Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: captjanaway

I will certainly honor LTC Lakin for his brave stance as he has earned it. The Constitution does matter.

Some of you, especially military men take this as a determination of his being AWOL from duty because you are trained to think that way. It is NOT.

LTC Lakin took an oath, just as all military servicemen do to protect and the defend the Constitution of the United States from foreign AND DOMESTIC enemies.

This in NOT about his being AWOL from duty as he is willing to serve as soon as our Constitutional request to be sure he is serving under LEGAL orders from a man who DEEMS HIMSELF as eligible to issue those orders when he is NOT. It is about FRAUD and TREASON...and it involves punitive damages to Americans who were frauded out of millions of dollars in Ayatollah Obama’s support. AND it involves punitive damages to Americans whose country could be deemed as committing illegal acts in world courts on our behalf by a man who is not eligible to hold the office he claims.

You need to wrap your heads around the WHOLE picture instead of the issue of his being deemed AWOL when he is NOT AWOL.


39 posted on 08/02/2010 7:41:00 AM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RowdyFFC

I find it rather IRONIC that Nadal Hasan, sitting in a jail in Bell County, Texas is not considered AWOL from duty and is in fact receiving a check from the US military to the tune of $6,000/month, who murdered 13 US soldiers and one child and wounded 34 others. And who has NOT been suspended from military duty TO DATE! And you military men think that LTC Lakin is freaking AWOL from his duty station because he wants to DEFEND AND PROTECT the US Constitution as per his oath of service.


40 posted on 08/02/2010 7:47:14 AM PDT by RowdyFFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: RowdyFFC

I recommend that you wrap your head around the law. If you did that you would realize that the question of Obama’s eligibility is never going to come up inside the court room. It will not be heard, it will not be argued, it will have zero impact on the case. I offer as indications that this will be the outcome, the other 71 cases that have been dismissed for one reason or another. What makes this case different is that LTC Lakin committed an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That offense will be heard, evidence will be presented, and a judgment will be made. Lakin is not going to like the result.

On the issue that has everyone panties in a wad, the courts have made it very clear that they are not going to deal with it. Politicians certified Obama as eligible for the Office of President. Politicians (the Electors) cast their votes for him. Politicians certified that election. The Chief Justice of the United States ratified these political actions by swearing him into office. Politicians, not the courts are going to fix this problem, or not. That means electing politicians who will enact legislation requiring candidates to present evidence of eligibility. Right now, that’s not required.

Meanwhile, we are stuck with Obama until we vote him out of office. Elections do have consequences.


42 posted on 08/02/2010 7:54:16 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: RowdyFFC
Please don't take any offense as none is intended, but here's what I see as a problem using his oath as his rationale: He doesn't get to determine who is the enemy. That's not his job and his oath doesn't give him that authority. So to say that he's only following his oath just isn't enough. There aren't any caveats in the officers oath that give him the leeway to pick and choose.

Where I think for sure that he will be found guilty are specifications 1 and 2 of article 92 where he's been given orders to appear in front of his Commanding Officer and he chose not to appear. That happened PRIOR to his missing movement on April 12th. Those were written orders by his superior officers to appear. They orders weren't derived from President Obama.

113 posted on 08/02/2010 3:50:23 PM PDT by imfleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: RowdyFFC
"Some of you, especially military men take this as a determination of his being AWOL from duty because you are trained to think that way. It is NOT."

He wasn't charged with Article 86. He was charged with one specification of Article 87, Missing Movement, and another specification (perhaps 2) of Article 92 Failure to Obey.

210 posted on 08/03/2010 12:22:48 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson