[The link to LTC Lakin’s new YouTube video mentioned in the press release below doesn’t appear to be operational.  This link, provided in the press release, says “PLEASE CHECK BACK FOR VIDEO”]

Phil Cave was kind enough to pass along to us a press release issued by LTC Lakin’s spokesperson, Margaret Hemenway, explaining that LTC Lakin has waived his Article 32 invesigation:

  American Patriot Foundation, Inc.
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
www.safeguardourconstitution.com

PRESS RELEASE

DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN WAIVES
PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ANNOUNCES NEW
YOUTUBE VIDEO


CASE TO NOW PROCEED DIRECTLY TO GENERAL COURT MARTIAL


HEARING WILL NOT PROCEED ON JUNE 11, 2010

Washington, D.C., June 9, 2010. Saying that the Army has made it “impossible for me to present a defense” at the Article 32 “preliminary hearing” previously scheduled for June 11, 2010, Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin has officially waived -cancelled–that proceeding. Therefore, the case will move inexorably on to a General Court Martial. The punishment for the charges filed against LTC Lakin carry a maximum term of four years in the penitentiary. Lakin expects the trial to be held in the early fall, but this has yet to be determined. The next step will be the formal referral of the charges by Lakin’s Commanding General, Major General Carla Hawley-Bowland, followed by his arraignment before a Military Judge, both of which are expected before the end of June.

Lakin, through his legal defense team, requested the testimony of Dr. Chiyome Fukino of the Hawaii Dept. of Health, and all of that agency’s records that exist concerning the president’s birth. Lakin had also requested the testimony of the custodians of records of, and the records relating to Obama’s admission and financial aid that exist, of the Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. All these requests were also summarily denied, leaving Lakin without any ability to mount a defense at the hearing. However, in that this hearing was preliminary in nature in the first place, Lakin will renew his requests to the Military Judge at the appropriate time.

Lakin also released a new 5-minute video on Youtube explaining why he believes there are reasonable arguments that President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. The video can be viewed at http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/video2.html.

The video is being released under the auspices of 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. Further details are available on the Foundation’s website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com.

 

—end—-

 

 

43 Responses to “LTC Lakin waived his Article 32 investigation”

  1. John Baker says:

    Will the CA accept the waiver? I’ve seen plenty of cases where the CA orders the IO to conduct the investigation despite an attempt to waive.

  2. DC Steve says:

    I am confused by this decision. I have always assumed that LTC Lakin (or his team) was seeking to publicize his cause. Seems like they just gave up a significant opportunity.

    Also, though LTC Lakin’s team seems to be disturbed about the IO’s discovery decisions, they have now given up any right to complain about the Art 32 at trial.

    This seems like a odd choice. By this I mean, even from their point of view, I see no advantage in waiving the Art 32.

    I guess I will have to wait to see the video…

  3. Anonymous says:

    He is now on the bullet train to dismissal.

    Faster, please.

  4. RY says:

    Interesting question: what if Lt Col Lakin had been allowed to promote to Colonel? Promotions are by the President. If he doesn’t believe President has authority, wouldn’t acceptance of promotion undermine his belief re: eligibility?

    In same fashion, will he challenge any members (or even trial judge) during his trial who have been promoted whilst Obama is POTUS?

  5. SmartCookie says:

    From what I understand President Obama did not give him the orders to deploy. He is being Court Martialed for disobeying orders from HIS commander not the Commander in Chief.

  6. Christopher Mathews says:

    An open letter to LTC Lakin:

    Doctor Lakin, the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee you the right to silence. Many thousands of brave men and women have, over the years, made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve that right for you. Honor their sacrifice. Stop talking.

  7. Dave says:

    I am concerned that, as far as I can tell, the only original source of information about these proceedings are press releases from the defendant. This puts him in the position of controlling what pieces of information are public, like the IO’s memorandum, and what pieces are not public, like his lawyer’s filing that preceeded that memorandum. One can’t help wondering if there is some reason he wants to keep that filing out of the public eye.

  8. Phil Cave says:

    Don’t be too downhearted. The bulk of his statements are in the nature of a confession, an admission, or a statement against interest of intent which can be evidence against him.
    Because he is represented by counsel all along, he must be making these public confessions against the advice of counsel.

  9. Phil Cave says:

    Agree that in many cases the AA has ordered the 32 to proceed anyway. But I think that’s in cases which are more complex or convoluted and the parties can benefit from the record. Here I think the 32 would be pretty much hearing straightforward testimony limited to the elements and that’s about all.

  10. Anonymous says:

    This gets publicity and adds to his impending martyrdom.

  11. Dew_Process says:

    More fodder for his IAC claims down the road.

    But, for those of you old enough to remember the last time that we invaded Haiti [not the current humanitarian mission], there was another crazy Army officer, Captain Rockwood, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to pull a similar stunt.

  12. Phil Cave says:

    And they should have read Rockwood, as well as New and Huet-Vaughn.

  13. KyAtty says:

    He’s an attention whore, as most birthers are.

  14. Chester says:

    This court is part of the Executive Branch; Is this correct? If it is then the president controls this court because it is part of the Executive Branch, not part of the (theoretically) independent Judicial Branch.

    So the situation is analogous to a situation where the plaintiff and the judge are controlled by the same entity.

    So there is an inescapable conflict of interest. If not the president’s eligibility were in question but some generals’ wrongdoing, this conflict would not exist, because the general has no control over the executive branch and the military court.

    What do you think? Is there a conflict of interest? And if there is one, can the defense use that to their advantage?

    Also, what is the path of appeal from this court, if any?

    Can the defense, on appeal, transfer the case to a court under the Judicial Branch? In that event the new court would have difficulty blocking it with the Standing Doctrine, as the defendant has suffered particular and personal injury.

  15. Anonymous says:

    First of all Chester, I just want to take this moment to say, I enjoy all of your fine cheese-related products.

    Second, yes the military judicial system is part of the executive branch. Which is something LTC Lakin and his attorneys should have thought of before purposefully inviting a court-martial.

    Third, no there is not a conflict of interest because the President’s “birthage” is not legally relevant to the charged offense.

    Four, yes there is a path of appeal depending on the sentence. After the Army Appellate Court, there is the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. If he gets jail time of significant length, then assuming he exhausts his appeal at those courts, he could file a habeus petition in Federal District Court provided he is still incarcerated at that time (possible but unlikely).
    He likely won’t qualify for the Supreme Court because the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces won’t grant his petition to that court.

    When those courts all rule the same way as all of the others, then he will be done. And no, he will not suffer particular and personal injury because he chose personally to disobey orders.

  16. Brian says:

    Cognitive dissonance is widespread amongst birthers. Major Cook (or Kook as I prefer) received a promotion to Lieutenant Colonel earlier this year after he went to court last year to avoid deployment to Afghanistan because he thinks Obama was born in Kenya (or Mars or somewhere). He has happily taken the promotion but still tells anyone who will listen that Obama is an illegitimate president and calls him a usurper.
    Personally I think the military is nuts. Kook should have been kicked out after his stunt and his ongoing disrespect for the CiC. Not promoted.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Kook was promoted? This is ridinkulous! Maybe the waiver of the 32 is part of a back room deal to let Lakin get away with breaking the law too. Where is the justice in miljus? The recently released Ayala opinion shows that a wing commander can lie in a court-martial, with TC assitance, and Stucky and co. let such BS fly. Disgraceful.

  18. soonergrunt says:

    I have a question–AGAIN. Ref Phil Cave, 1443, 09JUN10–
    It’s been suggested that one course of appeal may be ineffective assistance of counsel. You are saying that he’s making all these statements and that they are likely against advice of counsel.
    My understanding is that if counsel advises the client to do (or not do) something, and the client ignores this advice, that does not equate to IAC. Am I wrong?
    Also, I understand that LTC Lakin has government counsel assigned in addition to this lawyer paid for by the whackaloon brigade. Here’s my other question– If the gov’t counsel recommends to LTC Lakin to shut up, and the whackaloon supports LTC Lakin making these statements, is that ineffective assistance of counsel?

  19. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    I think that Ayala more stands for the fact that if DC chooses not to object to the wing commander’s fraudulent(?) affidavit and demand to question him on it, that the defendant should not complain when the courts find it to be the truth.

    It’s kind of like this:

    WC’s Affidavit: The sky is bright yellow.
    MJ: Any objection defense?
    DC: …

    We all know the sky’s not yellow (except in LA), but DC just let that one go. Test the WC’s lies in the “crucible of cross examination” or don’t bitch when the appeals court accepts it as truth.

  20. Anonymous says:

    @SDC. I agree that DC should have done a better job, but, as the dissent points out, the burden is on the govt to show by C and C ev that this wasn’t a subterfuge – they did not make such a showing. The so-called gatekeeping MJ dropped the ball too.

  21. bob says:

    I’m not in the military, but I assume there’s no more conflict of interest here than, say, when a soldier is accused of stealing from the PX, i.e., the military is the victim, prosecutor, and judge (and, indirectly, the panel).

  22. BobH says:

    Phil: I disagree that Lakin is making these videos and announcements against advice of counsel. I further believe (based on two years of following birthers, including his mouthpiece M. Hemenway) that that are actually promoting his making of these videos. It’s what birthers do.

    Lakin has to know he’ll be dismissed, he has to know he’ll be fined, and he has to know he is “potentially” facing jail time, which he most assuredly deserves. I suspect he’s been convinced by his handlers that these won’t increase his punishment.

    He’s obviously a dupe in this process (can’t figure why) or what he’s been promised in return for his “sacrifice for the cause” but I’m convinced he is actually being advised to promote his “stance” publicly and he’s not smart enough realize each one is potentially another nail in his coffin.

    The man I feel sorry for in all this, and the only one is his JAG counsel. He must have bruises from banging his head at this stupidity.

  23. Chester says:

    Attn.: Anonymous and Bob

    Glad you like Chester Cheese and thanks for the clarification on the appeal process.

    RE: “Third, no there is not a conflict of interest because the President’s “birthage” is not legally relevant to the charged offense…“

    True that the eligibility is not part of the charge, but it is the central issue of the defense. An officer does not take oath to protect the president but to protect the constitution and the defendant claims that the order violates the constitution. So that issue can not be ignored, although the IO pretty much did just that. Maybe that is the reason the defense decided to bypass the IO.

    So the eligibility of the prez is the central issue of the defense. At a non-military court such central issue should be addressed and discovery should be granted. In the past eligibility cases discovery was never granted, but not because it is a non-issue, but because the judges blocked it by using the Standing Doctrine or claiming lack of jurisdiction. According to some legal minds, this defendant has the right of such discovery in a military court.

    So here is the conflict: The prez is controlling the Executive Branch. This military court is under the Executive Branch so the prez controls this court as well. But discovery is in the interest of the defendant but not in the president’s interest, so the court can not be neutral. So using an analogy from a civil court the plaintiff and the judge are controlled by the same entity. Inescapable conflict of interest.

    RE: “I’m not in the military, but I assume there’s no more conflict of interest here than, say, when a soldier is accused of stealing from the PX, i.e., the military is the victim, prosecutor, and judge (and, indirectly, the panel (bob).”

    Yes, that is true in a sense, but there is one major difference. While the prez is controlling the court (because he controls the Executive Branch) he can be personally 100% neutral in your example. Say the accused solder denies that he did anything wrong and points his finger to another solder demanding discovery. The military court will or should allow that, if a fair trial is conducted, and the prez remains totally neutral as he has no personal interest whether allowing discovery or not.

    This is a fascinating case.

  24. Anonymous says:

    So here is the conflict: The prez is controlling the Executive Branch. This military court is under the Executive Branch so the prez controls this court as well.

    If the President ordered all the court officers dismissed and appointed new ones, perhaps. But unless you can show evidence that the White House has in some way interfered with this case, that’s a BIIGG stretch. Remember, the President appoints Federal judges, up to and including the Supreme Court. If you sue the President and lose, and one of his appointees cast the deciding vote, good luck with that argument….

    Say the accused solder denies that he did anything wrong and points his finger to another solder demanding discovery.

    If a defendant in either a military or civilian court wishes to argue that he didn’t do it, someone else did, that doesn’t grant him leeway to comb through that other party’s personal records. He can present actual evidence (eyewitness testimony, what have you) that the other party committed the crime. So by analogy, pretending the President’s eligibility were even relevant (it isn’t) does Lakin have any actual evidence that pertains to the President’s eligibility? No, he does not. So, no digging around.

  25. mikeyes says:

    I’m not sure why this business of the officer’s oath keeps being brought up by LTC Lakin’s supporters in such a narrow manner. Yes the oath does say that the officer “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” (and not “protect” as so many have said.) But it does not say that that officer will only support selected parts of the Constitution and ignore those parts that made Barack Obama President of the United States, namely Article II, section 1 and the 12th, 20th, and 25th Amendments. It’s as if those parts of the Constitution, which all officers agree to support (“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”), does not exist.

    Of course none of this business about the Constitution has a direct bearing on LTC Lakin’s charges (except the part in the Constitution about the Supreme Court, Article III, which is never mentioned by his defenders because the SCOTUS has made too many rulings detrimental to his case), so the arguments brought up in his video and by his civilian lawyer are moot and the reference to his his oath counter-productive since he has so many reservations.

  26. Chester says:

    The heart of the dispute seems to be the interpretation that one can object to orders based on unlawfulness if the immediate superior officer gives the order, but not if someone further up in the command structure gives the order.

    To draw an analogy with a whistleblower: If a CEO does something unlawful the whistleblower can not blow the whistle. He can only whistle if his immediate supervisor ordered the questionable business practice that may harm the public. Otherwise his alarm must be ignored. Does that seem right to you?

    RE: “If the President ordered all the court officers dismissed and appointed new ones, perhaps. But unless you can show evidence that the White House has in some way interfered with this case, that’s a BIIGG stretch…”

    You have not convinced me that the conflict does not exist. Anyone working in the Executive Branch is working for the president. He is the boss. Anyone, in the Executive Branch, acting contrary to the president’s interest explicitly or implicitly could have serious consequences. It is obvious that it is not in the president’s interest to allow discovery of evidence. He does not have to forbid it. So anyone in the Executive Branch who will act contrary to that is automatically disloyal to the president, including this court if they allow it.

    So they will not allow it. So there is the confict of interest.

  27. Chester says:

    The heart of the dispute seems to be the interpretation that one can object to orders based on unlawfulness if the immediate superior officer gives the order, but not if someone further up in the command structure gives the order.

    To draw an analogy with a whistleblower: If a CEO does something unlawful the whistleblower can not blow the whistle. He can only whistle if his immediate supervisor ordered the questionable business practice that may harm the public. Otherwise his alarm must be ignored. Does that seem right to you?

    RE: “If the President ordered all the court officers dismissed and appointed new ones, perhaps. But unless you can show evidence that the White House has in some way interfered with this case, that’s a BIIGG stretch…”

    You have not convinced me that the conflict does not exist. Anyone working in the Executive Branch is working for the president. He is the boss. Anyone, in the Executive Branch, acting contrary to the president’s interest explicitly or implicitly could have serious consequences.

    It is obvious that it is not in the president’s interest to allow discovery of evidence. He does not have to forbid it.

    So anyone in the Executive Branch who will act contrary to that is automatically disloyal to the president, including this court if they allow it.

    So they will not allow it. So there is the conflict of interest.

  28. Anonymous says:

    It is obvious that it is not in the president’s interest to allow discovery of evidence.

    Frankly it’s immaterial to the President. I honestly doubt he’s even heard the name Lakin.

    To draw an analogy with a whistleblower: If a CEO does something unlawful the whistleblower can not blow the whistle. He can only whistle if his immediate supervisor ordered the questionable business practice that may harm the public. Otherwise his alarm must be ignored. Does that seem right to you?

    That’s not the situation here. Lakin has to obey orders from ANY superior. Anyway he is not a whistleblower. Whistleblowers have actual information. Lakin has none-he knows no more about the circumstances of the President’s birth than you or I.

    Lakin knew that he was subject to military justice, and he knew it is not the same as civilian justice. He had a simple solution available to him-obey his orders. There’s an old saying that applies here-“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

  29. Chester says:

    RE: Chester: “It is obvious that it is not in the president’s interest to allow discovery of evidence. “

    Anonymous: “Frankly it’s immaterial to the President. …. “

    Anonymous, we had a good conversation up to now. There are some points on which we even agree, but you have to admit that your above statement is outside of the realm of rational thought.

    One could quote dozens of reasons, but just a couple:

    Why would anyone pay one of the most expensive law firms, Perkins Coie, big bucks to protect secrets contained in undisclosed documents if there is nothing to hide?

    He is implicating himself by this expensive, tooth and nail resistance which is senseless if there is nothing to hide.

    If he was born in HI he is hiding something else.
    All we know, he may have been born in HI, but why not just show all the “cards” so we know who is the person we elected, as we know the very detailed history of all his predecessors, with the exception of perhaps one or two?

    If it is immaterial then just let the discovery happen. Right?

    Allowing or blocking discovery of evidence is the very heart of the matter, not only in this case but in all the 50 or so cases. My friend, you have to admit that your assertion that discovery is “Frankly it’s immaterial to the President” defies common sense.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Chester: Let me begin by noting that none of this is relevant to the Lakin case. That said,

    Let’s look at how much was paid to Perkins Coie. We have various unverified figures floating around. Even assuming one of those is correct, what we absolutely don’t have is any breakdown as to how much was spent on which cases (unless you personally have peeked at the invoices). So we simply know that the Obama campaign had lawyers, as every campaign does, and they paid them some amount. Surely you are aware that a national campaign of that magnitude faces literally dozens of issues on which legal advice is needed. Just filing the financial disclosure forms when you raise $700,000,000 could keep a team of lawyers busy. Not to mention issues of voter registration and access in all 50 states. In fact the numbers bandied about are pretty close to what the McCain campaign paid their lawyers.

    Furthermore, of those 50 or so cases, only a few named Obama as a defendant. Most were filed against various Secretaries of State or against other government entities, state and federal. So, you really have no idea how much was spent on any questions related to birther issues. In fact, it was likely a fairly minimal amount, almost certainly a tiny fraction of the numbers the birthers throw around.

    And what was done in all those cases? “Tooth and nail resistance”. Hardly. They submitted a brief of a few pages explaining why the cases should be dismissed, showed up for a 15 minute hearing and the cases were dismissed. Since the issues were largely the same in all the cases, the initial brief could be used in later cases with only a few modifications. The quickest, most efficient way to handle it.

    Now let’s look at the Chester way. Order documents. Supply them to plaintiff attorneys. Respond to their questions and further requests (lawyers ALWAYS have questions and further requests). Write a brief explaining why the documents are sufficient. Go to court and make sure the case is dismissed. Even if you were dealing with competent, reasonable attorneys on the other side, that is far more time consuming and expensive than getting the cases dismissed. And remember, here you’re dealing with lawyers like Orly Taitz whose competency and sanity remain to be proven.

    Finally issues of subject matter jurisdiction, which all of these cases failed, is an issue that judges can and do raise on their own, even if the parties don’t. So you could arrive in court ready to settle and the judge could ask both sides for briefs on subject matter jurisdiction anyway, just for fun.

    So, no, the Obama team did not fight discovery. They simply got dismissed cases that completely lacked any legal foundation, cases that exemplify the term “junk lawsuit” that we often hear from conservatives, and did so in the most efficient and expeditious way possible.

  31. Chester says:

    RE:
    “Now let’s look at the Chester way. Order documents. Supply them to plaintiff attorneys……”

    The Chester-way is the same way of his opponent and the way of all his predecessor presidents: Disclose everything from birth to present. You are no longer a private citizen – you are a public figure and historic figure – the voters have a right to know who you are and how have you spent your life. Who your friends and teachers were, what grades you received in school, what is the content of your university work and what may have influenced your philosophy?

    By the way, the first Birthers were Democrats who objected to McCain’s birth in Panama. He showed them voluntarily and immediately all the papers they wanted to see.

    No one ever asked for his opponent’s papers. Except Hillary, at one of her speeches, during the campaign, said that her opponent “does not have American roots”. However, the rest of the party ignored her remark, instead asking her opponent to disclose it all, and prove for good that he is a natural born citizen they teamed up ageist Hillary.

    Just show the papers voluntary and the Birthers will shot up. Lakin will be happy to go to Afghanistan, Orly, Andy and the rest will disappear into obscurity, no one will have to pay Perkins Coie or other lawyers, the DOJ does not have to waste taxpayers’ money to defend him and the country will united be behind him.

    It’s a win-win, everybody wins. And how simple a solution.

  32. Anonymous says:

    By the way, the first Birthers were Democrats who objected to McCain’s birth in Panama. He showed them voluntarily and immediately all the papers they wanted to see.

    Then perhaps you would be so kind as to link to McCain’s birth certificate. Not the fake one that some pranksters posted, but the real one. While you’re at it, you could make your case by posting links to those of a few other Presidents. Abe Lincoln is a personal favorite of mine, so I would really enjoy seeing his.

    Just show the papers voluntary and the Birthers will shot up. Lakin will be happy to go to Afghanistan, Orly, Andy and the rest will disappear into obscurity, no one will have to pay Perkins Coie or other lawyers, the DOJ does not have to waste taxpayers’ money to defend him and the country will united be behind him.

    Do you believe in fairies, children? Then clap your hands!!!

  33. soonergrunt says:

    Do you believe in fairies, children? Then clap your hands!!!

    Clap louder, because Tinkerbell is Dying!!!

  34. Chester says:

    RE: “Abe Lincoln is a personal favorite of mine, so I would really enjoy seeing his.”

    When Al Gore invented the internet Abe Lincoln was gone. So Ab or his political supporters did not have a website, therefore there is no link.

    If you are insinuating that Abraham Enloe and not Thomas Lincoln was his father, rest assured that both were American citizens and not foreigners visiting on temporary student’s visa. So both Abe’s parents were US citizens at the time of his birth, even if Enloe was his father, which is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor.

    If you are hinting that Abe was not born in the US, on what do you base that? That is news to me.

    I guess you refuse to see the obvious benefits of voluntary disclosing the papers. Again, he may have been born in HI, but this controversy is growing and hurting the nation until he provides proof that he is a natural born US citizen.

  35. soonergrunt says:

    Well, President Obama was born in the United States to a U.S. Citizen, his mother. So that controversy never actually existed except in the fevered minds of a bunch of racist conspiracy-nut screwballs. For the normal people in the country, not so much, so there isn’t any controversy that’s either growing or hurting the nation. Thanks for your consideration but we’re really just fine.
    And just to kill two birds with one post, “the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” is as fake as the birther “controversy.”

  36. Anonymous says:

    When Al Gore invented the internet Abe Lincoln was gone. So Ab or his political supporters did not have a website, therefore there is no link.

    Now, come on Chester, surely someone in the last 10 years could have photographed Abe Lincoln’s birth certificate and posted it. Unless you’re saying he never had one? And what evidence do you have that Abe wasn’t born in Canada, or England or Norway and brought to the US as a young child? There were no immigration controls in those days. Are you hiding something?

    Anyway, you specifically said, “He (McCain) showed them voluntarily and immediately all the papers they wanted to see.” So, where is McCain’s birth certificate, Chester? Where?

  37. Chester says:

    RE: “And what evidence do you have that Abe wasn’t born in Canada, or England or Norway and brought to the US as a young child? “

    People knew their neighbors at that time. Abe is as American as apple pie. Whereas even Hillary accused her opponent “not possessing American roots.” As I mentioned before the only possible controversy about Abe: who is his father? However as said before, both possible fathers were US citizens at the time of his birth – so he was born to two US citizens on US soil.

    Speculating that he was born in Norway has no basis whatsoever – and even his enemies – and he had many – never accused him anything near that.

    RE: McCain

    McCain disclosed his past including the hospital he was born in, probably including the doctor, to Congress when the first Birthers, the democrats, questioned his nbc. There is no secret about him. Congress probably has the papers – he may not have published it – but if he were elected he would have made it entirely public if questioned. His nbc was mute when he lost. So why even bother.

    You maybe surprised that I say this:

    1. McCain is not a natural born citizen because the hospital was in Panama not on US soil.

    2 . The Congress’ resolution does not make him an nbc, because Congress does not have the power to interpret the law. Only the Judicial Branch has the function and the duty to interpret the law, including the exact requirements for nbc. So far they failed doing that. By the way: Alen Keyes calls that “dereliction of duty”.

    3. In the event McCain were elected, his political opponents would have demanded the Judicial Branch to define nbc. And correctly so.

    With this I am checking out because, while I had a good conversation with you, the other commenter is starting the name calling contest – in which I refuse to participate. Good luck guys – have fan.

  38. Chester says:

    RE: “Thanks for your consideration but we’re really just fine.” (soonergrunt)

    May be you are fine but the rest of us are not celebrating the double digit unemployment rate and socializing major industries, while spending taxpayers money recklessly.

    RE: “the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” is as fake as the Birther controversy… ”

    Sorry – no idea what you are talking about. Nor what it has to do with Lakin – are you saying that your are anti-Semitic, but calling people racists? Or what?

    RE: “…of racist conspiracy-nut screwballs…”

    So Ambassador Alen Keyes, supporting Lakin, is a “of racist conspiracy-nut screwball”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0eKWuHway0

    So the discussion came to name calling, as usual. I will not engage in it. Have fun guys – I am out of here.

  39. Anonymous says:

    McCain disclosed his past including the hospital he was born in, probably including the doctor, to Congress when the first Birthers, the democrats, questioned his nbc. There is no secret about him. Congress probably has the papers – he may not have published it – but if he were elected he would have made it entirely public if questioned. His nbc was mute when he lost. So why even bother.

    The fact that you say probably twice, shows clearly that neither you nor anybody else actually knows. The simple truth is that Obama released his birth certificate (in the form that is currently issued by the state where he was born) and McCain did not. As to what McCain “would have” done had he won, that is what is known in the legal field as wild-ass speculation.

    You maybe surprised that I say this:
    1. McCain is not a natural born citizen because the hospital was in Panama not on US soil.

    Well, first, McCain says he was born in the Canal Zone. So the fact that there is dispute as to where he was born argues against his having been completely open as you pretend. Second, your statement as to him not being a natural born citizen is simply your opinion. Legal scholars, which you are not, have argued both ways. By the way, those same legal scholars are unanimous that Obama is a natural born citizen.

    The Congress’ resolution does not make him an nbc, because Congress does not have the power to interpret the law. Only the Judicial Branch has the function and the duty to interpret the law, including the exact requirements for nbc

    You misunderstand the roles of the various branches of government. The judicial branch is not a constitutional seminar. They do not issue pronouncements about what the Constitution means. They decide cases. If Congress passes a law that you think is unconstitutional and you go out and violate it, you can make that argument in court. However, if the courts decline to overturn the law, you’re going to jail. Similary, when Congress says a President is qualified and the courts decline to overturn that, then he’s qualified. That is not “dereliction of duty” it’s a simple expression that they had no fundamental disagreement with what Congress did.

    3. In the event McCain were elected, his political opponents would have demanded the Judicial Branch to define nbc.

    I can’t speak for what others “would have done” (Chester speculating again). I can say that had McCain won, I would not be sitting 18 months into his presidency calling him a usurper. And I would certainly expect all members of the military to obey orders.

    With this I am checking out

    Probably the wisest thing you have done so far, since it can’t be good for someone to embarrass themselves so publically. If we hear from you again, then I will have to conclude you are once again posting untruths.

  40. soonergrunt says:

    May be you are fine but the rest of us are not celebrating the double digit unemployment rate and socializing major industries, while spending taxpayers money recklessly.

    There’s this guy in Texas you should see about that. You and the vast majority of birfers being racist conspiracy-nut screwballs doesn’t rule out Keyes being a conspiracy-nut screwball. The Nazi party had Jews in it early on, after all.

    I am out of here.

    And yet, somehow I’ll go on.

  41. jeff mayton says:

    What about all of the statements made from people that have said that our president was born in Kenya?

    Some were from his own family. Are they crazy people to?They are birthers right?

    They must be stupid lying pieces of _hit to because Obama was definitely born in America.

    And most of America doesn’t think regular everyday people would just be going around saying things like those people have.

    Nor insisting that newspapers are proof of where people are born.

    Most of America just doesn’t believe newspapers are proof of where someone was born.

    Does any agency, college, place of employment, bank, collections, hospital, how about the DMV or the utility company accept newspaper clippings to prove who they are or where they were born or where they live? But the American people should for this Muslim piece of crap right?

    Like copper demanded LTC Lakin should I wonder why these people just wont shut up newspaper clippings and an altered COLB prove every thing right?

    It proves Obama is a fraud…. and how retarded Anderson Copper is. And how retarted you are for standing by it.

    Anyone can see people that are not desperate would not attempt to force America to accept newspaper clippings as proof of where Our muslim president was born.

    Also the COLB says something about being altered on the bottom Oh do you mean the covered up numbers at the top?

    Yep it is clearly altered and I believe that destroys the integrity and credibility of the one would be document. I guess that doesnt leave much does it?

    Well now I guess most of America will just have to settle for that and are crazy to ask any questions and Obama’s family that say that Obama was born in Kenya I guess they are birthers to and not to mention liars racist and every other name in the book.

    So much for transparency Obama shouldn’t have used that as the cornerstone of his campaign. He sure blew it with that one.

    When as soon as he was sworn in he signed executive order 13489 making it illegal to learn about his past.
    What kind of transparency is that?

    even though we were in wars and all kinds of things going on it was more important to seal his records first.

    He must really love America to lie to it so much not to mention spend us into obviation.

    Combine that with his honesty and his position on Abortion and drug use he is a swell guy.

    And not to mention the kenyan blood that flows through his veins that is so American isn’t it?

    The country is in worse shape in every kind of way and while peoples lives are being destroyed by the Oil not to mention all the animals that have been killed he plays golf and games with Americans that are NBC that family has been here for 100s of yrs and are full blooded Americans one lie after another and everyone should just shut up and let him tell them where to get their health care right?

    When is it intelligent or patriotic for full blooded Americans let a muslim from Kenya tell them where and when they are going to get their health care from, when they would rather decide from them selves?

    BO IS BS. And a muslim freak.

    If you people like to have Kenyans for our presidents why don’t you go there this is the USA.

    There are still a few of us here you know?

    And please keep holding up those newspaper clippings it shows how intelligent you are will ya?

    Take care now
    Jeff A natural-born citizen

  42. jeff mayton says:

    oops Sorry about the type o’s not!

  43. susan says:

    Susan here,

    I agree with you about Anderson Cooper ….He was not professional and hostile insisting that the whole argument was about the BC when it is about the whole picture and the newspaper clippings do not prove where or when anyone was born.It is absurd to even try to ask the American people to accept something that couldn’t even get you a job at wal-mart.lol This is so weak Anderson Cooper should be fired for lying for hostility and unprofessionalism.MSM is a problem for our country the COLB is not the long form bc everyone knows O is a usurper.America deserves better. What a slime newspapers desperation and unfairness to people who’s families have been here for generations.

    Susie Q.