A pparently an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Flight Surgeon at the Pentagon has refused to deploy until President Obama produces his original birth certificate.  I give you two links to two very different takes on this story, here and here (WARNING:  explicit language).

31 Responses to “A Birther in the Ranks”

  1. CPT Rob M says:

    Hasn’t this dead horse been beaten enough? Apparently he wasn’t dissuaded by the past failed attempts (see, e.g. Barnett v. Obama; Rhodes v. McDonald). If the federal district courts continue to shoot these down in civil cases, does he really think that he stands a better chance by inviting a military criminal prosecution?

    Boss: I order you to deploy
    Lakin: No!
    Boss: Fine, you’re being court martialed
    Lakin (at his CM): I admit to refusing to obey the order, but it was an unlawful order
    The Court: Since the legality of an order is a preliminary question of law to be decided by me [See R.C.M. 801(e), United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 105 (CAAF 2001)], I find that you have not overcome the presumption of legality. Furthermore, mistake of law is no defense (R.C.M. 916(l)(1), so even if you thought it was illegal, you have no defense. Anything else?
    Lakin: But…but…my “top flight” legal team…birth certificates…constitution…

  2. John O'Connor says:

    I haven’t expended one scintilla of effort to learn the facts of the whole birth certificate kerfluffle, but hopefully this guy will get whatever he has coming to him. Someone’s going to have to explain to me how a claimn that the President isn’t constitutionally seated affects your obligation to follow the orders of a military superior.

    I wonder if the pople who support these skulkers would have felt the same way if an officer refused to deploy to Afghanistan in 2003 based on a claim that Al Gore really won the election.

  3. JWS says:

    So why is only the officers are this stupid?

    I think I know why. My nephew is in ROTC. He tells me that they are accepting “Women’s Studies” as a valid major upon which to offer a commission.

  4. A Little Nervous says:

    I don’t want to be the JAG who gets stuck representing this guy on appeal…

  5. Butch Bracknell says:

    I commented on McCarty’s website. I’m certain his response will amount to “nah nah na boo boo.”

  6. Snuffy says:

    I dunno, but I bet the President did not give the order to this particular knucklehead to deploy. So, assume we take the prez right outta the picture and decide, for any silly reason, that he is not the CDR in chief. What about all the rest of the chain of command? I guess this is just the general “hey this is an unlawful war” thing like Hewlett-Vaughn, et al?

  7. JAE says:

    Interesting that it took deployment orders before this officer felt the burning desire to speak up about his interpretation of the Constitution and his “knowledge” of the Commander in Chief’s birthplace….. he didn’t seem to have much trouble with it when he was drawing O-5 pay and going to the Pentagon Starbucks.

  8. Thomas F. Hurley says:

    Mr. Navarre,
    I can’t open the second link. Is that problem on my end or yours?
    Thanks.

    Tom

  9. Butch Bracknell says:

    I rec taking in the blog posts on bobmccarty.com. Mr. Hurley and I accidentally teamed up. McCarty can’t compete because he has no ideas, only name calling…

  10. CPT Rob M says:

    Oh, my mistake…I thought he had been ordered to deploy. I can’t find anything in the article (and along with Mr. Hurley, I can’t open the second link either) actually saying he was about to deploy. So apparently the disobeyed order would be along the lines of “Do your damn job.” Different words, same result. Although, in addition to an Article 90 or 92, probably contemptuous words/conduct unbecoming for good measure.

  11. CPT Rob M says:

    Yeah, this is basically the right wing version of the “I refuse to fight in this illegal war!” crowd who didn’t want to do their jobs from 2001-2008. First we had Watada, Chiroux, et al. who were the heroes of the anti-war (usually more anti-Bush) left. Now we have this guy and his ilk who are the heroes of the anti-Obama right.

  12. Anonymous says:

    This brings up a serious point though, at what point is the sentencing authority – be it judge or panel – going to hold officers to a higher standard? If this doctor wants to risk his Army career on such a frivilous issue fine; however, this type of public display of insubordination towards the commander-in-chief has got to have some impact on disillusioned, junior soldiers who are just looking for a reason to go AWOL, etc… I hope this ends up at court-martial and this LTC gets 20 yrs . . . garrantee that will put an end to this silliness.

  13. book says:

    Throw the book at him. GUARANTEE that Col Lakin would be among the first to denounce Iraq Veterans for Peace et al. as unpatriotic, insubordinate etc. He has no right to insubordination now that the tables have turned and the shoe is on the other foot. IFIRC the Watada case, this guy is not any more or less culpable than he.

    For some, the realization that Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America (and the CinC) won’t sink in until well into the second term. Serious Q – will Sarah Palin come out for Col Lakin like she came out for the SEALs? I hope so, if only to show just how wacky some people have gotten with this anti-Obama BS.

  14. Michael says:

    I thought April Fools Day was tomorrow.

    At the risk of entertaining this defense, but if the good LTC is taken to trial, would our Commander in Chief be a necessary witness for the defense? This argument makes me long for the days of Vince Foster, crop circles, and that adorable Nessie.

  15. CPT Rob M says:

    I’ll take the bait. This is actually so ridiculous it’s kind of fun.

    Maybe it’s part of the devious plan. Orly Taitz and her crowd were always frustrated because their civil suits never even made it to discovery. Falling on the sword and forcing a criminal trial would at least get to the presentation of evidence.

    Somehow, though, I don’t see the President being subpoenaed. Just like in Watada’s case where the judge made the preliminary ruling [as was proper] that the order to go to war was legal (and prevented the defense from calling their legions of experts who wanted to testify otherwise), my guess is that the judge would rule as a preliminary question of law that the President’s constitutional authority is either a) unquestionable or b) irrelevant, and foreclose the presentation (and discovery) of any evidence on the issue.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I want the five minutes of time I spent on that website back.

    My cat could cough up a more cogent argument than I saw on that website from Bob and his followers.

    Good grief if a single brain cell could power a light bulb, Bob would need to learn to love the dark.

  17. Anonymous says:

    appeal would be easy, no issues, and raise it in Grostefon.

  18. Dwight Sullivan says:

    CPT Rob M, in response to your 1558 post, LTC Lakin states on the video that he is refusing an order to deploy to Afghanistan.

  19. CPT Rob M says:

    Oh, ok, then I retract my restatement. I also concur with everyone else’s general “isn’t it funny that he waited until he was ordered to deploy…fourteen months after the inauguration…to bring this up.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever commented this much on a website before.

  20. Conspiracy Theorist says:

    Still, you have to admit that it was a clever plan for this secret Muslim to arrange to be smuggled into Hawaii from Kenya and 50 years later, essentially adopt a more aggressive version of Bush’s Afghanistan policy. Is there a strange link between the “truthers” and the “birthers?”

  21. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Here’s a link that has a print version of LTC Lakin stating that he’s refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan for a second time. (Guano crazy content advisory):

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134593

  22. Phil Cave says:

    The same “media” outlet that was hyping Orly Taitz’s litigation over the same issue(s). In light of how CPT Rhodes’s litigation turned out, and I suppose MAJ Cook’s, does WND somewhat exaggerate?

  23. MJW1 says:

    JAW,
    Amen to that brother/sister. As stated before, if there was anything to this claim the Clinton machine would have turned it up before the DNC, many moons ago.

  24. manasa says:

    How did this dude become an officer?

  25. Late Bloomer says:

    I think it is interesting that one of the first questions asked is, “Who is representing him?” Does it change our analysis/opinion if it’s Ms. Taitz? I think it does, even if we don’t want to admit it. Why is it that when a non-profit group hires a team of attorneys to represent the LTC, there is at the very least, some increased level of legitimacy?

  26. Phil Cave says:

    Interesting you ask about the 501(c) issue. Is it allowed for a non-profit to solicit donations for the individual persons court-martial or adverse action defense?

  27. Anonymous says:

    The same way Hassan did. Its not hard, all you need is 1) A degree exceeding or on par with “women studies” or “underwater basket weaving”, 2) Good health, 3) Have the fortitude to pass OTS/OCS/ROTC/ACADEMY

  28. Anonymous says:

    I actually like WND, at least they have unique stories, unlike the AP.

  29. CPT Rob M says:

    Not sure I agree with the fact that it automatically confers legitimacy. Watada, Chiroux, et al. had dozens of non-profit organizations helping with their legal expenses. I didn’t see that as giving them any more legitimacy. If anything it gave credence to the belief that it was really just a political charade to cover raw cowardice, not an legitimately honest expression of fervently held beliefs.

  30. Anonymous says:

    He speaks on behalf of “all servicemembers”? With all due respect, Sir, you don’t speak for me.

  31. Anon says:

    he misspoke, he meant to say “all crazy servicemembers.”