On May 12, the American Patriot Foundation announced that there will be an Article 32 military hearing that may reveal whether President Barack Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States. The hearing is set for June 11, after Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin refused 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.”

The American Patriot foundation operates the Safeguard Our Constitution website, which generated a great deal of support for the movement for Obama to provide documentation proving his eligibility to serve as President. Those involved in the movement have been dubbed “birthers”, a term that has generally been met with contempt by the mainstream media and Obama supporters. 

However, Lakin’s staunch insistence that Obama is responsible for proving his eligibility has gained some notoriety, even prompting CNN to provide media attention to the movement on Anderson Cooper’s program. On the show, both Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, presented a series of facts to legitimatize their concerns. 

The “certification of live birth” found on the Internet, which purports to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, has been dismissed as valid proof, as it is a “short-form” document, as opposed to the “long-form” document that lists the hospital and attending physician. “Short-form” documents are easily obtainable. In addition to Obama’s missing birth certificate, other documentation that has been concealed includes kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school records; college records; Harvard Law Review articles; passport; medical records; Illinois State Bar Association records; baptism records; and adoption records. 

The constitutional language in question is tricky, as it states that the president of the United States must be a “natural born citizen,” though the term has been undefined. Some argue the term means that the president must be born in the United States to two parents that were also born in the United States.  If that proves to be the case, Obama would be disqualified, since he has openly admitted that his father never was a U. S. citizen. However, much of the legal challenge of Obama’s eligibility rests upon the presumption that Obama was not even born in Hawaii, as he claims. 

As a result of Lakin’s oppositional failure to report to duty, charges have been filed against him. According to Safeguard Our Constitution, the charges against Lakin are serious and can result in “years of hard labor in a penitentiary,” but Lakin refuses to rescind his demands, as he asserts that serving in a military operation under an ineligible president is illegal. It is Lakin’s hope that the charges against him will lead to the discovery of information to prove or disprove Obama’s legitimacy, which is his ultimate objective. 

In the past, however, this has not proven to be the case. Attorney John Hemenway was threatened with sanctions by a federal judge when he attempted to challenge Obama’s presidency. Hemenway welcomed the threat, however, as he believed it would lead to a “discovery hearing,” which would necessitate the search for documentation proving Obama’s eligibility. At that point, the court rescinded its sanction threats. 

Any deployment orders filed under Obama that were met by questions of his eligibility have been rescinded. World Net Daily columnist Vox Day writes that this behavior suggests “that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander-in-chief.”  

According to World Net Daily, “Obama’s actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the U.S. president to be a ‘natural born citizen’ has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.” 

Lakin joins the ranks of Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook, both who have also questioned Obama’s legitimacy, but Lakin remains the first-active duty officer to raise issue.

Additionally, recent ABC polls reveal that tens of millions of Americans question Obama’s eligibility, including many who are in favor of Obama. 

In addition to the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, World Net Daily’s Jerome Corsi reports that “two independent investigations by two different investigators in two different states (using two different data sources) discovered that the Social Security number used by Barack Obama mysteriously coincides with Social Security numbers verified to have been issued by the state of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a full two years after Obama’s first, publicly-documented record of employment at a Hawaii Baskin-Robbins back in 1975.”  If this is true, not only is President Obama guilty of illegally accepting the presidency, but of identity theft as well. 

Joseph Farah, founder of the World Net Daily, has launched a full-fledged campaign questioning Obama’s presidential legitimacy. A petition has been circulated, generating 500,000 signatures from those demanding proof of Obama’s eligibility, while yard signs, bumper stickers, and billboards are popping up asking “Where’s the birth certificate?” 

Photo: AP Images
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (35)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

JJ Suprise said:

Cute Jenn? Yea Jenn, it is real "cute" that we have a criminal in the white house!! He will be going down! It will be great seeing him get hauled off in handcuffs! For God's sake, we don't even know who this guy is!!!! Unbelievable!! JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah PS. By the way, NOBODY spends 2 million dollars concealing a legitimate, fifteen dollar, long form birth certificate!! NOBODY!!!

May 20, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

A little late Pastor Manning in Harlem has just concluded a "trial" of Obama. Not surprisingly, the found Obama "guilty" of various crimes. So, now what? It means nothing. They were completely ignored. The "verdict" can be ignored....and will be. Too much time on your hands?

May 20, 2010

MT said:

Best article on this subject. Great article. Balanced, well-written, complete--FAIR. Thank you!

May 20, 2010

votemout said:

It's not just an eligibility issue It's not just an eligibility issue, we don't even know who the President is. Is he Barry Soetoro or is he Barrack Obama?

May 20, 2010

rprew said:

This will end one of two ways ... Either Lt. Col. Lakin will "commit suicide" or the army will decide not to pursue the charges and will summarily end his career with a discharge.

May 20, 2010

a said:

... Yeehah, ride that horse into the ground.

May 21, 2010

Dirty said:

Hearing Will Challenge Obama's Eligibility Obama's father is not who Obama says he is, this is what I believe. This is what Obama don't want the people to know. I've also heard that maybe Obama's mother was a black whore and Obama was fathered by old gramps, this is from old gramps drinking buddies. One thing for sue we the people of the USA need to know who this Obama really is. Obama and his wife have done proved that they are ashamed of the USA and Obama is just telling one lie after another. I think Obama is a fake of some sort and then maybe an implant by one of our not so frendly countries abroad. One thing for sure lots of Democrats have comitted political sucicide by going along with Obama.

May 21, 2010 | url

Bob A said:

Is Anyone Suprised The racist Democrats believe obeying the law is only necessary if your a white "cracker" conservative. If your a white liberal, a black, or a Mexican, you are above the law. This is the state of "equal justice under the law" in Amerika, ruled by the facist Democrats.

May 21, 2010

Danae said:

(face palm) Look, PLEASE recognize the difference between "Native Born" and "Natural Born" Obama is a NATIVE born American, he was born here. He is NOT a "Natural Born" citizen because he was born with two citizenships, American AND British. GET IT STRAIGHT PEOPLE! The definitions of words MATTER.

May 21, 2010

Jeff said:

... Sure thing Danae, just let us know when you can find case law, or a Supreme Court ruling to back up your definition of "Natural Born." Otherwise, it's just another opinion. BTW, you can start by showing me where in the Constitution the word "Native Born" even appears? Thanks in advance.

May 21, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Actually, Denae, we are not even sure if he WAS born here! He has spent around 2 million dollars concealing that fact along with many other "facts" about himself. JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah Oh and Jeff, I would imagine that we need to look to the definition of the words "natural" and "native" born for our decision on the subject, not EVERYTHING is under the auspices of the Supreme Court. I am quite sure that our Founders knew the difference between the two. We should also look to their writings on the subject. Nonetheless, we still have no idea where he was born!

May 21, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

... " I am quite sure that our Founders knew the difference between the two.. And yet, they make no mention of something called "Native Born". Do they? Our Constitution lists TWO and only TWO catagories of citizenship. Natural Born and Naturalized. "Native Born" apprears nowhere. It was made up by birthers with no basis in Constitutional law.

May 21, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Actually, Denae, we are not even sure if he WAS born here! He has spent around 2 million dollars concealing that fact along with many other "facts" about himself. JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah Oh and Jeff, I would imagine that we need to look to the definition of the words "natural" and "native" born for our decision on the subject, not EVERYTHING is under the auspices of the Supreme Court. I am quite sure that our Founders knew the difference between the two. We should also look to their writings on the subject. Nonetheless, we still have no idea where he was born!

May 21, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

Sorry. Sorry for the double post, I am not sure what happened.

May 21, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

Jeff Do they define "natural born" or "naturalized" IN the Constitution? I don't think so, I think they figured we could somehow figure out what words mean? In this day and age, I think they may have been wrong about that. Maybe they didn't envision the dumbing down of our citizenry through Government Indoctrination Centers and TV, etc...? I wonder if our Founders imagined that MOST of our citizens would go most of or their entire life, without even reading the Constitution? I know that I was 27 years old when, thanks to the JBS, I first picked up a copy of the Constitution! No thanks to the Indoctrination Center that I graduated from. JJ Suprise Sandy,Utah PS. You know what you can do with your "birthers" comment sir!

May 21, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

Democracy? Hey Jeff, the word Democracy doesn't even exist in the Constitution either. Yet we are told daily that the United States is a Democracy! Was that something that was "made up" by "Birthers" as well? JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah

May 21, 2010 | url

kaye said:

... "Obama's father is not who Obama says he is, this is what I believe. This is what Obama don't want the people to know." Well, you're obviously the expert. "I've also heard that maybe Obama's mother was a black whore" Cite credible sources please. "Obama and his wife have done proved that they are ashamed of the USA and Obama is just telling one lie after another." Saying we can do better is being ashamed? Ok. You're kid gets a B in class, you say he can do better. You are ashamed... Nope, doesn't work. What lies do you speak of? Non-existent WMDs? "One thing for sure lots of Democrats have comitted political sucicide by going along with Obama. " Seems to be working out rather well for them, actually. The republicans committed political suicide by not going with Ron Paul and catering to your extremist ass. tl;dr: yeradumfuk

May 21, 2010

Jim said:

... How does anyone get on the ballot in any state to run for the presidency without showing proof of where he/she was born to satisfy the constitutional requirement? This is basic, required stuff. What are all these election bureaus, commissions, or whatever their known as in the various states, doing if not requiring proof of being a natural born citizen to have one's name placed on a statewide ballot?

May 23, 2010

Jeff said:

... "Hey Jeff, the word Democracy doesn't even exist in the Constitution either..' That's because we are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. As you have just noted, the founding fathers knew the difference.

May 24, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

reply to Jeff I understand that sir, what I was questioning is that we are continually told that we are a DEMOCRACY! Yet the word is not even IN the Constitution! You were talking about the words Natural Born and Native Born and Naturalized and asking where the definitions in the Constitution or case law, were. The definitions are NOT there because our Founders must have figured that we would be capable of using a dictionary? Somehow, I don't think they counted on the Public Indoctrination Centers that we refer to as "schools" that are turning out people by the millions who believe that the United States of America is a DEMOCRACY!!! Who knows? Maybe Ben Franklin knew? "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it"!!??? Oh, and we are a "Constitutional Republic" not a "Representative Republic"! There is a difference and if you are interested in Robert Welch's position on the issue go here: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html You see the problem with "Representative" vs. "Constitutional" is that it instills in the populace a mind set that the Representative is more important than the Constitution itself! How many times have you heard a person write or say that the Representatives job is to "follow the will of the people"? I always reply to this: "Our Representatives do NOT swear an oath to "protect and defend" the "people"! They swear an oath to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION! And by doing so, they in turn "protect the people"!

May 24, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

reply to Jim By being part of the criminal conspiracy ruling Washington D.C., that's how. Notice, the "rulers" made John McStain prove that he was eligible, but not Barry Soetoro! To change a line from Forrest Gump, "Criminal is, what Criminal does"!

May 24, 2010 | url

John Monkus said:

... The founders made eligibility depend on a person being born in one of the colonies, since they were most afraid of a person who is a British agent who would betray the country. No immigrants! Since Barry spent the first ten years of his life in Indonesia in a Muslim school, he was not "indoctrinated" in Americanism. So, he violates the spirit of the Constitution with his presidency. Whether or not he was born in the U. S. A. is irrelevant. His mind set is wrong. He has the mind set of an immigrant. He was never taught the legends of Washington or anything like that.

May 24, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

... JJ Surprise, I'm not sure why the fact that people refer to America as a democracy, bothers you as much as it seems to. In the end, it is still the Constitution that drives our form of government. Nor does it change the fact that the Constitution only sites TWO and only Two classification of citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized. A child born in America to an American mother is, in fact, a Natural Born Citizen. Always has been, and birthers can site no case law that shows otherwise. Lacking any judicial evidence, the term "Native Born" is a legal figment of the birther imagination. Show me otherwise.

May 24, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

reply to Jeff If you don't understand why it is so important that we understand the difference between Democracy and Republic, you need to go here and read this essay by Robert Welch. http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html As far as your other "birther" assertions, give me a little time to "show you otherwise". JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah My email address is riverroach@usedbrain.org if you would be interested in carrying on this conversation through personal emails instead of having to look up this article every time we want to reply to each other.

May 25, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

... Thanks for the invite, but I only discuss politics in public forums. I have learned through experience that exchanging personal emails with people that you disagree with, only leads to very bad things. Especially if said personis a computer hacker in his spare time. No disrespect intended. I look forward to your examples of case law which supports your "Native Born" claim. I am sure we are looking forward to it. Until then, I maintain that a baby born in America, to an American mother is, by law, a Natural Born citizen.

May 25, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

What happened? I posted a reply to Jeff providing links to "case law" in reference to citizenship and now it is gone? What happened? JJ Suprise Sandy,Utah

May 26, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

reply AGAIN to Jeff Jeff, here is a link to case law in reference to citizenship! It even includes writings from our Founding Fathers on the issue! Clearly, for a child to have "natural born" status, their Father and Mother must be Citizens! Here is the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2299541/posts You need to scroll about half way down if you don't want to read all of the other stuff above the case law until you see the listed numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5. All cases involving citizenship. Very good stuff for anyone who wants to know the truth about citizenship. JJ Suprise Sandy,Utah PS. My bet is that "hackers" don't post on boards providing their real name and address at the end of every post. Your fear of communicating with me on a private forum for that reason is laughable!

May 26, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

... I gotta love anyone who post a link to FreeRepublic as proof of anything. What you have there is nothing more than some self styled "experts" who expect that their "opinions" should be held as legal fact. They misinterpret the courts rulings to suit their own agenda's. They claim to be able to channel the thoughts of the founding fathers, who, it just so happens, agree with them. Not to be picky, but if freerepublic is your idea of exhibiting case law, then I stick with my legal definition as : A baby born in America to an American mother, is in fact, a Natural Born" Citizen. Even the case that the poster legal mutilates, makes no mention of "Native Born" citizen. Regarding a person exchange of emails, I have only one question: Are you cute?

May 26, 2010

JJ Suprise said:

Never Mind Never mind Jeff. There are none so blind as those who will not see. You go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand, while your hero, Barrack (pinocchio)Obama, continues to do his best to send our country down the drain. By the way, those are actual cases! Did you even read any of them? Nope, just attack the messenger! Typical Obama supporter! I'm out! JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah Oh and for your last little comment, looks like someone should be putting you on a watch list. No wonder you're worried about hackers.

May 27, 2010 | url

JJ Suprise said:

One last comment to Jeff Very surprising that someone like you would even be willing to read The New American articles. Most people of your ilk will simply dismiss The New American the same way you have dismissed The Free Republic. No real rebuttal, just attack the messenger! You said above that there was NO CASE LAW in regards to this issue, I provide you with the CASE LAW that DOESN'T EXIST, and you simply attack the messenger with no real rebuttal! Not surprising at all for a person who would defend someone who is spending millions of dollars to keep EVERYTHING about his history covered up and concealing a simple $15 document that every American citizen has to produce on a regular basis for all kinds of things. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually think the COLB he has listed as his "birth certificate" is a legitimate document! People like you Jeff are truly amazing to say the least! JJ Suprise Sandy,Utah

May 27, 2010 | url

Jeff said:

... Once again, I DID read the article and again, I say: The poster simply post the name of a "case law" and then procede to mangle it's meaning to suit his own point of view. It's the world according to "him". His interpretiation of what those cases actualy say is simply wrong. If they weren't, he would have to spend the next three paragraphs channeling the founding fathers, who he says, agree with him. Don't you get it? That entire post is little more than ramblings from a legal nitwit. His "interpretiation " of what the cases he sites say, is wrong. In fact it's completly the opposite what what is held as case law. If it weren't. then we wouldn't be having this conversation or have amateur lawyers managling current law.

May 27, 2010

A question said:

Unanswered question Will someone please provide the source of Obama spending money on this?

May 27, 2010

Jeff said:

... There is no link proving Obama spent anything NEAR a million bucks to "hide" his birth certificate. The birthers simply look up what the Obama campaign has paid law firms over the years and then claim every dollar of it went for the birth certificate. The fact is that Obama's lawyers would have had to do very little work on the birther issue, since none of them have come even close to going to trial. At best the lawyers have sent a typical Motion to Dismiss, which in most cases was granted. It cost maybe a few hundred bucks at most. The million dollars is just another birther "say anything, but don't prove it" line that makes the rounds amoung birthers as if it's the truth. They have a million of em.

May 28, 2010

Jeff said:

... Here's what happens when someone tries the "Native Born" argument in court: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/ruth-jones-and-last-crusade/

May 28, 2010