Visitors
Judge to Lakin: Find another defense - ANOTHER JUDGE IS PROTECTING OBAMA
 BORN IN THE USA? Judge to Lakin: Find another defenseRules that officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidencePosted: September 02, 2010 4:16 pm Eastern By Thom Redmond
FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated. Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to beallowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from thosewho may have access to the records. With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility. Lind ruled that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin. Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the case would continue. But he said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense. Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense. Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed. She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president. The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G.McInerney, a Fox Newsmilitary analyst, that was disclosed by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.The decision came just days after a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons said the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself. McInerney, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders. "Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution," he said in the affidavit. "There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution." He explained "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal." 
"The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority," he said. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined." Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin's trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15. Lakin's defense counsel asked for the president's school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama's birth records that may exist in Hawaii. Lakin is a physician and in his 18th year of service in the Army. He posted a video asking for the court-martial to determine Obama's eligibility. He is board certified in family medicine and occupational and environmental medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department's outstanding flight surgeons. McInerney commanded forces equipped with nuclear weapons. "In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential – vital – in the event the use of those weapons were authorized," the general wrote. "I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today." He said Lakin is acting "exactly" as "proper training dictates." Lakin, the foundation said, has been compelled to act because he swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and Obama has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility. The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "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." A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility. Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from theUniversity of Chicago, passport,medical records,files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records. Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again. Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head. Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue. As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30. In his latest video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important: |
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
User Comments
|
That is NOT what this man is asking for. He IS asking for PROOF that Obama has the right and proper authority to even give lawful orders. Not unreasonable. |
 |
The precedent that he is trying to set is to expose the truth for a change. Obama is a liar and also those who cover for him to hide the truth. |
 |
And the miltary has the right to make that demand of any lawfully elected precedent, sidestepping congressional due process and violating its sworn oath if it doesn't feel its demands have been met? No. This isn't some third world military dictatorship where the government answers to armed thugs. The military answers to the government, the government answers to the people. |
|
I'm not faulting his intent, I'm faulting his actions. People can commit the greatest sins for the worst of reasons. His intentions may be pure, but his actions are pushing for the government to answer to the military. |
|
Obama has DUEL citizenship ( which is addressed in the Constitution{not allowed}) and he refuses to show his LONG FORM BC...now why is that? |
|
So you're telling me that the possibility that Obama may have become president illegally is sufficient cause to allow the military to violate its sworn duty? No, there are proper channels. If a member of the military can't do the job they are supposed to without violating the laws of this country, then they need to be thrown out. The decision is -not- theirs to make. To suggest that it is their decision to make is to set a precedent for a military dictatorship. After all, the next step from disobeying your commanding officers because you believe they don't have the right to be giving orders is rather obvious. Coup. The founding fathers were smarter than that, and we have to be as well. |
|
No that is NOT what I am saying. The courts are just passing the buck. If SOMEONE does not stand up and say," Now wait a minute!" We just might have a dictatorship because no one MAKES Obama show he has a right to be in office- which according to the Constitution he does NOT! Think of all the lawsuits already having been in court and ignored. Think of those that have been dismissed for "legal technicalities". Yes our founding fathers were smarter than that. That is why the gave the people the right to bear arms and have militias. I do not want it to go that far. SO WHO IS GOING TO STAND UP AND GET THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THIS CASE WHICH IMO IS WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2 YEARS AGO! WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE? |
|
If the Gov't did answer to the people, we would know all about our Muslim President. |
|
Doesn't work that way, unfortunately. Our government only answers to the people in a court of law or at the voting booth. |
|
But the Courts have been controlled by Obama's lawyers to keep the Truth hidden. There have been upward of 14 cases taken to Court to prove that Obama is not Qualified to be President. Justice isn't always served in Court. Enough money gets another level of Justice. Corruption reigns. |
|
Which leaves the voting booth. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that a military coup is the answer to all our problems. It would turn this country into another middle-east. We've seen over and over what it does to people and countries. |
|
No, you're not saying it, but what you are saying is part of the scenario's progression. To cave in to military demands that a president prove whatever they want proven before they'll do their sworn duty is to turn this country into a military dictatorship. The two are inseparable. Water is wet. The sun is hot. A country where the government answers to the military rather than the other way around is just short of a military dictatorship. The answer to your question is obvious. The people who care about this issue are going to stand up, and if they fail, they fail. As for who's protecting "we the people", the answer is nobody, and things have been that way for a very long time. If you think either party or either ideology is looking out for you and has been within your lifetime, you have my pity. |
|
Obama is not the Gov't and he should answer to the people. The military weren't the first to question Obama's qualifications to be President & Commander in Chief. The Democratic/Socialist Party is Corrupt. |
|
No single person is "the government". He is, whether you recognize him as being so or not, a part of it, however. Yes, he and every other member of the government should answer to the people. That's how it's supposed to work. As for corruption in the government, that's just stating that water is wet and the sky is blue. Sure they're corrupt, and there's no superior options, because the Republican party is hopeless corrupt as well. The best we can hope for is to replace them with better candidates and in the meantime, gridlock the system with an equal representation of Reps and Dems. |
|
WE THE PEOPLE are the last resort. We will stand up if we have to to the "might" of the "government". I can under stand your point of view and while I agree with it...understand this. The military is caught in a catch 22. I have seen members of the military court marshalled for obeying unlawful orders given them and at the same time others that did NOT obey them court marshalled for not obeying the same orders. It is no wonder that military members want the question answered now is it? It is only going to get worse if this question is not answered.
|
|
The first sentence by the way shows muddy thinking. The FIRST duty of the Military is to protect the CITIZENS and the CONSTITUTION of the United States. |
|
There's nothing "muddy" about it. The military's role, it's "first duty" is dictated by the constitution laid down by our founding fathers (Article 2): The president is commander in chief, and they go to war on the say-so of Congress. The military does NOT get to decide for itself which its objectives is more of a protection to the people of the United States. Most importantly of all, the military does NOT have the right or authority to sidestep constitutional due process. If they have a problem with the man in charge, then they should be acting like every other citizen and demanding that Congress hold him accountable. Anything less is cowardly, taking the easy way out by threatening force. Show me the part of the constitution that says otherwise, that the military can decide for itself when and if it wants to do its job. |
|
Members of the miltary cannot be court-marshalled for obeying the orders of an illegitimate president unless it is established legal fact that the president is illegitimate. Since nobody at the government level seems interested in pursuing that course, the military can't be held accountable for doing what it is told by Obama. That said, if any member of the military believes their commander is illegitimate, so much so that they can't do their sworn duty, then they should leave the military. After all, which is more important to them? Their honor and what they believe in, or the positive regard of their fellow combatants? |
|
I refer you to JoAnne's post: It IS important that the Military stand up. Their oath DEMANDS it! |
The precedent this man is trying to set is one that gives the military authority over the executive branch, something that is completely inappropriate and wrecks the balance of powers the founding fathers created. The last thing we need is a military that answers only to itself.