Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Why Lt. Col. Lakin is Not Mistaken

by Alan Keyes
April 26, 2010
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com ... taken.html

Socrates famously said that an unexamined life is not worth living. However that may be, there's new proof everyday that a critically unexamined so-called news report is not worth reading.

A case in point: A slyly derogatory article at foxnews.com purporting to discuss the prospects of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's effort to obtain, by means of a military trial, evidence that bears on the question of Barack Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... -document/

The article sports a headline that applies to Lt. Col Lakin the inaccurate epithet "birther" invented by Obama faction propagandists to distract from the profound question of Constitutional authority that is really at stake. It goes on to suggest that Lt. Col. Lakin made some kind of legal procedural error ("has chosen the wrong venue") by declining to obey doubtfully lawful orders issued in the name of the President of the United States. To substantiate this assertion the story quotes from "Phillip D. Cave, a Washington attorney and director of the National Institute of Military justice." "Cave said the validity of Lakin's orders, under military law, does not depend on the president but on the chain of command. He will be convicted and is in jeopardy of dismissal."

Cave speaks as if it is acceptable, under the Constitution of the United States, to distinguish the authority of the "chain of command" from that of the President of the United States. If this distinction is accurate, then there must be a Constitutional source other than the President for the authority flowing through the alternative military chain of command. But the U.S. military is an instrument of the U.S. government's executive power. The Constitution vests the whole of that power in the President of the United States. To avoid all possibility of misunderstanding, it explicitly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the all the Armed Forces of the United States. To be Constitutional, therefore, any and all authority flowing through the chain of command must originate in the President, and any and all orders issued to officers in that chain of Command must ultimately depend upon and exercise the President's Constitutional power.

The words which commission all U.S. military officers reflect this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_%28document%29

The President of the United States of America

To all who shall see these presents, greeting:

Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of .................., I do appoint ["him" or "her"] a ["Second Lieutenant" or "Ensign'] in the [name of service] to rank as such from the .... day of ........ ...... This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.

Done at the City of Washington, this .... day of ........ in the year of our Lord ................ and of the Independence of the United States of America the ..........

By the President

Whatever his claims to expertise in military law, when Mr. Cave relies on the concept of a military chain of command independent of the President he is entirely at odds with the provisions of the Constitution. In particular, he contradicts the Constitution's subordination of all military authority to civilian control, embodied in and exercised through the President. Any military tribunal that adopted Mr. Cave's view of the chain of command would assert the existence within the military of a source of authority not subordinate to the President, and not part of the executive power of the U.S. government, which the Constitution vests exclusively in the person of the President. Such an assertion would be, on its face, unlawful, unconstitutional and extremely dangerous to the stability of the United States government.

Unlike the military in most other parts of the world, the U.S. military has a uniform and honorable tradition of unquestionable submission to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its provision for the civilian control of the military. Military officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pursuant to that oath they "observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America."

Herein lies the nub of Lt. Col Lakin's dilemma, and that of every other commissioned officer now serving in the U.S. military. If a Superior Officer issues a command relying on the authority of an individual claiming to be President of the United States, but not in fact Constitutionally eligible for the office, is obedience to that questionably lawful order consistent with the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made pursuant thereto?

There is no question that doubt exists as to the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama for the Office of President. Had there been any authoritative pronouncement on the subject from an impartial and constitutionally empowered element of the U.S. government (the Supreme Court or the Congress) the officers of the military would be obliged to defer to that authoritative and constitutionally authorized judgment. But the Congress has refused to address the subject, and the Supreme Court of the United States has evaded the issue. Their dereliction leaves the doubt constitutionally unresolved, so that every military officer, and indeed every citizen of the United States, can have no certainty as to the Constitutionality of any action performed by Barack Obama when he claims to wield the executive power of the U.S. government. Indeed, if Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President, the Constitution plainly states that the executive power passes to the Vice-President.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution established a unitary executive precisely in order to avoid the potentially self-destructive spectacle of the U.S. government as a double-headed monstrosity whose doubtful assertions of authority on one side or the other could force elements of the Armed Forces of the United States to base their discipline and obedience on personal loyalties and dependencies, rather than on their duty to the people of the United States, whose more permanent will the U.S. Constitution embodies.

Unless the people of the United States are willing to allow their self-government to be usurped by a regime dependent on the choice of military Praetorian guards (like that of the ancient Roman Empire), the present situation is intolerable. The Fox online news article leaves hanging the defamatory suggestion that Lt. Col. Lakin's action is personal "grandstanding." This is a callous and deeply disrespectful lie. With the frank and single minded integrity a free people should expect from its military officers he simply seeks a constitutionally authoritative resolution of an issue that leaves doubt where doubt may be fatal to the integrity of his oath bound conscience, as well as the democratic, civilian form of republican government established by the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Col. Lakin is not the one who has mistaken his actions. Indeed, he shows the intelligence, courage and common sense thus far sorely lacking among the civilian authorities for whose Constitutional position he shows great respect that they themselves have so far demonstrated. I have no doubt that he hopes, as we should all pray, that his case will advance until it puts before these so far shamefully derelict authorities a conscientiously inescapable opportunity to stop evading their duty, and to heed, as Lt. Col. Lakin has, the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Lt. Col. Lakin's action is personal "grandstanding."

There are no words to express how I feel about this. For one...grandstanding for what? What does he have to gain politically? He has risked his personal, political and professional life to stand up for the constitution and the American people. He should be hailed as a hero!!!

The BO stratagem is to use the constitution to separate government from any duty to obey any laws. To elevate its self above law and the American people. They are spiting in the face of the constitution and the people.

Announcing Radical-in-Chief

By Stanley Kurtz
July 27, 2010 9:35 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/23 ... nley-kurtz

I am pleased to announce that my political biography of President Obama, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, will be published on October 19 by the Threshold imprint of Simon & Schuster.

Here is the Amazon page: http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/ ... 1439155089

Here is the cover:



Given my various adventures during the last presidential campaign, it seemed best to remain discreet until now. The goal has been to minimize any possible interference with my research, which has proceeded non-stop since 2008. The book is under embargo, so I cannot detail its revelations. Today’s press release conveys the core argument, however.

Here’s the text:

Part biography, part history, part detective story, RADICAL-IN-CHIEF reveals the carefully hidden tale of Barack Obama’s political past. Stanley Kurtz, whose research helped inject the Bill Ayers and ACORN issues into the 2008 presidential campaign, presents the results of more than two years of digging into President Obama’s radical political world. The book is filled with previously unknown information about the president’s past, tied together by a bold argument about what Obama’s deepest political convictions really are.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF marshals a wide array of never-before-seen evidence to establish that the president of the United States is indeed a socialist. Tracing an unbroken thread of socialist activities and political partnerships, from Obama’s youth through his community organizing days and beyond, the book confirms that the president’s harshest critics have been right about his socialism all along.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF also exposes the truth about community organizers–the socialist beliefs they hold and hide, and how they trained and groomed a president. Obama’s community organizer colleagues had a strategy for slowly and stealthily turning the United States into a socialist nation. The Obama administration is carrying out that strategy today.

This book will forever change our national debate about who Barack Obama is.

I’m excited to be able to offer this book to the public, and look forward to reentering our collective debate over the political character of the Obama administration.

Originally Posted by Alan Keyes

April 26, 2010
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com ... taken.html

To be Constitutional, therefore, any and all authority flowing through the chain of command must originate in the President, and any and all orders issued to officers in that chain of Command must ultimately depend upon and exercise the President's Constitutional power.

The words which commission all U.S. military officers reflect this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_%28document%29

The President of the United States of America

... And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America...

By the President

Unlike the military in most other parts of the world, the U.S. military has a uniform and honorable tradition of unquestionable submission to the authority of the U.S. Constitution and its provision for the civilian control of the military. Military officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pursuant to that oath they "observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America."

Lt. Col. Lakin is not the one who has mistaken his actions. Indeed, he shows the intelligence, courage and common sense thus far sorely lacking among the civilian authorities for whose Constitutional position he shows great respect that they themselves have so far demonstrated. I have no doubt that he hopes, as we should all pray, that his case will advance until it puts before these so far shamefully derelict authorities a conscientiously inescapable opportunity to stop evading their duty, and to heed, as Lt. Col. Lakin has, the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

I apologize to Dr. Keyes for disagreeing with him (a first), but IMO, his "pursuant to that oath etc." above is in error, even though Lt. Col. Dr. Terry Lakin is not.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_in,,00.html

military.com[/url]]The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Obviously, the oath to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over the enlistee is not part of the Oath of Office (for officers). But it still applies to those officers who have been appointed from ROTC or OCS, who swore the oath of enlistment before beginning the process of becoming an officer.

However, it does not apply to doctors, nurses, lawyers, and chaplains who, without ever being enlisted, are commissioned as officers by direct appointment. For all the President's verbiage to the contrary, Dr. Lakin is not sworn to do as the President says, "to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America."

He swore that he "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that [he] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Plainly, he is doing just that.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

Here is a definitive explanation of the legal issues involved when
a person who is not a natural born citizen - a poseur, a usurper, a fraud -
stands for the office of President of the U.S..

well don't the Gov look up his back ground first befor they vote him in they must have know this I would have Impeach he not very good as a President at all
Thank you

Originally Posted by southBronx

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

Here is a definitive explanation of the legal issues involved when
a person who is not a natural born citizen - a poseur, a usurper, a fraud -
stands for the office of President of the U.S..

well don't the Gov look up his back ground first befor they vote him in they must have know this I would have Impeach he not very good as a President at all
Thank you

Welcome southBronx,
On this thread you will find a ton of information on the topic of Obama's status as a natural born citizen. It has taken many months, if not years for us to compile all of this and it would take you many hours to read it all, but it is time well spent if you want to understand this topic.

Those of us who have been on this thread from the beginning often get frustrated by having to constantly go back to the basics, but since you simply mentioned vetting, I will give you a very short summery. If you want documentation and links, all you need to do is see the previous 135 pages of this thread and you will find plenty.

The short answer is simple. The DNC says that the FBI and Secret Service vetted Obama before running. The FBI and Secret Service claim that Congress vetted Obama before running. Congress claims that the DNC vetted Obama before running. Pelosi signed TWO different affidavits to place Obama on the states ballots. The one given to 49 of the states does NOT say he is eligible, only that he is the Democratic nominee. The one given ONLY TO THE STATE OF HAWAII does claim he is eligible. His constitutional eligibility was never question by any of the 50 Secretary of States who are in charge of the elections. They seem to have fun confusing the terms "Native born" and "Natural Born". These two terms are NOT LEGALLY THE SAME. In order to be Native born all you have to do is be born here, natural born has a higher standard. In order to be Natural Born, one must be born here to two citizen parents. This higher standard was placed on the presidency to prevent any and all duel loyalties.

Please take the time and trouble to read the previous pages, I am sure you will find it interesting reading.

I have heard and interesting theory stating that "anyone" can run for office...but before taking office they have to prove what ever is necessary before the swearing in. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what truly is proper procedure for vetting.

I find this argument very interesting and one that also needs to be legal ironed out so that the buck passing can be stopped. "SOMEONE" has to be responsible and held accountable.

But one fact stands out...Pelosi and Obama knew and understood the process. They lied...is this enough to be treason is my question? Was the intent to defraud or simply a mistake in judgment? These are the questions I am waiting to see come to trial.
.

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

I have heard and interesting theory stating that "anyone" can run for office...but before taking office they have to prove what ever is necessary before the swearing in. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what truly is proper procedure for vetting.

I find this argument very interesting and one that also needs to be legal ironed out so that the buck passing can be stopped. "SOMEONE" has to be responsible and held accountable.

But one fact stands out...Pelosi and Obama knew and understood the process. They lied...is this enough to be treason is my question? Was the intent to defraud or simply a mistake in judgment? These are the questions I am waiting to see come to trial.
.

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=142101

As a usurper and illegal alien...BO could swore anything and it would not be legitimate. So could he be held accountable to upholding the constitution as an illegal? I think he should be held as a spy of the highest order because he has lied his way into being entrusted with the most secret and sensitive of American documents and information. As a covert under cover agent for the Islamic government he should stand charges of treason against America and the American people. T

This is not a joke or a race issue anymore.

MONROE COUNTY TN. CORRUPTION TURNS VIOLENT

By J.B. Williams
August 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

What started out over a year ago as what seemed to be a simple citizen effort to report government wrong-doing in a Treason case against Barack Obama, filed by Retired Navy Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III, turned into something unexpected when the Monroe County justice system obstructed justice and turned its evil sights on the Commander.

Since then, Fitzpatrick has been arrested and jailed twice, humiliated by local character assassination, threatened, roughed up and accused of inciting riot, which in Tennessee code can apparently be used against anyone when three or more citizens attempt to address their local public servants in a public place.

Fitzpatrick now stands trial on a host of rigged charges, all at the hands of local corrupt public servants who seem to have a history of such activity, and a growing tendency to become violent when citizens try to make public the level of crime and corruption in that quaint little Tennessee community.

Corruption becomes Deadly

On Saturday July 17, 2010 – Republican Election Commissioner Jim Miller was brutally murdered in a Chicago mob style slaying and set ablaze in the trunk of his car.

Monroe County Sheriff’s Deputy Capt. Kenny Hope was immediately a “person of interestâ€