A Birther Faces the Real World and backs down

[Dave]

>>This editorial speaks for itself. At some point in our lives, we must all pay for our decisions.
>>
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/op...dowd.html?_r=1

Usurper in Chief?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: December 14, 2010

He can’t handle the truth.

At least not while he’s facing the brig.

Lt. Col. Terry Lakin of the Army had a motley crew of frustrated Birthers at his court-martial here on Tuesday. The decorated Pentagon doctor from Colorado became the movement’s hero when he went on YouTube in March to brazenly urge President Obama to show “honesty and integrity” by releasing his “original signed birth certificate, if you have one.” He vowed to disobey what he called “illegal orders” to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not regard Obama as a legitimate commander in chief.

Originally, Colonel Lakin and his frenzied supporters had wanted to reveal the Ultimate Truth, what they consider the biggest hoax ever perpetrated — that a foreigner, a “Usurper in Chief,” had seized control of the Oval Office.

But then the military judge, Col. Denise Lind, denied a request for President Obama to testify and for his birth certificate to be entered into evidence.

So now the Birthers consider the court-martial part of the dastardly conspiracy. “This whole trial looks like a sham,” said Orly Taitz, a tall blonde California dentist, lawyer and leader in the Birther movement. “I was raised in the Soviet Union. This was worse than what I’ve seen in the Soviet Union.”

If Lakin ever envisioned his court-martial as the slingshot that could bring down a presidency and prove that the Birthers are heroes rather than loonies, he had given up that dream by the time he entered a guilty plea and backed up a not guilty plea with a technicality.

The balding, gray colonel may not have truly changed his beliefs. But he looked small and shaken as he admitted to disobeying orders from his boss, Gordon Roberts, a Medal of Honor recipient. He murmured “Yes, ma’am” over and over in a low voice as the precise Judge Lind pressed him on whether he understood that “the dictates of conscience do not justify disobeying a lawful order.”

Sobered by the prospect of a dishonorable dismissal, losing his pension and serving hard time, as well as facing a panel of military superiors in dress uniforms, Colonel Lakin said the winter had been “a confusing time, a very emotional time for me.” His shoulders slumped, he offered excuses about how he had gotten conflicting advice from lawyers — his defense was underwritten by Birthers.

“I understand that it was my decision, and I made the wrong choice,” he told the judge.

His civilian lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Lakin is innocent of the charge of “missing a movement.” Simply because he missed U.S. Airways Flight 1123 on April 12, which was supposed to be the start of his journey to Fort Campbell, Ky., to join his unit, the lawyer argued, does not mean he couldn’t have gotten another flight or driven.

This was an attempt to get him off on a technicality because Lakin had stated back then that he had no intention of joining the unit at all.

In the voir dire, Puckett asked some colonels who were prospective panelists if they considered the Birther movement to be racist.

While disappointed there wasn’t a more full-throated trial of Obama’s provenance — unlike Lakin, the president is considered by Birthers to be guilty until he proves himself innocent — the Birthers, who had come from all over the country to the trial, stood by their man.

Literally, in the case of Kate Vandemoer, a 55-year-old blogger and hydrologist from North Dakota, who rose with Lakin when he offered his plea.

“I feel very close to him,” said Vandemoer. “This is a very serious national security matter.”

Some argued that whether Obama was born in Hawaii is not really the point; the point is, he’s not “a natural-born citizen.” “You must be born in the U.S. with two parents who are U.S. citizens,” they explained. Obama, they argued, has “a dual allegiance” that makes Americans “sitting ducks.”

“His father was a British Subject,” said a pamphlet passed out by Vandemoer. “He believes he is a Citizen of the world.”

Eldon Bell, a 76-year-old retired Air Force officer and doctor from Rapid City, S.D., said he “drove three days through a damn blizzard just to get here.” Comparing the president to Hitler, another “usurper,” he said “if he is not legitimate, our soldiers serving under him can be tried and hanged like the Nazis at Nuremberg.”

James Haven, a black preacher from New York, dismissed Obama as “the long-legged Mack Daddy, the president of all pimps.”

With the last three presidents, there has been an attempt to go beyond criticism to delegitimization, to paint them as not just wrong, but charlatans who have no right to the job. With Obama, the craziness is infused with biases about race and religion.

But, in the end, the court-martial offers one big truth: President Obama doesn’t have to show Terry Lakin anything. The colonel should have followed orders.

[Riverwind]

Take the col down, give him the full extent of the UCMJ.

There are some who would not be happy no matter what Hawaii showed they would reject it and have. The only fact here is that the President is in fact the commander and chief, just as Truman was when dealing with Macarthur and in the words of Truman, he thought he was dealing with Harry S Truman when in fact he was dealing with the President. The same comes to mind here.

River

[Mac]

Yes, he disobeyed a legitimate order and was subject to trial under the UCMJ.

As for the constitutional issue - being a natural born U.S. Citizen is a requirement for the presidency. Thus, having to provide a valid birth certificate is not a violation of the Constitution.

[Losethem]

Literally, in the case of Kate Vandemoer, a 55-year-old blogger and hydrologist from North Dakota, who rose with Lakin when he offered his plea.

“I feel very close to him,” said Vandemoer. “This is a very serious national security matter.”

Some argued that whether Obama was born in Hawaii is not really the point; the point is, he’s not “a natural-born citizen.” “You must be born in the U.S. with two parents who are U.S. citizens,” they explained. Obama, they argued, has “a dual allegiance” that makes Americans “sitting ducks.”

“His father was a British Subject,” said a pamphlet passed out by Vandemoer. “He believes he is a Citizen of the world.”

What a bunch of f-ing idiots!

They can't even figure out that "natural-born citizen" means born IN the United States. John McCain having been born in Panama has a much more shaky claim to being natural-born than Obama who was born in a US State. *ugh*

These birthers want to extend the definition to both of your parents must be US Citizens... OK, what about all those people born overseas to two US citizen parents and are constitutionally unable to run for President because of that?

While I do not always agree with things, the very definition of being a natural-born citizen is that you were born upon the territory of the United States, end of discussion. The constitution acknowledges this where it talks about presidential qualifications. In addition to being at least 35 years of age, you had to be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen at the time the constitution was adopted. Nobody can pass the test on the second part now that the constitution is 220+ years old.

The birthers just need to go away. They would have supported McCain to their dying breath even though he was less natural-born than Obama.

--LT

[gareth19]

There is no requirement of 'natural born' in the Constitution or in common law; the phrase is 'native born'. They should have learned that fact in junior high civics. Native born means born within the United States or its territories. One's parent's are irrelevant; citizenship is conferred on all people born in the United States or its territories and also all people with at least one parent who possesses American citizenship.

[moi621]

There is no requirement of 'natural born' in the Constitution or in common law; the phrase is 'native born'. They should have learned that fact in junior high civics. Native born means born within the United States or its territories. One's parent's are irrelevant; citizenship is conferred on all people born in the United States or its territories and also all people with at least one parent who possesses American citizenship.

There are exceptions.
Such as citizen parents out of the country or its' territories.
This topic came up back in the Great Year of 1968 when George Romney was running for President.
Y'see
"While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural (oops) born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." "
But, then it goes on to say -
"However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of US citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is inconclusive whether Romney was eligible for the office of President." although no one mentioned this point, then.
I guess George Romney falls into the IOKIYR gang.

Obama is President. His eligibility is de facto. As in, he is the President.
In the Spirit of Move-On,
Get Over It already.
Moi
Not brainwashed, just Moi.

Ref.
My memory and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...campaign,_1968

[alexsmith]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

[moi621]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

Obama is President. His eligibility is de facto. As in, he is the President.
In the Spirit of Move-On,
Get Over It already.
as in Gore did beat Bush and was cheated!

Comprende?
There is a time to let it go and use one's energy for more constructive results then comes from extended fighting.

Never mind. IOKIYR. I forgot.
Moi

[IEunuch]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

The basis of the law in the United States is 'innocent until proven guilty'.
The guy has no obligation to respond to any crackpot with a half-baked theory to prove his innocence. Further, he's clearly passed whatever tests those in charge of things have put forth, in terms of his eligibility for the role.

Prove he wasn't born in the US. That's where the obligation of proof resides.

[Slammr]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

Well, how do we know you were born in the USA. How do I prove I was? I could show you a copy of my birth certificate, and you could say it was Photoshoped or something. Birthers are a bunch of fucking nuts. Copies of his birth certificate have been provided, but of course, the nuts won't accept them. Does any reasonable person actually believe he or anyone could perpetuate such a fraud?

Moreover, both of Honolulu's major newspapers published announcements in August 1961 documenting the birth, in Honolulu, of a son to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama" on 4 August 1961. See a copy of that announcement here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

[Losethem]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

When are you going to make your birth certificate available for full public review?

Are you going to insist on a top to bottom review of every President ever to hold the office, or just Obama?

Obama was born in the US State of Hawaii in 1961. GET OVER IT.

I'm so amazed all these birthers jumped on the "Obama isn't a citizen" bandwagon and never gave John McCain one word of grief for being born in Panama. Would these idiots have been as vocal had McCain won, insisting that he wasn't a legitimate candidate for office, and that any orders he issued to the military were not lawful?

I highly doubt it. They would have found every reason they could to support him because he was more closely aligned with their own political views. They couldn't care less if the person running for president under the Republican party was Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa so long as they had an R after their name.

--LT

[Dave]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

I do not have a copy of my birth certificate. If I were to ask the state of Pennsylvania for a copy, they would send exactly the same thing Hawaii sent to Obama -- a "certificate of live birth (replica)" and that would be it. The paper may not even exist. So was I born in some odd country in 1950? No, a huge hospital that still exists and turned all of its records into electronic forms years ago.

So you can be a birther-jerk and think that Hawaii doesn't exist as a state or that some hospital lied about a birth that happened... or you can accept what everyone else understands as the truth. Electronic records are cheaper. In the case of Orly Taitz and a few other birthers, nothing substitutes for their brains other than a vacuum between their ears. If you whistle in one ear, it echoes like a seashell sounding the sea.

To get back to Terry Larkin, he thought some court was going to give him a platform for airing his ignorance of common record-keeping practices. The court didn't get past his refusing a legitimate order. Why should it. He forgot the motto - keep it simple stupid.

[gareth19]

Well, we still don't have proof that he WAS born in the U.S., do we? Why not?
I make no secret here that I've always been anti-Obama, not because if his ethnicity but because of his politics and the political philosophy of the power group he heads.

Of course we do. There is a record of his birth in Hawaii in their public records office. And his mother's birth certificate is on record as well. So there are TWO independent pieces of evidence that he is indisputably an American citizen. The whereabouts of the hospital certificate his parents were presented is irrelevant. States reissue birth certifcates all the time because of loss or destruction; what makes a birth certificate valid is that it is backed up by the public record, and for Mr. Obama, it is there in Hawaii. You can walk into the building in Honolulu, flip open the volume and see it in the records.

The proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship is just as evident as the proof that the earth is spherical or that the earth revolves around the sun. To not accept these facts, one has to be a closed-minded, pig-headed ideologue, and an intellectual bigot.

[YourPhriendlyAuthor]

But, in the end, the court-martial offers one big truth: President Obama doesn’t have to show Terry Lakin anything. The colonel should have followed orders.

Dave,
BINGO!!!

Col. Lakin was an idiot if he thought he would get *anything* other than a court-martial, and, more than likely, a dishonorable discharge at the *very* least!

RULE: If you're in the military, you follow orders. Period.

If you *don't* follow an order, you'd better have a *damn* strong reason that you didn't, and questioning the President's legitimacy is *not* good enough!

People in the military have the right to refuse to follow an "unlawful order". This is more a matter of, say, refusing an order to kill civilian women and children in wartime - something that's *clearly* a violation of the rules of war - than raising an issue of the Commander in Chief's qualifications, though. Regardless of whether the President is 'legitimate' or not, there's *still* a chain of command that *MUST* be followed! Lakin is a Lt. Colonel; he's got superiors. From my understanding, he went up the chain of command - and to his Congressman - and didn't get the answer that he *wanted*, so he just decided to act like a spoiled brat!

It's *not* the province of the military to question an *elected official's* qualifications; this is what leads to military coups, juntas, and fascist dictators like Mohammar Khadaffi and Saddam Hussein. Evidently, Lakin didn't realize that the *President* is in charge, whether he likes it or not!

Is Obama a legitimate President? ABSOLUTELY!

Definition of citizenship from the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This doesn't necessarily answer the question, so we go to Federal law, i.e., the United States Code (USC); under 8 USC 1401, we get a *precise* definition of what constitutes "citizens at birth":

- - - - - - - - - -

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

...

- - - - - - - - - -

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961, about 2 years *after* it became a state; since he was born in a state that's part of the United States, there's *no* valid question about his birth. Case closed.

Except for the birthers, of course...

Not only are they *completely* wrong, they're *idiots* about it! They say, "Show us the birth certificate"; when they see it, they say it's fake! This is the problem; no matter how much information they're given, they *refuse* to accept it!

Going further, they seem to forget that if *they* are bringing a claim in court, as plaintiffs, *they* have to prove their case! It's not enough for them to tell the court that the *respondent* should have to *disprove* their *unsubstantiated* claim! Quite predictably, they haven't had much luck in the courts so far, and that's *not* likely to change...

It wasn't all that long ago that a movement was afoot to amend the Constitution so that Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger could run for President; it seems that *genuinely* not being born is the U.S.A. *isn't* a big problem if it's a *Republican*...

-YPA

[Dave]

There is a concerted effort out nowadays to make people in office or candidates in office "illegitimate" ...

I think it started with Clinton when the Republicans tried to say he wasn't legit because he didn't get 50% of the vote. Well that just isn't true.

I was still working for the government in 2000 when Bush v Gore hit the fan. Everyone in the government knew what I did at that point, whoever took the podium on January 20th was going to be the president. I might not have agreed with Bush v Gore but that was it. Now I am not sure if GW Bush got to 50% of the popular vote. I simpy don't remember and I'm not going to ook it up. But that doesn't matter. The Electoral College settled the argument. However, saying that Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court made him somehow less than any president before. What silly horseshit. That didn't matter after he was sworn in.

This birther nonsense about Obama just gives people another excuse to rant and rave and not solve a problem. I think that is the sole purpose of Limbaugh and Beck. To a lesser extent the entire of FAUX NEWS. They want to delegitimize the president so he fails. That is the part they never lie about - they want the administration to fail. They want the USA to not be successful so they can blame it on the other side.

It's a cheap assed lazy way to gain power. Rather than do the hard work of governing, make the other side fail. BTW - Watch for this in social groups and other functions. Watch for the member who does nothing but complain or create chaos, especially if they will not step up to the plate and work. I've seen organizations, businesses and social groups fail so many times thanks to one or two members who do no work but create hell for everyone else...

The Armed Forces don't ever let that happen and for obvious reasons.