Army Calls Obama Eligibility Doctor's Bluff

Remember Lt. Col./Dr. Terry Lakin, the courageous Army surgeon who’s risking court martial by challenging Obama’s constitutional elibility to give out orders as commander-in-chief? Lakin has vowed not to deploy to Afghanistan with his unit unless the Punk provides evidence that he’s a “natural born” citizen of the United States.
Lakin is the chief of primary care at the Pentagon’s Tricare health clinic. He has a record of distinguished service. He has deployed previously as the flight surgeon for 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, in Afghanistan. He was named the Army Medical Department’s Flight Surgeon of the Year for 2004 and has been selected for promotion to colonel.
The Army first “suggested” to Lakin that he get a medical evaluation, including a brain scan, thereby implying that anyone who questions the Punk’s eligibility must be insane.
Next, the Army threatened to court martial the good doctor who, if found guilty, would be dismissed from service and imprisoned.
Now, the Army is calling Lakin’s bluff by presenting him with an official letter directing him to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., on April 12 to begin deployment preparations with his unit.
lakin4.9th.jpg

It’s guts ball time for…Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin…. In spite of the letter, Lakin has not yet yielded, although he ultimately might. When contacted by Military.com, he would not say whether he would report for duty as ordered. Instead, he referred inquiries to Margaret Hemenway, a spokeswoman for the Patriotic American Foundation, a group raising money to defend Lakin should he be prosecuted.
“Unless there is a breakthrough, unless there is a willingness to give [Lakin] the documentation he requests to show that the commander-in-chief is legally in the job … he won’t be able to follow those orders” to report, said Hemenway. Lakin’s refusal to deploy, Hemenway said, is in keeping with a vow not to obey any order he is given until he is satisfied that Obama was born in the United States.
In the letter of counseling, Lakin is told that his deployment orders “are presumed to be valid and lawful orders issued by competent military authority” and he is warned there will be consequences to disobeying them. “Failure to follow your reassignment and/or deployment orders may result in adverse action, including court-martial,” the letter reads. “Should you fail to report to Fort Campbell in accordance with your orders and deploy, your actions may constitute a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These violations may include being absent without leave — AWOL — missing movement, willfully disobeying a lawful order and contempt toward officials.”
Conviction of any of the charges at a court-martial could result in a dishonorable discharge, the letter states, as well as loss of all pay and allowances, and imprisonment.
It’s also possible that the officer with 18 years of service could be let go with either a general but honorable discharge or a discharge under “other than honorable” conditions, according to the letter. Additionally, Lakin could lose his military retirement and veterans’ benefits, and the letter advised him to seek legal counsel “before embarking on a course of conduct which you may quickly regret.”

No doubt Dr. Lakin is counting on a court martial leading the judge to demand that Obama’s lawyers produce his birth documents as proof of his constitutional eligibility to be commander-in-chief and president. Alas, a military lawyer is pouring cold water on that hope, without however explaining why. What’s the legal reasoning or precedent? According to military.com reporter Jordan:

Phil Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate general who now practices military law as a civilian, said that even if Lakin does decide to deploy as scheduled, the Army still may be able to prosecute him. Under Article 88, Cave said, a servicemember can be charged for making disrespectful comments or remarks about the president.
Cave believes that Lakin’s supporters in the birther movement hope that a court-martial will give defense attorneys the authority to seek, through discovery, other documents to help make their case.
“They think that by using [servicemembers in a court-martial] they can get discovery like you could in any criminal prosecution,” he said. “That ain’t gonna happen. They’re not going to have discovery where they’re going to get the president to produce a birth certificate because, I’m reasonably certain, no military judge, no appellate court and no federal court, and no U.S. Supreme Court is going to say they have a right to get that as a matter of discovery.”

Lakin is not the first servicemember to challenge the Punk’s elibility. Last July, the Army yanked Afghanistan deployment orders for Maj. Stefan Cook when he challenged Obama’s legitimacy in court. Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, another doctor, went to federal court to stop her Iraq deployment for the same reason. Her case was tossed out in September.
No one in a position of authority, whether in the military, court, or Congress, is willing to stand up to this imposter in the White House. Why, I don’t know. I weep for our country….
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

18 responses to “Army Calls Obama Eligibility Doctor's Bluff

  1. Remember Patrick Henry’s saying-“I’m there!

     
  2. You said :”no military judge, no appellate court and no federal court, and no U.S. Supreme Court is going to say they have a right to get that as a matter of discovery.”
    Absolutely right. The issue is only whether the superior officer to Lakin who gave the order gave a legal order. So long as the superior officer is really a superior to Lakin and is authorized to give the order and Afghanistan is a legal war, the citizenship of the president is not relevant because the president did not give the order.

     
    • ohioborn,
      I don’t know who you are. You’ve never commented on this blog before, but you seem to think we should all just take your adamant pronouncement as the word of God.
      Unless you provide us with your legal qualifications, reasoning, and precedent if any, you can kindly go fornicate yourself.
      Postscript: For someone who speaks as if God, you do not even know that Afghanistan is NOT a legal war. I haven’t seen anywhere that Congress — the only body with the Constitutional authority to declare war — has declared a war there, have you? S.J. Res. 23 of September 14, 2001, merely authorizes the use of military force against terrorists responsible for 9-11. S.J. Res. 23 stops short of a declaration of war.

       
  3. ohioborn,
    Do you have an expertise in military or constitutional law? What are your specific legal arguments which give you the right to conclude that this “proclamation” is “absolutely right?” On what case precedent, statutes and/or rules and/or other specific provisions did you define the issues? Has Congress declared that Afghanistan is “a legal war,” and if so, when did this occur?
    Have you ever heard of the concept of “agency?” I will provide you with an example, to-wit: a superior officer in the Army of the United States of America gave a soldier in the United States Army, under his command, an order deploying him to serve in the country of Afghanistan; however, it was FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED that the President of the United States of America at this time, was actually born in France? Yet, he was sworn in as Commander and Chief of the United States of America, though he was not eligible to serve in this capacity as President because under the United States Constitution, you cannot be born outside of the United States of America and serve in this capacity? Let’s assume no discovery is needed and this is a known fact, and the Commander in Chief is really not a Commander in Chief per the U.S. Constitution, what would be your answer then? Is it not true that under “agency,” that all superior officers of every kind and capacity serving in the United States military ultimately receive their orders from the Commander in Chief of the United States of America who is the President of the United States?
    Do not answer with kingly proclamations — provide law and argument to back up your “absolutely right” statement. I am very interested in your accurate response, as I am a retired administrative appeals tribunal, and have been in the legal profession for 38 years.

     
  4. Socrates, the great monotheistic Greek philosopher, brought out truth through good, reasonable and common-sense questions……
    I have not yet received a response from ohioborn, but I am waiting for his expertise to help me to understand his position.
    However, I do know that soldiers serving in the United States Military, must SWEAR to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I am unaware of the clause in the Constitution that requires soldiers to swear to support and defend and obey the president of the United States. Hence, the question is, if the Commander in Chief, i.e., the President of the United States, is not eligible to serve in such a capacity as provided for within the United States Constitution, must not a soldier first defend the Constitution against such a violator of the U.S. Constitution? And, when the enemy is the President of the United States, what does a soldier do then?

     
  5. Also, Eowyn, thank you for the update on this American surgeon/soldier, and Steve, thank you for your conclusion.
    God, please help us in this battle of good vs. evil, this ongoing spiritual warfare which we deal with every day!

     
  6. Yeah! What Steve said!
    Joan, I am humbled by your knowledge.
    Vox Populi

     
  7. Thank you, Muffin, you are very kind. But, the arena is open for ohioborn to enlighten me as to the answers to my questions.
    God bless you!

     
  8. The oath of the commissioned officer: “I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

     
  9. “…thereby implying that anyone who questions the Punk’s eligibility must be insane.”
    So historically typical for communists to employ this tactic.
    -Dave

     
    • You’re so right, Dave. Before long, political dissidents will be carted off to mental hospitals. Just like in the USSR and present-day China!

       
  10. Anonymous left out this part of the oath: “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.”

     
    • I guess I am going to have to rain on your parade Sam. The oath you are referring to is for enlisted personnel, the following oath is specifically for ARMY 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.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
      THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. PERIOD!

       
    • It’s my understanding that soldiers can question orders they feel are wrong. Am I mistaken in this?
      Vox Populi

       
  11. How can you obey the orders of the President of the United States when such a person is not even eligible to hold such a capacity and/or when there is legal litigation pending over such an issue? How can a soldier protect and defend the Constitution when the president violates the standards of eligibility to hold such a position under the Constitution?
    Incidentally Sam, is that the oath of an enlisted person or federal employee? Anonymous, could you help clarify this since you have been taken to task by Sam?

     
  12. is superior office is a full bird colonel and a MOH winner.

     
    • Well, Hello again, DaLies!
      I see you received your “education” in an inner city public school because your writing skills are those of an illiterate:
      “is superior office is a full bird colonel and a MOH winner” ???
      What’s dat?

       

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *