Army Doc Demands Obama Prove Eligibility to Command

[Chris_]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/president_obama_needs_to_prove_1.html

President Obama Needs to Prove His Constitutional Eligibility to Be Commander-in-Chief
By Terrence Lakin, MD


Last week, I entered Walter Reed Army Hospital to notify the Department of Defense that I would refuse to obey any orders from my commanding officers -- including President Obama -- until the president produces his original birth certificate. After nearly eighteen years of wearing the military uniform of the country I have proudly served, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan, I felt compelled to take this step.

<snip>

Since Nuremberg, My Lai, and even Abu Ghraib more recently, the military has been taught the hard lessons of following illegal orders. Any reasonable person looking critically at the information and evidence currently in the public domain about Obama's birthplace would have questions about President Obama's claim to be a natural born citizen. I made the decision to disobey all military orders, including my deployment order to Afghanistan, in pursuit of the truth of whether President Obama can legally occupy the high post that he holds today and which entitles him to send servicemembers into harm's way.

The United States serves an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized, democratic government, where all men are equal under the law 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 military forces around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. This is called the "duty to disobey."

My deployment orders for a second tour in Afghanistan included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I would be glad to obey this order and 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; standards for identification have become stricter since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Since fall 2008, I have been troubled by reports that the president's original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding his place of birth and "natural born" status. Many people mistook 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 something on file which may or may not be sufficient proof of a birth in Hawaii. An original birth certificate could be the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician's or midwife's name. Such a document should lay to rest the "natural born" dispute. This controversy was further escalated by media reports that gave two different hospital names for Obama's birthplace -- even today, the public does not know what doctor delivered the then-future president or which hospital was the site of his birth. No eyewitnesses have stepped forward to affirm that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Under immigration laws in force at the time, if born in Kenya to a father who was not a U.S. citizen, Barack Obama had no right to American citizenship of any kind, and he could never qualify as "natural born." This is why determining his actual birthplace is crucial.

<snip>

More at link......

doc

[rich_t]

He just pissed his retirement pay away.

The military takes a pretty dim view about failure to obey orders.

[formerlurker]

Unless he is prepared to take this to SCOTUS, then he is done.

[Chris_]

He just pissed his retirement pay away.

The military takes a pretty dim view about failure to obey orders.

However.....a strictly practical look at his downside......as a physician in private practice, he will likely spend more on his golf club membership, than he will make from his lost retirement.......

doc

[rich_t]

Unless he is prepared to take this to SCOTUS, then he is done.

Assuming that the SCOTUS would even agree to hear the case.

[dutch508]

Not much of a case. He refused lawful orders.
 
CM, reduction in grade, dishonerable discharge.

End of the story.

[rich_t]

Not much of a case. He refused lawful orders.
 
CM, reduction in grade, dishonerable discharge.

End of the story.

Pretty much.

He'd be better off with merely resigning his commission.  Only it's too late now that he has already recieved his deployment orders.

[formerlurker]

Assuming that the SCOTUS would even agree to hear the case.

I think SCOTUS has refused to take the case to date, and the lower courts have refused to hear it also, due to the moving party issue.   Questioning the CIC qualifications is indeed something a member of the military can bring forward.   

Interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

[formerlurker]

Not much of a case. He refused lawful orders.
 
CM, reduction in grade, dishonerable discharge.

End of the story.

He is questioning the "lawful" part of those orders.  

ETA:  Any action against him starts moving the chains of due process straight through to SCOTUS.   

[vesta111]

He is questioning the "lawful" part of those orders.  

ETA:  Any action against him starts moving the chains of due process straight through to SCOTUS.   

Interesting time frame he picked to put 18 years on the line.  So this doctor who awoke one morning 12 months ago finds he cannot tough it out for another 24 months and then spend his retirement on proving his beliefs.?

No way, this has to be a put up deal, unless this Doctor has become aware he is getting booted from the Military because he cut off the wrong body parts too often. or is a complete PHONY.       

[rich_t]

I think SCOTUS has refused to take the case to date, and the lower courts have refused to hear it also, due to the moving party issue.   Questioning the CIC qualifications is indeed something a member of the military can bring forward.   

Interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

Do some research on how well questioning the "lawfulness" of an order worked out for Michael New.

It's not as clear cut as some might think.

[rich_t]

Interesting time frame he picked to put 18 years on the line.  So this doctor who awoke one morning 12 months ago finds he cannot tough it out for another 24 months and then spend his retirement on proving his beliefs.?

No way, this has to be a put up deal, unless this Doctor has become aware he is getting booted from the Military because he cut off the wrong body parts too often. or is a complete PHONY.       

Not necessarily.  He may have just decided to stand on the courage of his convictions.  People have lost/risked a LOT more than their retirement pay in order to do just that.

Is there more to the story than reported in the provided link?  I'm sure there possibly is.

[formerlurker]

Do some research on how well questioning the "lawfulness" of an order worked out for Michael New.

It's not as clear cut as some might think.

Major Stefan Frederick Cook.    He was IMA, volunteered to go to Afghanistan.  When he got orders he obtained counsel to object.  DoD rescinded orders with caveat that volunteers can rescind orders up to one day prior to going.   That said, he never ask for orders to be rescinded and DoD won't give reason why orders were rescinded .   

I am curious to see if the same thing happens here, or if they will allow it to play out.

[rich_t]

Major Stefan Frederick Cook.    He was IMA, volunteered to go to Afghanistan.  When he got orders he obtained counsel to object.  DoD rescinded orders with caveat that volunteers can rescind orders up to one day prior to going.   That said, he never ask for orders to be rescinded and DoD won't give reason why orders were rescinded .   

I am curious to see if the same thing happens here, or if they will allow it to play out.

I recall the Cook issue.

It will indeed be interesting to see how this new one will play out.

[TheSarge]

He just pissed his retirement pay away.

The military takes a pretty dim view about failure to obey orders.

I agree. Whether you believe the whole birth certificate thing or not...it's not worth your career to get that stupidly vocal about it.

IMHO people still trying to make this a relevant issue are like those on the left still trying to overturn the 2000 election.

[NHSparky]

Not much of a case. He refused lawful orders.
 
CM, reduction in grade, dishonerable discharge.

End of the story.

Not to mention state medical boards kinda take a dim view of abberant behavior.

[jinxmchue]

One has to wonder why so many people are concerned about this guy's dishonor in not obeying orders but not concerned about the possibility of Obama's dishonor in not obeying the Constitution. 

[NHSparky]

One has to wonder why so many people are concerned about this guy's dishonor in not obeying orders but not concerned about the possibility of Obama's dishonor in not obeying the Constitution. 

Because the powers that be have accepted what "proof" he supplied as adequate to verify his US citizenship.  This whole "birther" crap is nothing more than the right's version of the 2000 "selected not elected" meme.  Whackos exist in all stripes, and whether YOU agree with it or not is irrelevant.  Fact remains, he's still the president, and it's his POLICIES that we should be focusing on.  His eligibility is a settled issue.  Birthers are little more than the latest conspiracy theorists, about about as ****ed-up goofy as the rest of them.

[debk]

One has to wonder why so many people are concerned about this guy's dishonor in not obeying orders but not concerned about the possibility of Obama's dishonor in not obeying the Constitution. 

Yesterday in the car, I had the local talk radio station on - same one that has Rush, Hannity, Boortz, etc.

It's a local guy that's on from 3-6 and he was talking to this caller who, since I didn't hear the very beginning...I couldn't figure out if he was still AD or not...but from his remarks, it sounded like he was.

He went in in 1986, and he too, was questioning Obama's birth certificate. He was wondering if by following Obama's orders....if Obama isn't a real US citizen...if he was commiting crimes against humanity. Though he never said what branch he was in....he seemed that he was either Army or Marine, rather than AF or Navy. Plus a group of Marines just returned back to this area last week.

He said he had to physically take his BC to the recruiter when he signed up to defend the country....how come Obama didn't have to make his public as the President of the US.

He also said that a lot of his buddies felt the same way......and that none of them respected Obama. While they respected the office of CIC, Obama had done nothing to make him and his buddies feel like he cared about them as a whole (military). He said Obama didn't have a clue what he and his buddies have gone through, what they do, nor did they feel that Obama had any respect for them.

He was pretty harsh and quite vocal in his opinions....I don't know how long he was on, but I was listening to him for at least 10 minutes and he was already on when I turned on the radio. It's unusual for the local guy to keep someone on air for that long.

[NHSparky]

Well, as formerly AD (and I'm sure dutch, TX, doc, and some of the other guys will chime in if they see this), let me say this about that:

Just because you showed your BC to enlist, does NOT, repeat NOT, make it "public", nor does it give anyone else the right to see it without cause, any more than one needs to see Obama's BC.  Case in point--you work for a federal agency which requires a security clearance.  In almost every circumstance, this requires a background check be done, and virtually always requires US citizenship.  So what "right" does anyone have to challenge YOUR clearance based on the, "But **I** didn't see his birth certificate/NCIC printout/interview/whatever?"  Much the same applies.  The powers that be have stated that Obama's BC was sufficient to their needs.  Period.

And FWIW, just because they don't "believe" that Obama is supposedly qualified to serve as C-in-C of the armed forces, it certainly doesn't give them the right to question their entire chain of command's lawful authority based on one individual's qualifications.

Frankly, I'm skeptical of all these people who claim AD status and pull shit like this, particularly ones who claim they've been around for 24 years.  Senior NCO's or officers have their shit screwed on a lot tighter than that, and know the UCMJ a lot better than this so-called barracks/sea lawyer.

[jinxmchue]

Because the powers that be have accepted what "proof" he supplied as adequate to verify his US citizenship.  This whole "birther" crap is nothing more than the right's version of the 2000 "selected not elected" meme.  Whackos exist in all stripes, and whether YOU agree with it or not is irrelevant.  Fact remains, he's still the president, and it's his POLICIES that we should be focusing on.  His eligibility is a settled issue.  Birthers are little more than the latest conspiracy theorists, about about as ****ed-up goofy as the rest of them.

"The powers that be" currently are Democrats who support Obama.  There's far, far more reason to question Obama's citizenship status than there was to question the outcome of the 2000 presidential race.  Seriously, man.  Apples and oranges.

[JohnnyReb]

Everyone is focusing on here and now but what about 3, 4, 5 or more years down the road we discover he wasn't a natural born citizen. Maybe not even close to being one...will the laws he signed become null and void....will those that knew he wasn't a citizen be prosecuted for fraud or other crimes...what?????? ....and will that open the door for other foreign Born's to be president? Would Obama be charged, tried and sent to prison? ....and when the riots/civil war was over would we be a right or left leaning country? ....nevermind answering that last question, I think we all know the answer to that one.

[formerlurker]

Well, as formerly AD (and I'm sure dutch, TX, doc, and some of the other guys will chime in if they see this), let me say this about that:

Just because you showed your BC to enlist, does NOT, repeat NOT, make it "public", nor does it give anyone else the right to see it without cause, any more than one needs to see Obama's BC.  Case in point--you work for a federal agency which requires a security clearance.  In almost every circumstance, this requires a background check be done, and virtually always requires US citizenship.  So what "right" does anyone have to challenge YOUR clearance based on the, "But **I** didn't see his birth certificate/NCIC printout/interview/whatever?"  Much the same applies.  The powers that be have stated that Obama's BC was sufficient to their needs.  Period.

And FWIW, just because they don't "believe" that Obama is supposedly qualified to serve as C-in-C of the armed forces, it certainly doesn't give them the right to question their entire chain of command's lawful authority based on one individual's qualifications.

Frankly, I'm skeptical of all these people who claim AD status and pull shit like this, particularly ones who claim they've been around for 24 years.  Senior NCO's or officers have their shit screwed on a lot tighter than that, and know the UCMJ a lot better than this so-called barracks/sea lawyer.

Hold up here.  No one, and I mean NO ONE, is above being fully vetted for the office of presidency. He is not immune from producing his birth certificate (and we have NO idea if he produced a certified copy of his BC to anyone).   I have no interest in pursuing the birth certificate issue (I would love to see his transcripts for college though, as my suspicion is that he claimed citizenship to another country during that time, which while it may not disqualify him for president, it sure as hell does not look well for him).  

The "powers that be" is the DNC.   Each state, in their infinite wisdom, took the word of the DNC that Obama was properly vetted and is their candidate for presidency.   Case closed.   No one can open the case for inspection as the lower courts is having problems determining who would qualify as a moving party.   No one to date meets that qualification -- some due to circumstances surrounding the action presented.

A military member facing deployment orders certainly qualifies as a proper moving party.    Questioning his motivation as to why he risked his career to be that moving party is not something we should entertain.   Godspeed to him.  Should his actions get the actual BC released, then it was all good as this issue can be finally put to bed.  

[rich_t]

Senior NCO's or officers have their shit screwed on a lot tighter than that,

Some do, some don't.

[NHSparky]

C'mon, people--I'm hearing some serious Kool-Aid being chugged in here.

DNC vetted?  The background for POTUS is similar to an application for ANY federal job.

And does ANYONE here think that if Hillary didn't have some serious dirt on him, she wouldn't have pulled that shit right out and beat him down with it over two YEARS ago?