Documents 'Embarrassing' to the President

by: armand c. hale | published: 09 08, 2010

"A career officer in the U.S. Army acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin ruled the military is no place for Barak Obama's presidential eligibility to be evaluated. The acting judge ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin he will be denied access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.

The judge ruled it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering such claims, the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and should have been sufficient for Lakin.

The defense attorney had argued under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense. The judge disagreed. She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president."

Reading these excerpts is infuriating and insulting to every member of the armed forces who has served, currently serving, or is to serve in the future. This judge has forgotten the oath that commissioned officers take when they raise their right hand, part of which reads "...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This oath is what binds an officer to serve in support of our Constitution. As such, those orders originate from the Commander-in-Chief, flow thru the Pentagon, down to the lowliest soldier. It is our right as legal citizens of the United States to question and ensure the individual issuing those orders is eligible to serve in accordance with our Constitution. Any suspicion mandates we question those orders until proven wrong...to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

In this case, Lakin is within his rights to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense. The presentation of documents proving the originator of those deployment orders, the Commander-in-Chief, is eligible and qualified under the constitution to do so. This has nothing to do with impeachment. To deny this officer his rights under the constitution only cheapens for which he has fought for as others before him. This judge has violated her oath in favor of political correctness. SHAME ON YOU! To determine the chain of command led up to the Pentagon is shortsighted and absurd! Where does the Pentagon receive their orders? Not from the Congress but from the Commander-in-Chief who derives the authority from none other than...the Constitution. This is where the chain of command flows from. To dismiss this, dismisses the foundation of civilian control of the military.

She proves the saying by the great statesman Konrad Adenauer, "In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that He did not also limit his stupidity." But she made a point which is now on the record. For this so called President to produce the documents requested would be an "embarrassment" to him. Every true American needs to ask... Why?

Post Script. Are you keeping up on the issues with the burning of the Quran in Fl this week? I think the world needs to look at this issue very closely. If it was the burning involving the bible or the Torah, there wouldn't so much as a liberal reporter writing a short blurp on the back page of the newspaper! But the Quran...the pastor heading this up is accomplishing what he has set out to do; Bring attention to the violence of this religion. It is showing how intolerant the Muslim world is to any attack on this book and how the Muslims will capitalize on any such attack to justify their violence. If this religion can't stand up to the same types of commentaries made on the Holy Bible and the Holy Torah, it has no place in America. If people can't see the danger staring them in the face right now, then they will get what they deserve. Prayer 5 times a day, mosques in their local neighborhood, women required to wear burkas, girls not allowed to go to school, etc, etc, etc.

What a conundrum...the Pastor's right to burn these Quran are protected under the 1st Amendment, just like the burning of the American Flag. To prohibit this act is a violation of constitutional rights. Watch and see what the reaction is from the Muslim world. What will prevail...rights protected under the constitution or religious correctness?

The U. S. State Dept stated burning these Qurans is "Un-American." If burning the American Flag, the symbol of all that's right with this country on which thousands of Americans have died in defense of it, is considered "American", just what is so "Un-American" about burning the Quran? Is this religion so powerful to have our own State Dept defending this "book", or is it a prime example of misplaced loyalties? WAKE UP AMERICA this November election!

add a comment