Saturday, October 9, 2010

The Bastardization of the Oval Office

Where does a baby come from?

Though it is a simple question, it has a profoundly complicated answer, especially when the one trying to explain where he came from appears to lack the evidence to support his claims.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:  "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President;..."  This is fairly straightforward.  You are not allowed to become the President of the United States of America if you are not a natural born citizen of this country (period).  There are no grey areas in this requirement.  The words "but" or "except" do not appear.  It is the most basic requirement, along with the necessary age, for someone to assume that high office.

Yet, with the rise of political correctness and the decline of common sense in our nation's Capitol, we are saddled with a sitting President who believes that he is above the Constitution (which he views as a document of negative rights).  President Obama sees no need to prove that he is actually eligible to hold the office he holds.  In fact, he has taken steps that are much more difficult, to withhold the proof.

We, the little people, have no right to have the question answered.  No one with governmental authority will step forward and demand that the man set on destroying our nation from within demonstrate that he should not be immediately removed from office and, in my opinion, charged with a felony.

Regardless of the demands for the production of an authentic "Birth Certificate", made by those who the Constitution established as the true rulers of the land - "We the People", nothing happens and the ones charged with this task have no backbone to take up the cause.  Well, wait a minute, one American hero has stepped forward and has drawn a serious line in the sand.

U. S. Army Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon has put his career and freedom on the line over this issue.  LTC Lakin is a veteran of 18 years of military service.  He has received numerous awards and decorations.  Currently he is facing court martial with a possible prison sentence and dishonorable discharge from the military.  What is his crime?

LTC Lakin has taken his oath, as an officer in the U. S. Army, serious.  He swore to defend the Constitution.  He also has been well trained in the danger of obeying illegal orders given by superiors.  Someone in the military is held responsible for the determination of the legality of the orders they are being made to obey.  They have an obligation to not obey an illegal order and if they do obey an illegal order, it is not a defense for them to claim that they were just obeying orders.  As you can imagine, this is a very tricky area to tread.

LTC Lakin was ordered to deploy to Afghanistan earlier this year.  In April, he informed the chain of command that he would not be able to obey that order on the grounds that he believes it would amount to obeying an illegal order.  He believes that an order issued by a Commander-in-Chief who holds the position illegally cannot be a legal order and he has an obligation to disobey the illegal order. 

Talk about guts, this officer has more than enough to go around!  In taking this stand, for the sake of our nation, he has put his career on the line.  If he is found guilty, there will be no military retirement, no promotion to Colonel, and no freedom.  He is charged with "missing movement" and refusing to obey orders.  As you can imagine, in the Army, each of these are taken very serious and he could be forced to spend several years in a military prison.

The official court martial will be taking place in just a few weeks.  Preliminary hearings have already taken place.  The presiding Army Judge, Colonel Denise Lind, has just cut the arms and legs off of the defense, according to defense attorney Paul Jensen.  She has issued a ruling that will prohibit the defense from presenting evidence or calling witnesses in relation the whether or not Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.  Her reason for such an unconstitutional restriction on the right to a fair trial and the right to present a defense is, those documents might prove "embarrassing" to the President. 

Let me see if I follow this right...  If Obama has a legitimate birth certificate, showing it to us would somehow be embarrassing...???  How?  We have to do it all the time.  In fact, LTC Lakin was required to produce his birth certificate as a normal step for his ordered deployment overseas.  He had to show it to become an officer in the Army.  But, for some reason, no one thinks it would be prudent for the person who assumes command over all of the military operations for the most powerful nation on the Earth, to have to show us a piece of paper.  There is only one reason why Judge Lind could imagine that solving this issue once and for all, would be embarrassing to the President, and that is that he would be exposed to be illegitimate. 

A child whose birth lacks legal legitimacy is called a bastard.  What would a man be called who's presidency lacks legal legitimacy?

6 comments:

  1. "Let me see if I follow this right... If Obama has a legitimate birth certificate, showing it to us would somehow be embarrassing...???"
    __

    No, you don't "follow this right." Judge Lind said nothing about documents being embarrassing to the President.

    Why don't you read what she actually said? The whole thing can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/37124325/LCOL-Lakin-Ruling-on-the-Motions-by-Judge-Lind.

    This is an important case and bears serious discussion, but we have to start out by reporting the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It is not a defense for a servicemember to claim that an order is illegal based on his interpretation of applicable law. A personal belief that an order is unlawful is not a defense to a disobedience charge ... The duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of the order's unlawfulness." -- United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108( C.A.A.F. 2001).

    That is why LTC Lakin's claim that he was required to disobey illegal orders has no basis in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There was another post that I had to remove from responding here. It contained a link that did not produce the information that it was claimed to contain and also appeared to be downloading something, which I did not want. So, to stop others from going there, the response is now gone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To: Anonymous-You wrote: "It is not a defense for a servicemember to claim that an order is illegal based on his interpretation of applicable law. A personal belief that an order is unlawful is not a defense to a disobedience charge ... The duty to disobey an unlawful order applies only to a positive act that constitutes a crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of the order's unlawfulness."

    How does "based on his interpretation of applicable law" not also apply to deciding whether or not it is a "crime that is so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander"? It comes down to a judgement call, either way, for which the one given the responsibility to follow the order will be held accountable.

    If the soldier is not to resort to his interpretation of the law, then how can he decide if the order is of such a nature to be beyond the legal power of the commander?

    In this case, it is not about the order or whether it violates a law, it is about the one issueing the order, does he have the legal authority to do such? There are other officers who are siding with Lakin.

    As I wrote, it would be very easy to settle the issue - show the birth certificate. He should never have been allowed to assume the position without first proving qualification according to the Constitutional requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the quotation from the U.S. v. New decision answers your question. An illegal order has to be disobeyed only if it is an order to commit "a positive act that constitutes a crime..."

    That's clear, isn't it? It has to be an order to commit a crime, like an order to kill innocent civilians.

    If it's an order to do something legal, like take a plane to your new duty station, or report to your Brigade Commander's office (the orders LTC Lakin disobeyed), you must obey that order, regardless of your opinion of its legality.

    These are not my rules, mind you. I'm explaining to you the U.S. v. New court precedent that Judge Lind was required to follow in making her rulings.

    Read her ruling in full -- it's posted online, I'll be happy to give you the link. She also answers your question about whether those who gave the orders had the authority to do so.

    Again, these are not my rules. I am simply explaining to you why the judge ruled that the defense that LTC Lakin originally chose is not supported by the law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's been another development. Neal Puckett, LTC Lakin's new lawyer, has verified that the idea of a defense based on Pres. Obama's eligibility has been abandoned. He told World Net Daily:

    "All those issues concerning the president's eligibility to hold office are completely irrelevant as to whether Lt. Col. Lakin was issued lawful orders and whether he obeyed them."

    'Puckett confirmed that the judge in the case, Denise Lind, "rendered the proper legal ruling" regarding access to Obama's birth and eligibility evidence.

    '"She was right on the facts and right on the law," he told WND.'

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=217241

    ReplyDelete