big enough majority to override a veto.The idea they’d throw an election is absurd in my opinion.

    Hawaii’s 1st Jewish governor: Palin more experienced than Obama

    Republican Governor Linda Lingle, the first Jewish chief executive of the Aloha State, knows something about being the woman governor of a state which is isolated, relatively new and, in the eyes of many Americans, almost mythical in nature.

    So when she comes to the defense of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin – declaring that Palin has more on-the-job experience than Barack Obama – Lingle, like the Republican vice-presidential candidate a former mayor of a small community, speaks with unique authority.

    “As another woman Republican Governor, we know each other very well, and I can tell people in America and all over the world, that she is the unique combination of toughness and grace,” says Lingle, in St. Paul to attend the Republican National Convention, which has been put on hold pending the outcome of Hurrican Gustav in the Gulf Coast.

    She acknowledges that that many dismiss John McCain’s running mate as “only a mayor of a small town” and “governor of a distant state.” However, counters the former mayor of the island county of Maui, “the Democrats’ presidential candidate has zero experience. He’s never led any city, never led any state. So our vice-presidential candidate has more experience than their presidential candidate has.”

    Palin “is a proven leader on local level as well as the state level, she’s had a balanced budget, she’s had to deal with every issue from the environment to energy and healthcare to education and public safety, and she’s done it in a way that every governor does, which is: you make the final decision for which you’ll be accountable.

    “It’s not like being in Congress, where no one might know you’re responsible,” she told Haaretz. “When you’re a governor you’re the one to make a decision. It’s a great, great preparation for a job such as vice president.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/hawaii-s-1st-jewish-governor-palin-more-experienced-than-obama-1.285361

  203. avatar
    US Citizen December 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    … and how many birthers believe Linda Lingle was bribed or threatened?
    Quite a lot.

    This punches a hole directly through those claims.
    Yet they’ll still remain being birthers.