Exclusive: Highly Decorated Army Surgeon Lt. Col. Terry Lakin Refuses All Military Orders Until Obama Proves He Is a Natural Born Citizen
Margaret Hemenway
A decorated active duty Army medical officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin (selected for promotion to Colonel), is calling upon his chain of command and his Congressional delegation to force President Obama to release his original birth certificate. He is the highest ranking officer to go public over this controversy and in late February, was notified that he is subject to near-term deployment to Afghanistan.
His military orders include a requirement that he provide "copies of his birth certificate." LTC Lakin is prepared to provide a certified copy of his certification of vital record that lists his birth hospital, physician's name and other key information. He has provided this document for many other required processes, such as his commissioning into the military as an officer, and his marriage license.
Lakin has earned the distinction of taking care of many Admirals and Generals since working at the Pentagon, where he serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is the lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin's numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal. He has served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, Korea, and Afghanistan.
LTC Lakin, a native of Colorado whose residency is Tennessee, has explained to his superiors that he cannot understand how his Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution does not allow military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from the Commander-in-Chief. In fact, efforts on his part to seek affirmation of the President's constitutional eligibility have been met with legal evasions. Yet in an open and free society, and especially given Obama's governmental "transparency" initiative, many American citizens are demanding to know the truth. So when the White House launched its transparency initiative online last year, and the website was instantly swamped with emails demanding release of Obama's original birth certificate, it was significant that the website's assurance to answer any question was quickly removed.
LTC Lakin's refusal to obey orders (including his deployment orders) puts him at risk of court-martial. A website, SafeguardourConstitution.com, outlines his efforts to seek the truth and prepare for his legal defense. It would be wrong for an officer to be punished for asking a straightforward question merely because no one in the military hierarchy or on Capitol Hill is willing to provide a substantive answer (members of Congress have the obligation of representing constituents and also are sworn to uphold the Constitution). At least one Tennessee Congressional office (Congressman Zach Wamp) forwarded LTC Lakin's inquiry to the Department of Defense; the Army responded by letter to Rep. Wamp indicating that LTC Lakin's Article 138 complaint (a legal avenue for redress allowed service members for grievances against commanding officers) was deficient and that "the President as Commander-in-Chief is not a commanding officer for the purposes of Article 138 and therefore, no complaint against him may be addressed through this procedure." Yet another representative from the Volunteer State (Tennessee) Marsha Blackburn, co-sponsored legislation introduced by Congressman Bill Posey to require candidates to fix the problem of the lack of a formal process for vetting candidates for "natural born" eligibility.
The Western Journalism Center released an authoritative explanation of the Obama birth controversy that helps to explain the confusion on Capitol Hill which revolves mostly around Obama's online Certification of Live Birth (COLB):
"The Certification of Live Birth is not a copy of the original birth certificate. It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is 'on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.' And there is the problem. Given the statutes in force in 1961, the Certification of Live Birth proves nothing unless we know what is on the original birth certificate. There are several legal areas (involving ethnic quotas and subsidy) for which the state of Hawaii up until June 2009 did not accept its computer-generated Certification of Live Birth as sufficient proof of birth - or parentage - in Hawaii. Why should the citizens of the United States be content with lower standards for ascertaining the qualifications of their President?"
The Obama campaign is to a large degree responsible for the birthplace controversy by at first claiming that Obama was born at Queens Hospital and, at another time, claiming that he was born at Kapioliani Hospital. These conflicting assertions, combined with reports of his paternal grandmother's insistence to an interviewer that he was born in Kenya; and the break-in to the Obama passport file at the State Department (at least one news report alleged the file was cauterized) by an employee of The Analysis Corp., a firm headed by one of Obama's top advisers (John Brennan) have all contributed to escalating demands for Obama to document his "natural born" citizenship status.
Additionally, the Ambassador to the US from Kenya (Peter Ogego) asserted in a radio interview in November 2008 that the President was born in Kenya. A Kenyan Anabaptist minister also provided an affidavit, attesting to a conversation with a civil employee of the Kenyan Government, a Principal Registrar, who confirmed Obama's birth in Kenya on August 4, 1961, but said his file was classified.
Obama should release his original birth certificate and put an end to relentless speculation over whether he meets the Constitutional fitness test for the nation's highest office. Original documentation for 1961 from the hospital or Department of Health can resolve this point without in any way compromising Obama's privacy or subjecting him to the danger of identity theft.
Patriotic citizens serving in uniform preparing to go into harm's way deserve to be treated with respect and forthrightness - and they need to know whether the Commander in Chief is lawfully entitled to serve in this capacity, or not
The President's people already released what they had long ago and it was immediately deemed a fake by the political opposition. There is nothing else he can do, nor is he required to.
I realize to some people that this is old .. but I keep asking. WHY?
The Presidents "people??" WHY doesn't the President himself give up college documents.. birth certificate.. and other papers that all the other Presidents had no problem releasing on themselves...
Why... why why why why why.................?
Even the biggest fools have the common sense to know that..................
Children.. old people.. young people.. ANY person ANYWHERE ( if they have nothing to hide or haven't lied about) will give up simple things of this nature..Common knowledge stuff.. a birth certificate? ...and where you went to college and got your "supposedly" degree??
Only when you have lied or have something to hide do you keep things of this nature from the people of the United States.
.............everything about him reeks of falseness from his origins to everything he stands for.
He's a phony corrupt liar, who in my opinion is NOT legally able to hold this office.
He knows it too.. or those documents would have been turned over at the beginning.
Just heard about this on the radio..so did a little research...
Its everywhere so it wasn't too hard to find.. but you know, conservatives.. Tea Party patriots and other average Americans get a hard time from the "mainstream" media and others on the Left because some have doubts about whether President Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
WorldNetDaily reports this video was posted just a couple of days ago and has gone viral. Michelle Obama said in a 2008 speech to the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee: "When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test."
Unfortunately this isn't the first time we've been told Barack Obama was born in Kenya. His grandmother said she was present for his birth in Kenya, and an AP story in the Sunday Standard in 2004 refers to him as "Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama..."
Some people keep saying..."Does this really matter much at this point?"
My answer is I think it matters very much. A LOT of folks need their noses rubbed in the stink of this usurpation of the Presidency. (if, indeed, he was not a natural born US citizen, which I think is a 95%+ possibility). And it would be nice if the media and other liberals would cut conservatives a little slack for having doubts about Obama's birthplace. After all, it seems to be folks on the Left and folks close to Barack Obama who are the ones telling us he was born in Kenya.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/michelle-obama-baracks-home-country-in-kenya/
*Notice also how she speaks of Barrack with the same reverence as a preacher would speak of the Lord while giving a sermon. :P
41 second mark:
The media in particular need to have the spotlight of shame focused upon them and every fool who just believed he must be a natural born citizen with mounting proof that he was not.
For practical purposes, yes also. His 'reign' needs to end. The Armed Forces deserve better than a Phony In Chief as their leader. They are willing to die at the orders of the POTUS regardless of whether or not they agree with his policies and they deserve... at leas...., a leader who is qualified by the Constitution that they have sworn an oath to defend... to hold that office.
The President's first act is to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. To do so while not legally eligible for that office by that very Constitution is the ultimate degradation of our Nation... the Constitution and the People.
In my opinion....Treason and Sedition are understatements of the crimes this would entail.[/color][/b]
I certainly don't have the absolute answer to this question, but I will always maintain if the Republican party as a whole, and the campaign players in particular, had real proof they would have used it over and over and over. They didn't....doesn't that tell you something? Even John McCain stated that Obama is a citizen. It never came up in any of the debates. I never heard anyone just come right out and ask him directly. I never heard anybody with any real neutral credibility talk about it. The Constitution doesn't say "prove it." I'm not defending him, I just don't see any indisputable proof that he isn't. If I said I went to my mother's home country, it would be Scotland, but that wouldn't mean I meant she was born there. Most people now seem to need to decide what any- body says "really" means, in some cases picking it apart line by line. Too many people are reading the National Enquire! ;) Some times what people say are just words, no hidden meanings, no other agenda.
I think a high ranking military person trying to blackmail his Commander In Chief is ridiculous and will lead to nothing except publicity for his next job.
It is lt col's duty to stand up and ask. He swore to uphold the constitution and defend it. IF he has doubts that the CIC is
not qualified to hold the office and has usurped the presidency through fraud and deceit, then it is his duty to bring it into the light.
If we can ever get the truth, and it finds that obama is not a natural born citizen, treason and sedition are just two of the crimes he has committed along with fraud and violation of untold federal laws across the united states. It will invalidate his election entirely and all changes made during his administration will have to be undone entirely.
It is sad that he managed to get office without having to prove citizenship. I have to prove citizenship every time i go apply for a job, why doesn't he?? Sorry but he has to abide by the same laws i do.
So then every other officer is negligant by keeping quiet?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 09, 2010, 03:18:06 PM
So then every other officer is negligant by keeping quiet?
If they believe obama is a fraud...absolutely!
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 09, 2010, 02:03:39 PM
I certainly don't have the absolute answer to this question, but I will always maintain if the Republican party as a whole, and the campaign players in particular, had real proof they would have used it over and over and over. They didn't....doesn't that tell you something?I think a high ranking military person trying to blackmail his Commander In Chief is ridiculous and will lead to nothing except publicity for his next job.
Look at the time and money spent on covering and sealing obamas past...speaks volumes. As for the high ranking military person...If that person believes that an order he is given is unlawful or immoral he/she has a right and a duty to question those orders, and in fact flatly refuse them. That is why the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't work. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is specific about this.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 09, 2010, 03:18:06 PM
So then every other officer is negligant by keeping quiet?
Pretty much. do you know what dokimos means? Dokimos means
1. accepted, particularly of coins and money.
2. accepted, pleasing, acceptable
In the ancient world there was no banking system as we knowtoday, and no paper money. All money was made from metal, heated until liquid, poured into moulds and allowed to cool. The coins were comparatively soft and of course many people shaved them closely. In one century, more than eighty laws were passed in Athens, to stop the practice of shaving down the coins then in circulation. But some money changers were men of integrity, who would accept no counterfeit money. They were men of honour who put only genuine full weighted money into circulation. Such men were called "dokimos" or "approved".
You then have the word adokimos which means...
1. not standing the test, not approved
1. properly used of metals and coins
2. that which does not prove itself such as it ought
1. unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate
You see, there is a test that one must meed to be dokimos. If you do not pass that test, your not the real deal, the genuine article, a fraud, a phony, a reprobate.
The test for the office of the president is that he be a natural born citizen among other things. A Natural born, not naturalized. IF he cannot prove that he is not qualified, not Good enough to be president. The fact that he refuses to produce the documents to prove this, he cannot be considered to be the genuine thing. He is a fraud a imposter, a reprobate if he takes the office in which he is not entitled to take.
You cannot get the title of Dokimos if you cannot pass the test.
There is no gray area in this. THe Constitution is clear. If he is as at least half of America suspects not a natural born citizen, then he has usurped the office of the presidency and is in fact a traitor and has committed sedition.
Any officer that does not investigate and try to verify that he is genuine, is not doing his job to defend and protect the constituion as obama has already successfully launced an attack against it and the people it defends.
Guilt by association is a chargeable crime. If you ignore a crime, you are implicit in its execution....
;D Is spelling surgeon wrong a crime? ;D ;D ;D Am I a criminal too by letting someone get away with it and not speaking up? Yes, I know it's not the same thing, but I know it will drive at least two people on here crazy, so I'm having a little fun. (Once a teacher always a teacher. If I hadn't just recently been given a load of crap I would never have said anything.) As far as shaving coins, I do know about that. We have marks on our coin edges just for that reason.
Nobody will answer my original question. I know all about the requirements for president, learned them in Jr. High and got tested on 'em. Why did the Republican Party let it go? If they were so hot to trot to capture the Presidency, they should have used that at every opportunity and they didn't. I want to know why. Why wasn't it illegal to put Obama's name on the ballot? Why weren't the printers who printed the ballots arrested? Why weren't the people who distributed the ballots arrested? There is your guilt by association. Why is Lakin bringing this up now, more than a year after the election? Why didn't the Republican party start impeachment proceedings right after the election? I'm not trying to defend Obama, I just don't get it.
Well Lakin probably had reservations at first, like most people. I don't know what events came to light that we don't necessarily know about that made him come to this decision. I do know he is not doing so lightly. His life and career are on the line. No one in the military will stand up and refuse a order unless they are sure that the order is a illegal order.
Ask some of the military guys here about refusing a illegal order. They know full well what would facilitate their refusing a order.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 09, 2010, 09:15:46 PM
Nobody will answer my original question. Why did the Republican Party let it go? If they were so hot to trot to capture the Presidency, they should have used that at every opportunity and they didn't. I want to know why. Why wasn't it illegal to put Obama's name on the ballot? Why weren't the printers who printed the ballots arrested? Why weren't the people who distributed the ballots arrested? There is your guilt by association. Why is Lakin bringing this up now, more than a year after the election? Why didn't the Republican party start impeachment proceedings right after the election? I'm not trying to defend Obama, I just don't get it.
For the most part, the Republicans don't want to. There have been a few but the majority of them know that if they push the issue to hard then they will be branded a "racist" by the mainstream media and lose minority votes. For them it is not about the Constitution or doing what is right, it never has been, it is about maintaining their position and power. If obama remains president he gives the republicans a scapegoat, they can point to him and his policies and say "Look at all the damage he's done" and shift the attention away from them and their failed policies. You have to remember that in general, Americans have a very limited attention span and an even shorter memory. Come election time, Republicans will say "hey, put us back in power and we can fix this mess", and they will probably get a majority back in the House, and we will go back to the same old policies that led us here in the first place. And come time for the next presidental election, Republicans will play the same card that obama did. They'll say that they inherited all these problems from a democratic adminstration, and a republican will gain the presidency. Our economy will still be in the toliet, our military will still be in iraq and afghanistan for nothing. And we will still be stuck with a two party system that has failed miserably.
We hear a lot of talk about the future of our country. We hear a lot of talk about what we are leaving our children. Yet the thing that no one wants to admit is that our childrens future is royally screwed. We are over 12 trillion in debt, and rising. We will never pay that off, ever. Our freedoms are being stripped away on an almost daily basis and we sit back and allow it to happen. The question is why? I say it is because a majority of americans have never had to fight for anything, it has always been given to them. And those that have had to fight have lost the stomach for it. No one wants to admit that the only way to save the last bastion of freedom on the planet is by employing the same forces that birthed it. Our Founders knew this. These men that we place on high pedestals knew that King George wasn't going to change his mind or policies just because the colonies protested. They knew that the only way freedom can be gained and protected was through violence and bloodshed. People that would be free must be willing to sacriface everything for that freedom, thats what makes it so special and sacred. As a country we have lost that mindset. We have exchanged it for one that sees the ballot box as our only means of defense.
"Vote the bastards out!" has become the mantra of those seeking change. Even now, with the Tea Party movement growing everyday, what is the message that Washington hears?..."Wait until November, we'll show you!!" Really? Will anything really change? I mean, I applaud their efforts but lets be honest, Washington hasn't listened in over 200 years, what makes these people think that they'll start listening now? The ballot box only does one thing, it exhanges one set of problems for another. As evidenced by our history.
With each new election the only real change we see is a growth of government and more loss of liberty. And yet, like a bunch of lemmings, we still pursue the same line of action thinking things will change, by it very definition thats insanity.
When Patrick Henry gave his Liberty or Death speech the country faced the things we do now. Our protests are mocked, our petitions laughed at, our pleas are scorned. What other recourse do we have?
If those in power chose not to hear our voices, then they must be made to hear the thundering of our rifles.
So then the founding fathers were wrong? They set the 200+ year old Gov't on the road to failure? If they didn't listen to you then and still don't, what's the point? Children of the corn? Kill Congress every 4 years and put in new? If you (plural) "take" Washington by force and by weapon, you'll only keep it by weapon, and that is also the end of the republic and liberty as we know it . What if you lose? What is your exit plan? Will we be some hybrid of Thailand and Cuba? Will the presidency no longer exist?
As far as your kids' futures go, I'm sure they will deal with it in their own way, just like we did, and our parents did. (I notice nobody talks about the bailout money that IS being paid back by the bailout banks.) Yes, I agree there is a see saw effect that goes on between and among the parties. That's why I'm a stubborn Independent.
Ok, so you wipe out Washington, then what. You have littered the Capitol steps with dead bodies then what? Is your blood lust quenched? Ya gonna open the treasury and give all the money back to the states? How? Who is authorised to do it? How do you decide which state gets how much? I don't know what guide lines you'll use for that. Are you going to engage us immediately in a war with whomever you are mad at ? How will you pay for it?
Talk is cheap and spitting is easy. I really wonder how many of those "fist in the air people" would be willing to fire the first shot. Really, I hope I don't sound like I'm picking on you because you did answer my question, but I just can't agree that trying to take Washington by force sends the message you think it does. There is another under current out there that would like to sneak in when they think you aren't looking.They want another Civil War so the south can win this time.
I'm just doing some free thinking and tossing out ideas. I don't know if some of venom on the phone tapes that are being played on TV are just alcohol bravery or what, but it's very concerning . Some nut case will eventually shoot someone and you all will get the blame for inciting it, and once again Americans will be killing Americans. I just don't think that's what the founder fathers had in mind. Like it or not, the members of congress were elected. Why kill them?
Why not just buy them off like everyone else is accused of doing. Get to the Americans with money. Buy a lobbyist. Go for the egos. Speak the language you think they understand. Going at it like playground bullies probably isn't the way.
No. The founders set us on a course, that if held true, would ensure freedom. But our compass no longer works and we continue to get further and further off course. You say that if we take washington by force we can only keep it by force. How do you think washington maintains its power?...By the threat of force.
In order to change our direction and set this country back on track we have to elimate the "something for nothing" mindset. That won't come easily. It means tearing everything down and starting over. Rebuilding on the principles of the Founders and the Constitution. That means no more welfare for those that can work, no more letting politicans get away with murder while the rest of us tow the line, it means getting back to the belief that we cannot seperate Christan morals and values from our laws.
As far as redistributing everything, we would have to count it as a loss. Like I said, start over. In the event of another Civil War or Revolution the events that must follow the first shots would provide an oppurtuinity to seperate the wheat from the chaff as it were. Folks would be made to fend for themselves for a change. There could be no more fence riders, people would be forced to choose sides, there would be no more going along to get along. Which is what has led us to the point we are at now.
Do you think the big business interests that have massive amounts of money will let that happen?
Quote from: Varmit on April 10, 2010, 10:13:29 PM
There could be no more fence riders, people would be forced to choose sides, there would be no more going along to get along. Which is what has led us to the point we are at now.
So essentially, the United Fascist of America under Varmit.... either you agree or you are out.
Obviously Jerry you do not understand what fascism is about. Secondly, you seem to support the communist ideals of screwing peter to pay paul. That and any derivative of communism has been proven to not work either.
Third, this country is not a democracy, nor has it ever been. So your mob rule ideology is way out of line. LOL even the most liberal liberal in 1776 is a far right conservative compared to todays liberal.
Quote from: jerry wagner on April 11, 2010, 02:28:45 PM
So essentially, the United Fascist of America under Varmit.... either you agree or you are out.
What part of " Rebuilding on the principles of the Founders and the Constitution" didn't you understand??
Quote from: Varmit on April 11, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
What part of " Rebuilding on the principles of the Founders and the Constitution" didn't you understand??
That scares the hell out of him, cause thier principles do not coincide with his.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 11, 2010, 02:10:39 PM
Do you think the big business interests that have massive amounts of money will let that happen?
Actually, I think that most, not all, but most would. It would mean a business enviroment with a lot less government interference, which would mean even more money for them.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 11, 2010, 02:10:39 PM
Do you think the big business interests that have massive amounts of money will let that happen?
Not much they can do about it. Essentially, if we as the people were to take back our country, All debts would be cancelled since those debts were incurred under a non existant corporation. :)
Quote from: Varmit on April 11, 2010, 08:37:27 PM
Actually, I think that most, not all, but most would. It would mean a business enviroment with a lot less government interference, which would mean even more money for them.
Shoot if we could just get the politicians out of the way, we could get everyone a job inside of a year. ALl you would have to do is make all businesses tax exempt. That would bring the foreign companies here to do business and create more high paying jobs than we have workers for.
True. But I would rather have American companies bring jobs back home.
How many years would it take to accomplish all that? Aren't some people going to starve in the meantime?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 12, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
How many years would it take to accomplish all that? Aren't some people going to starve in the meantime?
How many years? Almost immediately you would have companies starting up here in this country. They would be americans that would risk all to start a business if they didn't have the tax to contend with.
Within 6 months foreign companies would setup shop here, and start hiring. In 1 year major companies would be here, and within 2 years unemployment would be around 2% which means that it isn't people are out of a job but in between jobs ect ect....
fastest way to create jobs is to cut the taxation out. The congress's problem is they are so short sighted that they can't see the forrest for the trees. by cutting taxes out, you increase employment that means more income, and if you cut out fed taxes then implement a flat or sales tax, then it would bring in more revenue than they are bringing in currently.
THey think that by the imbedded taxation on all products their getting more money when in all reality their killing the golden goose.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 12, 2010, 09:28:47 AM
How many years would it take to accomplish all that? Aren't some people going to starve in the meantime?
Yeah. Probably. But if they are abled bodied, they have no one to blame but themselves.
So you have no room in your plan for people who are old or less than able bodied for one reason of another? Our returning seriously injured vets for one.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 16, 2010, 09:47:43 AM
So you have no room in your plan for people who are old or less than able bodied for one reason of another? Our returning seriously injured vets for one.
You know what, thats part of military budget which is constitutionally mandated.
I watched your "interview" with Lieutenant Colonel Lakin the other night, Anderson Cooper. I assumed you would be hostile, but I never anticipated the level of boorishness I witnessed. You are a disgrace to journalism—if one could even say you are in that profession. You spoke for most of the eight minutes, repeatedly and rudely interrupting Colonel Lakin and his attorney. Your impolite demand that only Colonel Lakin answer your questions suggests you do not understand that a court martial in the Army is akin to a trial in civilian court. Colonel Lakin clearly has to be careful with his public statements because they can be taken out of context and misrepresented.... as you were clearly eager to do. The contempt you showed for your guests was palpable, despite your praise of Colonel Lakin's service.... which you obviously tossed in as cover for your attacks. I have to admit that I had thought MSNBC's Chris Matthews was the king of rude interruptions, but you gave him some competition with your Lakin interview. (If Matthews refuses to give up his throne, perhaps you can settle for being queen.) ....Warph May 07, 2010 — Washington, D.C., May 5, 2010. Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who is being court-martialled by the Army for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan because the President refuses --even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary-- to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office, has appeared with his attorney in a live interview on CNNs top-rated Anderson Cooper 360 program.
The court martial process, which begins with the militarys equivalent of a preliminary hearing in a civilian court, known as an Article 32 Investigation (referring to the provision found in that section in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) was just commenced when on May 3, 2010, LTC Lakin was notified that the hearing would take place May 6, 2010. My immediate request for a continuance was granted within hours. A new date will be set soon, most likely in the first two weeks in June, said Paul Rolf Jensen, LTC Lakins civilian counsel. Assisting Jensen in his defense of Lakin is a very experienced senior member of the Armys Judge Advocate Generals corps.
The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, in the one month since establishing a fund to provide a legal defense to LTC Lakin, has received generous donations from more than 1,200 separate individuals. Details are available on the Foundations website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Here is A. Cooper's video interview of LT.COL. Larkin:The Liberal media needs to understand some basics:A Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a short form birth certificate, a mere abstract based on general information contained in a state's computer files. It is not a long form birth certificate, which contains the details of the birth such as the baby's height and weight, the name of the hospital, and the signature of the attending physician and witnesses. (Your statement that the state of Hawaii accepts the short form as proof of birth and citizenship is misleading; you neglected to mention that Hawaii has traditionally required the long form as documentation, but changed its rules after the controversies over Obama's birth certificate arose. In other words, Hawaii is providing cover for Obama—as are you.)
If Obama's birth was reported as an at-home birth (perhaps by his grandmother), the state of Hawaii would nevertheless have registered the birth, issued a birth certificate, and reported the event to the local newspapers for their published birth notices. Yet there would be no physician or hospital documentation. At-home births were much more common in 1961 than they are today, and Hawaii was no exception. Some assume that Obama is preventing the release of his long form birth certificate because it reflects an at-home, undocumented birth—which would further support suspicions that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii. (One can assume that Obama is not overly sensitive about his birth height or birth weight; thus one can only speculate about what he is hiding from the public. As Colonel Lakin's attorney stated, if Obama releases the long form document he can end the speculation. That Obama is instead spending a fortune on attorneys to fight its release cannot help but lead people to wonder, "What is he hiding?")
A natural born citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil to two U.S-citizen parents.
A naturalized citizen is a citizen of another country who subsequently becomes a U.S. citizen.
A native born citizen is a citizen who was born on U.S. soil.
A citizen can be any of the above. But, just as all trees are plants, not all plants are trees. All citizens are not natural born citizens. The media has improperly (and perhaps intentionally) led Americans to believe that "born in the USA" makes one a natural born citizen. That is not the case.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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." If the drafters of the Constitution had intended that simply having been born in the United States was sufficient, they would have used the term "native born" rather than "natural born." Further, there would have been no need for the words "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" to have been included. Those words were needed because in 1787 no one was a natural born of the United States. George Washington himself was not a natural born citizen of the United States. His parents were born in Virginia but were British citizens. Washington was also born in Virginia, but he was not a natural born citizen because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Simply put, the language of Article II, Section 8 makes no sense if one interprets "natural born citizen"—as you and many others do—as meaning nothing more than having been born on U.S. soil.
Despite the fuss made over Obama's birthplace, Obama's place of birth is technically irrelevant. Even if he was born on U.S. soil, he is not a natural born citizen because his parents were not both U.S. citizens. The issue has nothing to do with what people "believe" about Obama's place of birth. The issue is whether we should follow the U.S. Constitution and its inclusion of the term natural born citizen—a term which has historically never meant anything but being born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents. That you and many other Americans have not read and do not understand the Constitution does not mean it should be ignored or discarded.
Relevant or not, Obama is clearly hiding his long form birth certificate because it contains something he does not want made public. And you are misleading viewers—intentionally, no doubt—by trying to confuse the short form birth document with the long form birth certificate, and by using the concept of native born as though it means natural born; it does not.
This is not a partisan issue or a race issue, despite media propaganda to the contrary. It is a Constitutional issue. Obama's politics and race are irrelevant to the issue of his eligibility to serve as president. The Republican Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, is also ineligible to serve as president—even though media pundits and news anchors continue to mention him as a possible candidate in 2012. Governor Jindal was born in the United States, but his parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. They were in the United States on student visas, and they later became naturalized U.S. citizens. I do not doubt their patriotism or love of this country, or the Governor's. And I would certainly rather he be in the Oval Office than Obama. But the U.S. Constitution should either be followed—or we are a lawless nation ruled by whim. You may prefer whim; I prefer the law of the land.
Jindal cannot be president; Obama should not. Obama is an illegal usurper of the office. Colonel Lakin knows it; I know it; and objective Constitutional scholars know it. The Justices of the Supreme Court also know it—but they are no doubt fearful that they will be forced to rule on the issue.D. Yardley Portman
WSJournal
Knowing what a hot topic this all is, why in the world did the lawyer let his client go on that show? We all know the kinds of heavy handed questions all of the interviewers on these shows, no matter which one, can ask. They do it to keep the boss happy.Why did the lawyer let this happen? I'd fire him.
Yeah.... good question, Diane. I know I was thoroughly pissed at Cooper for doing what he did. I do believe that Larkin's lawyer did the right thing but it backfired. The lawyer probably felt the publicity would help Larkin by going to the people through CNN. CNN probably felt that was the reasoning on the lawyers part and had Anderson Cooper cream him and Larkin. (He should have picked FOX for the interview) I'm afraid if something isn't done by the WH, he'll be reassigned by a Army Court Martial to Fort Leavenworth as a private. I do think this will not look good on Obama if Larkin is convicted and sent to Leavenworth especially, if by some miracle, it finally comes out that Obama was born in Africa. If I were Obama, I'd be sweating bullets over this court martial. I have a feeling that the WH may step in. Anyway, Larkin refused this week to report to Fort Campbell, KY for deployment to Afghanistan, but instead showed up at the Pentagon, where he was confronted by his brigade Commander Col. Gordon Roberts. Lakin was informed by Roberts that he would face court martial, and his Pentagon building pass and government laptop computer were seized. We'll see what happens.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/terry-lakins-letter-to-potus.html
Terry Lakin Letter to POTUS
March 30, 2010:
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity--the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name that should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute.
In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his "natural born" status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.
I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.
Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.
Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.
Respectfully,
// Terry Lakin
Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Hard Facts
Since 2008, an ongoing controversy has raged as to whether President Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as claimed. Barack Obama has rejected all demands for the public release of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, which would presumably include the actual hospital that performed the delivery and the name of the attending physician at the birth.
The U.S. Constitution requires that no one can be sworn into office as President of the United States without being a "natural born" citizen.
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."
The Senate approved Senate Resolution 511 on 4/30/2008, recognizing that Presidential candidate John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. The Senate was silent with regard to candidate Barack Obama's "natural born" status.
Since only citizens who are "natural born" Americans are eligible for election to the presidency, if Barack Obama was born outside of the United States, he cannot constitutionally hold the office to which he was elected in 2008. This status is only established at birth, and can never be won or gained.
The Obama campaign posted an online, computer-generated document, a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which it offered as a birth record. The truth is, this document could have been created recently by submission of sworn statements, even if no document from 1961 existed. This COLB is not a standard birth certificate. It lacks common, standard identifiers such as a hospital name and an attending physician signature.
Adding to the confusion, the Obama campaign provided two different hospital names at one time- Queen's and Kapiolani. NO ONE has ever vouched for the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii in August 1961. No doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, friends, or neighbors. However, since the beginning of 2009 there seems to have been a change from Queen's Hospital to Kapiolani as the place of birth. The Washingon Post and Wikipedia (presumably at the suggestion or with the approval of people associated with Barack Obama) now claim that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, even though Kapiolani Hospital refuses to confirm or deny the truth of this statement or to provide a copy of a hospital birth certificate or record.
However, Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, stated that Obama was born in Kenya. (affidavit) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18010847/Berg-v-Obama-Kweli-Shuhubia-Affidavit
A Kenyan, an Anabaptist Minister. testified that a civil registrar affirmed Obama's birth at Coast Province Hospital in Mombosa, Kenya. (affidavit) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18010847/Berg-v-Obama-Kweli-Shuhubia-Affidavit
A United Press International report from Nov. 4, 2008 states:
"Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961..."
Kenya's Ambassador to the U.S., Peter Ogego, affirmed Obama's birth in Kenya in a November 2008 radio interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14
A United Press International report from Nov. 4, 2008 states: "Obama described his birth at Queen's Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961..."
Update: Now UPI scrubbed the story (without explicit notice of update via the following screen capture (confirmed via Google's cache).
Update: The previous link for the Google cache of the below has similarly been changed. (copy of screen shot from WorldNetDaily):
The MyBarackObama.com campaign website cites his birthplace as Queen's Medical Center.
Extract: "Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii..."
See the charges:
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf-14-chargesheet.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/
Press Release DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN REFUSES ALL MILITARY ORDERS BECAUSE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DOCUMENT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
Court Martial Likely, Legal Defense Fund Established
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010. "I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president's eligibility under the constitution to hold office", said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team. Details are available on the foundation's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
Article II, sec. 1 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly provides that only "natural born" citizens can serve as president and commander-in-chief. Mr. Obama's continuing refusal to release his original 1961 birth certificate has brought Lt. Col. Lakin to the point where he feels his orders are unlawful, and thus MUST be disobeyed.
Lakin has today informed his superiors that he cannot understand how his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" does not permit military officers to pursue proof of eligibility from his commander-in-chief. Lt. Col. Lakin's efforts to seek affirmation of the president's eligibility have been rebuffed with legal evasions. Given the Obama Administration's "transparency" initiative, many U.S. citizens are also demanding release of the original birth certificate.
Lakin serves as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic and is lead Flight Surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. His numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon's Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forced Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the NATO service medal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press Release April 7, 2010
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
WRITTEN PLEA TO PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED FROM DECORATED ARMY PHYSICIAN THREATENED WITH COURT-MARTIAL FOR REFUSING TO OBEY ALL ORDERS...
_________________________________
YouTube video has had over 100,000 hits in just one week...
Legal Defense Fund growing....
Washington, D.C., April 8, 2010. Army Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, who has officially received a written warning from his brigade commander threatening him with court-martial, has today released the text of his written plea to President Obama to make public documents proving his eligibility to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief. A copy of LTC Lakin's full letter to the President, dated March 30, 2010, can be viewed at: www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
The letter, which is LTC Lakin's plea that the President uphold the Constitution, stated, "My officer's oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate." The letter states that LTC Lakin will provide his birth certificate and deploy as ordered, if the President will do the same.
Lakin's letter continues, "Please assure the American people that you are indeed Constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm's way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed."
Lakin concluded his letter as follows: "Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are Constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders."
On March 30, 2010, the American Patriot Foundation posted on YouTube a video of LTC Lakin explaining his position: "I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the President's eligibility under the Constitution to hold office," he states in the video, which was viewed more than 100,000 times in the first week of its release.
The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, has received hundreds of donations to the legal defense fund established for LTC Lakin in less than one week.
----END----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press Release April 13 2010: You Have the Right to Remain Silent
American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com
PRESS RELEASE
CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL RECIPIENT TO LTC LAKIN:
"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"
_________________________________
Obama Continues to Refuse to Release Birth Certificate;
Army Doctor's Pentagon Access Pass Revoked; Computer Seized
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the "right to remain silent" because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation's highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin's Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii's records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely "prima facie"--threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive --evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF's website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
----END----